Full Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, Issue ...

Government, Society, and Science in IWRM In South Africa29(Postel and Richter 2003). The new and enablinglegislative framework presents stakeholders andauthorities with a clear vision of equity, efficiency,and sustainability in the allocation and use ofwater, as well as the goods and services that arederived from or linked to such water use (VanWyk et al. 2006). The focus on greater equitywithin South Africa’s new water policy requiresstakeholders to shift away from rights-based waterallocations to a system where water allocationdecisions are interest-based (Dent 2001). Thismove towards a negotiation-driven process ofwater allocation represents a dramatic change fromprevious procedures, requiring a fundamental shiftin both mindset and practice, based on a mutualunderstanding of each group’s resource needs andpreferences, and acceptance that these needs aredynamic over space and time (Van Wilgen et al.2003).These objectives are ambitious and unprecedentedand it should not come as a surprise that,at this early stage of the process, the objectives ofequity, efficiency, and sustainability in the allocationand use of the country’s water resources remainelusive (Van Wyk et al. 2006). Part of the reason forthis lies in the varied interpretations among differentstakeholders as to what constitutes IWRM andhow its goals and objectives can best be achieved.Another, perhaps even more important, reason islinked to the different levels of understanding ofand familiarity with the governance processes thatare needed in different situations, and how thesecan be best achieved. In South Africa, the shift inmanagement approaches to embrace the principlesof IWRM has been accompanied by processes ofinstitutional decentralization and democratizationdesigned to facilitate and strengthen localstakeholder participation in decision-making forwater resources management (Pegram et al. 2005).These institutional changes are most easily visiblein the emergence of Catchment Councils, WaterUser Associations and Catchment ManagementAgencies.Conceptually, the degree to which waterDevelopinginfrastructure(First order focus)Centralized managementWater is not anEconomic ResourceASupply-sideoptionsWater is an EconomicResourceBDemand-sideoptionsDecentralized managementWater is a Social and anEconomic ResourceCDevelopinginstitutions(Second orderfocus)Figure 1. Conceptual model illustrating the general trend of change as the focus of water resource managementbroadens to include increasingly decentralized approaches (A), (B) and (C), while management options expandfrom purely supply-side options to include more demand-side options (redrawn from Turton et al., in press).JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR