This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Physics and Chemistry of the Earth journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pce Framework for effective community participation in water quality management in Luvuvhu Catchment of South Africa L. Nare a,⇑, J.O. Odiyo a, J. Francis b, N. Potgieter c a Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Venda, P/Bag X5050, Thohoyandou, South Africa Centre for Rural Development, University of Venda, P/Bag X5050, Thohoyandou, South Africa c Department of Microbiology, University of Venda, P/Bag X5050, Thohoyandou, South Africa b a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 18 August 2011 Keywords: Community participation Frameworks Linkages Stakeholders Water quality management a b s t r a c t A study has been done in Luvuvhu Catchment to develop a framework for effective community participation in water quality monitoring and management. Community participation and involvement in development has since the 1970s gathered momentum among the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) fraternity but has never gained clear status with Governments world over. In South Africa the policy and legal frameworks for community consultation, involvement and participation are clearly spelt out on paper starting with the country’s constitution. The division of the country into Water Management Areas (WMA) and the formation of Catchment Management Agencies (CMA), Water User Associations (WUAs) for example, was meant to increase participation of stakeholders including communities in the management of water resources. These efforts have not translated into effective participation by local communities in the management of water resources because there is no link between the national water quality management frameworks and community based development structures. An extensive review of development frameworks including community based structures has been undertaken. The most critical frameworks identified were the national water quality management framework (Directorate of Water Quality Monitoring and Catchment Management Agencies), community based structures and local government structures and systems (municipalities, provincial and national structures). There was no flow of information between the national water quality framework and community based development structures and therefore linkages were created between the lower tiers of the catchment management system (sub catchment fora and WUAs) to allow for information from the Directorate of Quality Monitoring to reach communities and vice versa. The lower tiers of the catchment management system should serve as specialised committees under the community development structures. The municipalities who control and fund development activities at community level should be linked to the catchment management system so that information can flow between the lower tiers of the catchment management system and communities on one hand and the municipalities on the other. The water quality monitoring information generated at community level should flow through community development structures, sub catchment fora, the Catchment Forum (where municipalities are members), the CMA and into the Directorate of Water Quality Monitoring. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction South Africa’s water resources are in global terms, scarce and limited in extent and the country is categorized as water stressed with an annual fresh water availability of less than 1700 m3 per capita (Moriarty, 2001). The greater part of South Africa is semi-arid and subject to variable rainfall, droughts, floods, and high evaporation (Eales et al., 2005). Hirji et al. (2002) predicted that the demand for water in South Africa will outstrip its supply by 2025. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: leratonare@yahoo.com (L. Nare). 1474-7065/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.08.006 Therefore the management of South Africa’s water quality and availability is essential making it critical for other stakeholders especially communities to be involved in managing the scarce resources. The resources required to ensure that every community water supply is monitored are enormous and beyond the capacity of the government. Resource requirements for monitoring and management of water quality i.e. technical staff, funding, physical infrastructure and/or equipment are generally inadequate throughout all the existing systems (DWAF, 2004). But for effective community participation in water quality monitoring and management to take place, there is need to develop a framework that allows communities to interact with the national water quality monitoring and management system. Author's personal copy 1064 L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 Participation is a broad term used in different disciplines and applied to many fields with many variations in meaning and interpretations (Heyd and Neef, 2004). In the context of development plans and programmes, participation can be defined as the process through which stakeholders influence and take part in decision making in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and projects (Koasa-ard et al., 1998). It is a process that empowers people and communities through acquiring skills, knowledge and experience, leading to greater self-reliance and self-management (Karl, 2000). Public participation is often used interchangeably with or alongside a number of other terms such as information sharing, consultation, involvement and empowerment (Fig. 1) (Smithies and Webster, 1995).  Information sharing – is equated with professionals giving information to lay people.  Consultation – involves people being asked for their opinions which maybe considered when the final decision is made.  Involvement – implies people being included as a necessary part of something.  Empowerment – continuous process whereby individuals and/or communities gain the confidence, self esteem, understanding and power necessary to articulate their concerns, ensure that action is taken to address them and more broadly, gain control over their lives. It is understood to be central to health promotion and is implicit within Agenda 21s commitment to strengthen public participation. Public participation is rooted in the concept of community development which is an approach in development programmes that aims to improve the living conditions of people in a particular area (Nikkhah and Redzuan, 2009). Community development is also concerned with the creation of improved social and economic conditions through emphasis on voluntary cooperation and self-help efforts of the communities (Nikkhah and Redzuan, 2009). The term public participation describes a variety of relationships between the implementing agency and its stakeholders (DWAF, 2001). The motivation for public participation lies in its benefits (DWAF, 2000). These benefits include facilitated cooperation between different sectors, improved decision making, sustainable development, positive growth and attitudes among the stakeholders. Stakeholders are those people/groups/organisations who have an interest in river catchment integrated management processes because they are affected by them or can have some influence on them (FAO, 2000). In order to monitor and evaluate stakeholder participation in development projects and programmes, it is necessary to identify the stakeholders, i.e. those who are affected by the outcome, negatively or positively, or those who can affect the outcomes of a proposed intervention (Karl, 2000). Communities are the primary stakeholders in the watersheds where they live because they have over the years of interaction with the environment, developed valuable knowledge and experience that makes them the best managers of the watersheds (Ong’or, 2005). Tsiho (2007) says communities all over the world have developed their own knowledge and practices for observing, measuring, and predicting environmental quality change, which are embedded in their indigenous languages and cultural beliefs. He argues that ‘‘there is little doubt that people at the grassroots have knowledge of their environment that transcends conventional social, economic and biological indicators.’’ Therefore there is a need to create space for this indigenous knowledge to be incorporated into water quality management strategies currently being used. The WHO protocol on Water and Health of 2006 encourages the involvement of all stakeholders i.e. professionals, scientific experts, the public at large, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and local action groups in dealing with issues concerning water and health. Participation can take place in a political process, within a development project or research. One of the objectives of participation is empowerment which is meant to increase the independence, awareness and capacity of marginalised groups (Campbell and Salagrama, 2000). Participation of stakeholders in a watershed in water management may offer solutions for a more efficient and sustainable management of resources (Heyd and Neef, 2004). Several studies suggest that participatory watershed development projects are more successful than externally managed top down, ‘one-size-fits-all’ projects. Community participation involves holding discussions and open forums between community members themselves and with government authorities or non-governmental organisations involved in advocacy so as to contribute ideas for inclusion in policy development and change in operation strategy (DWAF, 2005). If given chance, communities can participate effectively in matters relating to water resources management. In Kalomo (Zambia), the local community was mobilized to manage provision of water services, whereby villagers protected a catchment area by building a fence around a borehole and regularly cleaned the water point (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2002). Evidence from Gujarat (India) demonstrates the linkages between local community involvement in water project management and empowerment of stakeholders, especially imparting them with the capacity to negotiate with other stakeholders at higher levels concerning issues that affect their livelihood and lifestyle (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2002). Kauzeni and Madulu (2000) found that, though community participation is emphasised in developing land use plans, in many cases local communities and their local knowledge are ignored by planners in developing and managing land and water resources. There are many reasons that compel South Africa to adopt participatory approaches in water quality monitoring and management. One of the reasons why South Africa needs to adopt participatory approaches relates to water scarcity and the deteriorating water supply situation in the country. Water resources in most parts of South Africa are already fully utilised or overdrawn (Kanyoka et al., 2008). The situation is worsened by water pollution Fig. 1. Continuum of participation; Adapted from Rifkin and Pridmore (2001). Author's personal copy L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 problems that further negatively impact on the limited water resources. Escalating rates of urbanization, industrialisation and population growth have aggravated the significance of water pollution as a threat to the persistence of South Africa’s water resources (Coetzee, 1999). This requires the government to go ‘‘outside the box’’ to find solutions. Community involvement and participation in water quality monitoring and management could be such an innovation. The second reason is that, the world has witnessed a paradigm shift in the way water resources are managed. The focus has moved to managing demand as much as possible rather than developing new supplies. This shift has ushered in new interrelated concepts in management of water resources which revolve around community involvement and participation. The new concepts include ‘‘sustainable development’’, and integrated water resources management (IWRM). South Africa as a member of the ‘‘global village’’ is affected by the paradigm shift and cannot afford to ignore the new concepts. Governments, funding agencies, donors, and civil society actors including NGOs and multi-lateral agencies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have all arrived at a near consensus that development cannot be sustainable and long-lasting without community participation (Nikkhah and Redzuan, 2009). The third reason relates to the need to incorporate and preserve indigenous knowledge in water quality monitoring and management. Studies have proved that indigenous communities have valuable knowledge systems that can be incorporated into strategies for environmental management and that the knowledge systems are an essential cultural and technological element of human societies (Koocheki, 2007). Friis-Hansen (1999) emphasised the need for taking indigenous knowledge on board when planning, developing, implementing and managing water resources. He argued that although experiences and knowledge of local people lack scientific explanations, they are a strong weapon in solving local problems. Research in local knowledge could ensure 1065 community participation, and indigenous/local knowledge could be used to facilitate development of water projects that are environmentally sustainable and meet national and community development objectives (Adams et al., 1994). It has been shown that the implementation of well considered, community accepted drinking water quality management procedures can effectively change an unacceptable water quality to one that satisfies drinking water specifications (Mackintosh and Colvin, 2003). South Africa has projected herself in the eyes of the world as a democratic state. Democracy implies the involvement and participation of citizens throughout the development cycle i.e. conception of ideas, planning, implementation and evaluation. Therefore, the country needs to create frameworks that will enable communities to effectively participate in development issues including water quality monitoring and management issues. The country already has a comprehensive policy, legal and institutional frameworks to promote community participation in water quality monitoring and management. The question is whether these are adequate to do that and whether the implementation is comprehensive enough to achieve the desired results. The study therefore sought to analyse the frameworks in detail, identify any gaps, improve and/or develop more frameworks that would encourage community involvement and participation in water quality monitoring and management. 2. The study area The Luvuvhu Catchment forms part of the Luvuvhu/Letaba Water Management Area which lies between 29°490 E and 31°550 E and 24°10 S and 29°490 S. The Luvuvhu River and some of its tributaries (including the Mutshindudi and Mutale Rivers) rise in the Soutpansberg Mountains. It flows for about 200 km through a diverse range of landscapes before it joins the Limpopo River near Pafuri in the Kruger National Park. Except for the Thohoyandou and Malamulele urban centres, the catchment mainly consists of rural Fig. 2. Map of the portion of the Luvuvhu River Catchment that comprised the study area showing treatment plants. Author's personal copy 1066 L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 settlements, commercial agriculture and the Kruger National Park. The major uses of water in the catchment are domestic water supplies followed by commercial agriculture and then environmental use. There are four water treatment plants in the catchment. These are Albasin, Malamulele, Xikundu and Mhinga. Albasin is located in a commercial area and it supplies water to Louis Trichardt which is in the Sand River Catchment and therefore the area around Albasin was not included in the study. The study area effectively covered the areas that are supplied with water from Malamulele, Xikundu and Mhinga treatment plants (Fig. 2). The populations supplied by each treatment plant are shown in Table 1 and they comprised the study population. The study area is inhabited by two minority groups, the Venda and Tsonga. The population distribution by age and sex is shown in Table 2. 3. Methodology The study commenced with a thorough review of policy, legal and institutional frameworks relating to water quality monitoring and management in South Africa. The review specifically looked at whether the frameworks facilitated and supported the involvement and participation of communities in water quality monitoring and management. Frameworks relating to local governance and development were reviewed to identify any potential in them to support community involvement and participation in water quality monitoring and management. A quantitative and descriptive social study involving over 8000 people out of 120,000 people (15%) was carried out within the catchment to identify structures, organisations and practices at community level that could promote the participation of communities in water quality monitoring and management. The study also evaluated the current levels of involvement and participation by communities in the catchment in water quality monitoring and management. Participatory methods were employed to gather data from the communities. Participatory methods are designed to collect data from respondents without making them feel confronted by the researcher. People work on themes given by the facilitator in groups without the facilitator leading them. Participatory methods allow the groups to discuss among themselves and reach agreement on any point under discussion. This allows for sharing of information among the members of the group besides promoting an element of consensus decision making mechanism among the participants. The groups then present their views in a plenary session and allow other groups to give their views before the facilitator records the agreed points as the findings from the session. The advantage of participatory methods is that they allow for many people to contribute their views at the same time. This makes them less time consuming and cheaper to use than individual interviews. They also remove the bias that usually occurs in interviews where the respondent is conscious that he or she is talking to a stranger and may not feel comfortable divulging certain issues and resort to telling the researcher what he/she thinks the researcher will be happy to hear. Participants were grouped into sessions of forty-five people and each session had three groups made of males, females and the youth. The youths were considered to be those participants who were below the age of 20 years. Majority of the people who attended the sessions were in middle age (21–50 years) and could read and write. They were able to record their discussions on flipcharts and present. Each group was issued with an assignment which they worked and presented their findings at a plenary where all the groups would participate in discussions and make contributions. A total of 177 sessions were held and 531 groups participated. The qualitative data gathered from each session would then be converted into quantitative data through the use of summary data sheets. The quantitative data would be recorded in terms of how many of the groups supported a certain point of view. The quantitative data was then analysed using SPSS, a computer programme designed to process data from social studies. The data is first entered into the EXCEL spreadsheet before being transported into SPSS for analysis. 4. Results and discussions Table 1 Treatment plants in the study area and the populations served. 4.1. Policy and legal frameworks Total population served Name of plant Treatment capacity (ml) Source of water No. of villages served Malamulele 21.6 33 95,022 Xikundu 20 35 200,000 Mhinga 3 Luvuvhu River Luvuvhu River Luvuvhu River 7 50,000 Table 2 Distribution of the population in the study area by sex and age (Source Stats: South Africa 2010). Water treatment plant Age group Population Male Malamulele Xikundu Mhinga Total 0–19 20–64 65+ 0–19 20–64 65+ 0–19 20–64 65+ Female 19,044 23,756 1900 40,000 50,000 4000 10,000 12,500 1000 20,905 23,756 5701 4400 50,000 12,000 11,000 12,500 3000 162,200 132,262 There is adequate and comprehensive policy and legal framework in the country that could be used to support the involvement and participation of communities in water quality monitoring and management in Luvuvhu Catchment. These include; Batho Pele – White Paper on Transforming Service Delivery (September 1997), The Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act No. 2 of 2000), The National Environmental Management (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989), White Paper on Water Supply and Sanitation (November 1994), Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 1996) and the National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998). All these encourage community participation in development as a way of deepening the democratic agenda in the country. The Promotion of Access to Information Act for example, seeks to ensure that information about development is made available to all the people in the country. Water quality information becomes critical in protecting public health and therefore the information should be shared with the community as provided by the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The National Water Act requires the Minister to establish national information systems including a water resource quality information system. The White Paper on Water Supply and Sanitation states that the involvement and empowerment of people is paramount in the provision of water and sanitation services to poor communities. The policy also states that Author's personal copy L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 community involvement in the planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance of improved water supplies is necessary for sustainable progress. 4.2. Institutional frameworks The institutions/organisations that could facilitate community participation in water quality monitoring and management are divided into those that are currently involved in the activity at the moment and those that are still being set up. According to Hodgson and Manus (2006) the following institutions are currently involved in water quality monitoring and management in South Africa; Water Services Authorities (WSAs), Department of Water Affairs (DWA), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Provincial and Local Government and Civil society. The primary responsibility for ensuring the provision of safe drinking water rests with WSAs. WSAs have a legal responsibility to monitor the quality of drinking water provided to consumers, compare the results to national drinking water standards and communicate any health risks to consumers and appropriate authorities as described in the regulations to the Water Services Act (No. 108 of 1997) Compulsory National Standards for the Quality of Potable Water. DWA supports and regulates the role of WSAs with regards to drinking water quality by among other things managing information, including the water sector database and information sharing system covering key aspects such as tracking WSA monitoring systems and drinking water quality data. The DoH supports the drinking water quality management function by collecting information on the incidences of waterborne diseases (for example, diarrhoea) and the use of this information to facilitate interventions. DoH also acts as the lead ‘early warning’ authority and execution agent for medical intervention under emergency drinking water quality conditions. At district municipality and metropolitan level, the environmental health officers support the drinking water quality management function by assuming the primary responsibility for health and hygiene education related to water and sanitation services, and undertaking drinking water quality monitoring as a routine audit function at point-of-use. The Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) supports the drinking water quality management function by the allocation of a municipal infrastructure grant, capacity building grant and equitable share to address areas of need impacting on effective drinking water quality management. Civic organisations play a crucial role in articulating community needs and aspiration for presentation to the community leadership and other stakeholders. The Strategic Framework for 1067 Water Services notes that ‘the most important and effective monitoring strategy for the sector is strengthening the voice of the consumer’. A framework that has not yet been established in most parts of South Africa but expected to play a critical role in involvement of communities and other stakeholders in water quality monitoring and management is provided by the catchment management system. The National Water Act provides for the formal establishment of Catchment Management Agencies (CMA) as a way of decentralising the management of water resources to lower levels of government and society. The country has been divided up in 19 Water Management Areas (WMA) and each is expected to be managed by a CMA. The CMA represents all stakeholders (including current and potential user groups) and their interests in a Water Management Area. CMAs are established so that water resource management can be delegated to the regional or catchment level. Their primary purpose is to involve local communities in water resource management. The CMA system consists of the CMA itself at Water Management Area level, Catchment Management Committee (CMC) at catchment level and sub CMCs at local level (Fig. 3). Although they are not statutory bodies, South Africa also established Catchment Forums to initiate the formation of CMAs and thereafter provide an institutional mechanism to facilitate ongoing participation of stakeholders with diverse interests. A key purpose of a catchment forum is to enable the public to participate meaningfully in water resources management. They also provide an important platform for stakeholders to share their views and to communicate with the CMA. In addition the Act provides for the formation of Water User’s Association (WUA). A WUA is a co-operative association of individual water users who wish to undertake waterrelated activities for their mutual benefit. The purpose of a WUA is to enable people within a community to pool their resources (money, human resources and expertise) to more effectively carry out water-related activities. WUAs operate at a restricted localised level and provide a mechanism through which the catchment management strategy is implemented at local level. Through a WUA members can benefit from addressing their local needs and priorities. There are also institutions/organisations that can play a role in encouraging communities to participate effectively in water quality monitoring and management that are based at community level. These include local government structures, civic organisations at that level and community based non-governmental organisations known as Community Based Organisations (CBO). Local government structures at community level consist of district municipalities followed by local municipalities. The local municipalities are divided into wards and in each ward there are a number of villages which are headed by chiefs and sub villages headed by headmen. The wards Fig. 3. Proposed catchment management structures for Luvuvhu/Letaba Water Management Area. Author's personal copy 1068 L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 are managed by a Ward Committee made up of elected representatives from each village and chaired by a councillor. Ward Committees have the power to make any recommendations through the Ward Councilor to the metropolitan or local council on any matter affecting the ward. The Ward Committee through the councilor forms a direct link between the community and the municipality. Municipalities are the Water Services Authorities who have the primary responsibility to monitor the quality of water for domestic purposes as given in the Water Services Act. In Luvuvhu Catchment the three municipalities involved are Vhemebe District Municipality, Makhado and Thulamela Local Municipalities. Local government structures in Luvuvhu Catchment are shown in Fig. 4. The traditional leaders (chiefs and headmen) are the heads of their communities and give guidance on many issues including development as given under Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003. Communities hold meetings at the traditional leaders’ courts where various issues including development are discussed. Therefore this provides a forum where water issues are discussed before they are passed onto higher levels. 4.3. Community involvement and participation in water quality monitoring and management Despite the comprehensive policy, legal and institutional frameworks, communities in Luvuvhu Catchment only participate passively in water quality monitoring and management. Although 94% of the respondents acknowledged that their water supplies were monitored, only 5% said communities were involved in the monitoring. Ninety-five percent said the communities never got feedback from the government system on the results of water samples taken from their areas. Officials from Vhembe District Municipality confirmed that water testing was done at district level with no participation from the community. Fifty-one percent (51%) of respondents at community level identified government as the most critical stakeholder in water quality monitoring and management. This kind of mindset on the part of communities can lead to a dependence syndrome since they will expect the critical stakeholder to play the leading role in water quality monitoring and management. There are no direct and clear links between the current water quality frameworks and the institutions at community level which could promote community participation in water quality monitoring and management. There is no interface between the disease surveillance and health and hygiene programmes run by DoH and community structures. The programme is run vertically (top–down) by the Department with no opportunities for community input and influence. The staff responsible for the programmes is based at district level with no representation at community level which affects the ability of the Department to interface continuously with the community. Although the municipalities as WSAs are linked to the Ward Committees through the Ward Councillors and the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), the linkages centre on other developmental issues leaving water quality monitoring and management to be dealt with by professional departments in the WASAs and DoH. For example the Vhembe IDP document for 2008/2009 does not show any grants that are meant to support community based water quality monitoring and management activities. The way in which the IDP processes are implemented currently do not offer any opportunities for localised programmes like community based water quality monitoring to be included in the system. There is no room for extensive interaction with communities before the councillors make inputs into the IDP. The water quality monitoring information system run by DWA is not designed to collect community based water quality monitoring data. The system is based on information supplied by the professionals from the single understaffed and poorly equipped laboratory in Sibasa and therefore cannot serve as credible ‘‘realtime’’ water quality surveillance system. There are no agreed community based indicators and data collection tools designed to capture qualitative data at that level for integration into the national information system. The process to establish a CMA for Luvuvhu/Letaba Water Management Area is underway and the absence of CMA is interfering with the participation of stakeholders including communities in water quality management issues. DWA officials confirmed that at the moment it is only staff from DWA and DoH that meets to discuss water quality issues while other stakeholders such as municipalities, DEAT and communities will only participate after the formation of the CMA. On their part the communities were willing to participate in water quality monitoring and management in their areas. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the respondents said communities were willing to be involved in water quality monitoring and management activities at their own level. They are willing to be involved mainly in source protection and water quality monitoring and management. Ninety percent (90%) of the respondents said the community would be willing to pay for water quality monitoring in their areas. Fifty-five percent of the respondents said the communities would be willing to pay R20–00 per month/household for the monitoring of water quality in their areas. While the willingness of the community to participate in water quality monitoring and management does not automatically translate into capacity to do so, the willingness itself is critically in that it allows experts to work with the communities to create capacity to perform elementary monitoring tasks. Experiences from elsewhere have shown that rural communities, if given necessary training can handle and use simple technologies to monitor water quality. Community based water quality monitoring has been experimented on in other parts of the world and the results have been good and used to influence environmental policy. In the 1990s a rural community in the Philipines worked side by side with researchers, non-governmental and governmental workers over a five year period to develop science based indicators for water quality monitoring relevant for developing environmental policy (Deutsch, 1997). The results prompted the Lantapan Municipal Council to incorporate community based water testing and some of the research findings and recommendations into their Natural Resource Management Plan. 5. Conclusion Fig. 4. Local government structures in Luvuvhu Catchment. The study achieved its objectives of evaluating frameworks for involvement and participation in water quality monitoring and Author's personal copy L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 1069 Fig. 5. Proposed links between catchment management and local government structures. management by communities in Luvuvhu Catchment. Although the policy and legal frameworks are comprehensive and adequate to promote community based water quality monitoring and management they cannot do so because the institutional framework does not link directly to community based structures. There are viable community based structures such as the Tribal Council and its chiefs and headmen, the civic bodies and the Ward Development Committee chaired by the Councillor. These structures can play a critical role in monitoring water quality at community level. The study also assessed the level of participation by communities in water quality monitoring and management. Although the communities are willing to be involved and participate in water quality monitoring activities, the current institutional framework does not support that. 6. Recommendations To encourage true community participation, the authorities need to finalise the establishment of the catchment management system in Luvuvhu/Letaba WMA. The proposed structures are likely to enhance community participation in water quality monitoring and management as shown in Fig. 3. The structure would need to be linked to local government structures at community level so that it can articulate the opinions of the majority of the people. Links should be created between Figs. 3 and 4, so that information from the grass root level can flow through to the national level (Fig. 5). Each sub village will operate as the smallest unit of water quality monitoring. Water quality issues from each of the sub villages will be discussed at the weekly meetings held at the Tribal Office and chaired by the chief. The elected Ward Committee members from each village will then take the issues and decisions made to the monthly Ward Committee meetings chaired by the Councillor. From this point two routes should be taken. First, the Councillor as a member of the local municipality should take the issues to municipal meetings where they and any suggestions from each ward should be discussed and actions recommended. The results will then follow the normal local government reporting structures up to national level. The second route is that, the councillor who should be a member of the sub Catchment Forum should take the issues for discussion at the sub Catchment Forum. The chiefs should be part of the sub CF so that they can represent their villages. The members from the sub CFs who attend the Catchment Forum present the issues from each sub catchment for discussion. The Catchment Forum is made of all stakeholders in the water sector at catchment level. The results will then be taken up and discussed at WMA level by the CMA and the Catchment Steering Committee before being passed onto the national level. Community mobilisation should be done through the structures discussed above. The Department of Health, Thulamela Local Municipality and Department of Water Affairs need to maintain interface with communities and mobilise them to take up water quality monitoring activities. The Department of Health should be responsible for delivering health and hygiene education as a vehicle for mobilising communities to participate in water quality monitoring and management. The DoH should teach communities how to collect, analyse and interpret health statistics relating to waterborne diseases as a way of building capacity among the communities to assess their own risk and exposure to waterborne diseases. This should build a foundation for the DoH to engage communities in preventative and remedial intervention strategies at their own level. The DWA staff at the water treatment plants should be able to train communities in the use of elementary technologies to monitor the quality of water such as using litmus paper to monitor pH of water and Hydrogen Sulphide strips to monitor microbiological quality of water. Rapport should be created between the communities and the governments departments so that whenever the communities suspect something to be wrong with their water, they can call upon the experts to come and investigate further. Thulamela Local Municipality will be responsible for policy direction and mobilisation of resources for the program. The results of the activities carried out at community level will be discussed at the weekly community meetings held at the Tribal Office and follow the flow diagram shown in Fig. 5 up to the national level. References Adams, W.M., Potkanski, T.P., Sutton, J.E.G., 1994. Indigenous farmer managed irrigation in Sonjo, Tanzania. Geogr. J. 160, 17–32. Author's personal copy 1070 L. Nare et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (2011) 1063–1070 Campbell, J., Salagrama, V., 2000. New Approaches to Participation in Fisheries Research. FAO and SIFAR, Rome. Coetzee, M., 1999. In: Cowan, G.I. (Ed.), Water Pollution in South Africa: Its Impact on Wetland Biota: Wetlands of South Africa. 1995. Deutsch, M.W., 1997. Antibiotic use in necrotizing pancreatitis. 122, pp. 356–361. [AN:97259146]. Dungumaro, W.E., Madulu, N.F., 2002. Public participation in integrated water resources management: the case of Tanzania. In: 3rd WaterNet/Warfsa Symposium Water Demand Management for Sustainable Development, Dar es Salaam, 30–31 October 2002. DWAF, 2000. Strategic Plan 2000/2001. Unpublished Report. Directorate: Strategic Planning. DWAF, 2001. Communication Strategy for The National Forest Act. Unpublished Report. Subdirectorate: Regulation Forestry. DWAF, 2004. Strategic Framework for National Water Resource Quality Monitoring Programmes – DWAF Report No. N/0000/REQ0204. <www.dwaf.gov.za/ documents>. DWAF, 2005. Luvuvhu/Letaba WMA: Internal Strategic Perspective: APPENDICES. Report No. P WMA 02/000/00/0304. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Directorate: National Water Resource Planning (North). Eales, K., Forster, S., Du Mhango L., 2005. Strain, Water Demand, and Supply Directions in the Most Stressed Water Systems of Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Consultants, Economic Project Evaluation (Pty) Ltd., Rivonia, South Africa. FAO, 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Highlights of Special FAO Studies Editorial Group FAO Information Division. <www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/ X8002E/x8002e00.htm-9k>. Friis-Hansen, R., 1999. The Socio-Economic Dynamics of Farmers‘ Management of Local Plant Genetic Resources—A Framework for Analysis with Examples from Tanzanian Case Study. CRD Working Paper 99.3. Heyd, H., Neef, A., 2004. Participation of Local People in Water Management: Evidence from the MAE SA Watershed, Northern Thailand. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 128. Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC, 2006, USA. View publication stats Hirji, R., Mackay, H., Maro, P., 2002. Defining and Mainstreaming Environmental Sustainability in Water Resources Management in Southern Africa. SADC, IUCN, SARDC, World Bank, Maseru, Harare, Washington, DC. Hodgson, K., Manus, L., 2006. A drinking water quality framework for South Africa. Water SA 32 (5), 673–678. Kanyoka, P., Farolfi, S., Morardet, S., 2008. Households’ preferences for multiple use water services in rural areas of South Africa: an analysis based on choice modelling. Water SA 34 (6) (IWRM Special Edition). Karl, M., 2000. Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects: A Literature Review. Kauzeni, A.S., Madulu, N.S., 2000. Review of Development Programmes, Projects in Serengeti, Consultant Report to SIDA, Daresalam. Koasa-ard, M., Rayanakorn, K., Cheong, G., White, S., Johnson, C.A., Kangsin, P., 1998. Toward Public Participation in Mekong River Basin Development. Final Report. Thailand Development Research Institute, Bangkok. Koocheki, A.A., (2007) Indigenous knowledge in Agriculture with Particular Reference to Saffron Production in Iran: ISHS Acta Horticulturae 650: I International Symposium on Saffron Biology and Biotechnology. Mackintosh, G., Colvin C., 2003. Failure of Rural Schemes in South Africa to Provide Potable Water. Environmental Geology, CSIR Research Space > General Science, Engineering & Technology. Moriarty P., 2001. WATSAN and Rural Livelihoods Approaches. In: Paper Prepared for the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia. Nikkhah, H.A., Redzuan, M., 2009. Participation as a medium of empowerment in community development. Eur. J. Social Sci. 11 (1), 170–176. Ong’or, D.O., 2005. Community Participation in Integrated Water Resource Management: The Case of the Lake Victoria Basin: Department of Agriculture, Moi Institute of Technology. Rifkin, S.B., Pridmore, P., 2001. Partners in Planning: Information, Participation and Empowerment. Macmillian/TALC, London and Oxford. Smithies, J., Webster, G., 1995. Community Involvement in Health: From Passive Recipients to Active Participants. Aldershot Publishing Ashgate. Tsiho, S., 2007. Water Pollution in Southern Africa. <www.whois.ws/whois_index/g/ domain>.