holistic approach to water resources management
in which water-related ecological/environmental,
social, and economic needs within an area (which
could be a water basin, hydrological zone or an
entire country) are met simultaneously (GWP
2000a). The scale at which this management
takes place has to be appropriate (OECD Principles on Water Governance 2015). GallegoAyala and Juízo (2011) define IWRM as an
approach to water development management that
seeks a balance between the three dimensions of
sustainable development, namely economic efficiency, social equity and environmental sustainability. Therefore, in its comprehensive form,
IWRM is a complex multiple dimensional process in which multiple stakeholders, who are
usually drawn from different sectors, are
involved in the governance of water resources to
ensure the sustainability of these resources. In
southern Africa, IWRM has been touted as the
solution to the numerous water problems
bedeviling the region. It could even be used as
way of averting transboundary water-related
conflicts facing this region. Petersen-Perlman
(2016), for instance, noted that hyropolitical
conflicts are looming among states that share the
Zambezi River Basin.
The call for IWRM is implied in Paragraph 1
of Chap. 18 of Agenda 21, which calls for the
increasing need to manage freshwater resources
as an integral and indispensable component of
the global hydrosphere, biosphere and terrestrial
ecosystems (United Nations 1992). Since its
establishment in 1996, the Global Water Partnership (GWP) has been at the center stage of
IWRM. For IWRM to succeed, GPW (2000a)
recommends the development of an enabling
environment through appropriate policies, legal
instruments and financial support, as well as
development of strong institutional structures and
capacity building. However, in many developing
countries, these requirements are non-existent
due to a wide range of factors, some of which are
linked to poverty.
While the ideals enshrined in the principles
noted above are noble, it is also apparent that
water managers, policymakers or water ministries and departments cannot resolve water
problems individually, rendering collective
efforts necessary. The realization that waterrelated problems are increasing in complexity
due to the rapid changes brought about by
demographic shifts, land use and land cover
changes, as well as climate change and variability, requires a multi-dimensional approach to
resolving water issues. Unlike in the past,
demographic changes related to population
growth and urbanization are exerting enormous
pressure on water resources, adding to already
escalating demands for water from industry,
agriculture and leisure. Yet, the availability and
quality of water resources are already strained by
threats from climate change and variability,
making it extremely difficult for society to balance water needs and what the environment can
actually provide.
The objective of this chapter is to examine
how IWRM is perceived in southern Africa and
the challenges of applying this concept in water
resources governance and management within
the region, using the case study of Zimbabwe.
Due to mixed views among researchers, there is
an ongoing debate about the extent to which the
implementation of IWRM has succeeded in the
country (Dube and Swatuk 2002; Van der Zaag
2005; Saravanan et al. 2009; Butterworth et al.
2010). In our contribution to this debate, we use
the case study of Zimbabwe’s IWRM programme to illustrate how global developments in
the water sector have influenced water resource
management strategies in southern Africa and in
the process shaping national water policies and
management practices at the grassroots community level.
IWRM sought to accelerate the devolution of
responsibilities to water users and build transparent and accountable mechanisms for resource
allocations (GWP 2000). For instance, based on
the principle of subsidiarity, Zimbabwe’s Zimbabwe National Water Act (ZINWA) Act of 1998
handed the mandate of water resources management to the ‘lowest appropriate authority’, with
the view to enhance efficiency, accountability and
stakeholder participation in the management of
water resources at the ‘lowest appropriate level’,
that is grassroots community level.
24
G. Mukwada et al.
in which water-related ecological/environmental,
social, and economic needs within an area (which
could be a water basin, hydrological zone or an
entire country) are met simultaneously (GWP
2000a). The scale at which this management
takes place has to be appropriate (OECD Principles on Water Governance 2015). GallegoAyala and Juízo (2011) define IWRM as an
approach to water development management that
seeks a balance between the three dimensions of
sustainable development, namely economic efficiency, social equity and environmental sustainability. Therefore, in its comprehensive form,
IWRM is a complex multiple dimensional process in which multiple stakeholders, who are
usually drawn from different sectors, are
involved in the governance of water resources to
ensure the sustainability of these resources. In
southern Africa, IWRM has been touted as the
solution to the numerous water problems
bedeviling the region. It could even be used as
way of averting transboundary water-related
conflicts facing this region. Petersen-Perlman
(2016), for instance, noted that hyropolitical
conflicts are looming among states that share the
Zambezi River Basin.
The call for IWRM is implied in Paragraph 1
of Chap. 18 of Agenda 21, which calls for the
increasing need to manage freshwater resources
as an integral and indispensable component of
the global hydrosphere, biosphere and terrestrial
ecosystems (United Nations 1992). Since its
establishment in 1996, the Global Water Partnership (GWP) has been at the center stage of
IWRM. For IWRM to succeed, GPW (2000a)
recommends the development of an enabling
environment through appropriate policies, legal
instruments and financial support, as well as
development of strong institutional structures and
capacity building. However, in many developing
countries, these requirements are non-existent
due to a wide range of factors, some of which are
linked to poverty.
While the ideals enshrined in the principles
noted above are noble, it is also apparent that
water managers, policymakers or water ministries and departments cannot resolve water
problems individually, rendering collective
efforts necessary. The realization that waterrelated problems are increasing in complexity
due to the rapid changes brought about by
demographic shifts, land use and land cover
changes, as well as climate change and variability, requires a multi-dimensional approach to
resolving water issues. Unlike in the past,
demographic changes related to population
growth and urbanization are exerting enormous
pressure on water resources, adding to already
escalating demands for water from industry,
agriculture and leisure. Yet, the availability and
quality of water resources are already strained by
threats from climate change and variability,
making it extremely difficult for society to balance water needs and what the environment can
actually provide.
The objective of this chapter is to examine
how IWRM is perceived in southern Africa and
the challenges of applying this concept in water
resources governance and management within
the region, using the case study of Zimbabwe.
Due to mixed views among researchers, there is
an ongoing debate about the extent to which the
implementation of IWRM has succeeded in the
country (Dube and Swatuk 2002; Van der Zaag
2005; Saravanan et al. 2009; Butterworth et al.
2010). In our contribution to this debate, we use
the case study of Zimbabwe’s IWRM programme to illustrate how global developments in
the water sector have influenced water resource
management strategies in southern Africa and in
the process shaping national water policies and
management practices at the grassroots community level.
IWRM sought to accelerate the devolution of
responsibilities to water users and build transparent and accountable mechanisms for resource
allocations (GWP 2000). For instance, based on
the principle of subsidiarity, Zimbabwe’s Zimbabwe National Water Act (ZINWA) Act of 1998
handed the mandate of water resources management to the ‘lowest appropriate authority’, with
the view to enhance efficiency, accountability and
stakeholder participation in the management of
water resources at the ‘lowest appropriate level’,
that is grassroots community level.
24
G. Mukwada et al.