Problematising and conceptualising local participation in transboundary water resources management: The case of Limpopo river basin in Zimbabwe

Fatch, Joanna; Manzungu, Emmanuel; Mabiza, Collin

doi:10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.031

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the agency which the overconcentration on IWRM structure fails to capture. Catchment councils such as Mzingwane have managed to maintain operations, with support from the University of Zimbabwe to perform the basic requirements under the water reform (Chikozho, 2008;Fatch et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water reform in Zimbabwe and elsewhere is not simply a technical process, but is linked to issues of power, political connectedness and gender, with fewer women benefiting from the largely violent fast-track land reform process (Fatch et al, 2010;Mapedza and Geheb, 2010). Bureaucratic water reform makes sense on paper, but in practice it can generate unequal impacts between rich and poor households.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 depicts the governance structure resulting from the water reform. Fatch et al (2010) and Manzungu (1999) argue that water governance on the ground hardly follows the water governance organograms. The decentralised units of water governance were the villages, which would link with the water user association/board which comprised a number of villages coming together to form a ward.…”

Section: Water Governance Structure In Zimbabwementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Decentralised water governance in Zimbabwe: Disorder within order

Mapedza

Manzungu

Rosen

et al. 2016

Water Resources and Rural Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water Governance Structure In Zimbabwementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decentralised water governance in Zimbabwe: Disorder within order

Mapedza

Manzungu

Rosen

et al. 2016

Water Resources and Rural Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Water Act of 1998 was also enacted with the view of promoting decentralized water management in Zimbabwe. Embedded in the Integrated Water Resources Management discourse which is also captured by the Water Act is the notion of broad based user participation-including previously disadvantaged communal and smallscale, predominantly African farmers (Gumbo, 2006;Fatch et al, 2010). Governments in some countries for example Tanzania and South Africa have also gone a step further in decentralizing irrigation management by promoting farmer managed irrigation schemes so as to ensure effective management of community based land and water resources (van Koppen et al, 2004;Mudau, 2010).…”

Section: Decentralizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralising Zimbabwe’s water management: The case of Guyu-Chelesa irrigation scheme

Tambudzai

Mapedza

Zhou

2013

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSmallholder irrigation schemes are largely supply driven such that they exclude the beneficiaries on the management decisions and the choice of the irrigation schemes that would best suit their local needs. It is against this background that the decentralisation framework and the Dublin Principles on Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) emphasise the need for a participatory approach to water management. The Zimbabwean government has gone a step further in decentralising the management of irrigation schemes, that is promoting farmer managed irrigation schemes so as to ensure effective management of scarce community based land and water resources. The study set to investigate the way in which the Guyu-Chelesa irrigation scheme is managed with specific emphasis on the role of the Irrigation Management Committee (IMC), the level of accountability and the powers devolved to the IMC. Merrey's 2008 critique of IWRM also informs this study which views irrigation as going beyond infrastructure by looking at how institutions and decision making processes play out at various levels including at the irrigation scheme level. The study was positioned on the hypothesis that 'decentralised or autonomous irrigation management enhances the sustainability and effectiveness of irrigation schemes'. To validate or falsify the stated hypothesis, data was gathered using desk research in the form of reviewing articles, documents from within the scheme and field research in the form of questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews and field observation. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences was used to analyse data quantitatively, whilst content analysis was utilised to analyse qualitative data whereby data was analysed thematically. Comparative analysis was carried out as Guyu-Chelesa irrigation scheme was compared with other smallholder irrigation scheme's experiences within Zimbabwe and the Sub Saharan African region at large. The findings were that whilst the scheme is a model of a decentralised entity whose importance lies at improving food security and employment creation within the community, it falls short in representing a downwardly accountable decentralised irrigation scheme. The scheme is faced with various challenges which include its operation which is below capacity utilisation, absence of specialised technical human personnel to address infrastructural breakdowns, uneven distribution of water pressure, incapacitated Irrigation Management Committee (IMC), absence of a locally legitimate constitution, compromised beneficiary participation and unclear lines of communication between various institutions involved in water management. Understanding decentralization is important since one of the key tenets of IWRM is stakeholder participation which the decentralization framework interrogates.

show abstract

“…But the question must be asked whether participation is a bad idea, that even if faithfully applied, will yield bad results, or it is a good idea that has been badly implemented? As argued by Fatch et al (2010), from a purely altruistic standpoint, even the most ardent critic of participation cannot argue that there is no benefit at all in people participating in water projects that are meant to benefit them. It would appear then that the issue is about how participation can better be improved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Forms of Social Action in Urban Domestic Water Supply in South Africa and Zimbabwe

Manzungu¹,

Jonker²,

Madaka³

et al. 2013

JSD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares and contrasts emerging forms of social action in urban domestic water supply in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Both countries represent transitional societies that are facing challenges of providing clean and safe domestic water to the black majority population, which for decades was denied basic social services because of a racist ideology. In the first instance the paper assesses whether there exists a constitutional provision that guarantees the right to water. It then turns to how that is enforced, and what happens in its absence. Lastly the paper examines whether the various interventions lead to improved access to safe water. In South Africa an awareness of the constitutional right to water backed by a supportive legislative framework, which engendered a strong sense of entitlement, caused residents to resort to the courts and direct action such as street protests. Similar initiatives were also observed in Zimbabwe. However, the absence of a conducive legal environment, and disenchantment with the state as a provider of social services, led residents to resort to self reliance in order to access water. In both countries social action was not organic -it tended to be championed if not sponsored either by civil society or party political actors. There was no evidence of improved access to safe water as a consequence of social action. The paper concludes that social action in the urban domestic water supply faces the common challenges of social mobilization in particular and social movements in general.

show abstract

Problematising and conceptualising local participation in transboundary water resources management: The case of Limpopo river basin in Zimbabwe

Cited by 21 publications

References 15 publications

Decentralised water governance in Zimbabwe: Disorder within order

Decentralised water governance in Zimbabwe: Disorder within order

Decentralising Zimbabwe’s water management: The case of Guyu-Chelesa irrigation scheme

Emerging Forms of Social Action in Urban Domestic Water Supply in South Africa and Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About