Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (20) (remove)
Language
- English (20) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (20)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (20)
Keywords
- transdisciplinarity (2)
- CuveWaters (1)
- IPBES (1)
- IWRM (1)
- Mali (1)
- Namibia (1)
- Senegal (1)
- bank sanctions (1)
- banking regulation (1)
- banking supervision (1)
Institute
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (20) (remove)
Namibia is known to be the most arid country south of the Sahara. Average annual rainfall is not only relatively low in most parts of the country, it is also highly variable. Only 8 per cent of the country receives enough rain during a normal rainy season to practice rainfed cultivation. At the same time between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the population depend on subsistence agro-pastoralism in non-freehold or communal areas. Against the background of rising unemployment, the livelihoods of the majority of these people are likely to depend on natural resources in the foreseeable future.
Natural resources generally are under considerable strain. As the rural population increases, so is the demand for natural resources, land and water specifically. Dependency on subsistence farming which is the result of large scale rural poverty exacerbates the problem. Large parts of the country are stocked injudiciously, resulting in overgrazing and water is frequently overabstracted, leading to declining water tables (MET 2005: 2).
Unequal access to both land and water has prompted government to introduce reforms in these sectors. These reforms were guided by the desire to manage resources more sustainably while providing more equal access to them. In terms of NDP 2, sustainability means to use natural resources in such a way so as not to ‘compromise the ability of future generations to make use of these resources’ (NDP 2: 595).
Immediately after Independence government started reform processes in the land and water sectors. However, these reforms have happened at different paces and largely independent of each other. Increasingly policy makers and development practitioners realised that land and water management needed to be integrated, as decisions about land management and land use options had a direct impact on water resources. Conversely the availability of water sets the parameters for what is possible in terms of agricultural production and other land uses. The north-central regions face a particular challenge in this regard as the region carries more livestock than it can sustain in the long run. At the same time, close to half the households do not own any livestock. Access to livestock by these households would improve their abilities to cultivate their land more efficiently in order to feed themselves and thus reduce poverty levels.
But livestock are a major consumer of water. In 2000 livestock was consuming more water than the domestic sector. The figures were 77Mm3/a and 67Mm3/a respectively (Urban et al. 2003 Annex 7: 2). This situation has prompted a Project Progress Report on the Namibia Water Resources Management Review in 2003 to conclude that Given the extreme water scarcity in most parts of the country, land and water issues are closely linked. It therefore seems indispensable to mutually adjust land – and water sector reform processes (Ibid: 20).
This paper will briefly look at four institutions that are central to land and water management with a view to assess the extent to which they interact. These are Communal Land Boards, Water Point Committees, Traditional Authorities and Regional Councils. A discussion of relevant policy documents and legislative instruments will investigate whether the existing policy framework
provides for an integrated approach or not. Before doing this, it appears sensible to briefly situate these four institutions in the wider maze of institutions operating at regional and
sub-regional level. All these institutions – important as they are in the quest to improve participation at the regional and sub-regional level – are competing for time and input fros mallscale farmers.
Despite various policy and management responses, biodiversity continues to decline worldwide. We must redouble our efforts to halt biodiversity loss. The current lack of policy action can be partly linked to an insufficient knowledge base regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity research needs to incorporate both social and ecological factors to gain a deeper understanding of the interrelations between society and nature that affect biodiversity. A transdisciplinary research approach is crucial to fulfilling these requirements. It aims to produce new insights by integrating scientific and nonscientific knowledge. Several measures need to be taken to strengthen transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research: Within the science community: firstly, scientists themselves must promote transdisciplinarity; secondly, the reward system for scientists must be brought into line with transdisciplinary research processes; and thirdly, academic training needs to advocate transdisciplinarity. As for research policies, research funding priorities need to be linked to large scale biodiversity policy frameworks, and funding for transdisciplinary social-ecological research on biodiversity must be increased significantly.
Rain- and floodwater harvesting (RFWH) technologies and water reuse are ideal and generalpurpose technologies to improve water security and to contribute to climate adaptation – in particular for semi-arid regions. These technologies are part of a multi-resources mix within an integrated water resources management (IWRM). They create capacities to buffer water fluctuations and alleviate water scarcity. In this way, they reduce the pressure on existing resources, and can stimulate local economies. However, in order to be sustainable, these technologies need to be adapted to the local context – through suitable design, adapted operation requirements, and a back-up by training users and operators accordingly.
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.