Working for Water-South Afrca

Working for Water in South Africa

Following from my last blog, I intend to provide an example that supports my view of the importance of Ecosystem Services in supporting sustainable utilisation of water and of development. The Working for Water (WfW) programme is pertinent for this, as it intersects all issues discussed in my previous blog, directly influencing development, achieving biodiversity conservation and improving catchments provision of water (DEA-SA, 2015). Thus its success illustrates the strengths of ES, its underlying logics, and ability to deal with issues aforementioned critics outline regarding views of nature as a resource.

WfW is a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programme that is a government funded poverty relief program in South Africa, that also contributes to the control of invasive plant species in waterways. It functions through charging landowners or catchment management agencies for removing invasive species from their waterways. The scheme is positioned foremost as a poverty alleviation scheme, with the PES provided not by landowners maintain specific habitats or resource as in most schemes, but from previously unemployed ‘roving service providers’ maintaining waterways (Turpie, et al., 2008).

However this poverty alleviation is only one portion of the schemes impact. Water scarcity is chronic in SA under Falkenmarks index, at only 500-1000 m³ per person per year, and is exaggerated by competing industrial demands for water and land usage. This has many similarities to my previous discussion on wetlands, with upland grasslands slowly releasing summer rainfall helping to even seasonal flow. This is threatened by overuse, grazing and afforestation, all of which interrupts flows.

Inter-linked to this are threats to biodiversity. This stems not only from damage and loss of the wetlands, but also invasive species. These threaten water supply through increasing interception levels, subsequently reducing the volume of water available for use.  This is a seriously problem in SA, affecting estimated 10 million hectares (Le Maitre, et al., 2000), using up to 3,300 million m³ of water per year, of which 695 million m³ usable, with potential to reach 2,720 million m³, which equate to 4% and 16% of total water use respectively (Cullis, et al., 2007). In development and scarcity context described above, integral to deal with and protect the water supply.

Thus the scheme has a threefold impact of ‘economic empowerment, social equity and ecological integrity’ (Turpie, et al., 2008), as the scheme helps in:

·         alleviating poverty through providing work and education

·         improving ecological integrity and biodiversity conservation by removing invasive species

·         Increasing water availability by reducing evapo-transpiration and interception in waterways

Under WfW the ES are paid for through a combination of mandatory and voluntary payment. Department for Water and Forestry adding tariff to water prices to cover cost of removal, calculated from estimates of use, affordability and equity. However doesn’t distinguish between rich/poor in price, but does have a steeped pricing system, increasing cost per m³ over certain thresholds. Currently used in 13 of 19 water maintenance areas, across which all users other than agricultural and forestry pay, leading to income ranging from R23-48 million per annum. Alongside this are some voluntary payments where municipalities use WfW to help alleviate shortages. Such as in Hermanus in Western Cape, where growing demand and invasive species required attention. Paid 5 million rand for 3387 Ha to be cleared from 1996-2001, providing 91 man-years of employment and saving 1.1-1.6 million m³ annually (Cullis, et al., 2007). Range of similar examples across South Africa, but particularly in Western Cape and Drakensberg areas. Even used in tandem with engineering projects, such as the Berg River Dam, with annual gains of 2 million m³ at cost of R11.6 million (Turpie, et al., 2008).

Scheme incredibly successful, with all sectors able to participate, and growing demand. Allows conservation across range of public and private land, rather than restraining it to private/community areas such as Protected Areas and Parks. Thus called ‘one of the most successful integrated land management programmes, impacting biodiversity, water and socio-economic development’ (Woodworth, 2006). Even described as ‘holistic and inspirational’ (Hobbs, 2004), in total having cleared 1 million Ha of invasive plants, increasing streamflow by estimated 46 million m3 per annum (Marais and Warrenburgh, 2007). However, perhaps more important is the ideological success of being able to pair this protection of environment and biodiversity with poverty alleviation, creating 24,000 jobs, 52% of which women in 2000 (DEA-SA, 2015).

Due to this success, PES seen as useful for achieving wider conservation initiatives, such as restoration, grazing rights, determining land-use amongst a wide range of applications. Turpie et al see a possibility for ‘umbrella rationale’, bringing range of service under WfW model for other resource management with concurrent poverty alleviation and biodiversity management. However, has to be context specific, where different benefits correlate, and cost of addressing these cover one another. The authors recognise this is easily achievable with water, but need further research as to whether this is applicable elsewhere. Need to recognise that ES has to be context specific, but in terms of Water and Development in Africa, very applicable, and the ‘Umbrella Rationale’ means it can also protect bio-diversity.

From this case study, I think it is obvious that under the right circumstances ecosystem service concepts can play a key role in conservation, as well as for development. In the case of water in South Africa it has been incredibly successful, and although the institutional context there was helpful there seems to be little reason why it couldn’t be expanded across Africa. However, it is harder to determine how successful such expansion could be beyond the resource of water, due to the close connection between water, development and ecology. Nonetheless, WfW provides a key example showing that incorporating nature into the ‘machinations of capitalism’ can be extremely successful in protecting diversity whilst achieving development, and the usefulness of ecological modernisation discourse.