Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Management responses, options and solutions, stakeholder elicitation
According to the The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), there are six main response types
used in ecosystem management: Legal, Economic, Social and behavioural, Technological, or Cognitive responses. In the WETwin original conceptual framework, management responses (MR) from the DPSIR analysis are turned into management options (MO) as the research advances and potential management implementation processes are identified. They are then to be used in a management solutions (MS) analysis.
The identification of management options precedes the elaboration of solutions. Management options cover one or more of the above six management response categories and are orientations, actions or policies that can influence the management of wetlands. They are developed through consultation of the SHs and then validated by SHs workshops. The management options can have different implementation alternatives which are then used as a combinable set to build management solutions.
Management solutions are elaborated plans allowing the implementation of the management options. They imply a choice between several alternatives of one MO, and then a choice in the combination of these alternatives. As it often requires technical knowledge and expertise, the determination of management solutions was not only made through local stakeholder workshops but also required literature review and expert consultancy. Their elaboration implies choices in the future orientation of the wetland management. Management solutions are characterized by a list of MOs and their implementation alternative with a specific orientation.
PERSONAL HYPOTHESES
These hypotheses were developed through literature review and introductory observations and nterviews in GaMampa. They orientated the research in the identification of management solutions.
• The driving forces for wetland invasion have to be better assessed in order to sustainably release pressure of agriculture.
• The rehabilitation of the ISs is a key for sustainability of both farming systems and wetland.
• The management of resources in the valley has to be improved through clarification of resources governance.
• Farming practices in the wetland should be more adapted to the ecosystem.
• Diversification of livelihoods can lower pressure on wetland cropping uses.
DATA COLLECTION
The research used consultation taking the form of interviews, focus group discussions and stakeholder workshops. Language was a challenge and local workshops were usually facilitated by a member of the CRCE after briefing, whereas some discussion or external workshops could be lead in English. For interviews and group discussions, the use of material or mind representations of the discussion (specifically maps, schemas on paper board, land observations pebble scoring) allowed better understanding and communication between the facilitating team and participants. In general, it should be said that simple communication and participation methods were used. Sophisticated processes, making use of specific material were hard to set up because of the local conditions and because of the spontaneity of the meetings. Annex XIV gives a list of the main meetings, workshops and interviews which provided input data for the study. Observations were used for data collection and took the form of field observations and measurements (GPS, flow measurements) and participation to meetings (Community meetings).
THE MOHLAPITSI RIVER BASIN IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT
The Mohlapitsi River is about 50 km long and feeds the Olifants in its middle part, before it reaches the Lowveld area. It contributes for 8-10% of the Olifants base flow in average, and up to 16 % during the dry season (Masiyandima, McCartney et al. 2006)
The Olifants water is over allocated even to satisfy environmental flow, and water is even imported from neighbouring basins to satisfy economic activities (see annex I). Most human activities in the Olifants river basin (see annex I) take place upstream of Mohlapitsi contributing zone (figure 11). On the other hand, the downstream area of the Olifants catchment in the Lowveld, features the renowned transboundary Kruger National Park and the currently renovated Massingir dam in Mozambique which potentially feeds over 90 000 Ha of irrigated land (AFDB, 2009). The Mohlapitsi
River fresh water stands out as a flow regulator and pollution dissolver in the Olifants river basin. The Mohlapitsi river basin was divided in two quaternary catchments by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA): the B71C to the north, on which this study focuses, and B71D to the south, in the sedimentation area and confluence point with the Olifants. GaMampa is located in the Mohlapitsi river basin B71C (Masiyandima, McCartney et al. 2006).
According to the National Water Act of 1998, a Catchment Management Agency (CMA) should be formed to coordinate water management in the Olifants basin. Nevertheless until this study, it is still not functioning and although the Department of Water Affairs is responsible for water issues, no regional office is responsible of administrating the water in the Mohlapitsi basin. Even though it is environmentally crucial for water users in the downstream parts of the Olifants basin, in terms of water governance in the region, the Mohlapitsi basin water is not currently monitored or officially administrated.
The Community Development Forum (CDF)
The CDF or Mampa Development Forum (MDF) was created in 1995 for the GaMampa communities, supported by the CRCE. Today, Manthlane communities are still not involved in it because the Manthlane people are not part of the Mampa original family, and thus should not be involved in GaMampa located initiatives. The CDF is not formally linked to the traditional authority but to the ward councillor. It is responsible for passing on the GaMampa community’s concerns to ward level so that they can be expressed in the municipality, especially in the IDP11 process, and to the state departments. The Forum is formally meant to be an umbrella body, with representatives of
subcommittees. In 2006, N. Tinguery cited 12 thematic committees12 (see Figure 18Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). During the study, most of them do not meet on a regular basis and the representatives are not elected but spontaneously take responsibility when needed.
The CDF is going under difficulties because it is a relatively new entity for the community which does not traditionally follow this democratic oriented system. For example, traditional customs do not involve women in formal discussions; they do not base representativeness on election, they require meetings only in case of need, decision makers do not attend discussion but are reported to and give their opinion on the conclusion of the meetings. Also, the forum challenges the traditional council’s supremacy. Thus, even if it is meant to be a holistic arena for discussion with regular consultancy:
• Decision power lies in the hand of few influential people in direct relation with the ward councillor.
• Plenary meetings are few and the community leaders do not attend them. They prefer to be reported to.
• There are no formal written functioning rules and no formal follow up to the CDF decisions and activities.
ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The ward councillor is responsible for communicating community concerns through an official document to the municipality. The municipality is then responsible for writing the IDP (integrated development plan), which is a planning document for development projects, and a way to provide financial resources to local communities. In writing the document, the municipality intend to match communities concerns and the government department projects. In reality, the flow of information (bottom up) is very much short cut by informal relationships. In GaMampa, the CDF is not active and its representatives express concerns to the ward councillor with poor participatory processes. Parallel processes thus take place, linking the community organizations directly to government departments and NGOs. In the case of the wetland committee, the MWP is taking place under UNDP funding and technical support of the department of agriculture. The MWP will be integrated to the municipali ty IDP next year, after it has been running for one year already.
Conclusion on actual traditional and community resource management
The CDF and other community organizations are a result of new governmental policies, set up at the end of the apartheid. Resources management used to be in the hands of the homeland government and has been passed to traditional and community organizations on behalf of community management of resources concepts, without actual transition process and sets of objectives. This led to a move from a hierarchical and organized management of resources under the apartheid setting to a disappearance of rules at the end of the apartheid.
Around 15 years later, this induced the breakdown of ISs and the invasion of the wetland, as well as the multiplication of governmental and nongovernmental projects. The concept of community based management of resources is not questioned but its implementation in the case of GaMampa is not well adapted to the traditional and social context, resulting in a blur in resources governance. This remark is often made in the South African context (Pollard et al, 2006).
Table of contents :
Part I – Presentation of the research
1 Conceptual framework
1.1 General concepts
1.1.1 Wetland conservation and rural development in South Africa
1.1.2 GSE and IWRM, governance of resources
1.1.3 Stakeholder Participation and action research
1.2 The WETwin methodology and conceptual framework
1.2.1 Overall methodology of the WETwin project
1.2.2 WP8: The trade-off analysis framework
1.2.3 Concepts of the Tradeoff analysis
2 Methodology of the research
2.1 Research objectives
2.2 Hypotheses
2.2.1 Provided by the WETwin project
2.2.2 Personal hypotheses
2.3 Method
2.3.1 Data collection
2.3.2 Development of the research
Part II – Diagnosis of the GaMampa wetland situation for trade off analysis
1 Resources in the GaMampa valley
1.1 the Mohlapitsi river basin
1.1.1 the Mohlapitsi river basin in the regional context
1.1.2 Overview of the Mohlapitsi river basin (B71C)
1.2 The GaMampa valley resources system
1.2.1 The people of the valley: users of the resources
1.2.2 The Mountains
1.2.3 The valley
1.2.4 The water
1.2.5 Conclusion on the GaMampa resource system
1.3 Governance of resources
1.3.1 Traditional authorities
1.3.2 Community based development organisations
1.3.3 Administrative coordination of resources management
2 Focus on the GaMampa wetland invasion
2.1 A typology for the Wetland
2.1.1 phragmite marshes
2.1.2 other wetland formations
2.2 logic and dynamics in wetland invasion
2.2.1 the reasons for wetland invasion
2.2.2 Dynamics of wetland invasion
2.3 The wetland invasion, a change in the GaMampa resource system
2.3.1 Consequences of wetland invasion
2.3.2 Conclusion on wetland invasion
3 Conclusions on the diagnosis, orientations for the development of Management options
3.1 Stakes in wetland management
3.2 DPSI Analysis
3.3 What possible tradeoffs: mono use vs. multiple use
3.4 Main challenges for future wetland management
Part III – Contributions to the trade off analysis for sustainable management of the GaMampa Wetland
1 Identification of the MOs and Evaluation criteria
1.1 Conceptual Framework for the development of MOs
1.1.1 Wetland use for sustainable development
1.1.2 Development objectives and Management responses
1.1.3 Integrated resources management
1.2 The identification of management options and alternatives
1.2.1 WETwin twinning workshop
1.2.2 Local and external Stakeholder workshops, from MRs to MOs
1.2.3 Group discussions for identification of MOs and their alternatives
1.3 Presentation of the MOs, alternatives and evaluation criteria
1.3.1 Final list of identified MOs
1.3.2 Presentation of the Evaluation criteria
2 Description of MOs and their alternatives and selection for management solutions’ analysis
2.1 Selected MOs with potential alternatives
2.1.1 Rehabilitation of the Irrigation Schemes
2.1.2 Use Sustainable wetland farming practices
2.1.3 integrated land use planning
2.1.4 Community based Eco cultural tourism activities
2.2 Selected prerequisite MOs
2.2.1 Communication infrastructures
2.2.2 resource management institutions
2.2.3 IDP and legislation
2.3 other un-selected MOs
3 Analysis of the MSs
3.1 Analysis of possible MSs
3.2 Presentation of the selected MSs
3.2.1 Conservation oriented MS
3.2.2 Economic oriented MS
3.2.3 Social oriented MS
3.2.4 Integrated MS
3.3 Evaluation of the Management Solutions, linking the research to the end of WP8
3.3.1 Expert valuation of the Management solutions
3.3.2 The multi criteria analysis
Conclusion
References
