The support of the following organisations and people is gratefully acknowledged:

The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment in the Netherlands, who provided the professional services of one of their senior staff, Mr Huub Schrijver, and allowed the use of their teaching materials in the South African training workshops;

The Department of Water and Sanitation, South Africa, who supported Mr Schrijver’s travel costs during this visit;

The Sustainability Challenge Foundation, particularly David Fairman and Ida Koppen, who provide ongoing moral support, advice, teaching materials and networks around the world;

Sandra Fowkes of Metaplan and Karin Ireton of the Industrial Environmental Forum, who provided their expert services as trainers at the Cape Town and Pretoria workshops;

All the participants in the training workshops, for their enthusiasm and positive contributions;

The many people around South Africa who took time to meet with us and talk openly about their problems, ideas and hopes for progress towards partnerships for sustainable water resources management.

At the invitation of the Department of Water and Sanitation, Institute for Water Quality Studies (DWAF/IWQS), I visited South Africa from 2 - 30 March 1998.

The purpose of this visit was to assist in developing a clear picture of the needs for capacity building generated by the National Water Bill, both within DWAF and with other stakeholders. In particular, I was to focus on capacity building requirements for the management of multi-stakeholder groups.

Why me? As a director in the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment ("Ministry VROM") in the Netherlands I am responsible for the Implementation Challenge Programme, training people how to manage multi-party multi-issue processes and situations using the so-called Consensus Approach. The Implementation Challenge Programme has been in existence for over 5 years, providing guidance and tools for strategy building, interactive policy development, negotiations, and conflict prevention and management. I am also one of 12 trainers in this programme and I am a registered mediator. Therefore, my knowledge and experience could be of assistance to DWAF in determining action plans for capacity building for the management of multi-stakeholder groups.

The Implementation Challenge Programme is tailor made for the Dutch situation at a local as well as provincial, national and international level. I am familiar with the Dutch situation, however, not with the South African situation. Therefore, I cannot and will not decide on solutions for South Africa’s National Water Bill: I can only put forward suggestions and options for possible actions.

On the other hand, the Consensus Approach being based on principles of psychology, sociology, political sciences, etc. (and on common sense) I feel there must be some validity for my suggestions. The numerous contacts, discussions and meetings I had during my 3 weeks stay in South Africa confirm this opinion. Therefore, I feel free to put forward suggestions and options, and it is to DWAF - and the other stakeholders in the National Water Bill (NWB) and its inherent processes - to decide.

This is also the place to thank all the people who helped in making my stay a very challenging and agreeable one. It was a perfect combination of hard work and pleasure in this beautiful and most interesting country.

Many people contributed to my programme; I could not possibly name them all here.

There is one great exception: Dr. Heather MacKay of the IWQS, who went out of her way to organise my (rather hectic) schedule, to expose me to stakeholders in the NWB, and to look after me so well. I feel deeply indebted to her.

I thank everybody and Heather MacKay in particular for giving me these opportunities and for guiding me through those weeks.

Huub Schrijver

The Hague 30/04/1998

Most southern African countries are facing times of great change: changes in political and social environments, changes in the natural environment, and changes in the economic environment. Natural resources are still the mainstay of economic development in much of the sub-continent, but Africa's natural resources such as land, water, forests and wildlife are also critical in terms of meeting people's basic needs for food security, health, housing, energy, water and sanitation. The challenge of sustainable development in Africa will be to meet the most urgent needs of the present, to support economic development, and yet to still protect natural resources for the future.

South Africa’s National Water Policy of 1997 is founded on the principles of equitable and sustainable management of water resources, and sets out the Department’s commitment to consultative and participative processes of resource management and decision making. Interaction with stakeholder groups at various levels will be an important part of the work of Department staff, whether at a project or policy level, or in relation to licensing of water uses.

Achieving sustainable management of water resources depends to a large extent on reaching consensus between stakeholder groups who often may have conflicting interests and positions. The ability to manage the process of stakeholder participation for consensus-building, and the use of technical information and decision-making tools in that process, will be necessary skills for many Department staff. There is an urgent need to develop these new skills in the Department, in line with the new Water Policy, and to develop new training materials which are tailored to address the issues which Department staff must deal with in implementation.

The Protection and Assessment Policy Implementation Task Team (PAPITT), led by Dr Henk van Vliet, is currently developing several policy and decision-making tools which will be required to support implementation of the National Water Policy and of the new National Water Bill. Projects already under way include

• protocols for determination of the Reserve for surface waters, groundwater and estuaries;
• design of a water resource classification system;
• development of discharge standards and best management practices;
• development of a license management information system, to support the licensing of water uses.

All of these tools rely on elements of stakeholder consultation and participation. Such consultation is a requirement of the National Water Bill, and successful management of the consultation and participation process is critical to successful implementation of the new policy and legislation.

Capacity building is one of the key pillars of the resource protection policy implementation framework, and the PAPITT is presently planning for the development of capacity building programmes which complement the protection policy. As DWAF moves into full implementation of national water policy, capacity will be required at several levels, including technical, specialist, administrative and management expertise. During March 1998, members of the PAPITT coordinated an initial exercise to assess capacity building requirements specifically in relation to skills for managing consensus-seeking processes and multi-stakeholder groups, as these groups begin to use the new policy tools. The results of that exercise are outlined in this report.

The consensus-building approach to sustainable resource management is being developed and implemented in several countries, but the Netherlands, through their Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM), is most advanced and has the most experience in implementing this approach through their line functions. Through Dr H MacKay of IWQS, the Department has existing links with the Sustainability Challenge Foundation, as does VROM in the Netherlands. As a result of these links, VROM indicated their willingness to collaborate and share their experience in capacity building with DWAF.

Implementation Challenge in VROM is a capacity building programme which trains and supports VROM line function staff to apply the consensus-building approach in managing multi-stakeholder groups at various levels, whether in policy development, project planning, impact assessments or licensing of activities which impact on the environment (see Appendices B1 and B3). Initial discussions indicated the potential for the Implementation Challenge model to be adapted for the South African situation. Hence Mr Huub Schrijver, Director of Interim Management in VROM, visited South Africa in March 1998 to explore the opportunities for collaboration in capacity building.

(a) Assessment of South African water resource management situation

Over a period of 3 weeks in March 1998, Mr Schrijver spent as much time as possible with Department staff in various regional offices and head office directorates, in order to gain an overview of the issues specific to water resource management in this country, and to assess the training needs in relation to managing multi-stakeholder groups. The discussions held during this time form the basis for the recommendations of this report (see Chapters 1, 2 and 3).

(b) Training workshops

Two training workshops were held with Department members and a few selected external specialists during March 1998 (Chapters 4 and 5, Appendices A1 to A4). The training workshops were used to introduce people to a possible training approach for managing multi-stakeholder multi-issue negotiations, to test the effectiveness of that training approach in the South African situation, and then to get feedback and input from participants on:

• their perceptions of training needs within the regions, for skills in managing multi-stakeholder groups, and
• their suggestions as to how to tailor training material to most effectively address training needs and the requirements of implementation of the new water bill.

Feedback (which was generally very positive) indicates that the training approach could potentially be useful in two areas:

• firstly, teaching people how to manage and participate in multi-stakeholder processes, allowing them to practise and become confident with aspects of these processes, and
• secondly, by customising the content of the teaching material, we could focus on one or more specific policy tools and regulatory instruments which require multi-stakeholder participation in one form or another, and which will be implemented in the context of the National Water Bill.

(c) Planning workshop

A planning workshop was held with a small group of Department staff and representatives of possible partner organisations in March 1998 (Appendix D). The purpose of this workshop was to discuss the design of a plan for the development of capacity-building and training programmes not only within DWAF, but also in collaboration with counterpart agencies, such as DEAT and provinces, catchment management agencies as well as major stakeholder groupings.

The outcome of the planning workshop was a commitment by all the parties to collaborate in designing a capacity building programme to support the resource protection policy, which would include training in technical and administrative aspects of policy implementation, within the context provided by the requirements for consensus-building in multi-stakeholder groups.

The position of the Department of Water and Sanitation will change dramatically when the National Water Bill becomes law. DWAF will move from controlling the situation - and being solely responsible for the outcome, for better or for worse - to a situation of managing the multi-stakeholder process - and sharing responsibility with, amongst others, the new catchment agencies (CMAs). If all goes well, DWAF will soon be another participant - be it a special one - in a multi-party situation. The new situation requires new skills for DWAF staff that may not be readily available as yet.

A new situation for DWAF means a new situation for stakeholders in water resource management processes. Sustainable water resource management cannot be achieved without the co-operation and commitment of stakeholders, in partnership with the resource management agencies such as DWAF and CMAs. Any programme to build capacity for sustainable water resource management and implementation of water policy must therefore also be a partnership - the capacity to manage and participate in multi-party, multi-issue processes must be developed simultaneously within all parties.

There is support for a nation-wide comprehensive training and counselling programme for the next 5 years, led by DWAF. It has been suggested DWAF has a special responsibility here, financially and otherwise. The contents of such a programme should be determined in consultation with the stakeholders. This report carries several suggestions. Three fields of attention are identified: skills in managing consensus-building processes, social skills and technical skills.

Special attention should be paid to the role of disadvantaged communities in the policy implementation processes. Involvement of these communities requires extra sensitivity from CMAs and the government because of the extra difficulties concerning economic, social, cultural and language situations. Innovative approaches to communication and education will be needed to ensure a "level table" when the time comes to engage in seeking consensus about goals for water resource management. DWAF must begin to identify these innovations and draw them into consultation and participation processes.

The chances to achieve the policy goals would increase strongly if implementation could be woven into existing processes in South Africa, and if existing structures such as community fora can be used, thereby tapping existing community resources. DWAF and the CMAs may achieve their goals relatively easily if water resource management objectives can be integrated with other regional and spatial planning processes.

Several issues, arising from the recommendations in this report, need to be addressed as part of the protection policy implementation process:

• Design of a coordinated capacity building programme to support implementation of the resource protection policy, in partnership with major stakeholder groups. This programme must address technical capacity requirements related to the protection policy, as well as capacity to participate in or manage multi-stakeholder processes. This has been initiated as a priority project for 1998/99 within the PAPITT Implementation Plan, and will be linked to pilot testing of procedures for classifying resources and determining the Reserve. Further collaboration with VROM, the Sustainability Challenge Foundation, and stakeholders will be actively sought.

• Integration of resource protection measures with other regional and spatial planning processes, such as Integrated Environmental Management and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Initial discussions will be held during 1998 with interested parties to identify potential links and synergies.

For more information, contact

Dr Heather MacKay

Institute for Water Quality Studies

Department of Water and Sanitation

P.Bag X313, Pretoria

0001 South Africa

Tel: +27 - 12 - 8080374

email: eet@dwaf.gov.za

The National Water Bill (NWB) provides for fundamental changes to the law relating to water resources. It regulates the protection, use, development, conservation, management and control of the nation’s water resources. It stresses the principle of sustainability: it provides for the continued availability of sufficient water for basic human and ecological needs ("The Reserve"). It promotes integrated management of water (& land) resources on a catchment basis. Catchment management agencies (CMAs) and other water management institutions will be established, operating under national co-ordination. The NWB is expected to become law in August 1998. I will not summarise the Bill here. I assume most readers will know the NWB, and for others the NWB is available at DWAF’s web site: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/idwaf/index.html.

The NWB is a major departure from present procedures. As from this year emphasis is on regional levels of decision making: catchment agencies will decide on management plans - under national co-ordination. Water in all its appearances is considered a national, public resource: only The Reserve is a (priority) right and all other rights to water must be negotiated under catchment management plans (licences for predetermined periods of time).

The position of many people presently involved in managing the nation’s water resources will change dramatically, and many new people and organisations will get involved. Ideally there is no longer one "High Authority" staffed with experts and engineers laying down the law. The scientists and engineers get into a position where they have to enable decisions by the many stakeholders amalgamated in catchment management agencies (CMAs). In these fora consensus will have to be reached between many parties with a wide variety of interests. To illustrate the point and without trying to be comprehensive, a number of these situations follow below.

One conclusion I may draw here is that at least the initial phase of the new act will draw heavily on the communication skills of all parties involved. Solid process management needs to be provided in order to reach decisions on many crucial matters within a reasonable time frame (2 years?).

Also, many of the issues will reappear in due course. Provisional Reserves have to be replaced by full Reserves. With progressing information, insight and technologies, management plans and allocation permits will need to be reassessed. Therefore, the capacities built should be of a structural nature.

The second conclusion I would like to draw is that no one stakeholding party can do it on its own, not even the powerful DWAF. In my experience, all resources must be called upon to bring about the fundamental changes the NWB calls for and to get the new structure for water resources management on a catchment by catchment basis operative within a reasonable time frame. It is an ambitious task and a formidable one, which in my mind can only be achieved by pooling capacities.

This may sound rather threatening, but I do not intend it that way. Wherever there are threats, there are opportunities. My travels in the country indicated many. There are strong and effective River Fora in existence which already pool resources and have experience with round table consensus decision making. There is this strong urge to move forward with the NWB amongst many parties in spite of the uncertainties, providing a basis for sharing "ownership" of the problems. Sharing "ownership" allows for forceful weapons to be put to use, like joint fact finding, sharing information, sharing responsibility for preliminary studies and for the generation of options.

As stated before, I expect the position of the Department of Water Affairs to change dramatically when the National Water Bill becomes law. It moves from controlling the situation - and being solely responsible for the outcome, for better or for worse - to a situation of managing the multi-stakeholder process - and sharing responsibility with, amongst others, the new catchment agencies (CMAs). The new situation requires skills within the DWAF staff that may be new and may not be readily available as yet; I will discuss this issue in the next chapter.

The new water resources management will only be successful, I think, if human resources capacity is going to be developed not only within the national government, but in all relevant stakeholders and agencies, particularly at the (local &) regional level. For CMAs to be successful and to implement sustainable and participatory water management, investment will have to be made in capacity building in the CMAs and its stakeholders, and particularly in marginalised and disadvantaged groups.

Also investment in capacity building at local and regional levels will be required at a more technical level: all participants in the decision making processes have to be familiar enough with the handling of technical information to enable them to make informed and sound decisions. The presentation of technical and scientific information may be improved - see for instance the successes of the River Health Programme - but one can also improve on the levels of technical knowledge at the receiving end, i.e. the stakeholders.

The Department will have to pass on at least some of its great authority to the new catchment agencies. In my reasoning, that also implies making available the resources necessary for the catchment agencies to actually organise themselves and to exercise their responsibilities. The Bill itself of course provides many tools for catchment agencies to do their jobs. But several aspects have not yet been organised, like information transfer, capacity building and finances for capacity building programmes.

Over the past decades there has been a heavy investment in information gathering resulting in many data about many subjects which are stored in many places around the country. The DWAF’s GIS (Geographical Information System) contains valuable information in accessible form. However, a number of stakeholders mentioned to me difficulties in gaining access to the GIS information. Also, GIS is not (always) linked to information gathered at local or regional level on different bases and there is little reference to other information sources. With the focus shifting to CMAs, I would suggest that these agencies - and their constituent stakeholder organisations and individuals - should get easy access to all information available. This is not only in the interest of other stakeholders, it is also in the interest of DWAF itself: it provides nation-wide reference information on "good" water management, thereby implementing an important part of DWAF’s co-ordinating role.

 I do believe that the CMAs and other stakeholders should get a say in what information is gathered where, i.e. in the management of information programmes, thereby sharing the responsibility for the usefulness and effectiveness of those programmes. It is also the way to make most effective use of available resources.

As part of its overall responsibility and its new co-ordinating role, I would suggest that DWAF has some responsibility for capacity building with the new partners. The least DWAF could do is to ensure that new knowledge in the one catchment gets publicised into other areas in the country. This would require monitoring developments at regular intervals and providing a medium for contact between the groups involved, either doing it self or contracting it out.

DWAF could also encourage capacity building; numerous ways are available. Just to give some examples: it could provide seed money for experimental capacity building programmes, it could make parts of its own capacities available to interested parties (secondments, internships, mentorships, etc.), it could actively develop training or assistance programmes, or it could make money available for others to do the same. I could not possibly suggest which formula to take; I would suggest however that any such programme be developed in co-operation with the future stakeholders as they will be the "clients" of the programmes.

Capacity building has a quantitative and a qualitative aspect. The quantitative aspect of DWAF’s assistance to the new bodies and its stakeholders will only be a temporary one, if I read the NWB correctly. Still, it could be an important one: DWAF now has capacity, expertise and experience in water resources management that should eventually be with the CMAs. It might be worth while to assist the new agencies - if so requested - by secondment of trusted DWAF staff to the agencies for periods of anything like 6 to 24 months. Such secondments would also enable the new agencies to tap into existing networks of knowledge.

Finances often are the fuel to expedite change. In the transition period the CMAs will not yet be fully self-supporting. The NWB will make provisions for the transition period. So far I have not seen any special attention within the NWB for capacity building amongst the future stakeholders. Also DWAF itself will need to train its staff in skills needed in the future. That does not imply that DWAF determines what capacity to build: any such programme should be set up in co-operation with the future stakeholders. Here too, the medium is the message. In the meantime I would suggest some money be set aside for the coming 5 years specifically earmarked for capacity development amongst all stakeholders.

The regional offices are the eyes and ears and mouths of the head office in the regional communities. Under the present legislation they have extensive powers, and they often act as the licensing and prosecuting authorities.

In the new situation the regional offices play a key role too, in spite of the fact that much of DWAF’s authority is to be transferred to the CMAs, etc. During the transition period the regional officers will have to advise and support the Minister and the Director-General on the building of catchment management agencies and the process of delegation of powers. They will subsequently serve as an inspectorate to the new organisations, as it represents the national interest of "good" sustainable water resources management. If all goes well, DWAF will soon be another participant - be it a special one - in a multi-party situation.

This shift in orientation requires certain skills. Up till now, sustainable use has not been a criterion. The overpowering DWAF will be history soon and its relationship with regional stakeholders becomes one of partnership. Also, the focus shifts from water supply to water resources management. In short, the rules of the game change, and the game’s content changes as well.

During my visit, 2 try-out one-day workshops were held with regional staff on the management of multi-stakeholder groups, in Cape Town & Roodeplaatdam (Appendices A1, A2 and A3). The objective was to see if the consensus approach would be a useful instrument for the future situation of the regional offices.

In the evaluations (Appendix A4), participants showed that many of the learning goals were realised: the message came across. In addition to items typical for the consensus approach, participants learned about meetings and negotiations in general: better preparation, caucusing, communication, etc. pays off. Several training needs were identified :

• how to communicate effectively
• how to organise or take part in meetings
• the consensus approach - for all stakeholders
• special needs for DWAF personnel

The latter was related to 2 arguments. DWAF (regional) personnel often act as facilitators and need professional training as such. Moreover, the same people find it difficult to combine the different roles DWAF could play in a certain situation (helper, controller, prosecutor, etc.). Trainings for facilitators/mediators can be provided; I know of at least one experienced British mediation trainer living in Cape Town. But DWAF could also draw on a body of independent facilitators in South Africa, thereby freeing its hands for effective representation of its own interests in the process. I may refer here to DWAF’s use of neutral facilitators in the monitoring committees for hazardous waste sites (with DWAF representatives as members of the committees). That successful model might be followed in the water situation, or both models may combined.

Training in the consensus approach - a clear wish of participants - will have little impact if people feel handicapped in communications and in taking part in meetings. Apparently, within the regional staff there is a need to add social skills to their technical skills. To some degree consensus training can cover these aspects. Also, existing courses on communication can be bought, e.g. the training for Lifeline volunteers on how to communicate with stressed people.

The essence of the consensus approach can be described as follows: you stand a better chance of achieving your own goals if you manage to find a way to accommodate the interests of everybody involved and/or opposed, and if you can change opposition into support for your goals. The try-out results suggest that the participants find the approach applicable and that it would helpful to build capacity in that field.

Consensus training could provide people with insight and train the skills to achieve their own goals in multi-issue multi-party situations. It could also provide participants with a toolkit and checklist for such processes and situations.

Appendix B3 is a checklist used in my organisation which may be usable here (in