Working for Water

Use of evidence in developing a South African Government Programme

Nicky Allsopp&

Frank Matose

WfW(Working for Water)

To remove invasive alien plants from water catchments and riparian zones

3 Objectives

• Ensure optimal water delivery

• Conserve biodiversity

• Promote social cohesion

History

• Catchment monitoring programmes• NGOs: small scale clearing trials• Research on control mechanisms and impacts• 1994 democracy• 1995 Dept. Water Affairs & Forestry develops

WfW programme to address three objectives• Continued funding on basis of Extended Public

Works Programme

How was the decision made?

• Advisor inspires Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry– Is there evidence behind the inspiration?– Does evidence continue to feed the

programme?

National level decision making

Regional managers Local Stakeholder groups

Stakeholder groups

Implementers•Conservation agencies•Municipalities•NGOs/Private

Workgroups

Structure for planning, revision and implementation of the programme

National and regional decision makers n=15

• Qualifications• What do they use to make decisions?

Qualifications• PhD or MSc 7• Four year degree 4 (2 studying towards MSc)

• National Diploma 2• Secondary education 2• Nature conservation, entymology, water resource

management, environmental science, civil engineering, development studies, ecology, agriculture, business management

Twelve read scientific articles with ease, and nine read them frequently

Decision making• Deputy Director: coordinates and disseminates

research• A working group derived from more than one

organization: 12 always or usually use this for decision making

• Diverse sources of information investigated• Although high scientific article readership, less

often used in decision making• Ten >50 % evidence based• Five >50 % experience based

Sources of information for decision support

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

always usually sometimes never

Stakeholders

• Who are they?– Two groupings

The antagonists:

•Forestry

•Beekeepers

•Farmers and unions

The cooperators

•The precursors e.g. Botanical Society

•The collaborators e.g. WWF

•The adopters e.g. LandCare

The stakeholders n=6

• Higher Diploma 1, 3 year degree 2, MSc 3 • Are they consulted:

– Not consulted: 3– Sometimes: 2– High level of interaction: 1

• No research: 3, Do research: 3• All read scientific articles with range of

ease and frequency

Example of partnerships for research

Players:• WfW• NGO• Business• University

Kouga Riparian Rehabilitation Project: Best Management Practices

Rhodes Restoration Research Group: R3GDepartment of Environmental Science

Rhodes University

WWF-SA Freshwater Programme Keystone Initiative

Social development of the WfW programme

Extended Public Works programme• Work for two years max.

– General training– Specialised capacity (overseers, small

business management, specialist services)• Aimed at forming private clearing teams

• Value adding: secondary industries

Summary of social evaluation

• Integration of social development into WfW linked to set targets though limited in scope

• Poverty reduction – although targets set for the programme are met across many projects limited by duration of two years and no subsequent follow-ups

• Gender issues- need to target women for contractors and to mainstream gender into all facets of the programme –limitations in scope

Conclusions

• Strong evidence approach supports the water provision and biodiversity conservation objectives

• However, management not necessarily supported by scientific research

• Questions still out on evidence for social cohesion

A moment in history when such idealistic policy was possible?

Thank youand thanks to:Pierre CorroyerWfWWWF