1 / 40

Pinimidzai Sithole (PLAAS – UWC & IWMI) Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara and Dr Barbara van Koppen

Water Accesses, Institutional Processes and ‘Property’ Rights Creation: Experiences, Challenges and Lessons “Mzingwane & Olifants”. Pinimidzai Sithole (PLAAS – UWC & IWMI) Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara and Dr Barbara van Koppen. Outline. Introduction Objectives & Key Research Questions

beatrice-wallace
Télécharger la présentation

Pinimidzai Sithole (PLAAS – UWC & IWMI) Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara and Dr Barbara van Koppen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water Accesses, Institutional Processes and ‘Property’ Rights Creation: Experiences, Challenges and Lessons “Mzingwane & Olifants” Pinimidzai Sithole (PLAAS – UWC & IWMI) Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara and Dr Barbara van Koppen

  2. Outline • Introduction • Objectives & Key Research Questions • Research Methods • Results (& Discussion) • Water accesses • Institutional Processes • Property rights creation • Conclusions

  3. Objectives, Res Questions and Hypotheses Main Objective: • Examine and analyze how formal and informal institutions shape patterns (& processes) of access, use and control of water in communal areas Main Question: • How do formal and informal institutions determine patterns (& processes) of access and control over water resources (by women and men) at the ‘local’ and ‘intermediate’ levels in communal areas?

  4. Res Objectives & Hypotheses • Objective one: Determine, review and analyse the political, legal, regulatory and administrative aspects affecting water management initiatives in communal areas of South Africa and Zimbabwe. • Objective two: Identify and characterise how the existing formal and informal institutions affect (land and) water access, use, and allocation • Objective three: Identify the (land and) water resource rights, powers and entitlements practiced by rural women and men for managing multiple (land) water uses. • Objective four: Investigate the role of women and men in relation to land and water institutions and decision-making processes.

  5. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 • Current water reforms in their present form and structure (addressing primarily commercial water) do not necessarily benefit small-scale farmers in communal areas. Hypothesis 2 • The resource status of smallholder farmers determines their participation and inclusion in institutions.

  6. Research Methods • Data collection • 4 villages within Ward 17 (Zim) and 4 villages in Sekororo (SA) • Key informants interviews: traditional leaders, extension officers, water committee leaders, irrigation committee leader, donor/aid agencies reps, ward councilors, ordinary villagers knowledgeable about water issues, local municipality, RDC, DWAF, LDA, Arex… • Detailed face-to-face household interviews (n=120 x 2) • current and past access and use of water • Hydraulic property rights creation • Focus group discussions in each village • life histories and diaries of key water events/issues and processes

  7. Study Sites…

  8. Study Site Profile…Sekororo Data Sources: SA census, Maruleng municipality, own community interviews, own household interviews

  9. Study Site Profile…Ward 17 (Mzi) • Total of 500 households in the ward (Census 2002) • Villages organised along “lines” of between 12 and 42 hhds…….’see kraal heads/village leader’ • Each village averages between 120 – 180 hhds • ‘All’ households engage in farming

  10. Water Accesses…

  11. …

  12. Water Accesses Sekororo • CSPs, • boreholes, • shallow wells (protected and unprotected), • rivers and streams • Furrows • Jojo tanks & • Springs

  13. Water Accesses!!! • Main types of water access: • Private boreholes • Communal boreholes (everyone??) • Project boreholes (members only!!!) • Shallow wells(<2m) • Rivers / streams • Small reservoirs/dams • Deep wells (2m+)

  14. Water Accesses Sekororo Sources • CSPs, • boreholes, • shallow wells (protected and unprotected), • rivers and streams

  15. What drives the institutional processes Is it ownership? or Investment? Is it the design at the water point? or Is it the funder’s (donor’s) conditions?

  16. Institutional Processes (history & genealogy + Change)???

  17. Is it ownership? or Investment? Is it the design at the water point? Or Is it the funder’s (donor’s) conditions? Or through engagement with other villagers History of the water source?

  18. History of Water (Supply) Institutions… 1984/85 2002 2 Dams/bulk water storage reservoirs built by the Government Mvula Trust leaves ** Civic committees (early 90’s) ** Moseteng Water Committee 1994/95 Mvula Trust started building the third dam Lorraine WC Sofaya WC Enable WC ** Hand over did not take place (issue of lost funds) **Enable & Lorraine WC becomes inactive ** Water infras… vandalism became endemic **Only Sofaya & Worcester WC’s are working Post 1994-2000 Worcester WC

  19. Water (Supply) Institutions Gwanda • 1950 started sinking of boreholes in G-South under LAA • By 1952 there were 413 wells & 50 boreholes • 1980 onwards interventions by gvt continued… • 1995-2000 GRSSSP funded by UNICEF • 613 WPC • 230 new boreholes sunk • 261 boreholes sunk through private initiative • 50 new boreholes by NGOs • 211 boreholes fitted with pumps • 357 headworks constructed

  20. Processes… • maintaining and or rehabilitating a water point opens doors 4 better engagement with other users • ‘Contributions’ do not always lead to exclusionary rights…but works in managing the process anyway

  21. Processes • leaders jockeying for patronage: elected vs. hereditary leadership • dilemma of a legitimate enforcer…’shopping forums’ • RDC remotely involved…Clrs despite being resp for the bulk of infrastructure • MLG/RDC intimately involved…traditional leaders!!!

  22. Processes… • Can be typified into clusters associated with the history of water sources i.e. founder, funder and/or champion! • The notable and easily identifiable institutions involved (funding and setting access terms) include: • ITDG/Practical Action • ICRISAT – Hlanganani, Tovimba, Qinisile… • DE German • European Union-ECHO • Local Government • Traditional leadership • War veterans

  23. … • The subtle (and often effective) institutional pivots: • Burial societies • Women’s Savings clubs • Harvesting and beer parties • From ‘amasiso’ to syndication…

  24. Representation…WC/WPC/WWC!!! • “there is no use in electing someone who cannot afford to attend meetings” • “Water is politics… as a councillor am elected to cover all issues” • Chief Mathe “Our lives are not organised according to resource…but broader issues affecting our people”

  25. … • “we (water users) are like a tree…where us villagers are at the tip of the leaves…and we do not have control over what happens at the stem/trunk and branches” Lorraine villager • “The municipality and DWAF can come with laws and policies, in villages it’s the indunas and the chief who are the custodians” Chief Sekororo

  26. ‘Property Rights Creation’

  27. Rights Creation…‘Communal’ • Investment (infrastructure) leverages one’s stake only when an ‘enforcer’ can guarantee such a stake • Rights are mainly usufruct but can also be exclusionary (appropriation- com to pvt) • Most common form is ‘appropriative’ rights esp. with donor funded infrastructure

  28. Rights Creation…‘Private’ • Exclusionary ownership rights…can decide to dispose off the infra… • Exclusionary access rights over… water conveyed/pumped • Usually kin, ‘close’ friends and neighbours allowed some usufruct access for domestic purposes (only) • Mainly boreholes and protected wells

  29. Enforcement!!! • Nature of enforcement and the processes: • Consensus hardly reached unless the three main centres of power ‘compromise, collude or connive’ • Sanctions like forbidding certain individuals from mechanised access i.e. scotch carts, wheel barrows… to • …outright barring from accessing certain sources • Scenes for confrontation and negotiation…ordinary people set the dictates

  30. Conclusions • It would seem that traditional leaders are still the main fulcrum of local institutional processes…yet, without the collusion of elected leaders, their powers are limited • Generally poor accesses (timing, availability, quantity and distance) unless where and when people invested… • Private investment ensures exclusionary (flexible) and sometimes appropriative rights…

  31. … • ‘Contributions’ do not always lead to exclusionary rights…but works in managing the process anyway

  32. Supervisors Jacinta, Shirley, Peter and Edward Mr. and Mrs. Ncube Chiefs: Mathe, Sekororo Headman/women in the eight villages Maria Kgabo…my mum in Sekororo CPWF…funding IWMI…funding & Logistical support PLAAS…supervision ICRISAT…logistics Mzingwane Waternet…Funding Acknowledgements

More Related