working for water use of evidence in developing a south african government programme nicky allsopp...
DESCRIPTION
3 Objectives Ensure optimal water delivery Conserve biodiversity Promote social cohesionTRANSCRIPT
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