Prepared by H MacKay, Institute for Water Quality Studies

This progress report covers work done on the project during the period 1 August - 30 September 1998. A brief overview of current and proposed activities is given, with relevant documentation attached as appendices.

The second and third phases of the project were approved on 31 August 1998. Standard contracts are currently being prepared for the lead consultants.

A project was approved in October 1997 to carry out the first phase of work, namely "Protocols for the Rapid/Preliminary Determination of the Reserve". This work began in November 1997, and ended in July 1998, with the production of discussion documents outlining

• procedures for the preliminary determination of the environmental reserve for rivers
• procedures for the preliminary determination of the reserve for groundwater resources
• policy issues related to determination of the reserve for basic human needs
• a prototype water resource classification system, which addresses the ecological aspects and basic human needs (water quality) aspects of what will later be the full classification system with ecological, basic human needs and water user components.

A six-step generic methodology has been developed, which serves as a model for procedures for determining the reserve in estuaries, wetlands and lakes, and which will also serve as the basis for methodologies for the "full" or comprehensive determination of the Reserve.

During Phase 2, the products developed in Phase 1 will be pilot tested and refined. The primary aim of work in Phase 2 (which will run to April 1999) is to test the procedures which have been developed, and to deliver working prototypes which can be used in implementation of the provisions of the new water bill by April 1999. Key deliverables for April 1999 include manuals for preliminary determination of the reserve, which can be used by DWAF head office and regional office staff, and information material for DWAF, specialist consultants and stakeholders. Secondary deliverables include information material for specialists and stakeholders, starter documents for estuary and wetland reserve determinations, and a strategy for training and capacity building to support implementation of the resource directed measures.

Phase 3 will run from April 1999 to April 2000. This phase will entail

• pilot implementation of the procedures developed I Phase 1 and tested in Phase 2;
• development of procedures for determination of the reserve for estuaries and wetlands; development of procedures for the "full" or comprehensive determination of the reserve;
• development and testing of the full classification system;
• building of capacity within DWAF and amongst specialists and stakeholders to use and participate in the procedures

The detailed work programme for Phase 3 can not yet be set out, since it will depend largely on which catchments or water resources are selected as areas for pilot implementation.

The full project submission is included in Appendix A.

The procedures for determining the Reserve are very closely linked to the classification system and the procedures for determining the class of a water resource. Likewise there is a need for close integration of protocols for classifying and setting the Reserve for rivers, groundwater, estuaries and wetlands, since it is essential to recognise the integrated nature of the hydrological cycle. For this reason, a number of sub-projects have been identified within the overall project to develop resource-directed measures. The links between these sub-projects are critical, and close dovetailing of development and testing is required. This integration is best achieved by designing and managing the development process as an integrated whole, with specialist teams working on each sub-project, but in an integrated way rather than in parallel or independently.

The sub-projects envisaged for the next phases of work are:

1. protocols for preliminary determination of the basic human needs Reserve
2. protocols for preliminary determination of the environmental Reserve for rivers
3. protocols for preliminary determination of the environmental Reserve for estuaries
4. protocols for preliminary determination of the environmental Reserve for wetlands and lakes
5. protocols for preliminary determination of the Reserve for groundwater resources
6. development of a prototype water resource classification system which addresses basic human needs, aquatic ecosystems and water users (agriculture, industry, recreation, domestic supply), and development of procedures for determining the management class of a water resource;
7. development of a strategy for training and capacity building for implementation of resource directed measures
8. a communication programme and material.

In each sub-project, a team of specialists will be responsible for development of methodologies and protocols, but pilot testing will be conducted jointly, with all teams participating in joint exercises to ensure integration.

The "theory of constraints" (TOC) approach, a structured planning methodology, has been used to develop the framework of this project, and will be used in planning the work to be undertaken in each sub-project, down to a task level. This has been necessary because of the many interlinkages and the need for integration between the sub-projects - the TOC approach allows logical planning and breakdown of work within a complex project structure. The first task in each sub-project is to undertake a detailed planning session with a small group to plan out the work programme for the financial year, to the level of identifying tasks, assigning responsibilities to individual specialists, clarifying budget requirements and the timing and nature of links with other sub-projects.

The teams of specialists are drawn from different directorates within the Department as well as from different consultant firms, adding to the complexity of project management. In order to track progress on individual tasks, and to ensure that people working on tasks are (a) aware of their deadlines and deliverables on which subsequent tasks are dependent, and (b) clear about expectations, task briefs will be drawn up and issued for each task which is assigned. The task briefs clearly state who must undertake the task and how they must approach it, a brief work plan or terms of reference, the required start time and end time of the task, and the responsibility for signoff on the task.

The current version of the Gantt chart for this project is attached in Appendix B. The details of scheduling are not yet finalised, since not all of the initial sub-project planning sessions have been completed.

Because of the diverse nature of the specialist work within the overall resource-directed measures project, integration between all the sub-project teams will require careful attention in order to ensure that all the tools and strategies which are developed are consistent. This integration will be achieved in several ways:

1. by regular meetings of a small integration group, with members representing each sub-project team;
2. by holding joint specialist workshops, and by running the pilot studies as integrated exercises involving simultaneous testing of all the tools, in order to check for consistency and correctness of linkages;
3. by regular interactions with other Policy Implementation Task Teams and line functions within DWAF, in order to ensure matching of the policy tools with administrative, legal and management processes.

The initial meeting of the integration team was held on 14 September 1998. Monthly meetings have been scheduled for a year ahead.

A gap which needs to be filled in the short term is ensuring the link between the quantification of the rivers (water quantity) reserve, and the licensing of abstraction, particularly run-of-river abstraction. It will be necessary to discuss this with the relevant PITT in the near future.

A graphic representation of the methodology for determination of the ecological reserve, and the links to licensing and monitoring, is included in Appendix C. The generic 6-step methodology can be applied to rivers, groundwater, estuaries and wetlands, though the detail of each step would vary depending on the kind of water resource being assessed. There are three levels of tools: the planning estimate (desktop only), the preliminary reserve (desktop + limited field assessment) and the comprehensive reserve (extensive field assessment). Each of these follows the generic methodology, with different assessment tools being used in each step, as indicated in the flow charts in Appendix C.

The proposed classification rules for the ecological reserve (water quality) have been developed by the rivers (water quality) team, for toxic substances, system variables and nutrients. The classification uses the South African Water Quality Guidelines for Aquatic Ecosystems as a basis, on the assumption that the Target Water Quality Range as given in the SAWQG represents a level of risk appropriate for "A" class ecosystems. The rules then give procedures for setting instream water quality which represents the levels of risk appropriate to "B', "C" and "D" classes.

A current task is under way to thoroughly test and refine the proposed rules, using data from various catchments in South Africa, and to develop associated procedures for determining reference conditions (especially relevant for system variables) on the basis of available information.

The rivers reserve (water quality) team has been working closely with the project team currently developing revised waste discharge standards, in order to ensure integration between the resource-directed measures for water quality, and source control measures such as end-of-pipe standards.

Work has commenced on the development of the habitat aspects of the rivers classification rules. This aspect deals with protection of the structural and vegetation aspects of instream and riparian habitat, according to the generic risk-based protection classes. Guidelines are being developed for controlling the impact of sand mining o4n instream and riparian habitat, on a resource classification basis, to serve as an example of possible habitat classification rules.

The Directorate: Water Resources Planning held a workshop on 16 September 1998, to brief the consultants who will be gathering information for application of the ecological Planning Estimate in each of the Provincial Water Resources Assessments. The consultants will be responsible for compiling ratings of the ecological importance and sensitivity of each quaternary catchment in each province. This information is then used to assign planning estimates of the annual volume of water which could potentially be required to meet the ecological reserve.

The Planning Estimate methodology (Kleynhans et al, 1998) was developed by a team of DWAF specialists, in response to the need for a rapid, desktop method for assessing ecological water quantity requirements at a macro-planning level.

The ecological importance and sensitivity are ranked according to "default ecological classes" - while these do not in any way take current status of aquatic ecosystems into account (i.e. whether the ecosystem is currently degraded or not), they do give a first indication of catchments which are likely to require higher levels of protection. It is envisaged that the results of this default classification will be synthesised into a map or GIS format, and will provide very useful information towards determining implementation priorities.

The draft report on the protocol for determination of the preliminary groundwater reserve was received in July 1998. Several discussions have been held between the project team and specialists inside and outside DWAF, in order to refine the document. The next draft is due shortly.

The initial planning meeting will be held in Port Elizabeth on 1 October 1998.

Initial planning meetings have been held during September 1998. A group of specialists has been identified, who will be invited to participate in the two-day introductory workshop. The sub-project team is working closely with Mr Geoff Cowan of Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism in identifying appropriate expertise and issues to be addressed. A starter document is being developed by D Weston of IWQS.

The ecological aspect of the classification system and the related rules for setting resource quality objectives, are fairly well developed, and are described in the reserve documentation. The water user aspect is under development at IWQS.

There is a need to develop guidelines for the actual process of determining the class of a water resource, especially with regard to the requirements for stakeholder involvement in such a process. A project will be initiated to develop "Consultation Guidelines for Classification of Water Resources" - this is likely to commence in the first quarter of 1999.

As a precursor to this project, a workshop was held in Cape Town on 21 August 1998, with a group of senior IEM practitioners. The objective of this workshop was to capture learning points from the implementation of IEM, which could contribute to the development of guidelines for stakeholder involvement in classification of water resources. A draft record of proceedings can be found in Appendix E. This draft will be refined following comments received from the participants.

A small pilot test of the rivers and groundwater reserve methodologies will be conducted in the Crocodile River catchment from 2-6 November 1998. The study area is the reach from the Kwena Dam to just downstream of Nelspruit. The programme for the week is included in Appendix D.

The pilot study will be used to test the field procedures, to refine the reserve methodology and to develop reporting and presentation protocols for reserve determination.

The initial sub-project planning meeting was held on 8 September 1998. Heather MacKay, Sandra Fowkes and Dirk Roux participated.

Issues to be addressed include:

• building capacity within DWAF and water resource management institutions to manage studies to classify resources and determine the reserve;
• building specialist expertise within DWAF to carry out such studies, ensuring that specialist consultants also collaborate in developing expertise in this area;
• building capacity within DWAF and water resource management institutions to manage multi-stakeholder processes in which the resource directed measures are applied;
• designing ways to ensure that disadvantaged groups are brought into the long term development and implementation process, through interactions with universities, professional societies and specialist consultants who have note formerly been directly involved in this area;

The key deliverables of this sub-project for the 1998/99 financial year will be:

1. a detailed strategy and long term plan of action for capacity building, which would commence in April 1998;
2. development of technical course material and a structured programme for specialist courses, which will probably utilise the existing national Short Course on Aquatic Biomonitoring as the foundation;
3. setting up of networks, support and mentoring systems for building capacity, with special attention to disadvantaged groups;
4. planning of a national conference on the Reserve, to be held in the 1999/2000 financial year.

A workshop will be held on 9 and 10 November 1998, with the core capacity building team, in order to develop the framework of a strategy for building the capacity to implement resource directed measures. The strategy needs to focus on three main areas: the immediate capacity requirements (day 1); the capacity requirements for the transitional period (3-5 years); the long term capacity requirements for full scale implementation.

The following people will be invited to participate in the workshop of 9 and 10 November: Sandra Fowkes, Dirk Grobler, Delana Louw, Dirk Roux, Heather MacKay, Roger Parsons, Tisha Greyling, Carolyn Palmer, Rebecca Tharme, Mapula Lebone, Mbangiseni Nepfumbada, Eberhard Braune.

An initial planning meeting for the communication strategy was held on 1 September 1998. A detailed terms of reference has been received from the sub-project team leader. The first priority is to produce a non-technical information document which can be widely distributed in the country, outlining the activities which are happening in relation to the development and implementation of resource-directed measures, and describing the approach and methodologies which are emerging. It is envisaged that this would be ready for distribution by late November 1998.

A web page has been established on which all draft and developing documentation related to resource-directed measures can be found. Access is restricted since the documents are still in draft, but interested DWAF members may contact Heather MacKay at IWQS who will provide them with the password and instructions for navigating to the site.

Dr Alex Weaver (facilitator), CSIR

Ms Sandra Fowkes, Metaplan

Dr Heather MacKay, DWAF

Ms Ingrid Coetsee, DEAT

Mr JLJ van der Westhuizen, DWAF

Mr Andrew Duthie, IAIA

Mr Mbangi Nepfumbada, Univ of Pretoria

Dr P Morant, CSIR

Ms Christine Colvin, CSIR

Dr Peter Ashton, CSIR

Ms Karin Ireton, Industrial Environmental Forum

Mr Wynand Fourie, DEAT

Ms Susan Brownlie, SAIECE

• What experience has been gained from implementation of the IEM procedure, which would be useful in implementation of the water resource protection policy ?

• Can we identify possible links between Integrated Environmental Management (IEM), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and water policy implementation processes, in particular classification of water resources and determination of the reserve ?

• How should stakeholder involvement be designed and incorporated into setting water resource management goals such as class, reserve and resource quality objectives, in a way that is most effective, efficient, and ensures that people's values are adequately represented ?

A brief overview of the water resource protection policy was given by H MacKay, on the basis of the discussion paper "Towards a classification system for water resources in South Africa" (MacKay, 1998). After some initial discussion, the group agreed to focus on drawing out general learning points from their own experience of applying the IEM procedures in a multi-stakeholder environment, which could contribute towards development and implementation of the water policy.

The following notes are a record of the main points which emerged from the day's discussion.

2. The role of science in the IEM process

• As a general rule, science supports the process (whether it be IEM or classification), but does not drive the process.

• Specialist scientists are not usually stakeholders in the process: they provide expert input to support decisions. Specialist studies are embedded in a larger process of decision making which is drive by societal values. Scientific input must be balanced with the stakeholder input.

• Allow public scoping and specialist scoping, both occurring early in the process - the specialists, not being stakeholders themselves, may not be able to identify stakeholder values, but they may be able to identify important technical or ecological issues which the I&APs may not pick up in the public scoping phase.

• Communication of scientific information, especially that related to risk and uncertainty, is important - this builds trust in the process if managed properly and begun early. Joint fact-finding should be encouraged.

• Allow iteration and scenario testing - establish communication between specialists and I&APs to support this, do not endeavour to always keep the groups separate. ("Don’t separate science and politics").

• Independent review is important in establishing the credibility and defensibility of the IEM process, and the same goes for classification and reserve determination.

• Suggested review process:
• identify a well-known specialist(s)to review the process
• allow stakeholders to agree on the reviewer (nominate 3 and select 1)
• keep the review of the process open to the public
• review of the scientific/technical studies does not necessarily have to involve the public, though the report must be available if requested.

• The group recommended that a Review Panel at some "higher level" could review the classification of rivers/water resources on a national basis, to ensure a balance is struck between national and local interests.

2. Managing the STAKEHOLDER participation process

• The participation process must:
• be legitimate,
• be robust,
• be efficient,
• be such that credibility is established in the outcome,
• allow the building of long-term relationships amongst key players in order to deal with problems/issues arising later.

• There must be clear policy guidance and principles established for the consultation/participation process.

• Learn by doing - establish structures that allow feedback and learning from various studies. Debrief participants at the end of each process to consolidate learning for the future.

• Identify the different DWAF roles which could be relevant, and develop processes/principles to deal with the different situations. E.g. DWAF as:
• Developer
• Protector
• Facilitator
• Extension service

• One human being shouldn't act in several DWAF roles in a single process/study - DWAF may require several representatives in the process to cover the different roles.

• Define the roles of all players very clearly in the beginning, and maintain clarity during the process, though accepting that the roles may change over time.

• It costs to get people involved. Budget adequately for this in classification studies.

• Some people/organisations/groups who will be stakeholders in the classification process may already be involved in other spatial planning processes: can this involvement in multiple processes be streamlined, possibly on a regional /provincial basis ?

• Participation in the process requires commitment - participants must understand the requirements and make the commitment.

• Stakeholders are frequently not able to make decisions on strategic issues. Either
• don't expect them to make decisions way beyond their interest and/or expertise, or
• provide education and training to allow them to participate meaningfully at a strategic level.

• Set up databases of I&APs for quick and easy access when required.

• "Stratify" the selection of I&APs - select different groups for different aspects or levels of the process, as appropriate.

• Clear rules must be agreed for closure of the process. When it's over, it's over - if stakeholders miss deadlines for comments, input etc, that should not require re-opening of the whole process. Map out the process very clearly, establishing milestones and time frames.

• There was significant voluntary adoption of IEM because the clear procedural guidelines gave users and stakeholders a "predictable" route through the process.

2. Balancing protection and utilisation

• Once the boundaries for protection have been set, as represented by the class, reserve and resource quality objectives, allow the generation and testing of multiple options/alternatives for economic development which achieve utilisation objectives but still ensure protection.

• A common currency is needed for the value of the resource, and this is not likely to be solely an economic-based currency.

• Provide a stable planning framework - this is most important. If it is known in good time that no water is or will be available, developers can look for other options. This encourages searching for the creative options which can balance protection with utilisation.

2. Follow-through on the process

• Ensure that post-impact monitoring, feedback and review happen. This is the only way to improve confidence in predictions and determinations, and to ensure irreversible damage is prevented as far as possible. A process that allows for the checking of underlying assumptions will be powerful and robust.

• Auditing of implementation and/or commissioning of developments must be undertaken, as a check and for learning purposes. (This was one of the disappointments of IEM, and many valuable opportunities for learning and improvement of understanding have been lost.) Poor enforcement of the decisions of a stakeholder process undermines confidence and participation in future processes.

• For reserve determinations and setting of resource quality objectives, the process should be cyclical, with monitoring and review as critical steps in the cycle.

2. Additional issues raised

• How does water resource classification relate to spatial planning objectives ?
• Establish clearly the routes and structure for decision making, including civil society and all 3 spheres of government.
• Establish minimum requirements/criteria for decision-making regarding impacts.
• Place equal emphasis on process and product.
• Stakeholders' role in decision-making includes information (2-way transfer), advisory, sharing in the decision.
• Establishing the significance or importance of the resource at a very early stage.
• An agreed basis must be established for deciding what future impacts are acceptable/unacceptable.
• At some stage, a decision must be taken and it cannot necessarily please everyone - politicians are paid to make these decisions.
• Authorities are ill-equipped to play the role of conciliator and mediator (in addition to their own stakeholder roles in the process).
• IEM did not "enable" ways of interactively negotiating differences - rather it tended to polarise people in hard positions. Learn from this in developing classification guidelines.
• Sometimes the potential numbers of I&APs may be huge - how to effectively bring their values into the process through adequate representation ?

2. What have we learned from today's discussion ?

• We have the ability to "do" or develop the scientific and technical aspects of water resource protection, but integrating them into the larger "social" process is a huge challenge.

• Hindsight is alive and well and should be used as an important way of learning and improving our processes and understanding.

• It is important to build on our strong existing technical foundation.

• Nothing will be achieved without trust - in the process, in the people.

• There is a considerable body of expertise and experience available, which can contribute to water policy implementation.

• The discussion of the experiences arising from the ongoing Mhlatuze project was very valuable in helping us to understand the procedures set out in the Water Act.

• Allow time for learning and testing of processes and principles before constraining them too strictly in regulation.

2. Recommendations arising from the workshop

• Consider a well-publicised launch of the classification system and procedures, as IEM was launched - with roadshows and popular booklets/cartoons/etc.

• IAIA (SA) can form a regional vehicle for explaining the principles and policy implementation process to professional groups.

• Investigate possible joint information/education exercises with SAIE and SAICE.

• Consider linking the IAIA 1999 conference with a 3-day national conference on classification and the reserve.

• Investigate an alliance with the Water Research Commission to support further development and testing of these ideas.

• Establish a national reference group, such as met today, which can meet regularly to discuss water policy implementation issues and development of water policy tools, and which can allow people to contribute from their experience and expertise in related fields.

• This group would be interested in further involvement in drawing up a "primer" - the first set of guidelines for the classification process.
  • Organise a 3-4 day workshop to focus on developing these guidelines. Possibly in the first quarter of 1999.

• Debrief the Mhlatuze ecological reserve study (currently under way) and the Crocodile River pilot study (November 1998). Capture the learning points from these two as input to the workshop on developing the guidelines. Participants in the Mhlatuze study, including DWAF, consultants and key stakeholders, should be asked to keep a diary of the process, noting their impressions and feelings about events during the process.

• Include Tisha Greyling and Solly Manyaka in any further work, since they have much valuable experience.