No abstract

The South African water resource management institutional landscape has seen some dramatic changes since the new dispensation came into power in 1994. Not only have legislation and policies changed, but there has also been a significant increase in the number of non-state actors in the policy development process. Water resource governance has therefore become more complex and its regulatory component is being implemented by a number of legislative institutions: catchment management agencies, water user associations, irrigation boards, and international water management bodies. Policy development is influenced by a myriad of non-state actors, scientists included. A comprehensive literature review of research on water resource management institutions published between 1997 and 2011 shows that scientists are focusing predominantly on catchment management agencies and aspects regarding their institutionalisation and organisational functionality. There is much less of a focus on other entities, such as advisory committees, international water management bodies, irrigation boards, the water tribunal and water user associations. What the review has also revealed is that research on water resource management institutions has been conducted predominantly by scientists from the natural sciences. There is therefore an evident need for a research focus on water resource management institutions other than catchment management agencies. In addition, there should be a focus on informal aspects of water resource governance and new theoretical developments, also from disciplines other than the natural sciences, in the fields of water resource governance and politics.

No abstract

ABSTRACT. We reflect on the politics of establishing catchment management agencies in South Africa with a specific focus on the Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency (BOCMA), which was recently replaced by the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA). We do so by applying the framework of adaptive comanagement and its institutional prescriptions: collaboration, experimentation, and a bioregional approach. We start by introducing the history of this catchment management agency (CMA) and then describe the establishment of CMAs in South Africa in general and that of BOCMA in particular. We follow the framework for rule types and types of river basin organizations set out by the editors of this special feature with reference to adaptive comanagement where applicable. We then discuss the politics and strategies involved in the introduction of the CMA concept to the National Water Act and the latest developments around these institutions in South Africa. This is followed by reflections on what can be surmised about BOCMA's democratic functioning and performance to date. We conclude by reflecting on the future of operations of the new BGCMA and CMAs in South Africa in general. While our research shows that BOCMA's establishment process has featured several elements of adaptive comanagement and its institutional prescriptions, it remains to be seen to what extent it is possible to continue implementing this concept when further developing and operationalizing the BGCMA and the country's other CMAs.

The hydrosocial contract theory, as a new theory in water discourse, should be investigated. The theory postulates that a number of transitions occur in society concerning the development of water resources and that these transitions can lead to a number of social instabilities. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) is a manifestation of the hydrosocial contract in that it was developed during transitions, not only with respect to water resources development but also along international political faultlines. These faultlines were, at times, the most influencing variables that impacted on the implementation of the LHWP.

No abstract

In this paper I argue that the dominance of certain paradigms and theories on policies can have an influence on the value added by impact assessments. A link exists between paradigms and theories and policies and consequently the practices humans develop to tackle real world problems. I also argue that different types of thinking (contained in paradigms and theories) need to be integrated, at least at the scientific level, to enhance our understanding of social phenomena. This in turn can have a positive influence on policy processes that follow impact assessment recommendations. I am not arguing for the adoption of theoretical positions by practitioners, Instead, I contend that if impact assessments are informed by a variety of paradigms and theories, the policy practitioner might have a better understanding of the issue and the moral choices he or she needs to make. I will highlight the connection between theory and policies with practical examples from the social impact assessment of the De Hoop Dam, which was constructed on the Steelpoort River. I also argue for an integration of different theories to give a deeper understanding of real world problems.

No abstract