Challenges and Prospects For Potable Wat PDF

International journal of Innovative Research in Management I ISSN 2319 6912
(January 2013, issue 2 volume 1)
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY

GOVERNANCE IN ZIMBABWE
Maxwell C.C. Musingafi, 1* and Patrick Chadamoyo2
1. Programme Coordinator, Faculty of Applied Social Sciences; Development

Studies, Peace, Leadership & Conflict Resolution, Zimbabwe Open University,
Masvingo Regional Campus
2. Faculty of Arts and Education, Zimbabwe Open University, Masvingo
Regional Campus
_____________________________________________________________________
Abstract
This paper traces the evolution of potable water supply governance in Zimbabwe with special
emphasis on developments since the adoption of the integrated water resources management
paradigm in 1998. The main challenge is neither water stress nor scarcity of it. These are just
symptoms of the overall poor governance of public and natural resources. Lack of basic services
is due to mismanagement and corruption by those in authority, lack of appropriate institutions,
bureaucratic inertia and a shortage of new investments in building human capacity, as well as
physical infrastructure with regards potable water supply services. These challenges can be
addressed through water policy reforms implementation, increased awareness campaigns
education and cooptation of grassroots knowledge and expertise.
Key words; Bridging, challenges, governance, implementation divide, integrated water resources
management, potable water, prospects.
1. Orientation and Statement of the Problem

Over the past decade, Zimbabwe, like a number of other African countries, has undergone water
sector reforms. The reforms have been driven by both international calls for more efficient and
sustainable water management approaches and forces within the country (Pazvakavambwa,
2002). Before the 1998 water legislation, water legislation was perceived to be inconsistent with
trends in Zimbabwe. More water users were applying for water rights, yet the existing legislation
was not sufficiently flexible to accommodate more players. This was evident in highly
committed areas, where almost all available water had already been allocated and therefore new
users could not be accommodated (Manzungu, 2002).
As observed by Swatuk (2008), developments in water legislation in Zimbabwe are closely

linked with the countrys socio-political history. Between 1890 and 1980, the colonial state
machinery favoured white settler political, social and economic interests at the expense of the
black majority population. The attainment of independence in 1980 saw the post-colonial state
seeking to redress the historical race, class and gender imbalances.
25
Nonetheless, until the 1998 revision of the Water Act, the prevailing act was the Water Act of
1976 (Mohamed-Katerere and Chenje, 2002). According to the 1976 Water Act, anyone was
entitled to have access to water, as long as the water was for primary use (basic human
sustenance). Any use of water from which the user would derive a benefit was deemed
commercial use, and required a water right. All water rights were issued in Salisbury (now
Harare) by the Water Court, which was based at the Administrative Court of Rhodesia
(Zimbabwe).
2. What is Potable Water?

Potable water is a common pool natural resource for which everyone is responsible. The
commodity is highly delicate and vulnerable to pollution and contamination. As such it has to be
handled with a high degree of care. The Oxford dictionary (1995) defines water as, a liquid
without colour, smell or taste that falls as rain, is in lakes, rivers, seas, and is used for drinking,
washing, etc. Therefore, if water starts smelling and showing colour it means it is contaminated
with something and no longer qualifies to be water in its pure and natural sense.
For Cap-Net (2009), fresh water is not only vital for human survival, health and dignity, but also
fundamental and indispensable for development. Human life, animals, vegetation, the ecosystem,
construction, agriculture and many other things, all depend on water. Gorbachev (quoted in Law,
2005: 7) believes, All life is dependent on water to survive and thus water sustains all
(Miletus, 600BC, in Law, 2005: 7).
The paradox, however, is that although water is equated to life and seen as a symbol of
purification and replenishment in many religions and cultures (Gorbachev, 2002), it can also
spread disease, breed mosquitoes, cause floods, and so forth. For Gorbachev, in Turton and
Henwood (2002), those charged with making decisions regarding water, have an awesome
responsibility to their constituents. A good fresh water decision can improve the lives of
everyone in a community, boost the economy and safeguard the natural environment. A poor
fresh water decision can wreak havoc on nature, exacerbate poverty and diseases, and create
conflict.
3. What is Potable Water Supply Governance?

Potable water supply governance is the range of political, organisational and administrative
processes through which communities articulate their interests in the development and
management of potable water resources and delivery of potable water services (United Nations
Water Virtual Learning Centre-UNWVLC, 2008). The way potable water supply governance is
handled influences the level of development and progress in the concerned community
(UNWVLC, 2008). According to the Global Water Partnership-GWP (2000) poor water supply
governance translates to underdevelopment, and conversely good water supply governance
translates to development, progress and a healthy community. According to UNESCO (2006) a
potable water governance process / system addresses among other things: the formulation and
adoption of sustainable legislation, policies and institutions; enforcement and implementation of
the adopted public policies and legislation; and the clarification of the roles and responsibilities
of all involved stakeholders regarding ownership, administration and management of water
26
resources. Thus, potable water supply governance addresses both public policy and practice
regarding potable water supply issues.
According to Folifac (2007), southern Africa faces severe and growing challenges in the
governance of potable water supply. To deal with this problem, Zimbabwe has adopted the
integrated water resources management (IWRM) paradigm and formulated new legislation in
line with the dictates of the new thinking. A peculiar and unique feature of the new thinking and
legislation that distinguishes it from previous legislation and policy frameworks in the country is
the participation of all stakeholders, especially users of water in the decision making process
through consultative catchment management structures at various levels. The IWRM assumption
is that by mobilising participation of stakeholders through recognised and legislated institutions,
the desired water management goals of achieving equitable access to water, sustainable, efficient
and effective water use will be achieved.
IWRM is characterised by the integration of society and natural resources (Mulder, 2005). The
integration of society refers to the active involvement of water users in water institutions at the
level of clearly defined catchment areas. A catchment area is a geographical area where the
surface and groundwater naturally flows into a common watercourse such as a river. The
integration of natural resources refers to the management of water, land and other related
resources without endangering the sustainability of the ecosystem. Water, as a finite and precious
resource, must be managed in such a way that it is beneficial to social welfare, economic
development and ecological sustainability.
The foregoing and many other standard definitions of IWRM have four main characteristics;
equity, efficiency, sustainability, and process. Thus IWRM aims at promoting more equitable
access to water resources and the benefits that are derived from water in order to tackle poverty;
ensuring that scarce water is used efficiently and for the greatest benefit of the greatest number
of people; and achieving more sustainable utilisation of water, including for a better
environment. In short, IWRM is a process of implementing the Dublin principles as outlined
below;
fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and
the environment, and since water sustains both life and livelihoods effective management
of water resources demands a holistic approach;
water development and management should be based on a participatory approach,
involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels;
women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water, and
therefore they must be fully involved in all decisions concerning the management of
potable water supply; and
water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an
economic good.
According to Moriarty, et al (2004) the fourth principle is misunderstood in many ways in the
water sector. They argue that it is often confused with issues of cost recovery and privatisation of
27
water utilities. Yet economic value of water and the costs of managing and supplying it are
different things. Treating water as an economic good means trying to promote higher value uses
of water. The highest value use of water is always domestic supply. There are high costs for the
economy when supplies fail as in the case of Harare in the 2008-2009 cholera outbreak.
Recognising the value of water use does not necessarily mean that this value should be passed on
to all water users as a direct tariff. Values and charges (tariffs) are different things. Tariffs should
as much as possible reflect the objectives of water resource managers, while ensuring that access
by vulnerable communities for domestic or irrigation water is protected through mechanisms
such as variable tariffs and targeted subsidies (Moriarty, et al, 2004).
Savenije (2002) concurs thus:
Since the Dublin conference on water and the environment it has become
generally accepted among water resources managers that water should be
considered an economic good. However, what this entails is not all that clear. The
problem is not with the terminology. It is the interpretation that causes confusion.
One can distinguish two schools of thought. The first school maintains that water
should be priced at its economic value. The market will then ensure that the water
is allocated to its best uses. The second school interprets 'water as an economic
good' to mean the process of integrated decision making on the allocation of
scarce resources, which does not necessarily involve financial transactions.
Thus, one can distinguish two schools of thought regarding the economic value of water. This
paper subscribes to the second school of thought that interprets water as an economic good to
mean the process of integrated decision making on the allocation of scarce resources. This does
not necessarily imply financial transactions.
It is important to note that the integrated water resources management paradigm should not be
treated as a rigid prescription. It is a broad and elastic framework that should be contextualised
(Xie, 2006; Mulder, 2005). According to Xie (2006) IWRM is a process, not a product, and that
it serves as a tool for assessment and programme evaluation. It does not provide a specific
blueprint for a given water management problem but rather is a broad set of principles, tools, and
guidelines, which must be tailored to the specific context of the country or region or a river
basin.
COHRE, et al (2008) report that in rural areas many people collect water of dubious quality from
unprotected wells (see Figure 1), often at a great distance from their homes, deterring them from
collecting sufficient quantities. Toilets are often seen as unnecessary or unaffordable. In urban
areas, low-income groups often lack access to adequate water supply and sanitation. Piped water
supplies and sewers seldom cover informal areas.
Women and the girl child are largely responsible for fetching water for domestic use. Even in
urban communities, when systems fail, as in Harare during the 2008-2009 cholera outbreak,
women have to walk long distances to fetch water from far away streams and wells (see Figure
2), some with babies on their backs.
28
Figure 1: A rural woman fetching water for domestic use in the Zambezi valley.
(Source: Boroto, 2006)
According to Musingafi (2008), most external development agencies fail because they come with
a superiority complex and view the recipients of the development projects as the other, one who
knows nothing. This approach makes them ignore centuries of valuable knowledge archived in
these people. Experiences in the Ovambo community in Namibia as reported by Beukman (2002)
help clarify this point.
Kgomotso (2005) talks of the Ovambo case in northern Namibia. Ovambo local communities
had developed highly efficient and wise practices in their use and management of scarce water
resources. Traditional practices encouraged the use of local water of inferior quality for specific
and appropriate purposes. Basic livelihoods depended on keeping cattle and goats and growing
millet. With the development of the Ovambo water scheme, the local communities were
encouraged to pursue irrigation projects in which they had no interest or skills. Traditional
practices of water resource use and management were also not acknowledged or integrated into
the management of the Ovambo water scheme. This can be seen not only as a lost opportunity to
develop and incorporate local knowledge in modern water management schemes, but also a
waste in terms of the time of technical scheme advisers who may have tried to teach the local
people about efficient water practices.
29
Figure 2: Women carrying containers of water during the 2008-2009 cholera

outbreak in Harare
(Source: CHRA website, accessed October 2009)
The folly of sidelining clients or beneficiaries knowledge in water and other community
development projects is well illustrated in the old man from a village close to Ouaninou in the
western part of Ivory Coast story captured by Clavreul (2003). He told the head of a well drilling
team that had drilled unsuccessfully for water for three days:
I admire your courage. You are doing everything in your power to give us
water, but may I give you some advice? [...] The water runs beneath the earth
in small brooks. We cannot see these little brooks beneath the earth, but they
exist. I have noticed that in the dry season the termite hills continue to grow.
And termites need a lot of water. They look for water in the brooks deep down
in the earth. I know the location of the termite hills in the fields around the
village. Put your machine there. You will find water.
The following day the team found water at the location indicated by the old man.
Thus, Van Koppen, et al (2007), argue that water resources management reform has paid little
attention to community-based water laws in rural communal areas within developing countries.
Outside reformers, in collaboration with the local politicians, have tended to ignore, frown upon
or even erode community-based water law.
30
In cases of water scarcity, clean water tends to gravitate towards the rich and wastewater towards
the poor (WWAP/UNESCO, 2006). This lack of access to safe water and basic sanitation causes
widespread ill-health that further limits the poors productive capabilities. Many urban water
systems are poorly maintained. In third world major cities like Harare this has led to regular
water borne diseases. In the case of Harare, on top of the ballooning population pressure,
mismanagement of fresh water supply and sanitation culminated in the 2008-2009 catastrophic
cholera outbreaks (CHRA, 2009).
Figure 3: Children playing with dirty water in a residential area in Harare

(Source: CHRA website, accessed October 2009)
Thus the problem of potable water supply is not simply a scarcity or water stress issue. Savenije
(1998) argues that thirst is not a problem of water scarcity per se:
It is a problem of water management. There is enough water, virtually everywhere

in the world, to provide people with their basic water needs: drinking, cooking
and personal hygiene. Shortage of water for primary purposes (essentially
household water) is much more a problem of lifestyles and poor management than
of water availability. drinking water is mainly used to convey our waste over
large distances to places where we then try to separate the water from the waste.
This way of sanitation is highly inefficient in terms of energy consumption,
money and water alike. An extra-terrestrial visiting the Earth would be very
surprised to see that clean and meticulously treated drinking water, which is
considered a precious and scarce commodity, is used for the lowest possible
purpose: to transport waste. Subsequently, the waste is removed through a costly
31
process, after which the water is often pumped back and re-treated to be used
again. We need a new sanitary revolution to restore this obvious inefficiency.
WWAP/UNESCO (2006) concurs. It argues that a basic insight, which has not yet garnered
enough attention, is that the insufficiency of potable water supply and sanitation is primarily
driven by an inefficient supply of services rather than by water shortages. This is often due to
mismanagement, corruption, lack of basic geohydrological water management knowledge and
expertise, lack of appropriate institutions, bureaucratic inertia and a shortage of new investments
in building human capacity, as well as physical infrastructure. The water crisis is thus
increasingly about how people, as individuals, and as part of a collective society, govern the
access to and control over water resources and their benefits.
Mwangi (2008) argues that it is significant that while Africas difficult hydrology and
vulnerability to natural disasters contributes to water scarcity, it is human action, or inaction, that
presents the greatest challenge in harnessing the existing water resources to improve livelihoods
of the majority of Africans.
4. Zimbabwe: The 1998 Legislation

The 1998 Water Act was signed into law after considerable consultation with stakeholders. The
new act is founded on economic efficiency, environmental sustainability and equity of use. The
following are its main features:
water rights have been replaced with water use permits which are issued for a limited
period and can only be renewed subject to water availability and evidence of efficient
use;
the priority principle has been done away with;
water can no longer be privately owned;
water is to be viewed from the complete hydrological perspective; both groundwater and
surface water are treated as part of one hydrological system;
stakeholder-driven institutions have been formed that will have more say on water
allocation and general water management on a day-to-day basis;
there is greater consideration of the environment, with environmental water use now
recognized as a legitimate user;
there is more control over pollution, with the polluter pays principle being introduced;
the state owns all surface and underground water, except for primary purposes (mainly
for domestic uses such as drinking, cooking and washing) any use of water needs
approval by the state; and
water is recognised as an economic good, people who use water must pay for it.
The Water Act (1998) has decentralised the management of water to stakeholder-managed
catchment councils and sub-catchment councils. A new framework for water management has
been formed to involve stakeholders in water management; replace water rights with water
permits, which expire after a set period; create more efficient water allocation processes; develop
catchment water use plans, with the full participation of stakeholders; treat the environment as a
32
legitimate user; and form new stakeholder-driven institutions to facilitate more efficient water
management. As a result of these developments, new key institutions to manage water affairs
were formed. Below is an outline of the institutions formed:
Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA)-formed to provide water services on a

commercial basis. All fees charged for commercial water services are retained by the
water authority for the provision of water services. Services of a statutory nature,
provided by ZINWA, will be funded through the water fund, as directed by the minister
responsible for water;
Catchment councils-established for the management of the seven demarcated catchment
areas on the basis of major river systems (Gwayi, Manyame, Mazowe, Mzingwane,
Runde, Sanyati and Save). A catchment council consists of representatives of lower-level
catchment management institutions. The main responsibilities of catchment councils are
to prepare a catchment management plan in consultation with the stakeholders for the
river system, grant permits for water use, regulate and supervise water use, supervise the
performance of sub-catchment councils, resolve conflicts within their areas of
jurisdiction;
Sub-catchment councils-formed to facilitate water management on a smaller scale. Sub-
catchment councils consist of representatives of the various water users within the sub-
catchment. Representatives from each sub-catchment council form the catchment council,
thereby representing their constituents at the sub-catchment scale. The main functions of
sub-catchment councils are to regulate and supervise the implementation of permits,
monitor water flows and use in accordance with allocations by the catchment council,
provide representatives for the catchment council, promote catchment protection, monitor
water discharge, assist in data collection and participate in catchment planning, and
collect rates and fees for all permits issued.
The theory behind the Water Act (1998) is commendable. Question marks are on
implementation.
5. Why have Zimbabwes Water Sector Reforms not performed as Expected?

Manzungu and Machiridza (2005) observe that while the water reforms could have been partly a
result of internal developments, the reforms were very much shaped by international donors
Campbell (2003) concluded that the old settler-dominated river boards were somewhat
reincarnated (with some black faces) as catchment councils that continued to wield power over
water issues to the disempowerment of smallholder farmers. It should however be noted that the
situation has changed since the fast track land reform programme. White commercial farmers
who were active in the early stages have been replaced by a black elite. This has rendered the
water reforms somewhat cosmetic (Manzungu and Machiridza, 2005).
Manzungu (2004) observes that the fact that the new law and institutional framework
marginalised domestic water supply aspects on the grounds that this was really not a water
resource management issue has done little to engender involvement by some rural communities.
33
While the framework for a perfect water management system exists, the situation on the ground
does not reflect this common belief. The reform process has not taken off as expected owing to a
combination of factors ranging from conflicting policies and weak institutional linkages, to
insufficient funding. A brief outline of some of the reasons for poor performance as given by
Derman, et al (2007) follows:
Donor withdrawal: The water sector reforms in Zimbabwe were largely donor-driven.
Catchment councils were not financially self-sufficient, and the sudden withdrawal of
donor support (due to the deteriorating political environment) in both financial and
technical areas meant that catchment councils activities were doomed to fail.
The land reform process: The launching of the water reform process coincided with the
land reform process in Zimbabwe. There was a great amount of movement with
established farmers moving away and new farmers coming in. This process happened so
quickly that the water sector lost track of who was utilising water. Moreover, new settlers
were more interested in consolidating their claim to the new properties than in attending
water management meetings. Water issues were therefore thrown aside as the land reform
exercise attracted greater attention.
Financial stability: The water sector reforms intended to implement the user pays and
polluter pays principles. In this respect, permit holders would pay a fee, which was to
contribute to water services provision. Unease ensued, resulting in many established
farmers not paying for their permits, as they were uncertain as to their continuing
occupancy on their land with respect to the new land reforms. New farmers were
reluctant to pay for water use. Also water is believed to be a God-given resource, and
therefore there is no need to pay for access to it. The diminishing sources of contributions
into the government water fund therefore meant that there was very little money available
to support water service provision and management.
Weak institutional linkages: The new Water Act provided a better framework for
stronger institutional linkages. It is now a requirement that a number of institutions be
consulted before permits for water use can be issued. However, there is little evidence to
prove that this is bearing fruit. Not all institutions give priority to water issues.
Lack of capacity within key institutions: Key institutions, especially ZINWA, are not
adequately staffed to cope with the sudden demands for the provision of expert services.
The staffing levels of ZINWA fall short of expected levels, as does the level of expertise.
Remuneration for participants: Catchment councils and sub-catchment councils
representatives have not been paid directly for their input into water affairs. They were
only compensated for travel and subsistence. When finances became scarce, the
frequency of meetings was reduced, and user groups were merged to cut down on
expenses. This meant that stakeholders could not meet as often as was desirable to
discuss water management issues.
Lack of enforcement of legislation: The new Water Act has been described as
technically sound with a solid base for sustainable and efficient utilization of water
resources. However, some vital sections of the act have not been fully enforced.
Catchment outline plans (COPs) have not been developed in accordance with Section 12
of the Water Act (1998). COPs are to be developed by stakeholders, and should serve as a
34
guide on water management within their catchment areas. The reasons for non-
development of the COPs range from a lack of capacity for their development, financial
constraints and general lack of coordination among stakeholders. In the meantime, water
permits cannot be issued in the absence of approved plans, and the objectives of the
reform process cannot be fully realized.
Different levels of appreciation of water: Water management representatives are from
local authorities, industry, commercial farmers, communal farmers and other interested
parties. While all representatives were expected to sit at the same table to discuss water
affairs, it was clear that the priority of each group was to protect its own interests.
Communal farmers were the weakest and most disadvantaged sector, with the least
appreciation of water for commercial use. They were not given equal access to the
resource, despite management being conducted through SCCs, which were believed to
involve such vulnerable user groups.
Political interference: In a bid to retain popularity, politicians aimed to keep the price of
water as low as possible. Defaulters of payments for water permits were protected against
disconnection through the political influence of politicians. Political influence is also a
factor in project choice and implementation where development is driven by political
balance rather than economics.
Thus the effectiveness of the new system has been found wanting in as far as implementation is
concerned. For Manzungu (2004), participation of some stakeholders has been poor, especially
the rural communities, because of lack of financial resources, for example to pay bus fares to
attend the meetings. He further argues that government-defined regulations for selecting
stakeholders have also been a problem as they did not take into account local dynamics. Non-
farm stakeholders, such as industry and urban authorities, have not been really active. The
emphasis on making all water users pay for water in the spirit that water is an economic good,
has not helped at all. According to Manzungu (2004), this has conveyed the message that it is
merely a revenue collecting exercise. The provision in the Water Act for some people to pay
reduced water charges has not been acted upon. The other problem has been a lack of adequate
community knowledge about the process, worsened by the use of the English language as a
medium for communication. Thus the emphasis on information dissemination rather than
communication has also been a problem (Marimbe and Manzungu, 2002).
Jurisdictional boundaries of the new water institutions remain a problem (Beukman, 2002). Some
of the problems have to do with the fact that communities owe allegiance to their traditional
institutions and district and provincial administrative boundaries, which do not necessarily
follow catchment lines (Manzungu, 2004). The hydrologically defined boundaries have tended to
split communities. Therefore, clear-cut jurisdictional responsibilities between the catchment and
sub-catchment councils, water user board and water point committees and rural district councils,
still need to be clarified.
It is also important to note that, as in the South African case, potable water governance issues are
littered over a plethora of pieces of legislation, ministries and other administrative institutions.
Thus, Chinamora (2002) observes that environmental and potable water legislation in Zimbabwe
35
is seriously fragmented and bedevilled by lack of coordination and uniformity in areas of

responsibility. As a result, there is, to a considerable extent, an overlap of institutional mandates.
For example, the Natural Resources Act [Chapter 20:13] provides, among other things, for the
construction of works to prevent soil erosion and promote the conservation of soil and water
resources, and as observed by Patel (2002), with reference to water development and usage, it
reflects several potential conflicts of an administrative nature vis--vis the provisions of the
Water Act.
6. Lessons from Zimbabwes Experiences so far

The IWRM paradigm was largely a product of water policies in the developed countries. The
experiences of these countries do not only act as benchmarks for other countries, but lessons for
the road ahead of all other countries that are busy trying to coin and implement new policies in
line with the demands of the IWRM paradigm in the governance of water resources.
The discourse on IWRM in southern Africa has revealed several points of contention, viz;
stakeholder participation, water as an economic good, water as a holistic resource, the river basin
as the unit of management, and infrastructure development (Swatuk, 2005). These issues are not
individually resolvable as together they reflect actors' understandings of what water is, who
should have access to it, for what purpose, and how decisions regarding allocation, use and
management of potable water supply are made (Swatuk, 2008).
The Dublin principle no. 4 is the most contentious principle among the four principles, especially
considering that there is no agreement on its meaning. Elitists would interpret it as implying
solely cost recovery, but the grassroots or communal sympathetic scholars would interpret it as
referring to the importance of water in human life and community development. This has
brought ambiguity and confusion especially in poor communities of southern Africa. If the
concept is taken to mean full cost recovery, then most people in rural communities in southern
Africa would not afford it and thus denied access to potable water as in the case of Lutsheko
women in South Africa reported by Kasrils (2001):
Last year, I visited a newly installed water supply scheme in a typical South
African rural village called Lutsheko. Communal taps had been installed
within 200 metres of every household, the reservoir fed by a diesel pump
taking water from a nearby borehole. Households were contributing R10 a
month (under 5 US cents per day) to cover the operating costs. The project
was well run by a village water committee and had improved the lives of 3000
people.
Afterwards, I went down to see the borehole on the banks of a dried out
riverbed. There I found a young woman, with a three week old baby on her
back, scooping water out of a hole she had dug in the riverbed. When I asked
her why she was not using the taps, she told me she could not afford to do so.
For those living in deep poverty, a US nickel is just too much to spend on a
days supply of clean water
36
Kasrils (2001) further reports the findings of a South African survey that established that many
poor rural women in South Africa feel that to spend R10 on clean water would be to deprive their
children of food. So they choose to search for free, unsafe water instead. The plight of these poor
women is a great challenge to both policy makers and communities in southern Africa. Water is
of great value to them like anywhere else, but cost recovery is not applicable to them. In fact
water is a basic requirement which people cannot do without. It therefore follows that it must be
readily available to ensure continuity of life.
Manzungu (2004) summarises the applicability of the IWRM theoretical framework in southern
Africa as follows:
improved governance, rather than stakeholder participation, should be the indicator of

democratisation in water resource management;
water practitioners should be conscious of the fact that effective stakeholder participation
depends on a conducive governance regime at the national level, which lies outside their
purview;
uncritical adoption of the neoliberal concept of beneficial use of water, where water that
is being productively used cannot be re-allocated without extreme difficulty, tends to
forestall what is essentially a political process; and
related to the previous point, stakeholder participation without significant restructuring of
ownership and access rights, runs the risk of tokenism.
He further observes that there are also practical issues to consider for stakeholder participation
and improved water supply governance to occur. These include the process and approach taken,
stakeholder definition and how it is operationalised, entry and levels of participation, and
administrative and operational realities.
As outlined by Xie (2006), a broad base of support is needed for the wide range reform process.
The changes required by IWRM can be sometimes revolutionary, and involve drastic
modifications of the current ways of doing business. As such they are likely to risk oppositions
from those interest groups who benefit from the status quo. Therefore, not only top-level political
commitment is required, but also a broad base of popular support for any large-scale changes to
take place. All affected stakeholders must be convinced of the value of IWRM and any reform
brought by it. Stakeholder consultations that give voice to all concerns and that provide clear
justifications for reforms, backed up with solid data, can help build support for IWRM (Xie,
2006).
Xie (2006) refers to what he calls Pick the low-hanging fruit. By this he means that the
sustainability of the IWRM process depends on the ability to demonstrate on-the-ground
benefits. When prioritizing a list of reforms it is important to first target those areas that will
quickly and easily demonstrate success of IWRM policies and practices; the areas that can easily
build political support for the overall process. The political pressures faced by most decision-
makers discourage risk-taking behaviour, so there should be immediate rewards to encourage
implementation of large-scale changes required by IWRM.
37
Another important lesson is the significance of contextual factors. Xie (2006) argues that while
the IWRM principles provide general directions, the institutional context of a given water
management problem must dictate the specific approach used. For example, treating water as an
economic good and achieving full economic sustainability may not be possible if supply
infrastructure requires expensive rehabilitation or if beneficiaries of water services are unwilling
or unable to pay full-cost tariffs (see the Lutsheko women case above). Numerous gradual steps
must therefore be taken to break the vicious cycle of poor water service delivery and low
willingness-to-pay, involving, targeted subsidies, institutional reform to remove political
influence, formation of user associations and capacity-building, improved stakeholder
consultation and participatory management, and private sector participation (Xie, 2006).
The French experience shows that implementation of IWRM is a process that could take several
decades. According to Xie (2006) France took near 30 years to reach to todays stage of river
basin management. Xie (2006) argues that given the short-term focus of politicians and
policymakers in most areas, there is always the temptation to seek quick solutions and abandon
the IWRM process if immediate gains are insufficient. But persistent, patient progress on
multiple fronts is necessary to achieve the ultimate goals of IWRM. It is important to develop a
sequenced, prioritized list of reforms to avoid getting bogged down in partial implementation of
too many reforms.
Van Koppen, et al (2007: ix) argue:
Ignoring community-based water laws and failing to build on their strengths,

while overcoming their weaknesses, greatly reduce the chance of new water
management regimes to meet their intended goals. In contrast, when the
strengths of community-based water laws are combined with the strengths of
public sector contributions to water development and management, the new
regimes can more effectively lead to sustainable poverty alleviation, gender
equity and overall economic growth. Indeed, the challenge for policy makers is
to develop a new vision in which the indispensable role of the public sector
takes existing community-based water laws into full account.
As seen in the Ovambo case and the Ivory Coast old man story above, reformers have tended to
ignore, frown upon or even erode community-based water law as they have pushed forward the
IWRM principles.
7. Conclusion
Derman, et al (2007) observe that water forms are part of a broad right to life that underlies
rural livelihoods in Zimbabwe. Thus, drinking water should be for everyone (Matondi, 2001),
and one cant deny drinking water to anyone (Derman and Hellum, 2003). This right endures
despite efforts by both colonial and independent governments to redefine rural citizens
relationship to water (Derman, et al; 2007). The idea that to deny water is to deny life indicates
an undisputable truth that there can be no life without water.
38
Empirical studies in Zimbabwean communal areas suggest that water for drinking should be
made available to all (Cleaver, 1995; Derman, 1998; Sithole, 1999; Matondi, 2001;
Nemarundwe, 2003). Nemarundwe (2003) reports from the Romwe catchment in Masvingo, that
drinking water is made available to all no matter what the source of water is. Available water
sources include boreholes, river bed wells, rivers, wells, collector wells and dams. She writes,
Because water is considered hupenyu (life), there has been no case of denying another village
access to water during drought, although rules of use are enforced more stringently during
drought periods (Nemarundwe, 2003: 108). The study points to actual incidents where this
general ideal was challenged. One example is a well owner who prevented others from accessing
his well. Two days after he locked the gate to the well he found a dead dog thrown in the well. In
response to this the well owner later unlocked the gate (Nemarundwe, 2003). Thus water is a
public resource. It is a gift from God. None of us here are rainmakers (Chinamasa, 1998).
Water is a common good, a free gift from God. Traditionally, everyone has a free right to water
in Zimbabwe. It is against this background that the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (2010) argues
that the right to water contains both freedoms and entitlements. Freedoms include the right to
maintain access to existing water supplies necessary for the right to water, and the right to be free
from interference, such as the right to be free from arbitrary disconnections or contamination of
water supplies. Entitlements include the right to a system of water supply and management that
provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the right to water. Moreover, the elements of
the right to water must be adequate for human dignity, life and health (Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition, 2010).
The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (2010) identifies the following as key issues and
considerations in the provision of water in Zimbabwe:
availability-the water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for
personal and domestic uses;
quality-the water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, free from
micro organisms and chemical substances that constitute a threat to a persons health, and
also water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for each personal or
domestic use; and
accessibility-water and water facilities and services have to be accessible to everyone
without discrimination. Accessibility has four overlapping dimensions: physical
accessibility, economic accessibility (affordability), non discrimination, and information
accessibility.
Then people can talk of sustainable development.
References
Beukman, R. 2002. Revisiting local water management in southern Africa. Paper prepared for
the policy workshop on local water management in Ottawa: Canada. 18-19 March 2002.
Boroto, R.J. 2006. A collaborative effort towards implementing IWRM: a southern African
perspective. Global Water Partnership: Southern Africa
39
Campbell, H. 2003. Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The exhaustion of the patriarchal model of

liberation. David Philip Publishers, Africa Books (Pty) Ltd. South Africa.
Cap-Net. 2009. Tutorial on basic principles of integrated water resources management.
www.cap-net.org.
Chinamasa, P. 1998. Zimbabwe Parliamentary Debates 25 (26)
Chinamora, W. 2002. Institutional framework for environmental management. in Mohamed-
Katerere, J.C. and Chenje, M. (Eds). 2002. Environmental law and policy in Zimbabwe.
Harare: Southern African Research and Documentation Centre (SARDC). Pp 53-85.
CHRA website. 2009.
http://www.chra.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=37.
accessed on 12 October, 2009
Clavreul, J.Y. 2003. In De Graaf, S, (ed), 2003 Water Stories
http://www.irc.nl/page/6004 accessed on 5 May, 2010
COHRE, AAAS, SDC and UN-HABITAT, 2008. Legal resources for the right to water and
sanitation: international and national standards. 2nd edition. Geneva: Centre on Housing
Rights and Evictions
Derman, B. 1998. Balancing the waters: development and hydropolitics in contemporary
Zimbabwe. In Donahue, J. and Johnston, B. (Eds) Water, culture and power. Island
Press, New York, pp. 7394.
Derman, B., Hellum, A., Manzungu, E., Sithole, P. and Machiridza, R. 2007. Intersections of
law, human rights and water management in Zimbabwe: implications for rural
livelihoods. In Koppen, B. van, Giordano, M. and Butterworth, J. (Eds). 2007.
Community-based water law and water resource management reform in developing
countries. Oxfordshire: CAB International. Pp 248-269.
Folifac, F.A. 2007. 'National water policies and water services at the extremes: what challenges
must be faced in bridging the gap? Learning from the South African experience.' African
journal 1 (1) 8-23
Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2000. Integrated water resources management: TAC
background paper 4. Stockholm: GWP
Gorbachev, M. 2002. Special message. In Turton, A.R., Henwood, R. eds. Hydropolitics in the
developing world: a southern African perspective. Pretoria: African Water Issues
Research Unit
Government of Rhodesia. 1976. Water ac (chapter 20: 22). Harare. Government Printers
Government of the Republic Zimbabwe. 1998. Water act (chapter 20: 24). No. 31/98, Harare.
Government Printers
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe. 1998. National water authority act (chapter 20: 25).
No. 11/98, Harare. Government Printers
Kasrils, R. 2001. The value and price of water (The women of Lutsheko). Water science and
technology 43(4):51-55
Kgomotso, P. K. 2005. The challenge of implementing integrated water resources management
(IWRM) in the lower Okavango river basin, Ngamiland district, Botswana. Masters
dissertation. University of the Western Cape.
Law, B.I. 2005. Portable reuse-what are we afraid of? IBL Solutions
Manzungu, E. 2001. A lost opportunity: the case of the water reform debate in the fourth
parliament of Zimbabwe. Zambezia XXVIII (i). Zimbabwe.
40
Manzungu, E. 2002. A framework for assessing prospects for integrated water resource
management in southern Africa illustrated by Zimbabwean data, Proceedings 3rd
WaterNet/WARFSA symposium water demand management for sustainable
development. Dar es Salaam. 30-31 October, 2002
Manzungu, E. 2004. Water for all: improving water resources governance in southern Africa.
Gatekeeper series no 113. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development
Manzungu, E. and Machiridza, R. 2005. Economic-legal ideology and water management in
Zimbabwe: implications for smallholder agriculture. Paper presented at the international
workshop on African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water
Management in Africa, 26-28 January 2005, Johannesburg, South Africa
Marimbe, S. and E. Manzungu. 2002. Challenges of communicating integrated water resource
management in Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the 3rdWaternet/WARFSA symposium,
Integrating water supply and water demands for sustainable use of water resources, Dar
es Salaam. 30-31 October 2002.
Matondi, P. 2001. The struggle for access to land and water resources in Zimbabwe: the case of
Shamva district. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala,
Sweden.
Mohamed-Katerere, J.C. and Chenje, M. (Eds). 2002. Environmental law and policy in
Zimbabwe. Harare: Southern African Research and Documentation Centre (SARDC)
Moriarty, P., Butterworth, J. and Batchelor, C. 2004. Integrated water resources management
and the domestic water and sanitation sub-sector, Deft: IRC International Water and
Sanitation Centre
Mulder, M. W. 2005. A political policy analysis of the integrated water resources management
approach in South Africas water policy (1998-2001. Masters dissertation. University of
Pretoria.
Musingafi, M.C.C. 2010. Single mothers empowerment through small business development
projects in Gweru, Zimbabwe: the case of the GWAPA poverty alleviation programme.
Lambert Academic Publishers.
Mwangi, W. 2008. Water and sanitation in Africa: obstacles, constraints and next steps for the
commission on sustainable development: a report for the 16th session of the commission
on sustainable development. Global public policy network on water management
(GPPN). http:gppn.stakeholderforum.org
Nemarundwe, N. 2003. Negotiating resource access: institutional arrangements for woodlands
and water use in southern Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Oxford. 1995. Oxford advanced learners dictionary: international students edition. London:
Oxford University Press.
Patel, B. 2002. The legal and policy framework of environmental management. in Mohamed-
Katerere, J.C. and Chenje, M. (Eds). 2002. Environmental law and policy in Zimbabwe.
Harare: Southern African Research and Documentation Centre (SARDC). Pp 11-52.
Pazvakavambwa, S. 2002. The process and dynamics of catchment management in Zimbabwe.
Harare: Save Africa Trust Publications.
Redelinghuys, N. 2008. International conflict over fresh water resources: the formulation of
preventive and interventive guidelines. PhD thesis. University of Free State.
41
SADC. 2005. SADC regional water policy. Water Sector Coordinating Unit, Maseru, Lesotho.
Savenije, H.H.G. 1998. How do we feed a growing world population in a situation of water
scarcity? Proceedings of the 8th Stockholm water symposium. SIWI report 3, pp. 49-58
Savenije, H.H.G., 2002, Why water is not an ordinary economic good, or why the girl is special.
nd
Proceedings 2 WARFSA/WaterNet Symposium: integrated water resources
management: theory, practice, cases'. Cape Town, 30 and 31 October; pp. 340-344
Sithole, B. 1999. Use and access to dambos in communal lands in Zimbabwe: institutional
considerations. PhD thesis. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Swatuk, L.A. 2008. A political economy of water in Southern Africa. Water Alternatives 1(1):
2447
Swatuk, L.A. 2005. Political challenges to implementing IWRM in southern Africa. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth 30(1116): 872880
The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition. 2010. Zimbabwe and the right to water. Harare: The Crisis in
Zimbabwe Coalition
UNEP. 2008. Vital water graphics. 2nd edition. UNEP.
http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/water/vitalwater/. Accessed 12
February 2010
UNWVLC. 2008. Governance and community based approaches manual. UNWVLC
Van Koppen, B. 2007. Dispossession at the interface of community-based water law and permit
systems. In Van Koppen, B. Giordano, M. and Butterworth, J. (Eds). 2007. Community-
based water law and water resource management reform in developing countries.
Oxfordshire: CAB International. Pp 46-64.
Wetmore, S. B. and Theron, F. 1998. Community development and research: participatory
learning and action-a development strategy in itself. Development Southern Africa. 15
(1): 29-54
WWAP/UNESCO. 2006. A shared responsibility: the UN world water development report 2.
Paris: UNESCO Publishing, and New York: Berghahn Books
WWAP/UNESCO. 2009. Water in a changing world: the UN world water development report 3.
Paris: UNESCO Publishing, and New York: Berghahn Books
Xie, M. 2006. Integrated water resources management (IWRM): Introduction to principles and
practices. New York: World Bank Institute
42

Challenges and Prospects For Potable Wat PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Challenges and Prospects For Potable Wat PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International journal of Innovative Research in Management I ISSN 2319 6912

(January 2013, issue 2 volume 1)

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY

Maxwell C.C. Musingafi, 1* and Patrick Chadamoyo2

1. Programme Coordinator, Faculty of Applied Social Sciences; Development

1. Orientation and Statement of the Problem

As observed by Swatuk (2008), developments in water legislation in Zimbabwe are closely

2. What is Potable Water?

3. What is Potable Water Supply Governance?

Savenije (2002) concurs thus:

Figure 2: Women carrying containers of water during the 2008-2009 cholera

Figure 3: Children playing with dirty water in a residential area in Harare

It is a problem of water management. There is enough water, virtually everywhere

4. Zimbabwe: The 1998 Legislation

Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA)-formed to provide water services on a

5. Why have Zimbabwes Water Sector Reforms not performed as Expected?

is seriously fragmented and bedevilled by lack of coordination and uniformity in areas of

6. Lessons from Zimbabwes Experiences so far

improved governance, rather than stakeholder participation, should be the indicator of

Van Koppen, et al (2007: ix) argue:

Ignoring community-based water laws and failing to build on their strengths,

Campbell, H. 2003. Reclaiming Zimbabwe: The exhaustion of the patriarchal model of

Вам также может понравиться