CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES … Report_CWMMM_2013_D… · Classification of significant water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Matlabas and Mokolo catchments

CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES IN

THE CROCODILE (WEST), MARICO, MOKOLO AND MATLABAS CATCHMENTS (WP 10506)

STUDY CLOSE-OUT REPORT

REPORT NO.: RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0712

Directorate: Water Resource Classification

NOVEMBER 2013

Published by

Department of Water Affairs Private Bag X313

Pretoria, 0001 Republic of South Africa

Tel: (012) 336 7500/ +27 12 336 7500 Fax: (012) 336 6731/ +27 12 336 6731

Copyright reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without full acknowledgement of the source.

This report is to be cited as:

Department of Water Affairs. South Africa. November 2013. Directorate Water Resource Classification. CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES IN THE CROCODILE (WEST), MARICO, MOKOLO AND MATLABAS CATCHMENTS: Study Close-out Report. Report No: RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0712

Prepared by:

Golder Associates Africa, RMM Stassen, Prime Africa, Wetland Consulting Services, Zitholele Consulting and Department of Water Affairs

Title: Study Close-out Report Authors: Golder Associates Africa, Retha Stassen, Prime Africa, Wetland Consulting

Services and Department of Water Affairs

Project Name: CLASSIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCES IN THE CROCODILE (WEST), MARICO, MOKOLO AND MATLABAS CATCHMENTS (WP 10506)

DWA Report No: RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0712

Status of Report: Final

First Issue: November 2013

Final Issue: November 2013 Professional Service Providers: Golder Associates Africa/ RMM Stassen/ Zitholele Consulting/ Prime Africa and Wetland Consulting Services

Approved for the Professional Service Providers by:

………………………………………..

Trevor Coleman

Study Manager

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS (DWA)

Approved for DWA by:

………………………………………. Chief Director: Water Ecosystems

Classification of significant water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Matlabas and Mokolo catchments (WP 10506) Study Close-out Report

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) had identified the need to undertake the classification of significant water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments in accordance with the Water Resource Classification System (WRCS). The purpose of this study was to implement the 7 step WRC process to classify significant water resources (as so defined) in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments in order to determine management classes (MC) for specific areas within the catchments, for significant water resources. In October 2011 the study, The Classification of Significant Water Resources (rivers, wetland, groundwater and lakes) within the Mokolo Catchment and the Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area, WP 10506 was commissioned. Subsequent to this the Matlabas catchment was added and the new Water Management Area boundaries were promulgated so that the area studied is referred to in the reports compiled as the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments.

The Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments classification study was undertaken over a 26 month period from October 2011 to December 2013 in terms of the WRCS process. The study was undertaken by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd in association with Prime Africa Consultants, JMM Stassen, Wetland Consulting Services and Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd.

The study was primarily of a technical nature and was supported and guided by consultative stakeholder participation and engagement. The study has recently been completed and the WRCS successfully implemented. The outcome of the process specifies one of three MCs for each of the 20IUAs in the Crocodile (West)(8 IUAs), Marico (8 IUAs), Mokolo (2 IUAs) and Matlabas (2 IUAs) catchments.

This report forms the final deliverable of the study and serves as a feedback on deliverables, milestones, challenges and lessons learnt through the undertaking of the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments Classification study.


iii

DOCUMENT INDEX

Reports as part of this study:

Bold type indicates this report.

Report Index

Report number Report title

1 RDM/WMA1,3/00/CON/CLA/0111 Inception Report

2a RDM/WMA1,3/00/CON/CLA/0112A Information Analysis Report : Crocodile (West) Marico WMA

2b RDM/WMA1,3/00/CON/CLA/0112B Information Analysis Report : Mokolo and Matlabas catchments

3 RDM/WMA1,3/00/CON/CLA/0212 Integrated Units of Analysis Delineation Report

4 RDM/WMA 1,3/00/CON/CLA/0312 Ecological Water Requirements Report

5 RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0412 Ecologically Sustainable Base Configuration (ESBC) Scenario Report

6 RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0512 Scenarios Report

7 RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0612 Management Class Report

8 RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0712 Capacity Building Report

9 RDM/WMA1, 3/00/CON/CLA/0712 Close-out Report


iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CD: RDM Chief Directorate: Resource Directed Measures

DWA Department of Water Affairs

EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

ESBC Ecologically Sustainable Base Configuration

EWR Ecological Water Requirements

IUA Integrated Unit of analysis

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management

MC Management Class

NWA National Water Act

PES Present Ecological State

PSC Project Steering Committee

RDM Resource Directed Measures

WMA Water Management Area

WRC Water Research Commission

WRCS Water Resource Classification System


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... II

1 INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Purpose of the Report ................................................................................................................. 4

2 STUDY DELIVERABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Deliverable Outputs ..................................................................................................................... 6

3 MAJOR MILESTONES ............................................................................................................................................ 11

4 ISSUES AND CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................................. 12

5 LESSONS LEARNT................................................................................................................................................. 14

6 FINANCIAL BREAKDOWN ..................................................................................................................................... 15

7 BENEFIT TO THE CLIENT ...................................................................................................................................... 17

8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study process followed for classification of water resources in the Olifants WMA ............................................... 3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of study deliverables ............................................................................................................................. 5

Table 2: Summary of the study outputs per deliverable ..................................................................................................... 6


2 November 2013

1 INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND

Classification of water resources aims to ensure that a balance is reached between the need to protect and sustain water resources on one hand and the need to develop and use them on the other. In 2011, the Chief Directorate: Resource Directed Measures (CD:RDM) of the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) had identified the need to undertake the classification of significant water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments in accordance with the Water Resource Classification System (WRCS).

The purpose of this study was to implement the WRCS in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments in order to determine a management class (MC) of the significant water resources within specific areas within the catchments in the study area for recommendation to the Minister. The purpose of the MC once set, is to establish clear goals relating to the quantity and quality of the relevant water resource i.e. the Resource Quality Objectives (RQOs).The Reserve and RQOs for the water resources will be established once the water resources are classified.

In October 2011the study, The Classification of Significant Water Resources (rivers, wetland, groundwater and lakes) within the Mokolo Catchment and the Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area, WP 10506 was therefore commissioned. Subsequent to this the Matlabas catchment was added and the new Water Management Area boundaries were promulgated so that the area studied is referred to in the reports compiled as the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments.

The WRCS lays out a seven step procedure that when applied to a specific catchment will result in the determination of a management class (MC). The WRCS was applied within the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas river systems taking account of the local conditions, socio-economic imperatives and integrated water resource management challenges.

The main components that were addressed through the study process (Figure 1) included the:

• Study inception and water resource information and data gathering;

• Definition of the Integrated Units of Analysis (IUAs) and significant water resources;

• Status quo assessment of the catchments including aspects such as the assessment of

present state water resource quality, identification of water resource issues, determination of

the institutional environment and assessment of the socio-economic issues;

• The application of the WRCS, i.e. establishing the MC by integration of the economic, social

and ecological goals through a suitable analytical decision-making framework;

• Stakeholder engagement and consultation processes, and

• Population of the classification component of the Integrated Water Resource Management

template.


3 November 2013

Information and data gathering

Study scope definition

Define IUAs, nodes and significant water resources

Quantification of environmental flows, non-water quality goods and services

Development of an ecologically sustainable base configuration (ESBC) scenario

Status quo assessment and assessment of values, goods and services

Development of alternate scenarios

Evaluation of alternate scenarios

Stakeholder evaluation and recommended scenarios

Classification component of IWRM template with recommended management classes (MC)

Ince

ptio

n W

RC

S im

plem

enta

tion

Term

inat

ion

Figure 1: Study process followed for classification of water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments

The classification of water resources in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments was conducted in terms of the 7 prescribed steps outlined in the DWA guidelines (DWA, 2007) as best suited to circumstances and conditions that prevailed. The study was primarily of a technical nature and was supported and guided by consultative stakeholder participation and engagement. A study project steering committee (PSC) comprising the key stakeholder groups in the WMA was established at the inception phase of the study and was central to sanctioning of the study process, outputs and deliverables. As the process progressed additional PSC members were co-opted as deemed necessary.

The Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments’ classification study was undertaken over a 26 month period from October 2011 to December 2013. A summary of the WRCS process as implemented in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments follows.

The study was undertaken by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd in association with Prime Africa


4 November 2013

Consultants, JMM Stassen, Wetland Consulting Services and Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd. Mr Trevor Coleman of Golder Associates was the study leader.

1.1 Purpose of the Report

This report forms the final deliverable of the study and serves as feedback on final deliverables, milestones, challenges and lessons learnt through the undertaking of the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments classification study. It comprises the reporting on these aspects and makes recommendations for future studies of a similar nature.


5 November 2013

2 STUDY DELIVERABLES

The deliverables of the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments’ classification study outlined per task are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of study deliverables

DELIVERABLE DATE Task 1: Study Inception

Study Inception Report March 2012

Capacity Building Programme March 2012

Task 2: Water Resource Information and Data gathering

Information Analysis Reports March 2012

Task 3: Determination of the Management Class

Integrated Units of Analysis Delineation Report including link the value and condition of the water resource August 2012

Ecological Water Requirements Report April 2013

Ecologically Sustainable Base Configuration Scenario Report(includes Specialist Reports: Groundwater and Wetlands) April 2013

Scenarios Report(includes Specialist Reports: Socio-Economic, Groundwater and Wetlands) September 2013

Management Classes of the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments’Report

October 2013

Classification component of Integrated Water Resource Management Template October 2013

Task 4: Communication and Liaison

Stakeholder database November 2013

Background Information Documents, Advertisements During course of study as required

Notes and minutes/proceedings of PSC and stakeholder meetings held As per meeting schedule

Registers of stakeholders of all meetings November 2013

Issues and Response table November 2013

Task 5: Capacity Building

Capacity Building Report November 2013

Task 6: Study Management

Monthly Study Progress reports (including financial and administration information) Per invoice date submission

Minutes of Project Committee meetings Per meeting schedule (Meeting 1 to 12)

Presentations as required During course of study

Study Close Out Report November 2013


6 November 2013

2.1 Deliverable Outputs

The outputs of the Classification study achieved per deliverable are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of the study outputs per deliverable

DELIVERABLE OUTPUTS

Study Inception

The inception phase involved the assessment and understanding the nature of the scope of the study and defining and describing the proposed work to be undertaken. The output of this component included definition and confirmation of the extent of work (study scope), associated costs based on the proposed methodology and availability of information and data. The framework for the capacity building task was also defined during this phase. The Project Steering Committee for the study was constituted and the stakeholder database was set up.

Information Analysis Report

Data was gathered and information was collected from a wide variety of sources such as the Department of Water Affairs, other government departments, the Water Research Commission, provincial departments, Statistics South Africa, research and academic organisations and other study groups. An assessment and review of all the existing information and data was undertaken and summaries of the available information were compiled. Information availability was assessed and a gap analysis was done for each of the catchments. Liaison and linkages were established with other study teams where parallel studies were taking place, such as the Crocodile (West) Reconciliation study and the Waste Discharge Charge System study.

Integrated Units of Analysis (IUAs)

Determination of the Integrated Units of Analysis (IUA) relates to dividing the water resources into smaller management units based on the socio-economics of the areas, water use and users (including groundwater), envisaged level of protection required and significance of the resource (including significant wetlands). Twenty Integrated Units of Analysis (IUAs), several nodes and the significant water resources were defined for the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments. Availability of representative Ecological Water Requirement (EWR) sites that had been defined under the Reserve determination study, catchment boundaries and catchment modelling schematics were also considered. An EWR site is that at which detailed analysis has been undertaken on the hydrology, hydraulics, water quality, habitat integrity and fish and invertebrate populations. A status quo assessment of each IUA was undertaken to understand ecological status, socio-economic conditions, ecosystem services and water resource infrastructure and availability.

Socio-economic: Evaluation and the decision-analysis framework

Definition of the evaluation and decision analysis framework was completed. This framework enables the assessment of the implications of different catchment configuration scenarios at an IUA level on economic prosperity, social wellbeing and ecological condition.

Ecological Water Requirements quantification

Ecological water requirements (EWR) were then quantified for the EWR sites and nodes in the system. These were taken from previous preliminary Reserve studies or results were obtained through rapid assessments undertaken for the purpose of this classification study. The Reserve is defined as the water required for basic human needs that needed to maintain the ecology and that needed for international obligations if in a catchment where this is required. Where limited ecological information was available extrapolation using information from the previous studies was done, especially


7 November 2013

DELIVERABLE OUTPUTS

in those smaller tributaries where protection is required. The updated PES and EIS as at 2012 of the water resources was obtained from a recently completed DWA study and was used where no other information was available. During this step the information on the river Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs)was assessed to determine if they were adequately protected through the PES categories for the nodes in these catchments. FEPAs have been identified as those areas that are important for sustaining the integrity and continued functioning of their related ecosystems.

Ecologically Sustainable Base Configuration Scenario

The ecologically sustainable base configuration (ESBC) scenario was then established and tested. ESBC is a starter configuration for management, which relates to Ecological Category of a D as minimum. Ecological category refers to the state of a river in relation to its’ ability to maintain the fish and invertebrate populations. The ecological categories used as the base scenario was the PES as determined during previous Reserve studies as well as the 2010 PES at all the EWR sites in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments. For the Marico and Matlabas catchments the Water Resources Yield Model (WRYM), and for the Crocodile (West) and Mokolo catchments, the Water Resources Planning Model (WRPM), were run based on the EWR and water balance outputs were fed into the economic modelling assessment.

A comprehensive groundwater and wetlands assessment was undertaken and results included in this report.

Evaluation of scenarios

Once appropriate levels of ecological protection are established for the water resources; the measures required to achieve these protection levels, can then be assessed in terms of the overall implications to the IUAs and the WMA. This forms the scenario evaluation component of the WRCS process. To support the decision making process for the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments towards MCs, between 2 and 5 additional catchment scenarios were analysed and assessed. These scenarios represent alternate ecological categories and growth scenarios for the study area, and were analysed to determine the water balances, socio-economic implications and ecological consequences of each.

Description of scenarios

Crocodile (West) Catchment

The following were considered as part of the scenarios evaluations:

• Present day or future water use for irrigation, mining, domestic, rural and afforestation as provided in the water requirements and water resources report that forms part of the reconciliation strategy;

• Future water use (mining – Rustenburg area, transfer of water to Mokolo – MCWAP; and

• Water quality – nutrients (eutrophication), Acid Mine Drainage

The following dams were included:

• Hartbeespoort Dam; Roodekopjes Dam; Lindleyspoort Dam; Bospoort Dam; Vaalkop Dam; Klipvoor Dam and Roodeplaat Dam.

Marico Catchment


• Present day or future water use for irrigation, mining, domestic, rural and afforestation as provided in the water requirements and water resources report that


8 November 2013

DELIVERABLE OUTPUTS

forms part of the reconciliation strategy;

• Reductions in outflow of dolomitic eyes in Upper Marico and Malmanies (upper Klein Marico);

• Reductions in groundwater (outflow from dolomitic eyes in Ngotwane and Molopo catchments);

• Water quality – especially relating to the urban areas of Mafikeng, Zeerust, Swartruggens and the town of Dinokana, WWTW discharge from these areas and metals contamination;

• Water requirements for wetland (less diverted for domestic use);

• Potential reduction in water from Maloney’s Eye;

• Alien vegetation clearing;

• Future water use (incl emerging farmers);

• Proposed WWTW in Groot Marico; and

• Proposed prospecting for mining.


• Klein Maricopoort Dam; Kromelmboog Dam; Marico Bosveld Dam and Molatedi Dam.

Matlabas Catchment


• Present day water use for irrigation, mining, domestic, rural and afforestation as provided in the ISP and WR2005 reports; and

• Scouring of river – Mokolo transfer pipeline crossing.

Mokolo Catchment


• Present day or future water use for irrigation, mining, domestic, rural and afforestation as provided in the water requirements and water resources report that forms part of the reconciliation strategy; and

• Groundwater abstraction;

• Transfer of water to Mokolo – MCWAP;

• Raising of Mokolo Dam not considered;

• Water quality – Acid mine drainage, WWTW (Lephalale); and

• Development of Waterberg area.


• Mokolo Dam.

Evaluation of the The scenarios were refined and additional and supporting information was added to


9 November 2013

DELIVERABLE OUTPUTS

scenarios with stakeholders

elaborate on the explanation and understanding. This information was then communicated to a broader stakeholder community in October 2013 during the consultation process (Step 6). Two stakeholder meetings were held on 21st and 22ndOctober 2013in Groot Marico and Lephalale respectively. Approximately 80 stakeholders from the study area attended these meetings. All comments, issues and questions raised through this consultation process and throughout the study have been captured in the Issues and Response Report. At these meetings there was a request to change the IUA 11a and 11b to a MC III as opposed to the proposed MC II, while maintaining the PES EC. This was agreed to and presented with the final scenario evaluation and proposed management classes for the 20 IUAs at the final PSC meeting on 24thOctober 2013.

Management Classes for the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments

Based on the scenario evaluation and consultation with the stakeholders, it was recommended that the go forward options are:

• Crocodile (West): REC with future water use as per the Crocodile (West) Reconciliation Strategy;

• Klein Marico: REC with present water use;

• Groot Marico: Category C EC with present water use;

• Upper Molopo : PES with present water use;

• Ngotwane: PES with present water use;

• Matlabas: PES with present water use; and

• Mokolo: PES with future water use.

These scenarios are the most practical and achievable within water resource management context of the catchments and at the same they ensure the water resources are sustainable. The IUA MCs associated with the scenarios were then defined and recommended as:

• 2 IUAs falls within a MC I (IUA 7 and 13),

• 1 IUA falls with a MC II related to groundwater (IUA 9);

• 8 IUAs fall within a MC II (IUAs 2, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 15, 16 and 17b);

• 2 IUAs fall with a MC III related to groundwater (IUAs 8 and 10); and

• 7 IUAs fall within a MC III (IUAs 1, 3, 11a, 11b, 12, 13 and 14).

Classification Template

The classification component of the IWRM summary template with recommended MCs was populated. The recommended MCs will be submitted to the Minister for consideration and approval. The final recommended MCs will be gazetted at a later stage together with the RQOs established for the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments. This is envisaged to happen during 2015.


10 November 2013

DELIVERABLE OUTPUTS

Communication and Liaison

A focused stakeholder engagement process was undertaken that was aligned to the technical steps of the study. Where possible linkages and alignment to existing structures and forums was made. A wide and extensive stakeholder database was setup and updated on a continuous basis.

Stakeholders representing specific sectors of society such as municipalities, agriculture, mines and conservation were identified and asked to serve on a Project Steering Committee (PSC) for the two year duration of the project. Five PSC meetings were held during the course of the study. PSC 4 was combined with a technical task group (TTG) meeting.

Two stakeholder broad based meetings were held in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments to discuss and evaluate scenarios.

Stakeholders were updated on the status of the project. This was done by the distribution of a) the announcement background information document b) a letter to all stakeholders on the database, informing them of progress made and background information documents related to stakeholder meetings.

An Issues and Response Report was compiled and updated continually throughout the two-year period of the implementation of the project and submitted to the Department at various intervals and made available to all stakeholders.

All stakeholder meeting registers and minutes were kept and distributed at relevant times.

Capacity Building

As part of the process, the DWA considered it fundamental that departmental personnel who will ultimately be responsible for the implementation of the MCs, as well as stakeholders at various levels were capacitated. The departmental personnel included those personnel involved in the project management of the classification study as well as personnel from the DWA Regional offices. Capacity building is necessary to ensure transfer of skills, building of capacity in terms of applying the WRCS and understanding of the process and broadening of the resource directed measures (RDM) skills base.

Initially Ms Mohlapa Sekoele was the project co-ordinator from the Department and in order to build her capacity helped in the execution of specific tasks on the project and in the general running of the study from the Departments side. This was a start to broadening of the RDM skills base. Ms Sekoele spent time at the offices working with the project team on various tasks which included the site visits, workshops and stakeholder participation.

Broader capacity building for DWA officials who were on the Project Management Committee and Project steering Committee was also done. Regional representatives involved in the initial site visits included the Gauteng, North West and Limpopo Regional Office as well as the RDM Office. Further stakeholder engagement included those external stakeholders involved in the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Technical Task Groups (TTG).

Study Management Periodic Project Committee meetings were held (Twelve meetings were held over the course of the study). Meeting minutes and study progress were produced.


11 November 2013

3 MAJOR MILESTONES

The following can be considered as major milestones of the study:

• Definition of the twenty IUAs;

• Establishment of Socio-economic decision analysis framework;

• Quantification of EWRs and ecological categories determined at nodes;

• Assessment of groundwater in terms of the classification process;

• Assessment of priority wetlands;

• Configuration of the ESBC;

• Additional scenario configuration and evaluation;

• Stakeholder workshops,

• Support and approval of recommended scenarios by PSC;

• Recommended MCs

• Classification template for MC Gazetting


12 November 2013

4 ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Some of the challenges and issues encountered in the implementation of the WRCS in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments were:

• The WRCS guidelines are written in a very complex and technically complicated manner that is not suited to easy application. It is more complex than it needs to be. This complexity made implementation in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments context difficult, although learnings from the Olifants WRCS were considered at various stages of the project. The study area is vast and the water resource challenges and issues in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments are therefore quite varied.

• The prescriptive process for scenario configuration as per the guidelines did not apply to the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments context. The issues and challenges with respect to the water resource situation in the catchments made it impossible to configure scenarios that only considered Reserve and Conservation targets. The scenario configuration needs to incorporate the water resource challenges and drivers such was the case in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments and which were used.

• The groundwork undertaken to address the socio-economic issues encountered in the Olifants study helped to some extent in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments study. However, the limited data in many of the IUAs was a constraint.

• The water quality component of the WRCS guideline was found to be lacking. The guidelines address water quality as it relates to ecological categories (linked to a specific water quality related to the ecology). This created much confusion and frustration with stakeholders who wanted to understand water quality limit values (related more to the RQO process). The Classification process does not create the linkages unless the RQO process is undertaken concurrently. This was found to be a major gap in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments study.

• The reporting of certain components such as social and economic data, water resource planning information, systems’ analysis is not easily disaggregated to IUA scale reporting, especially where limited studies have been undertaken in the past, such as in the Ngotwane and Molopo catchments of the Marico.

• In many instances lack of data information and availability of models was a key issue. The scenario analysis would be better supported by the Water Resource Planning Model being available for the study areas. This was the case for the Crocodile (west) and Mokolo catchments, however the models were being worked on which did not always tie in with the study timelines leading to delays. In the addition the lack of WQ Models study catchments also posed a challenge to scenario analysis. Where water quality modelling was available for a catchment as for the Crocodile (West) the results were not necessarily relevant to the study. In this respect water quality consequences could not be assessed which was a major gap. The lack of adequate water quality data in many of the catchments also proved to be a challenge.

• The data requirements to undertake the WRCS process is quite ‘onerous’. The collection of data proved to be a challenge – the sourcing of reliable, current, most applicable data and the verification thereof. The effort and time required is not easily planned for and is dependent on various factors.

• In many cases the data used and the data sources, such as those for water quality, were


13 November 2013

found to be a key issue with stakeholders.

• The lack of guidance on certain key steps of the process in the guidelines was also a challenge. The guidelines refer to procedures that still need to be developed. One such case related to the translation of the recommended scenarios to aggregated ecological condition and management classes.

• The lack of a catchment vision for each of the catchments at the onset of the study proved to be a gap. While the study attempted to address this with a targeted visioning exercise during the inception phase of the study, it was probably not adequate and visioning should be done prior to the initiation of water resource classification. The WRCS guidelines should be amended to include guidance on ‘visioning’, with regard to the level, extent and detail required.

• Ecological information and ecological water requirements was not available for all IUAs to the same extent. Some IUAs had EWRs determined at a comprehensive level (previous Reserve studies) where in some cases information from Rapid studies had to be undertaken. The confidence between the site information varied considerable with some IUAs having a very low confidence data.

• A large number of hydronodes had only extrapolated EWR information that made it very difficult to determine ecological consequences. The updated PES and Desktop Reserve Model were used.

• The presentation of information (e.g. modelling analysis and results) to stakeholders proved to be a challenge. It is not always possible to translate detailed analysis into ‘user-friendly’ summarised information. In doing so it was found that the lack of detail created a gap in the information conveyed. The classification process is a highly technical process with areas of detailed analysis, and it is a major challenge to engage with the range of stakeholders in the study area.

• Even though the WRCs process is not easily suited to the extent of engagement and consultation required to empower stakeholders to meaningfully participate stakeholder participation went fairly smoothly and PSCs were mostly attended by the same individuals. A concern was raised in that certain key stakeholders, such as Chamber of Mines, key local municipalities and DME did not attend many meetings.


14 November 2013

5 LESSONS LEARNT

• The study team agrees with the step 7 WRCS process, and the key steps (which have been applied), however the depth of detail as required in the current version of the guidelines is not always necessary;

• In terms of the scenario development, there needs to be expansion to look at economic drivers as well, not just the Reserve and Conservation targets;

• In terms of the Marico catchment, the scenario analysis was largely driven by the planning scenarios due to the water stress in the catchments, and not from a wholly ecological perspective;

• In terms of the 7 steps of the WRCS, it would be useful if the Scenario options were determined earlier in the process. This would help define the information requirements for the economic modelling and scenario analysis. This will also help with refinement of the scenarios;

• The approach to the water quality assessment and reporting needs to be revised to suit the context of the area being studied. A water quality model is required to adequately address understanding of the scenario implications;

• The process cannot be applied as effectively in the absence of a Reconciliation Strategy. This is key to scenario evaluation and in the interest of IWRM; especially when catchments are under water stress, as is the case in the Marico catchment. In addition implementation of the MC and the RQOs can only be done if supported by a Reconciliation Strategy;

• The stakeholder engagement process needs to be revised. The approach of when it happens, how and who is involved at what level needs refining;

• It is also important that the mandate of the PSC is linked to the WRCS process, as this is key to the sanctioning of the Classification outcomes and deliverables. The guidelines speak to the stakeholder engagement in step 6, and this does not necessarily capture the role of the PSC;

• The RQO development process must be done concurrently with the MC determination process;

• The nomenclature regarding the nodes should be revised to include just a single name. At present the use of terms such as biophysical, management and hydro-node creates confusion;

• An improved approach of how to best present the results needs to be defined so that communication with stakeholders (without the background information) is achieved in a meaningful way;

• More specific guidelines are required for translation of the ecological categories to the Management Class and to an overall IUA Management Class;

• The absence of a catchment vision is a major gap to the classification process and the WRCS guidelines should be amended to include guidance on ‘visioning’ with regard to the level, extent and detail required;

• The process for Step 6, ‘evaluation of scenarios with stakeholders’, needs to be reviewed and adjusted so that the objective of the step is to be achieved – real evaluation and interrogation of scenarios. This may require a revision of the WRCS process so that engagement happens earlier and regularly, not as a ‘single step’, and ‘definition’ of the stakeholder group’. In the


15 November 2013

Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments study this step was considered more a ‘communication’ and information sharing exercise, as the broader stakeholder base were not capacitated to truly evaluate the scenarios;

• It is important that the Directorate WRC create the necessary linkages and integration to the other DWA studies and initiatives prior to classification studies being initiated. This internal DWA integration will facilitate a more informed implementation of the WRCS in a WMA and a better defined scope of work; and

• The capacity building programme undertaken as part of this study should be adapted, revised and built upon for future studies so that the needs of departmental officials are met and the knowledge gaps are closed. In addition, the departmental officials need to consistently participate in the capacity building programme and be more part of the project team to derive the necessary benefit.

6 FINANCIAL BREAKDOWN Table 4 lists the PSP members who worked on the project on the various tasks and the estimated breakdown per task based on the invoicing submitted with the HDI Status as set out in Table 4. This does not include the disbursements.

Table 3: HDI earnings breakdown HDI Status Percentage earnings

1 15.42%

2 5.45%

5 42.63%

8 36.50%


16 November 2013

Table 4: Financial breakdown for Professional Fees claimed

PSP members HDI

Status (1-10)

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6

Total earnings Project Inception

Water resources

information and data gathering

Determination of the

management classes

Communication and liaison Reporting

Study management

and coordination

Trevor Coleman 8 15 600.00 7 800.00 235 000.00 65 000.00 52 000.00 - 374 400.00

Lee Boyd 5 67 200.00 51 200.00 536 800.00 76 800.00 384 000.00 76 800.00 1 192 800.00

Didi Masoabi 1 15 600.00 - - - - - 15 600.00

Oliver Malete 2 56 000.00 31 000.00 395 000.00 - - - 482 000.00

Frans Wiegmans 8 9 200.00 4 600.00 182 850.00 27 600.00 46 000.00 - 270 250.00

Collen Monokofala 2 - 16 400.00 273 200.00 19 200.00 - - 289 600.00

Kate Goosen 5 4 400.00 13 200.00 103 950.00 - - - 121 550.00

Retha Stassen 5 13 200.00 19 800.00 567 600.00 29 700.00 44 000.00 - 674 300.00

Gary Marneweck 8 15 600.00 15 600.00 122 200.00 23 400.00 46 800.00 - 223 600.00

Jackie Crafford 8 20 000.00 - 182 500.00 70 000.00 50 000.00 - 322 500.00

Kyle Harris 8 16 200.00 37 800.00 374 575.00 47 600.00 51 000.00 - 527 175.00

Amelia Burger 5 - 18 000.00 143 100.00 10 800.00 - - 171 900.00

Andre Joubert* 8 19 200.00 - - 99 000.00 - - 118 800.00

Patiswa Mnoqokoyi 1 - - - 264 180.00 - - 264 180.00

Nicolene Venter 5 - - - 36 000.00 - - 36 000.00

Total per task 252 200.00 215 400.00 3 116 775.00 769 280.00 673 800.00 76 800.00 5 103 255


17 November 2013

7 BENEFIT TO THE CLIENT

• The objectives of the study have been achieved within the stipulated budget and timeframe;

• The WRCS guidelines have been successfully implemented;

• The stakeholders are comfortable with the recommended MCs and the process undertaken;

• Buy-in with sector and stakeholder groups has been achieved;

• Department personnel have derived adequate benefit from the capacity building programme and activities undertaken and are in a position to maximise their involvement in future Classification studies; and

• Linkages and alignment with other studies and initiatives have been achieved (Reconciliation, NFEPA).


18

November 2013

8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The focus of the classification process needs to be at a strategic, higher level requiring a simplified approach. It recommended that guidelines need to be refined and streamlined to achieve this. It is accepted that the technical and scientific information required is necessary, however the way in which it is integrated, assessed and required to be reported on in some instances needs to be changed.

The interaction between different classification teams should be encouraged and facilitated to support technical integration that would result in better quality products and outputs; and ensure a degree of consistency in the implementation and interpretation of the WRCS guidelines.

It can be concluded that the objectives of the study have been achieved and the WRCS was successfully implemented in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments. This process has specified one of three MCs for each of the 20IUAs in the Crocodile (West), Marico, Mokolo and Matlabas catchments taking account of the costs and benefits associated with utilisation versus protection of the water resources, within the social, economic and ecological landscape in the catchment.

The recommendations set out in the MC Report need to be taken into consideration in relation to developing reconciliation strategies for the Marico catchment which include IUAs 6a, 6b, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a and 11b. Further detail related to mining and power generation development in the Lower Mokolo (IUA 16) and Matlabas (IUA 17b) needs to be obtained.