Results

Gottenburg is located about ten (10) kilometres on the north-eastern side of Hluvukani. This village shares a name with two other neighbouring villages, Thlavekisa and Hlalakahle known as Gottenburg B and C respectively. These are the names used by the department of Agriculture whereas the local municipality uses the local names. Thlavekisa is on the west of Gottenburg and is not in Ward 16 while Hlalakahle is located on the north side.

Initial contact with the village is made through the village Induna (head-man) and the chairperson of the village CDF (Community Development Forum). A meeting was held with these two structures to introduce the SWELL (Securing Water to Enhance Local Livelihoods) concept and to highlight the intention of carrying out an assessment process in the village. It was agreed that the process can take place, a date for the assessment was set and the CDF together with the Induna began inviting villagers to and making arrangements for a meeting that was held at a local school. It was during school vacations so the process did not interfere with school programmes. [authors abstract]

This report is a part of  : “South Africa - Access to water and livelihoods in Ward 16, Bushbuckridge”

Over the past years, the NGO AWARD (Association for Water and Rural Development) has been working on a programme entitled SWELL (Securing Water to Enhance Local Livelihoods) in ward 16 of the Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, South Africa. The aim of the programme is to develop an approach for integrated planning of rural water services to enhance people’s livelihoods, especially of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in the communities. This report aims to provide insight into the current role of water in people’s livelihoods and especially how that is shaped by access to water.

The report shows that at first sight typical water-based activities, such as gardening, livestock or small business, are not the main source of livelihood for the people in the area. However, they do play a crucial role in diversifying and reducing vulnerability and dependency on other sources of livelihood. They also do provide important nutritious food and cash to the poorer households.

The extent to which these livelihoods activities can be undertaken depends to a large extent on access to water. Whereas in the area access to water resources is not a major limiting factor, the current infrastructure and its management is. Poor design, operation and maintenance result in frequent break-downs and unreliable supply. As a result people curtail or delay their productive activities. But they are also affected in other aspects of their livelihoods, especially time spent on water collection. As coping strategies they may have to go to neighbouring villages to collect water, buy expensive water from private vendors or store water at household level. The poorest and most vulnerable groups lack the assets to deal with these stresses.

Main recommendations include a number of strategies to improve immediate access to water, especially through clarifying institutional roles and responsibilities and developing operation and maintenance plans. In addition, recommendations are given to integrated planning for multiple uses. Understanding livelihoods, especially of the poorest people and households, is crucial in this.

A full synthesis report can be downloaded here, as well as short summary reports of the villages where the assessments were done.

At the 7th WaterNet/WARFSA/GWP-SA Symposium, held in Lilongwe, Malawi from 1-3 November 2006, the MUS project hosted a special session on multiple uses of water. A background paper to the session was prepared. This paper introduces the mus concept and its framework. It goes into detail on the relevance of mus for the SADC region, specially looking into issues of relevance for researchers. A short report of the session is also available.

The need for so-called multiple uses services has been made clear over the past years through an increasing body of literature, including from the Southern Africa region. In order to be able to follow a MUS approach at community level, an enabling environment of policies and institutions is needed both at intermediate and national level. Key elements of such an environment include policies which enable and promotevmultiple uses, coordination between sectors and levels and integrated financing streams. This report has tried to analyse that environment at national level in Zimbabwe.

Policies for water resources management are enabling a multiple use approach, though not actively promoting it. However, this opportunity hasn’t been seized by the domestic water supply or irrigation sector in the form of clear policies or guidelines on the development of water services for multiple purposes. In fact, a limited focus on
health only and rigid technology standards have in the past even limited the scope for multiple use services. Yet, within the same policy framework, NGOs have been able to innovate and develop broader livelihoods-based approaches and more appropriate technologies. At national level, coordination and especially sharing of lessons between NGOs holds the possibility to scale up the approach to other NGO programmes, and even government policies. Brining the approach down to district level will be more difficult, with coordination mechanisms at that level having collapsed or being inactive.