AWARD:

10 years on

Reflections on Ten Years of

Transformation:
1993 - 2003

By Tessa Cousins, Sharon Pollard & Derick du Toit

 List of Acronyms

AWARD Association for Water and Rural Development

BDC Bohlabela District Council
BBR Bushbuckridge
DWAF Department of Water Affairs & Forestry
IDP Integrated Development Plan (Local Government)
IDT Independent Development Trust
NWA National Water Act (1998)
NWRS National Water Resources Strategy
PACAM Public Awareness Campaign of the Save the Sand Programme
PHAST Participatory Health & Sanitation Training
SSP Save the Sand Programme
TLC Transitional Local Council
WIP Water Information Programme
WRF Wits Rural Facility
WSA Water Services Act (1997)
WSDP Water Services Development Plan (Local Government)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Brian Yule of the CHLF for his inspiration and support in
capturing this history of AWARD. It has been an important process that has
forced us (willingly, despite time constraints!) to think about and analyse our
past as a benchmark for moving forward. So often we mean to do this but then
push it aside as other priorities arise. Fortunately, Brian saw this as an
immediate priority. Likewise, we would like to thank the CHLF on behalf of all
staff for all its support over the past ten years. We hope this document captures
how meaningful that support has been.

1
Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
AWARD’s genesis and the AWARD of today ............................................................... 3
Challenges that have shaped AWARD ............................................................................... 5
Bushbuckridge as a complex environment .................................................................. 5
Institutional change and changing frameworks ............................................................ 5
Areas of Significant Contribution ....................................................................................... 8
Understanding water as a resource and not as a ‘service’ ........................................... 8
Integrating social and institutional development with the technical aspects of a project
.................................................................................................................................. 12
Giving depth to meaning of participation .................................................................... 14
Deepening participatory planning through the WaLPP............................................... 16
Piloting and testing components of new policies ........................................................ 16
Securing the upper catchment: the proclamation of the Sand-Blyde National Park .... 17
Partnerships ....................................................................................................................... 18
The Future ......................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix One: Summary of projects undertaken by award ............................................. 21
Appendix Two: Publications and Reports ........................................................................ 24
Appendix Three: People: Staff, Board, Advisors ............................................................. 29

2
 Introduction

The past ten years has seen the emergence and development of what is now the
Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD). This has taken place during a
particularly significant time in South Africa’s history, for 1993 to 2003 has been a time of
immense political change that marked South Africa’s transition to democracy. This
period has been characterised by a major upheaval in all of the governing frameworks –
from the constitution to the various policies that underscored the country’s commitment
to a new, free and fair country.

These changes have moulded the AWARD we see today. In taking up the new
challenges, the organisation has interacted with this context and influenced the evolving
landscape (see Table 1). It is this interaction we explore in the following narrative – how
South Africa’s transforming socio-political landscape influenced the evolution of AWARD
and how AWARD in turn contributed and responded to these changes. This document
does not attempt to be a detailed history or evaluation. Rather we reflect on some key
areas to give a broad but meaningful analysis of the rather unique partnership between
the Claude Harris Leon Foundation and AWARD.

AWARD’s genesis and the AWARD of today

A combination of interests led to the genesis of AWARD1. Born from a vision of a multi-
disciplinary rural facility for Wits University, Wits Rural Facility (WRF) was established in
1989. It sought to offer research and education that would be more complete and
relevant to responding to the problems of rural development. Given the changing
context in South Africa, the CHLF explored new directions for its support in 1992. It
sought inputs from experts, including those at WRF, commissioned a number of papers
and held numerous discussions. This led finally to the support of WRF’s Water
Information Project (WIP). In mid-1993 a series of village water projects, managed by
Bruce Corbett were also approved. From that point on, AWARD has been shaped by a
suite of intriguing factors: the vision of CHLF, the context in which it evolved, the severe
drought of 1992, the complement of staff who brought different ideas to the table that
required integration – from engineering through to social and environmental issues –
and undeniably, the transition to democracy. By 1996, a programme that integrated the
village projects with the WIP efforts at WRF was launched, and in 1998 an independent
Section 21 Company was established as AWARD.

1
For simplicity we shall refer to AWARD throughout this piece although, as indicated, it has been
through various name changes.

3
 Table 2. AWARD at a glance

Key national PHASE FOR INTERNAL GROWTH EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTIONS OF AWARD
events AWARD
 WRF and CHLF collaborate and • Very bad drought – leading to joint ✓ Recognising importance & inaccessibility of
1992 – 1994
Move to democracy

ideas become projects. discussions and action across political information on water.
 Connection sought between two divides for the first time. ✓ Need for information for local empowerment &
Start-up and set-up: separate initiatives: Water • New ways of working being developed action.
Taking shape and Information Project and Village – ideas of local control of funds and ✓ Need to undertake both village water supply
forming an identity Water Projects projects, and empowerment. projects while also working at the level of
information and understanding.
 1996 - one programme established. • New democratic government. – high ✓ Highlighting importance of facilitating
 Programme Manager appointed with levels of activity on new policy community participation & organisation building
1st democratic elections.
GNU, RDP policies &
legislative overhaul

1994 -1996 strong CHLF involvement. Start creation. for operation, maintenance and development.
working in focus area, and around • Water is regarded as a national asset ✓ Development of clear facilitated approach to
catchment processes. and can no longer be privately owned. water supply projects
Integrating internally ✓ Catchment focus important as water resource
and defining boundaries base
Transitional local government

 1998 – AWARD established as a • Water Services Act 1997. ✓ Save the Sand feasibility study pilots Integrated
Section 21. • Municipal Structures Act 1998. Water Resource Management.
1997 – 1998  Adopts NGO ethic rather than • National Water Act 1998. “Some for all ✓ Demonstrating and promoting participatory
Legislation finalised

academic. forever.” Catchment approach to approaches in the water sector.

 3 units: environmental, community, water. ✓ Retail Water Project focuses attention on
Shift in identity:
institutional. • Institutional transition & ambiguity. capacitating local government.
Separation and  The challenge is the integration • Local gvt transitional but recognised as
autonomy between the units. critical for future water provision.
 Takes on SSP feasibility study and • 1997- border dispute resolved
PHAST

 Strong component development: • Getting to grips with implementing the ✓ Economic understanding of water in rural
Save the Sand, Retail Water, Village Water Act. livelihoods.
2nd elections – ANC led government

water projects & PHAST. • 2000 – TLC replaced by district & local ✓ SSP – Awareness raising explored, a meaningful
1999 – 2002  Internal integration remains a government approach articulated
challenge, as does the leadership. • Local govt more confident to assert ✓ 5 village projects started
Diverse external pressures, their role, though still lacking capacity ✓ SSP Land Care- Focuses action on poor forestry
Consolidating identity changing external institutional • Decentralisation, devolution. practices, pilot rehabilitation of area around
and role in a time of environment. • Free basic water. Zoeknog, Mamelodi erosion control
Local government

institutional change  Warning of core funding ending. ✓ SSP Rainwater Harvesting wins Green Trust
award

2003  Internal coherence - piloting ▪ Institutional arrangements coming into ✓ Putting into practice meaningful awareness
through doing, reflecting, partnering place for water. raising
and disseminating. ▪ Unemployment, poverty and HIV/AIDs ✓ Piloting a livelihoods approach to water
Getting on with it –  Project based funding – moving on the increase. ✓ Piloting multi-disciplinary approach to wetlands
research based towards programme based funding. ▪ Institutions for land management not rehabilitation
implementation developing but diminishing.

4
Today AWARD is recognised as a multi-disciplinary NGO that is values driven. In
essence, AWARD has been inherently driven by the concept of giving a voice to the
voiceless - both to the previously disenfranchised and to the environment. The
organisation works with a rich mix: implementing water resource conservation and
village projects; awareness raising and capacity building of village, local government and
government actors; and research and policy development. This is done within the
framework of Integrated Catchment Management and new water laws and policies, and
in the specific context of the Sand River Catchment. Moreover, AWARD is based in the
area where it works, which gives it credibility as a local stakeholder in the catchment. Its
work is widely recognised locally and in the water and environmental management
sectors in South Africa and internationally.

Challenges that have shaped AWARD

Bushbuckridge as a complex environment

The Sand River Catchment includes Bushbuckridge (BBR), where the majority of the
people of the catchment live. It is an area notoriously “difficult” in terms of
developmental work for a range of reasons. The large population is made up of many
dislocated communities, often moved two or three times under Apartheid’s grand plan.
There are dense settlements as people were crowded together into densities that far
exceed the simple definition of a ‘rural’ landscape. Two ‘homelands’, Lebowa and
Gazankulu, which were defined along ethnic lines, constituted BBR. The boundaries
between them were arbitrary and hard to acknowledge. Uneven development in
Gazankulu and Lebowa fuelled enmity and at times conflict between the populations.
After 1994, BBR became a disputed area in terms of the demarcation of provincial
boundaries, and the acrimony continued.

The catchment is not only impoverished and degraded socially, environmentally and
economically, with the exception of the wealthy landowners of the Sabi-Sand Wildtuin,
but it is also institutionally and politically fractured. This calls for an emphasis on
rehabilitation rather than on new initiatives alone. The very difficulty of the area
highlights the need to work with cognisance of the ‘soft’ issues and social complexity,
along with the ‘hard’ technical challenges.

Institutional change and changing frameworks

A crucial decision of the new government was to create three tiers of government:
national, provincial and local. Competencies were allocated to different levels, eventually

5
with significant devolution to the local level. This impacted on the entire fabric of
government institutions. During the initial five years, Transitional Local Councils allowed
for the incremental development of the final “wall-to wall” local government model.
Thus, in contrast to the previous dispensation, rural areas also fell under the jurisdiction
of local government. For AWARD this was initially a time of learning and re-orientation –
getting to grips with the new structures, what would be required, what resources and
capacities were available and what gaps existed when it came to water and the
emerging institutional arrangements. AWARD sought to understand and to contribute to
the thinking and capacity building through its Institutional Unit, which helped to do the
groundwork for the Retail Water Project that supports local government in BBR. Over
time the relationship with local government shifted from one of good will, to having to
take local government more and more seriously, as their authoritative stature grew.

The transition continues, but some key decisions have been taken. In terms of water
supply, the Bohlabela District Council (BDC) is now the Water Service Authority, and
DWAF is in the process of handing over assets and responsibilities. The BDC contracts in
the BBR Water Board as a bulk water service provider. They supply the BBR Local
Council, which is gearing up to be the Water Service Provider. Additionally, in rural
settings, village water committees may take on some functions of the water service
provider. The options for water services provision are currently under debate and
AWARD is working with the District Council to assess these options and their
implications. In terms of water resources management, the Inkomati Catchment
Management Agency (CMA), of which the Sand is a sub-catchment, is some way down
the road to being established, and it will be one of the first CMAs in South Africa.
Catchment Management Strategies are still to be formulated. Thus after a long period of
uncertainty and transition things are starting to stabilise, and there is also still the space
to engage with the details of policy implementation.

Nonetheless, an analysis of institutional issues that affect the work of AWARD reveals
critical gaps. For instance, the lack of integration between the National Water Act,
which deals with water conservation and water allocation at a catchment scale, and the
Water Services Act, which deals with water supply at the district level, is of particular
concern. Despite the fact that neither the water development plans nor the catchment
management plans can be successful without integration between Catchment and
District, planning continues to be uncoordinated.

The current state of transition means that there are also incoherent policies – so
DWAF pays for electricity for borehole pumps but not for diesel, which leaves
communities without electricity resentful of having to bear the costs of diesel. When a
pump breaks and takes months to repair, or water in the bulk system to Acornhoek B no
longer arrives, exactly who to go to for recourse is unclear and unacceptable delays are
common.

Additionally, apartheid removals undermined and weakened local institutions for

natural resource and land management. Under apartheid, traditional authorities
assumed responsibility for land administration land and rangers administered fines for
transgressions of illegal resource harvesting, fishing and poaching. However, the
legitimacy of these authorities was increasingly challenged by democratic structures and

6
after 1994 this system collapsed. Today, traditional authorities are fearful to take over
any such functions, and new local government structures do not see this as their
mandate either. This has led to neglect of natural resource management and a
distressing stripping of these resources. In seeking to undertake rehabilitation of
degraded areas, where local control and management is necessary for sustainability, this
institutional vacuum poses problems. AWARD works with local structures, but the work
is frustrated by these problems.

Importantly, local government councillors are political appointees with enormous

demands on them and limited skills and experience. In recognising that local
government is a key stakeholder, AWARD has needed to define their informational
needs and appropriate areas of support within the water sector.

There is the much-touted concept of cooperative governance, and the policies and
planning frameworks make reference to this, but do not provide mechanisms to make
such governance operational. Instead government budgeting and structures and
systems work against this. AWARD seeks to facilitate cooperation in its projects, and
faces the need for and lack of operational mechanisms in very practical ways.

What distinguishes South Africa, and this has become clear to us thorough our
international partnerships, is the opportunity afforded for participation in policy
development. This makes this a unique and exciting place to work. The challenge for
AWARD is to use this opportunity to bring our learnings to bear and to assess what we
have and need to map out our way forward

Expectations of change

The advent of democracy led to high expectations of radical change for black people in
this country, but unsurprisingly given the backlog, this is far from being met for the
majority of poor people. By nature, political agendas and public statements are based on
expediency rather than on an honest reflection of the realities of time, cost, capacity and
incremental learning. For example, the recent evaluations of village water supply
projects indicate that despite considerable social and technical investments, the
sustainability of projects is often fragile and influenced by a complex array of external
factors. Many of these, such as poor or unscrupulous planning of infrastructural
developments are legacies of the previous regime and remain to be addressed
coherently.

Skills availability

Leadership and management skills are a major constraint for all institutions, particularly
in rural areas. Not surprisingly, NGOs lost many of their leadership to the new
government. The new order has also quite rightly placed increasing pressure on
institutions to employ local and black staff at all levels. WRF is a remote place to work,
and while it has a number of attractions, AWARD has had difficulty in finding and

7
keeping the calibre of staff it needs. Engineers have come as volunteers through VSO,
which provided a medium term solution. The senior management position has been
particularly difficult to fill, and there have been significant periods of managing without
those skills or with skills that were less than adequate. At times there has been a high
turnover of staff who were employed locally, trained during their time in AWARD, and
then moved on to organisations which offered better salaries and opportunities for
advancement. Viewed in a positive light AWARD has, therefore, played a significant role
in staff development in the sector.

Areas of Significant Contribution

Understanding water as a resource and not as a ‘service’

The massive technological and industrial changes that so characterised the 20th century
were also accompanied by a period in which the development of water infrastructure
expanded rapidly. It was only toward the later part of the century, from the late
seventies onwards, that the potential consequences of unmitigated development started
to be questioned. Maybe water was a non-renewable resource in many senses? Maybe
negative environmental consequences threatened the ability of the resource to continue
providing for increasing demands?

South Africa was no exception to these trends and governmental policy viewed any
water that reached the sea as ‘wasted’ water – all major rivers were dammed and many
subjected to inter-basin transfers. Despite the developments, many people were without
water and the environmental costs grew. Nonetheless, the thinking was still such that
solutions to water needs and water supply problems were seen to lie in infrastructural
development – that is, as a service issue- rather than from a broader, water
conservation and demand management perspective. How much water was there and
how wisely was it being used? Why did some sectors have plenty when neighbours had
none? Why were river systems degrading or collapsing?

These emerging questions represented a significant departure from traditional

approaches and a move to a more holistic perspective of water resources and their use,
not just in South Africa but also in the international arena. In South Africa, calls for
change came mainly from two sectors. On the one hand environmentalists and
academics were documenting increasing environmental problems and calling for the
establishment of environmental flows. On the other hand, the non-government
developmental sector together with civil society (albeit beleaguered) was demanding

8
basic rights of access for the majority of South Africans. Although these ideas remained
to be integrated, both cases were essentially concerned with the business of refining, or
redefining the notion of sustainability – either from a resource-based approach or from a
supply perspective.
However, it was really only with the transition to democracy that these calls were given
real effect. The political changes were accompanied by policy changes that
demonstrated the receptiveness to new thinking, and readily embraced the notion of
sustainability, equity and efficiency.

Undeniably, a major factor that moulded the profile of AWARD was the fact that its
inception took place during the 1992 drought, the worst in recorded history. The
drought acted to raise the plight of the rural poor and of the environment. The drought
sharpened the focus and essentially acted as a catalyst for change - no longer could
water be developed uncontrollably without due consideration to broader issues: how
much water was there? Who was using this, how and for what purposes? What
inequities existed? How sustainable were these practices especially in terms of the
resource itself? Could current use be rationalised from multiple perspectives – social,
environmental and economic? Moreover, if one were looking carefully, it also pointed to
the need to integrate water supply and use with water resource.

In this regard, AWARD has been, and still is, distinctive from other NGO’s in the water
sector. Despite starting as an institution concerned primarily with water services for the
rural poor, AWARD has steadily paralleled policy changes by adopting a more holistic
approach to water resources and their development. The seminal ideas for this were
rooted in questions around the quantity and quality of available resources and the
setting of environmental flows for the Sabie-Sand Rivers in 1997. This orientation was
followed by a natural progression towards the idea of Integrated Catchment
Management. In many parts of the world the concept of managing water in
accordance with natural rather than political boundaries was being considered but this
often meant little more than a means to secure water for the most economically
powerful sectors. In South Africa the concept was grounded in key defining frameworks
that conferred the approach with a more holistic profile and distinguished South Africa
from other countries in many aspects. The cornerstones of catchment management, and
indeed the new National Water Act of 1998, included equity, sustainability and efficiency
– ideas that were branded under the banner “some for all forever”. However, the
NWA actually only spoke of Integrated Water Resources Management which is
somewhat different from ICM in that it relies heavily on the notion of co-operative
governance, an additional key ingredient in the approach. If landuse practices are
impacting on water quality for instance, discussion and co-management with other
stakeholders is necessary.

9
 Box 1
Challenges of matching catchment and political boundaries

Figure 1 gives an overview of the proposed governance structures for water resource
management and supply in the Sand River Catchment. Although still in the early stages of
implementation, water supply governance is more advanced than water resources
management. The diagram illustrates the need for institutional links between the
provisions of the National Water Act and the Water Services Act. The development of
these links is a critical challenge for the future of water management in South Africa. The
Sand River Catchment forms part of the Inkomati water management area which will be
governed by a CMA although this is not yet operative. Sub-catchments are likely to be
represented by catchment management fora, comprising representatives of stakeholder
fora or water user associations. These fora will, in effect, make representations to the
CMA for sectoral water allocations, including water demands for rural communities. The
district municipalities represent the water services authority which function to ‘allocate’
water to the local municipalities, which acts as the water service provider. The ward
councilors will, in effect, make representations to the local municipalities regarding water
demands for their villages of jurisdiction and water supply constraints. They rely heavily
therefore, on inputs from the village water committees. Municipalities articulate these
needs through the water services development plans (WSDPs). The Sand River
Catchment falls under the remit of the Bohlabela district municipality and the
Bushbuckridge local municipality. The key points where local people’s interests are
represented are at the village and ward levels and the development of the capacities of
the elected representatives at these two levels is critical for ensuring the needs of the
poor are reflected in water investments and allocations.

Water Resource Management: Water Services:

NWA (1998) WSA (1997)

CATCHMENT Allocations
DISTRICT
MANAGEMENT AGENCY Requirements MUNICIPALITY

Catchment Catchment Local Municipality Local Municipality

Management Fora Management Fora
? repres
entation
Ward Councillor: Ward Councillor:
WC WC
Stakeholder
WUA
representation
e.g. sectors ? repres
entation CDF CDF

Stakeholder Stakeholder
representation representation V.WC V.WC
e.g. sectors e.g. sectors

Figure 1 Schematic of the proposed institutional arrangements for water resource management
and supply. The details of these institutional arrangements may vary in different regions of South
Africa. This figure indicates that water supply issues should relate to wider catchment management
issues in terms of water allocations and through representation. Abbreviations: VWC = village
water committee; CDF = community development forum representing multiple village-based
committees; WC = ward committee comprising CDFs from a number of villages; WUA = Water
User Associations.

It was during this period that AWARD effectively redefined its boundaries of
operation so that considerations of water services could be embedded in the wider
context of water resource management. The boundaries moved from political or district

10
to that of the Sand River Catchment which included Bushbuckridge north and part of the
midlands (this poses challenges: Box 1). Although at times difficult even for some staff
to understand, it has now become a hallmark of the organisation. As a defining turn of
events in this regard AWARD was approached, somewhat serendipitously, to co-ordinate
a feasibility study for ICM for the Sand River catchment. This offered the opportunity to
work with a wide multi-disciplinary team and to collate the information that had been
gathered in the preceding years into a coherent account of the status quo of the
catchment together with recommendations for future scenarios. Importantly, this study
was commissioned by government (DWAF and DA) and received their endorsement.

In 1999, the Save the Sand or SSP was launched and AWARD was asked to facilitate
the implementation of priority projects. These included a range of integrated initiatives
from policy development and critiques, to rehabilitation, developmental projects and
importantly, public participation (Figure 2). In effect the SSP has represented a fairly
grand scale action-research initiative where the policies of government from the
constitution through to the NWA and NWRS are tested and lessons fed back to
stakeholders.

WHAT IS AN INTEGRATED APPROACH ?

In the Sand River Catchment this consists of

1. ECOSYSTEM 2. AWARENESS 3. DEVELOPMENTAL 4. REHABILITATION

MANAGEMENT: RAISING & ACTIVITIES
Policies, practices DISSEMINATION OF
institutions LESSONS
Inkomati CMA/ CMF PACAM III Evaluation of water Forestry conversion
CM Strategy 4 projects with supply projects Working for Water
Nat Wat Res Strategy Local Government Rainwater collection Wetlands rehabilitation
Water use allocations Distict & tanks (2 projects)
Water for the DWAF local Micro-catchment
Reserve DA local management &
Water for prod uses erosion control
Water committees
SSW
Case study internationally
Case study nationally
Awareness raising

Research

Figure 2. The integrated approach of the SSP

In keeping with the principle of “giving a voice to the voiceless” staff of AWARD started
thinking about power relations in the water sector. Large, and at times inefficient or
inappropriate uses of water were previously justified on the basis of economic grounds.
Thus for example, large-scale commercial agriculture was seen to have greater inherent
rights to access than other small-scale users. However, by adopting a catchment

11
approach together with a rights-based focus, we started to explore water use in
different ways. In 1996 Anton Simanowitz and Sharon Pollard started to question what
the economic benefits that small-scale uses of water conferred to the livelihoods of rural
communities, and in particular the poor. The hypothesis was that, in addition to an
ethical argument, there was an economic basis for water provision to rural communities
for productive purposes i.e. water over and above that to secure basic domestic needs.
Moreover, the rationale was that if this were true, this should be considered in
catchment water accounting. In particular, poor rural communities found it difficult to
‘justify’ their needs against the voices of the more powerful sectors. They decided to set
up a research project to examine exactly these issues in the villages of the Sand River
catchment and in 1998 two researchers joined AWARD, Juan Carlos and Tame
Mabelane.

AWARD showed very clearly that an extra 30 – 40 litres of water per capita per day
moved people into a “window of opportunity” for small-scale water-based businesses.
However, nationally there was little recognition for this need, and small-scale multiple
uses of water in rural areas simply did not fit into any sectoral demand. In February
2000, during the worst floods in South Africa in 70 years, we took the results on a
roadshow at national, regional and local level and later gave a formal presentation to
DWAF. This aroused interest and support from the department, and indeed provoked
widescale recognition nationally of the issue. The next challenge was to consider how
allocations are to be made to this sector. In this regard AWARD started its own work,
funded through the Whirl project.

Integrating social and institutional development with the technical aspects of

a project

Water projects usually have a strong technical component, and globally have had to go
through the hard learning of failing projects to acknowledge that long-term sustainability
requires ‘software’ inputs along with the ‘hardware’ of engineering. There was a
dawning recognition of this in South Africa in the late eighties, which began to influence
project design. Political change also led to an emphasis on ‘empowerment’. The 1992
drought hit the country at a time of approaching reconciliation, and old political enemies
worked together in the drought forum. The Independent Development Trust (IDT)
projects for drought relief and village water supply built ‘empowerment’ into their
process by establishing committees to run the project construction and maintenance.
With this went some basic training in bookkeeping, managing construction and
maintenance.

The WIP believed that information is an important aspect of empowerment, and should
inform decision-making at all levels, including the very local. The project sought to
collate and translate into usable information the many studies that had been done over
the years in the area. The CHLF Village Projects were being run on the same broad basis
as the drought relief projects as described above, although it depended on who the
“agent” was just how aspect was done. Reflection on the early progress of these two

12
initiatives led to the creation of one programme. The emphasis was on the importance
of facilitating more thorough social processes leading to institutional development at
village level, and that this required the integration of the technical aspects into these
processes.

The new programme developed a well-defined Community Water Project

Implementation Process over the next three years (Figure 3), in which it allocated
generous time to the processes of community level information exchange and
consultation, and to the development and support of village water committees. These
processes were described in Information Sheets produced by the programme. While
staff could draw on international practice with regard to methodology, the particular
political and social context demanded adaptation. Within South Africa this was
unexplored terrain, especially in the water sector, so that the work done in this
programme was pioneering. Indeed, the approach articulated by AWARD was taken up
by Mvula Trust at a meeting in Kempton in 1995. The approach was also actively taken
into the National Community Water and Sanitation Training Institute.

COMMUNITY WATER PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Planning Phase Construction Phase Mentoring Phase

Contact Phase
(Continued Support)

⚫ Engage local government to ⚫

prioritise
Conduct project planning ⚫ Set up labour desk ⚫ Conduct
workshops ⚫ Appoint construction
⚫ Agree with local government ⚫ Establish formal agreement Operations and
on priority areas supervisor Maintenance
between AWARD and ⚫ Provide on-site technical
⚫ Identify existing role players Committee training
and structures training for construction ⚫ Conduct
⚫ Compile technical ⚫ Compile materials list and
⚫ Establish formal contact with information workshops on
each village order materials management of
⚫ Prepare and present ⚫ Start construction
⚫ Carry out feasibility study – planning report to service provision
technical and social ⚫ Monitor construction ⚫ Develop support
community progress
⚫ Establish community ⚫ Obtain community structures (linkages
representation – Water ⚫ Commission the system with local
acceptance of report ⚫ Complete As – Built
Committee ⚫ Provide financial training government)
⚫ Education component – needs drawings ⚫ Make scheduled
⚫ Develop project designs ⚫ Conduct evaluation
assessment technical and social
⚫ Develop plan for reviews
continued support

Figure 3 The water project implementation project.

The combination of the business of implementation, changes in staff, and losing some
capacity to write up the methodology, documentation and dissemination required a

13
more strategic and coherent approach. Thus while AWARD did important work on
methodology development in practice, and became recognised for its competence in this
area, it could be argued that its impact was more limited than it could have been.

AWARD did take the principle of integration into the Save the Sand. This adopts the
orientation that technical solutions to the catchment’s rehabilitation and management
have to be embedded within an understanding of the socio-cultural, ecological and
institutional environment, and an active interaction with it. This aspect of AWARD’s work
is now being documented for active dissemination and advocacy, locally, nationally and
internationally. PACAM is producing resource books that are attracting interest
nationally, case studies are being written under the Both Ends project for international
dissemination, and a methodology for village planning for water for domestic and
productive use is being developed with national and international partners.

Giving depth to meaning of participation

‘Participation’ and ‘institutional

development’ became buzzwords and
mainstream development concepts in the
nineties. Whilst this was welcomed on the
one hand, the concepts quickly started to
lose their real meaning. Powerful vested
professional, economic and political
interests adopted these terms without
changing their practices. This posed a new
challenge to those committed to the values
of participatory development and
empowerment of disadvantaged and poor
people.

AWARD has used participatory approaches

consistently in its projects, and thoughtfully
pushed its own boundaries in understanding
of what this means in programming and
projects. The initial work was on thorough
consultation and the setting up and support
to Village Water Committees. In 1998 The
PHAST methodology was adapted and
developed for South Africa. PHAST
(Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Photo x 1 Local government councillors
Transformation) makes use of visual examine a model of the catchment during
materials to enable community members to a PACAM workshop
reflect and learn together, and hence to
undertake planning and implementation of sanitation projects. A programme was
established to train facilitators across the country. AWARD readily adopted the approach
and methods, and Peter Segkobela became a PHAST trainer for the region.

14
For the SSP, the cooperation and participation of a variety of disparate stakeholders is
required, and innovative methodologies have been developed to facilitate this. The
Public Awareness Campaign (PACAM) is one such innovation. Under the guidance of
Derick du Toit together with Dennis Mtsweni and Sharon, materials and mediated
programmes, including action projects, have been developed with key focus groups.
There is a wide interest in this – not only from local participants but also from those
across the country working on catchment management, and from international actors in

The policy context

Resource Directed Measures

Set
Set Class of Set Resource
Reserve
resource Quality Objectives
Vision for the
resource

Determine
allocatable
resource
Review

Draw up
check allocation plan
Monitor resource
status

Draw up
Catchment
Audit compliance Management
of licence holders Strategy

Issue water use Evaluate licence Call for licence

licences application application

Source Directed Controls

Figure
river 4. management.
basin Schematic of the Water Resource Management process in South Africa
(DWAF 1999methods
Participatory a). The are
PACAM is involved
an integral partinofascertaining at which
AWARD’s work. Be it level and on
research stepthe
people can
economic participate
values and usesin of
meaningfully.
water, on village level work on water and livelihoods, on
the utilisation and rehabilitation of wetlands, on rainwater harvesting as a
supplementary source of water, AWARD uses action research approaches that seek to
incorporate participants’ learning and taking action on the basis of the research carried
out. For example, the Mahashe Rainwater Harvesting project won the Green Trust
award on the basis of innovative ideas from the school together with a structured
involvement of learners and teachers in curriculum development. Moreover, the SSP
team have devoted considerable effort to deepening an understanding of when and
where participation is appropriate in water resources management. Instead of branding
every step in the process (Figure 4) with the necessity for participation, we have asked
where it is really meaningful.
It continues to be necessary to argue for sufficient time and resources to be dedicated
to participatory social processes. Calls for speedy delivery of services, quantitative
product orientation to measuring progress, the dominance apartheid era consultants
have retained the sector, the profit-oriented values base of emerging consultants and

15
the support to the private sector as the engine of development, all work against
processes that spend time on engaging poor people. There is however a constitutional,
legal and policy framework that calls for meaningful participation. Within the tension
that arises between these forces AWARD’s capacity to articulate and demonstrate what
this entails and achieves remains an important contribution that is valued by those with
a shared agenda.

Deepening participatory planning

through the WaLPP

Building on the pioneering work AWARD did

on the multiple uses of water for poor people
and on our experience in participatory
approaches, we are developing a
methodology called the Water and Livelihoods
Planning Process (WaLLP). Sipho Mlambo and
Jethro Monareng implement this project in
AWARD. Working with Care-SA Lesotho,
AWARD is coordinating a team that includes
local departments of water and agriculture,
local government and the Water Board, to
undertake participatory research and planning A spring and community garden at Share
at village level. The research and planning
with villagers explores the various ways water
does and could impact on their livelihoods. Our own expectations have been exceeded
at the positive response and the commitment shown to the process by these various
bodies. As a village leader said at the end of a recent 5 day planning workshop where
government official, villagers and AWARD analysed the research outcomes and planned
together “We were sceptical when AWARD told us what they were planning, and I have
been surprised to see the commitment of government staff all the way through. This
gives us hope”. Participants suggested that AWARD develop this as a ward-level
planning process, that can build the capacity of officials and villagers to develop high
quality Integrated Development Plans.

Piloting and testing components of new policies

AWARD now devotes energy to the implementation of new policies by piloting projects
and adopting an action-research focus. For example, the NWA requires a participatory
process to setting desired future states for rivers. However this assumes a significant
knowledge base - for people need to understand the implications of different decisions.
The SSP is currently undertaking a pilot action-research project in one ward to explore
this process and the conceptual capital required for people to meaningfully participate.
Likewise, the SSP is exploring the notion of integration through action-research on the
wetlands of the Sand River catchment. These wetlands are thought to play an important
biophysical role in terms of water security and equally, in peoples livelihoods who farm
them. They have, however, been degraded and we believe that there are lessons to be

16
learnt for integration through close examination and integration of both these
biophysical and social aspects.

As the institutions for delivering water services are being put in place there is a growing
interest in incorporating local Community Based Organisations (CBOs) in the institutional
arrangements of the Water Service Provider. Sipho Mlambo negotiated with the
Bohlabela District Municipality who then contracted AWARD to undertake a capacity
assessment of the 67 CBOs (mostly these are Water Committees) in the district
identified in an earlier study. The assessment is being completed now and we will be
considering what our recommendations are regarding the training and support and
appropriate positioning of these CBOs. There is a real opportunity here to shape and
contribute to the proper situating and capacity building of these local structures,
currently so isolated and often undermined by confusing and under-resourced policies
and institutions.

Securing the upper catchment: the proclamation of the Sand-Blyde National

Park

Since the SSP feasibility study, the problems associated with poor management of
commercial forestry have been identified, particularly given that it is a significant area in
terms of water production. These plantations were inherited by DWAF from the
‘homeland’ governments. The department quickly adopted a policy of the sale of these
state forests through tenders, mainly for the continuation of commercial forestry.
However, the SSP stakeholders considered this proposition to be intractable in the case
of the three farms comprising the upper-Sand catchment. Through continued lobbying
and some 11th hour negotiations these farms, together with two others, were withdrawn
from the tender packages.

Despite being badly degraded in parts, these areas have a high potential for tourism
development ( see photo). In light of this,
cabinet has recently approved a decision to
transfer these farms to the Department of
Environmental Affairs together with the Blyde
Provincial Park and proclaim a national park
later this year. The park will fall under the
management of SANParks (South African
national Parks).

This transformation represents a very real

step forward in securing the upper catchment Beautiful view and vegetation from the
top of the catchment
complex and would undoubtedly have been
impossible without the support of CHLF and the Sabi-Sand Wildtuin.

17
 Partnerships

AWARD has developed a number of fruitful partnerships and indeed, much of the work
would not have been possible without these. Additionally, without the support of CHLF,
this additional support could never have been leveraged. A few to mention are Working
for Water, which has invested in the order of R 30 M in the clearing of invasive alien
plants in the catchment, undertake the rehabilitation of wetlands and recently
contributed funding to the research project on wetlands. The Universities of Cape Town
and Pietermaritzburg contributed expertise, at no cost, to the SSP feasibility study. The
Natural Resources Institute of the University of Greenwhich, and now increasingly Care
SA-Lesotho, are enabling AWARD to take forward its early work on water for productive
use. A grant from the Open Society Foundation allowed us to initiate the very important
awareness campaign for the SSP. Collaboration with other Limpopo Province based
NGOs Tsogang and Thlavama made it possible for AWARD to in implement the CBO
Assessment Project, and to consider taking on the next step in implementing the
recommendations. The Both Ends project exposes staff to the perspectives of other
countries’ realities and also showcases the SSP work internationally. We have been
fortunate in having some committed champions that have provided moral and practical
support, including Brian Yule, Janet Love and Guy Preston.

CHLF

The nature of the support from the CHLF provided a foundation for the organisation we
see today. At a time when many NGOs were forced into closure or to essentially become
consultants, AWARD was given the security and latitude to develop an NGO
characteristic. Space was provided for innovation, the ability to complement “hardware”
with ‘software”, reflection and communication as well as to engage proactively. AWARD
has had its fair share (and maybe more than that) of internal and management
problems, weaknesses and inefficiencies; but the support and challenge from the CHLF
allowed it to survive these times and to grow through and past them. Moreover the core
support catalysed additional partnerships and leveraged more funding.

AWARD is the only NGO in South Africa working in an integrated way in terms of water
resources and water supply. It is one of the few NGOs in the water sector that works in
the rich intersection of implementation, research and policy. AWARD sees this as the
appropriate role in the South Africa of today.

Implementation

Water Water
resources supply
Policy Research

18
 The Future

If we ask two hard questions, we can enquire; is there more water in the villages than
there was before; and is the Reserve being met in the Sand River?

To these questions we have to say, “mostly there is not.” A recent evaluation of five
village projects highlights that despite AWARD’s interventions and the confidence and
good understanding of the water committees, in the majority of cases the systems are
bedevilled by pumps breaking down and delays in repair by government, or by a bulk
supplier diverting water elsewhere, or by reluctance from villagers to pay for diesel
when DWAF pays for electricity in a neighbouring village. These problems are to do with
the institutional transition and lack of capacity referred to early on. We can say that we
see people in the catchment starting to negotiate from a platform of greater equity and
understanding, that village committees are better informed and are making some
strategic decisions, that there are signs of co-operation and a willingness to integrate
activities from government’s side. It must be recognised that there is a long way to go
before tangible improvements in peoples’ lives and the environment will be widely
visible: this is not a short-term undertaking.

AWARD is now preparing three years strategic plans for its two areas of programming,
water resource management and community water supply, in order to strengthen
engagement with the challenges that face the organisation meeting its vision.
AWARD plans to strengthen institutional linkages at all levels, from local to national.
AWARD will continue with the work of deepening participation and facilitating integration
and cooperation in the catchment as we undertake projects with the people who live
and work here. We will also improve on the documentation and dissemination of our
work. We are strengthening and widening our partnerships to increase our capacity to
implement the ambitious work we undertake.

As stated previously, whilst promising water to people quickly may well be achievable in
the shorterm, political expediency does not prepare people for longterm sustainability.
As a development NGO AWARD seeks the longterm benefits, for our vision is that:

The Sabie-Sand will stand as a model of sustainable social, environmental and

economic development.

As a catchment based NGO we can work on a “bite-sized scale”; large enough for
meaningful planning and action, small enough to be human-scale, focusing on meeting
immediate needs in ways that build in sustainability. Nonetheless, how long-term plans
are embraced in the political agenda is, in reality, a challenge that faces many countries,
not ours alone. What AWARD can do is pilot and test approaches that facilitate this –
especially at a time when the world’s focus is on South Africa.

19
Important champions of the SSP and AWARD: The deputy minister for Environmental
Affairs & Tourism, J. Mabhudafhase, Minister Kasrils (DWAF), MEC for Agriculture
Limpopo, Aaron Motsoaledi, and Janet Love, then advisor to Minister Kasrils.
AWARD staff include Sharon Pollard, Calvin Phiri and Juan Carlos Peres de
Mendiguen.

20
 Appendix One: Summary of projects
undertaken by award
VILLAGE Implemented Brief description of project Source of
WATER Note: facilitation and capacity building always funds
SUPPLY included in intervention
PROJECTS
Acornhoek 1994-96 Small reticulation and 5 communal taps for CHLF
Acornhoek “C”.
Constructed ferro cement tank and upgraded the only
communal tap for Acornhoek “B”
2001 Connected to the bulk supply. Installed a complete SSP(DWAF\DA)
reticulation system with communal taps in /CHLF
Acornhoek “B”
Athol 1999 -2001 Install rising main from existing borehole to SSP(DWAF\DA)
reservoir. Extensions to reticulation system /CHLF
Belfast 1994-95 Install reticulation system and communal taps IDT
CHLF
Brooklyn 1996 - 97 No construction, capacity building only CHLF
Boelang
Moloro
Clare A 1999 –2001 Install rising main from existing borehole to SS(DWAF\DA)P
reservoir. Extend reticulation system / CHLF
2002-03 Connect pump to borehole for supplementary water
supply. Install community garden irrigation system. GAA
Craigieburn 1995 Extended some sections of the reticulation and CHLF
installed a few communal taps
Dixie 1996-98 Construct reticulation system and communal taps CHLF
Connect of borehole to bulk reservoir for Utah and
Dixie
Enable 1996-97 Reticulation system and communal taps CHLF
British Embassy
Mamelodi 1994-98 Drilled and equipped one borehole. Extended CHLF
reticulation system and install communal taps
Madeira 1994-97 Developed new water system from mountain stream. CHLF
Upgraded weir and gully crossings in 97
Makguang 1994-97 Developed new water system from mountain stream. CHLF
Upgraded weir and gully crossings in 97
Phelindaba 1994-98 Extended reticulation system and install communal CHLF
taps
Seville A 1996-98 Construct reticulation system and communal taps CHLF
Seville C 1996-98 Construct reticulation system and communal taps, CHLF
with elevated storage tank
Seokodibeng 1997-98 Construct reservoir, pipeline, irrigation system for CHLF
community garden
Timbavati 1995-96 Han pump, elevated tank and communal taps US Embassy
Thlavekisa 1999-2001 Install rising main form existing boreholes to SSP(DWAF\DA)
existing bulk reservoir. Extensions to reticulation / CHLF
system
Utah 1995-98 Construct reticulation system and communal taps CHLF
Connect of borehole to bulk reservoir for Utah and
Dixie

21
Worcester 1995-96 Construct reservoir and reticulation system and CHLF
communal taps
Welverdiend 1996-97 Soakaways at communal taps. Financial training CHLF
1999-2001 Install rising main form existing boreholes to SSP(DWAF\DA)
existing bulk reservoir. Extensions to reticulation /CHLF
system
RAIN WATER
HARVESTING
AT PUBLIC
BUILDINGS
Acornhoek: 2001 RWH tanks, and awareness raising SSP(DWAF\DA)
Kgwaditiba /CHLF
Primary School
Clare A: Selani 2002 Tanks and with awareness raising GAA
Primary School,
Kurhula crèche, 2003
2x churches
Hluvakani: Mdluli 2001 Borehole equipped and RWH tank done for school Miami Fire
High School Fighters/CHLF
Makwetse 2003 RWH tank done for school SSP(DWAF\DA)
Primary School / CHLF
Mahashe 2001 RWH tank done for school SSP(DWAF\DA)
Secondary School (This project won the Green Trust Award) /CHLF
Thlavekisa: 2001 RWH tank and awareness raising SSP(DWAF\DA)
Muchuchi Primary /CHLF
School
SANITATION,
H&H
AWARENESS
Newline sanitation 2001-2002 Building latrines, health and hygiene awareness Mvula Trust
PHAST 1999-2001 Introduce PHAST methodology in addressing EU via Mvula
sanitation-related issues, and for health and hygiene Trust
promotion. Training practitioners.
REHAB
Mamelodi erosion 1999 Implemented land rehabilitation of 3 locations where SSP(DWAF\DA)
control pipelines were threatened by erosion /CHLF
Zoeknog 1999-2001 Rehabilitated 5 hectares of total of 30 ha of degraded SSP
rehabilitation land around the breached Zoeknog Dam – using (DWAF\DA)
earthworks, contour gabions, re-vegetation, thorn
protection of site.
Forestry Roads Rehabilitating 6 badly eroded forestry roads in the SSP
Welgevonden and Hebron State forests. (DWAF\DA)
RESEARCH
IFR Sabie-Sand, 1997 Assessing the Instream Flow Requirements of the DWAF
including social rivers
assessment
Economics 1998 – 2000 Dingleydale, Utah, Dixie, Shortline, Tsakane, CHLF
research in nine VioletBank, Kildare, rooiboklaagte, MadrasA
villages
Save the Sand 1998 • Landuse SSP
feasibility study • Sectoral wateruse (DWAF\DA)
• analysis • Agricultural practice
• Demographics

22
 • Natural resource use patterns
• Hydrological
Status of the upper 1998 Assessment of the 4 rivers to their confluence, along SSP
tributaries of the with a proposal for their rehabilitation and future (DWAF\DA)
Sand River (SSP) plans to ensure long-term sustainability.
Situation analysis 1998 Part of an attempt to assess the re-structuring of SSP
of Zoeknog agricultural schemes in the catchment, as major (DWAF\DA)
farmers scheme water-users, with potential for important livelihoods
impacts
Valuation of 1998 A report on the value of cattle to households in the SSP
livestock catchment – to anble management of livestock (DWAF\DA)
Institutional 1998-99 Investigate the local government aspect of water WRC
Development service provision, including a “best practices guide”
Programme for establishing water institutions in rural areas.
Natural Resource 1998 Establishment the groundwork to plan for joint SSP
Harvesting natural resource harvesting programme in the Sabi- (DWAF\DA)
Sand Wildtuin (SSW)
Rainwater 1999 - A feasibility study CHLF/ SSP
Harvesting
Forestry in the 2001 Motivation for the removal of forestry in the upper SSW
Upper Reserve reaches of the SRC
Water for 2001 – 2002 Research undertaken in 3 villages to deepen the DFID (whirl)
productive original work done under the Economics research
purposes
Water & 2003 - 2004 Developing a methodology for planning for water DFID (whirl) /
livelihoods security at village level – in a holistic and integrated Care- SA
planning process way
Wetlands research 2003 - 2004 Integrated rehabilitation and management plan for Warfsa/ Working
SRC wetlands for Wetlands
Bottom-up 2002 - 2004 The documentation of the SSP, as part of a series of Both Ends/
approaches to international case studies, that demonstrate this Gomukh
Integrated approach to catchment, or river basin, management.
catchment
Management
PUBLIC
AWARENESS
WIP information 1994 - 96 CHLF
sheets
BBR radio 1998 Local radio programmes on water and sanitation EU/ Mvula Trust
issues, turned into plays
PACAM 1 1999 Theatre and workshops SSP(DWAF\DA)
PACAM II & III 2001 - present Learning Support Materials development, along with SSP(DWAF\DA)
ongoing professional development of Water / Open Society
Committees, Local government councillors, DWAF Foundation/
and Dept of Agric staff. DFID (whirl)

23
 Appendix Two: Publications and Reports
Water Information Project. 1994 – 1996. ‘Information sheets’. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.
(Pollard, S; Lazarus, P, Vinson, K, Venter, J, Jeenes, K.).

Simanowitz, A. 1995 – 1996. ‘Evaluation of village water supply projects: (Corbett, Vinson,
Mackenzie). Synthesis Report’. AWARD Internal reports.

The Community Support Component. 1996. ‘A methodology for support to

communities; Leon Foundation Water Programme’. Unpublished manual

Pollard, S.R. 1997. ‘Bushbuckridge Radio’. Series on Water in the Sand River catchment.

Lubisi,A. 1997. ‘A gender analysis of community water supply in Bushbuckridge’. WEDC

International Conference, Durban.

Pollard, S and Simanowitz, A. 1997 ‘Environmental Flow Requirements: A

social perspective’. Paper presented to the WEDC International Conference, Durban.

Simanowitz, A. 1997 ‘Community Participation or Community-driven

development?’ Paper presented to the WEDC International Conference, Durban.

Walker, Phillip. 1999 'Catching the Pie in the Sky: National Policies and Local Realities’. Paper
presented at the Appropriate Practices Conference, organized by Mvula Trust and DWAF, East
London, March 14 - 17 1999.

Perez de Mendiguren, J.C. and M. Mabelane. 2001. ‘Economics Of Productive Uses For
Domestic Water In Rural Areas: A Case Study From Bushbuckridge, South Africa’. AWARD
Internal Research Report. http://www.nri.org/WSS-IWRM.

Completion reports by Grant Parkinson (2001):

‘Water project completion report - Acornhoek B’
’Water project completion report – Athol’
’Water project completion report – ClareA’
’Water project completion report – Tlhavekisa’
’Water project completion report – Welverdiend’
’Erosion control project completion report – Mamelodi’
’Rain Water Harvesting project completion report - Mahashe School’

Molapo, T. 2001. ‘Building relations between local government and traditional leaders in the
Eastern District Municipality’. AWARD Internal Report.

Mokgope K, Pollard S, Butterworth J. 2001. ‘Water resources and water supply for rural
communities in the Sand River Catchment, South Africa’. Paper prepared for the 27th WEDC
conference Lusaka, Zambia August 2001.

24
Publications, reports and lectures by Sharon Pollard

Shackleton, S.E., Stadler,J.J., Jeenes, K.A., S.R. Pollard and Gear, J.S.S. 1995. ‘Adaptive
strategies of the poor in arid and semi-arid lands: in search of sustainable livelihoods. A case
study of the Bushbuckridge district, Eastern Transvaal, South Africa’. WRF, Int. Publ. Pp. 178.

Pollard, S.R. 1996. ‘Social Assessment as Input into the Instream Flow Assessment for the Sabie
River’. DWAF. Pp. 52.

Pollard, S.R. 1996. ‘Environmental Framework and Guidelines for the Social Assessment, As
Input to the Instream Flow Assessment for the Umvoti River, Natal’. Pp. 22.

Pollard, S.R., Perez de Mendiguren, J.C., Joubert, A., Shackleton, C.M., Walker, P., Poulter, T.
and White, M. 1998. ‘Save the Sand: Phase I. Feasibility Study: The development of a proposal
for a catchment plan for the Sand River Catchment’. DWAF & DA&LA. Pp. 280.

Pollard, S.R. 1998. ‘Social Assessment as Input into the Instream Flow Assessment for the Sand
River’. DWAF.

Pollard, S.R. 2000. ‘Defining flows to protect instream biota in the Marie River, South Africa’.
Ph.D. thesis. University of Cape Town. 301 pp.

Pollard, S.R. 2001. ‘Turning policy into practice: Lessons from the Save the Sand Project - an
Integrated Catchment Management initiative’. Paper presented at the SASAQs conference, July,
2001.

Pollard, S.R. 2001. ‘Introductory course on water resources management in South Africa: The
Sand River catchment as a test case’. Lectures presented to NCWST, Polokwane.

Pollard,SR 2001. ‘Operationalising the new Water Act: Contributions from the Save the Sand
Project - an Integrated Catchment Management initiative’. Paper prepared for 2nd WARFSA/
WaterNet Symposium: Integrated Water Resources Management: Theory, Practice, Cases; Cape
Town, 30-31 October 2001

Soussan, J., Pollard, S.R., Perez de Mendiguren, J.C. and Butterworth,J. 2002. ‘Allocating water
for home-based productive activities in Bushbuckridge, South Africa’. Paper presented at the
WSSD: Water and poverty session, September, 2002.

Pollard, S. R. 2002. ‘Guidelines for participation in Integrated Water Resource Management:

Experiences from the Save the Sand Project’. In: N. Motteux, K. Rowntree and J. Fargher.
Guidelines for public participation. Water Research commission Report. 2002.

Pollard, S.R. 2002. ‘Operationalising the new Water Act: Contributions from the Save the Sand
Project - an Integrated Catchment Management initiative’. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth.
27: 941-948.

Pollard, S.R. 2002. ‘Giving people a voice: Providing an environmental framework for the social
assessment of riverine resource use in the Sabie River, South Africa’. Paper presented at
Environmental Flows Conference Cape Town. February 2002.

25
Pollard, S.R. 2002. ‘Setting our sites on the right scale: A comparison of IFIM and a new
approach, the Geomorphological-Biotope Assessment (GBA), in the Marite River’. Paper
presented at Environmental Flows Conference Cape Town. February 2002.

Pollard, S.R. 2002. ‘Subsistence issues, tenure and river systems’. Final workshop report.
Environmental Flows Conference Cape Town. February 2002.

Pollard, S.R. 2002. ‘Integrated catchment Management’. Lectures presented to diploma students,
South African Wildlife College.

Pollard, S. R. 2002. ‘Navigating the waters of policy and practice: Lessons from the Save the
Sand Project, South Africa - an Integrated Catchment Management initiative’. Paper presented at
the Dialogue Forum on Water for food and the Environment, Hanoi, October 2002.

Pollard, S.R., Moriarty, P., Butterworth, J., Taylor, V. and Batchelor, C. 2002. ‘Water resource
needs: The Basic Human Needs Reserve, Licensing and Rural Water Supply in the Sand River
Catchment’. Whirl Position Paper no. 4. http://www.nri.org/WSS-IWRM.

Pollard, S.R. and du Toit, D. 2003. ‘The Save the Sand Project: A status report’. Prepared for
Both Ends/ Gomukh 2nd meeting, Pune, India. June 2003.

Pollard, S. R., Shackleton, C. and Carruthers, J. In press. ‘Beyond the fence: People and the
Lowveld landscape’. In: du Toit & H. Biggs (Eds). The Kruger Park Experience – Ecology and
Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. Elsevier Press.

Save the Sand Programme documents

Shackleton,C.1999. ‘Plan species richness within the Sand River Catchment, Bushbuckridge’.
Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.

Mackenzie, T. 1999. ‘A joint natural resource harvesting plan between local game reserves and
neighbouring communities as part of an Integrated Plan for community-based natural Resource
Harvesting and Management in the Sand River Catchment’. Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/
SSP Internal Report.

Marshall, H. and Monareng, J. 1999. ‘Feasibility study for rainwater harvesting in villages of the
Sand River catchment’. Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.

Peel, M. 1999. ‘Cattle grazing in the northern forestry area of the Sand River Catchment
(DWAF): Stocking density guidelines. ARC-ILI report’. Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP

Sejake, Mbota, S.G. and Shai, P. 2000. ‘Evaluation of the Public Awareness Campaign (PACAM
Phase I) of the Save the Sand Project.’ Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.

Cousins, T. 2000. ‘Institutional Status Report: Institutions working in the Sand River
Catchment’. Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.

Day, E. and Bredenkamp, G. 2000. ‘An ecological assessment of the upper catchment of the
Sand River, Mpumalanga, with particular reference to recommendations for rehabilitation’.
Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP Internal Report.

26
Shackleton, C. and Phiri, C. 2000. ‘Economic valuation of cattle and livelihoods in
Bushbuckridge, Sand River Catchment, Bushbuckridge’. Commissioned by SSP. AWARD/ SSP
Internal Report.

Du Toit, D. 2001. ‘Towards developing a guiding framework for public awareness campaigns and
competence building in relation to integrated catchment management in South Africa’. Paper
prepared for ITN conference, South Africa.

Pearson, I and Still, D. 2003. ‘Review of AWARD “Save the Sand” Village Water Supply
Projects and Mamelodi’. Report on the review of the six water supply projects that have been
undertaken by AWARD from 1999 to 2001.

Du Toit D and Sguazzin T, with assistance from Pollard S, 2002;

Save the Sand Professional Portfolio Units:
Unit 1: Working Together for Water
Unit 2: Catchment Capital
Unit 3: People of the Catchment
Unit 4: Using Land and Water in the Sand River Catchment

2003, (Under production)

Unit 7: How Much is Enough NOW: Some, For All, For Ever: Allocation Issues (under
production)
Unit 8: Water Legislation
Note: Units 5 and 6 are on hold until funding is procured

Du Toit D and Sguazzin T, with input from the Rainwater Harvesting Club at Mahashe School,
2002. Learning support package for environmental learning in schools: Harvesting Rainwater:
Background Information for Teachers
Activities Sourcebook for Senior Phase

Save the Sand News; Newsletter Number One October 1999; Newsletter Number Two January
2002.

External evaluations

Fawcett, Ben. 1994. ‘Northern and Eastern Transvaal Water Programme: Consultancy Report’.

Cousins, T. 1994. ‘Evaluation workshop report’.

Michaelides,H, Mbanjwa, D and Schreiner,G. 1999. 'AWARD Evaluation'. Evaluation by

Participative Solutions Africa.

Alcock, D and Ndlovu, C. 1999. 'AWARD Evaluation'. Evaluation by Baekey International

Associates.

27
Papers in preparation

Du Toit, D. In prep. ‘Participation beyond the tyranny’. Paper prepared for Both Ends/ Gomukh
project.

Cousins, T. and Monareng, J. In prep. ‘Developing A Water and Livelihoods Planning Process
(WaLPP)’. Submission to 4th Waternet/ Warfsa symposium, Gaborone, October 2003.

Joubert, A. and Pollard, S.R. In press. ‘Development and analysis of land-use scenarios for the
Sand River Catchment, South Africa’.

Pollard, S.R. In prep. ‘Adopting an Ecosystems Approach in participatory Integrated Catchment

Management’. Paper prepared for Both Ends/ Gomukh project.

Pollard, S.R., Cousins, T., Ellery, W., Kotze, D., and Jewitt, G. In prep. ‘Towards catchment
water security: linking livelihoods and wetlands functioning’. Submission to 4th Waternet/ Warfsa
symposium, Gaborone, October 2003.

28
 Appendix Three: People: Staff, Board, Advisors
NAME WITH AWARD WHERE NOW
Chris Dolan 1993- 94 London
Sharon Pollard 1993 - AWARD
Peter Lazarus 1993- 96 Consultant, Johannesburg
Joe Venter 1993 - 95
Ken Vinson 1994 – 96 Mvula Trust, Nelspruit
Anton Simanowitz 1994 – 97 Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, UK
Dzunani Nyathi 1994-96 Mvula Trust, Nelspruit
Ken Jeenes 1994- 95 Consultant, Cape Town
Pontsho Kgweedi 1994 – 2000
Malcolm White 1996 – 2000 East Timor
Sipho Mlambo 1996- AWARD
Castro Mhlanga 1996 – 2000 The Rural Action Committee,Nelspruit
District Councillor.
Audrey Lubisi 1996 – 1997 Witbank
Grant Parkinson 1998- 2000 Water engineer, Canada
Lephai Mauntlalala 1996-97 Mvula Trust, Polokwane
Peter Sekgobela 1996 – 2001 Thlavama ( NGO, Polokwane)
Gift Khoza 1996-98 Kruger National Park
Detlef Schwager 1997 – 98
Limpho Klu 1998 – 99 Mvula Trust, Polokwane
Modjaji Letsoala 1998-2001 Working for Water, Nelspruit
Calvin Phiri 1998 – 2000 Consultancy, Nelspruit
Glandryk Ngwenya 1999 – 2001 Ermelo
Simon Ndaka 1999 – 2001 BBR
Phillip Walker 1997 – 2000 Regional Coordinator Pacific, Red Cross
Juan Carlos Pérez de 1998-2000 University lecturer, Spain
Mendiguren
Tame Mabelane 1998 Johannesburg
Sinton Mashego 1998-2002 Set up his own ministry in BBR
Wissie Chilaone 1998 - AWARD
Corlette Molefe 1999 – 2001 Thlavama ( NGO, Polokwane)
Kgopotso Mokgope 2000 – 01 Working on HIV/AIDS, Johannesburg
Lorenzo Bertolo 2000-02 Oxfam, Angola
Mohammed Mohammed 2000 Mozambique
James Rhoda 2000 – 01 Cape Town Municipality
Derick Maesela 2000 – 02 Working for Water, Nelspruit
Toka Molapo 2001 – 02 Consultant, BBR
Julian Solomon 2001- 02
Derick du Toit 2001 - AWARD
Ludo Jacobs 2001 - AWARD
Dennis Msweni 2002 - AWARD
Jethro Monareng 2002 - AWARD
Themba Khoza 2002 Teaching, BBR
Ramin Pejan 2003 Volunteered for a New York, USA
month

29
Programme Advisory
Committee/ BOARD
Tessa Cousins PAC/ Board member Consultant, Pietermaritzburg
1996 -
Shirley Ngwenya PAC/ Board member Nelson Mandela Children Fund
1996 -
Peter Smith PAC Was DfID with DWAF, Pretoria, now
1996-99 left SA
Horst Kleinschmidt PAC/ Board member Deputy Director General, Department
1996-2000 Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Masingita Zwane PAC/ Board IDT
member1996 - 2002
Barry Jackson PAC DBSA
1996-8
Mike Muller Advisor Director General, DWAF
1993-95
Bruce Corbett Associate Consultant, White River
1993-97
Brian Yule PAC CHLF
1996-98
Tumelo Mashego PAC/ Board member Local Councillor, BBR
1998-2001
Patience Nyakane Board member Speaker, Bohlabela District Council.
1999- Chair, BBR Water Board.
Teacher, BBR.
Elleck Nchabaleng Board member IDT
1999 -
Gloria Mbokota Board member Tsimeni Consulting, Johannesburg
2000 -
Alana Potter Board member Mvula Trust, Johannesburg
2000 -
Matthew Prior Board member Financial manager, Netcare,
2000 - Johannesburg
Lephai Mauntlalala Board member Mvula Trust, Polokwane
2000 -
Desia Colgon Board member Law Department, Wits University
2002 -
Janet Love SSP Steering Reserve Bank, Pretoria
Committee 1998-
Guy Preston SSP Steering Working for Water, DWAF
Committee 1998-

30