by Gert Jan Veldwisch
Veldwisch, G.J.A. (2004). ‘Running together or alone? Institutional and socio-technical analysis of Water Management at the Thabina Irrigation Scheme, South Africa’, working paper prepared for the International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
This document embodies the results of research conducted between November 2003 and March 2004 at the Thabina... more
This document embodies the results of research conducted between November 2003 and March 2004 at the Thabina Irrigation Scheme in Limpopo Province, South Africa. The objective of the research was two fold: (1) to gain a better understanding of the formal and informal control of water by users of the Thabina Irrigation Scheme and (2) to develop and test a methodology and framework for institutional analysis that is complementary to the SMILE approach and applicable to research at other irrigation schemes.
The report first describes the approach used which consists of both a framework for analysis and a methodology. It draws mainly from existing material on collective action in common resource management and more specifically collective action in smallholder irrigation systems. It is complemented with an understanding of irrigation systems as networks composed of heterogeneous material i.e. technical, managerial and social aspects are not separated but analysed as a whole. A qualitative approach is chosen that focuses on water users, their relations to infrastructure and its link with patterns of governance.
Following this, a case study of the Thabina Irrigation Scheme is presented. Between 1998 and 2001 the Scheme was rehabilitated as a pilot of the Revitalisation of Smallholder Irrigation Schemes in the Limpopo Province. A Water Users’ Association and Management Committee were set up under the same programme and management responsibilities turned over to the Committee. A previous study conducted at the Scheme made use of the SMILE approach and indicated a significant economic/agronomic diversification tendency (Perret et al., 2003). The same study also acknowledged the importance of some institutional issues and the availability of water. This report elaborates on these issues.
The institutional and water sharing practices are presented in four steps. Firstly, an official account of water sharing is given. This sketches the situation as it was supposed to be, an idealised and simplified scenario. Secondly, the reality as experienced by ‘the water users’ is portrayed. This already identifies some difficulties in water sharing. Following this the various levels of organisation are described and analysed. Finally, the differences between water users are identified and interpreted from four different perspectives.
The main results of the study may be summarised as follow:
Although the official account suggests that there should be enough water at Thabina, in reality there seems to be a situation of strong water stress. This situation was partly created during (re-)design of the Scheme. For example, a 60% overall efficiency was used in the design calculations while in reality the field efficiency was only 15%.
The off-take structures from the main into the sub-canals consist of a check structure in the main canal and a number of pipes in the side of the main canal, just upstream from the check structure. All pipes release a discharge of about 7 l/s. There is thus no proportional relation between the area served by a sub-canal and the design discharge at its inlet. Furthermore, five of the sub-canal units have a wrong layout, three with too little pipes and two with too many.
During rehabilitation a stretch of the main canal had been covered with concrete slabs to restrict water use in the residential area and to prevent sand and objects from falling in. However, many slabs have broken and fallen into the canal and thus block the flow of water. At other places there seem to be obstructions under the slabs. Clearing these obstructions could increase water flows in the main canal up to three times.
As discharge to the sub-canal is independent of discharge in the main canal, the layout of these off-take structures leads to water shortages at the tail-end. In such a system, water shortages are not equally spread but affect only users at the tail-end as water in the main canal becomes depleted before reaching this section. In practice this means that more than half the Scheme receives water less than five months a year.
From a farming perspective, the sub-canal has the biggest influence on water supply although it is not recognised as an organisational unit. The lowest organisational unit is the ward, a cluster of three to five sub-canals. Hydraulically seen, the ward is not a logical unit of organisation as there is no common entry point.
The length of the main canal and its 18 off-takes make the Scheme organisationally and technically difficult to manage. Moreover, the strong tail-end effect and absence of a sanctioning system for illegal use by head-enders is highly political. Although an elected Management Committee (MC) exists, its representation, accountability and information sharing seem to be poor.
Four situations leading to specific strategies have been identified. They are represented visually on two axes: commercialising farmers versus subsistence farmers and head-enders versus tail-enders. Although not absolute there seems to be a relation between subsistence farming and the tail-end and commercial farming and the head-end. It illustrates that water shortage prevents people from adopting a more commercial approach towards farming. However, the existence of subsistence farmers in the head-end indicate that more water does not automatically lead to commercialisation.
Analysing the most important enabling conditions for sustainable self-management of common property resources, provides both a long list of conditions enabling emergence as well as a long list opposing emergence. On a balance the conditions point towards non emergence. The existence of a strong heterogeneity of interests and the failure to fulfil these different interests at Scheme level imply the existence of a variety of individual strategies to get water.
The report proposes four changes to overcome the constraints to collective action and self-management. These are (1) increasing the water available to the users, (2) land reform to increase flexibility and security in land tenure, (3) improvement of representation of all farmers in the MC and (4) creating clarity on the role of Government in local water governance.
Finally, the approach used should be seen to complement the SMILE-approach although steps can be taken to better integrate the two. Concurrent use of the two approaches will strengthen both as a deeper understanding at the early stages of the SMILE-approach will assist in defining more relevant farmer typologies and improve the reliability of data gathered through questionnaires.
Download (.pdf) 
