SUSTAINABLE LAND USE PLANNING FOR INTEGRATED LAND …

Republic of

South Africa

Republic of

Mozambique

Republic of

Botswana

Republic of

Zimbabwe

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE PLANNING FOR

INTEGRATED LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT

FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION

IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN

LIMPOPO BASIN STRATEGIC PLAN

FOR REDUCING VULNERABILITY TO FLOODS AND DROUGHTS

Draft for discussion

with the Riparian Governments

July 2007

Project Name: Sustainable Land Use Planning for Integrated Land and Water

Management for Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Reduction in the Limpopo Basin.

Project Name: Sustainable Land Use Planning for Integrated Land and Water

Management for Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Reduction in the Limpopo Basin

Implementing Partners: Government of Botswana Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs Department of Water Affairs (DWA)

Government of Mozambique Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) National Directorate of Territorial Planning (DINAPOT)

Government of South Africa Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC)

Government of Zimbabwe Ministry of Environment and Tourism Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Executing Agency: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Implementing Agency: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Co- Funding Agency: Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Report prepared by: Dr. Amon Murwira, Regional Consultant University of Zimbabwe Department of Geography and Environmental Science P.O. Box MP 167 Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe [email protected]

Dr. Antonio Yachan, Senior Human Settlements Consultant Santiago de Chile, Chile [email protected]

Edited by: Mathias Spaliviero, Project Manager Technical Adviser UN-HABITAT, Maputo, Mozambique [email protected] Reference: Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan for Reducing Vulnerability to Floods and

Droughts. Draft for Discussion with Riparian Governments. UN-HABITAT/UNEP. July 2007. pp 23.

mailto:[email protected]

Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan for Reducing Vulnerability to Floods and Droughts. UN-HABITAT/UNEP, July 2007

Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 1 Main characteristics of the Limpopo River Basin.................................................................... 3

1.1. Ecosystems...................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Human settlements and population ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Rainfall and runoff characteristics .......................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Socio-economic characteristics.............................................................................................................10

1.5. Institutional, legal and policy settings ................................................................................................12

1.5. Conclusion of Chapter 1...........................................................................................................................14

Chapter 2 Diagnostic Problem Analysis .......................................................................................................15

Chapter 3 Proposed Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan..................................................................................18

References..........................................................................................................................................................................23

1


Introduction

Since September 2004 the Governments of Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe implemented the project entitled: "Sustainable Land Use Planning for Integrated Land and Water Management for Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Reduction in the Limpopo River Basin". This is a 2-year project funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) with co-funding from the Governments of South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe and from the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). The latter is the executing agency in collaboration with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which is the implementing agency. The project was formulated following a specific request for assistance in flood management by Mozambique, following the Cyclone Eline induced floods of February 2000.

The overall objective of the project is to develop and implement participatory land use tools and plans for sustainable land management in the Limpopo River Basin in order to reduce the impact of floods on land, ecosystems and human settlements. The two main expected outcomes are:

• A regional integrated land use management plan to lessen land degradation and minimise the risk of losing life and damage to ecosystems in future floods;

• Enhanced capacity and effective tools in participatory land use planning and disaster preparedness techniques for sustainable land management to reduce the vulnerability of communities living in flood prone areas.

Therefore, the hereby presented Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan for Reducing Vulnerability to Floods and Droughts constitutes a major output resulting from several studies, reports, activities and products that have been already carried out within this project. It tries to bring the “drought dimension” into the project picture. A very first draft of this Strategic Plan has been discussed during the sub-regional workshop for the final project review on 5 and 6 December 2006 in Pretoria, South Africa, with delegations from all 4 riparian countries represented by different sectors, i.e. water management, disaster management, environmental management and meteorological services.

In that occasion, it was said that a more consistent draft would have been circulated in the following months, in order to obtain formal comments from the 4 Governments. However, important delays have been registered in doing that due to the progressive dissolution of the project team, as well as the floods and droughts situation that occurred in February 2007 in the lower Zambezi River, which induced an interruption of the activities related to the finalisation of all project outputs.

This drafted Strategic Plan represents a working document which the different riparian countries will be able to comment and discuss, in particular during the different Limpopo Basin Technical Committee meetings that are held regularly. It is hoped that this document will be useful for making appropriate decisions in view of reducing the vulnerability of human settlements and ecosystems to floods and droughts in the Basin, and that it will be partly implemented through another project that will be submitted soon to the GEF through the Special Fund for Climate Change.

2


Chapter 1 Main characteristics of the Limpopo River Basin

The Limpopo River Basin is shared among four countries, namely, from upstream to downstream, the Republic of South Africa, the Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Republic of Mozambique (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Topography and hydrology of the Limpopo Basin, including location of major cities and dams

Data source: http://www.iwmidsp.org

1.1. Ecosystems

In general, dry land cover conditions are predominant in the Basin, while irrigated and wetland ecosystems occupy 0.9% and 2.8% respectively of the Basin area. Over the last 60 years most of the original forest cover was lost. The Basin sustains ecosystems that are highly biologically diverse both inside and outside protected areas (fig. 2). In the Basin there are a total of 10 eco-regions associated with diversity in ecosystem services, which is critically important for the diversity of livelihoods among the Limpopo basin communities.

For example, the high levels of biological diversity drive a vibrant ecosystem-based tourism economy which supports both the local population via community-based natural resources management programmes, and the national and regional economies via protected areas. The latter is evidenced by the creation of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which was formed to realise the economies of scale involving the amalgamation of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe, the Kruger National Park in South Africa, as well as the Limpopo National Park in Mozambique.

Figure 3 shows the location of different conservation (protected) areas in the Limpopo basin. It is evident that the largest conservation areas constituted by the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park are within the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands eco-regions.

3


Figure 2: Eco-regions of the Limpopo River Basin (Source: WWF)

Figure 3: Conservation (Protected) Areas of the Limpopo River Basin

4


1.2. Human settlements and population

The ecosystems of the Limpopo Basin support an estimated 5,200 human settlements. Table 1 shows that 49% and 45% of these settlements are respectively in Mozambique and in South Africa, while the rest are in Botswana and Zimbabwe.

Table 1: Number and distribution of human settlements in the Limpopo River Basin per country, including Total Population

Country No. of settlements Distribution of settlements (%)

Total Population (in million)

Mozambique 2541 49 1.3

South Africa 2355 45 10.7

Botswana 198 4 1.0

Zimbabwe 100 2 1.0

Total 5194 100 14.0

Data source: http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm; and UNDP (2003)

Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution patterns of human settlements in the Limpopo River Basin. It can be observed that, firstly, all settlements are close to the river valleys, indicating the influence of the aridity in the Basin which encourages people to settle close to the stream banks. Lastly, human settlements are much denser in Mozambique and South Africa compared with Botswana and Zimbabwe.

Figure 4: Geographical distribution of human settlements in the Limpopo River Basin

Data source: http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm

5

http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm

http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm


Settlements in the Limpopo River Basin support an estimated 14 million inhabitants (see Table 1), making it the second most populated basin in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region after the Orange River Basin. In fact, such number of inhabitants constitutes about 20% of the total population in the four Limpopo Basin riparian countries. When considering each individual country, it is observed that approximately 63% of Botswana’s total population lives within the country’s Basin area; in South Africa it is 25%, while the respective percentages of country populations in the Basin for Mozambique and Zimbabwe are below 10%. The geographical patterns of population distribution in the Basin have been changing over the last four decades, as illustrated in Figure 5. The latter clearly shows that population density has generally increased in the Basin. Such densification process has been especially intense in the Botswana and South Africa parts of the Basin, in the delta area and along the main river channel in Mozambique, as well as in the upper reaches of the Basin in Zimbabwe (see also Figure 6). These increases in population have important implications particularly downstream, in Mozambique, since they represent a greater risk of negative impacts of either droughts or floods.

Figure 5: Geographical changes of population density per 2.5 km2 in the Limpopo Basin (1960-2000)

Data source: http://www.na.unep.net/datasets/datalist.php3 (UNEP)

6

http://www.na.unep.net/datasets/datalist.php3


Figure 6: Changes in average population density in the Limpopo Basin from 1960 to 2000

Data source: http://www.na.unep.net/datasets/datalist.php3 (UNEP)

The Limpopo River Basin has a strong diversity of rural versus urban population. For example, for two countries (Botswana and South Africa) the capital cities and some of the largest urban population centres reside within the basin boundaries (e.g. Gaborone, Francistown, Pretoria, Polokwane, Thohoyandou, and Witbank). Not reflected in the Basin population figures are other large urban centres – Johannesburg, Maputo, and Bulawayo, – which are located on the fringes of the Limpopo Basin and influence, or are influenced by, socio-economic events and activities within the Basin. Aside from these urban centres the Limpopo Basin is predominantly rural, i.e. approximately 60% of the Basin population lives in rural areas (CGIAR, 2003).

1.3. Rainfall and runoff characteristics

The endowment of the Limpopo basin with high levels of biodiversity, as well as a large number of inhabitants who depend on it, is exposed to highly variable rainfall and runoff conditions which typically occur in the form of droughts and floods. The high variability in rainfall means that the climatic conditions are difficult to predict, yet floods and droughts are a direct threat to a large proportion of the 14 million human inhabitants in the basin, as well as to the diverse ecosystems.

Rainfall characteristics

Figure 7 illustrates typical variations of rainfall from the annual mean of 334 mm at Beitbridge from 1934 to 1984. Specifically, it is observed that in the 60 years between 1934 and 1984, only 25 years (i.e., 41 % of the years) had above normal rainfall, while 35 years (i.e, 59 % of the years) had below normal rainfall. There is also high variability both among years with above normal rainfall and among years with below normal rainfall. This indicates the high likelihood of either floods or droughts in the Limpopo basin. However, the picture becomes complete when looking at the related flow regime of the Limpopo, which is also characterised by high variability (Figure 8).

7

http://www.na.unep.net/datasets/datalist.php3


Figure 7: Rainfall variability in the Limpopo basin between 1931 and 1984

Data Source: Zimbabwe Meterological Services Department.

Runoff characteristics

Figure 8 illustrates the variability of the Limpopo river flow regime measured at Beitbridge from 1959 to 2001, i.e. deviations from the annual mean of 2,138 m3/s. The high positive peaks observed in 1972 as well as in 2001 indicate years when there were severe floods, while low peaks such as between 1984 and 1986 indicate years of drought (see last year in Figure 7, i.e. 1984, well below average rainfall). It can be observed that between 1959 and 2001, 64 % of the years had below normal runoff, while 36 % of the years had above normal runoff.

Figure 8: Runoff variability in the Limpopo basin between 1959 and 2001

Data Source: Zimbabwe National Water Authority

8


Therefore, flow in the Limpopo River is characterised by considerable inter and intra-annual variation. In some years it is dry for several months. It is estimated that only 10% of the measured flow at Chókwè is generated within the Mozambican part of the Limpopo catchment. Although the discharge fluctuations of the major affluent, the Olifants River, are smaller than for the Limpopo River, they are still significant and the Massingir reservoir is required to regulate flows for intensive water use. The Changane River drains a low rainfall permeable area and for much of the time the river is dry (CGIAR, 2003).

The Limpopo River is characterised by very low flows during the dry season. For example, during the last severe drought in the early 1990s, the annual total discharge at Chókwè was just 0.03% of the long-term average. In recent years, dry season flows in the Lower Limpopo have been significantly reduced by abstractions from the large number of reservoirs located in the upstream states (see dams location in Fig. 1). The river has been known to stop flowing for periods up to 36 months in recent years. On the other hand, greater floods occur when peak flows on the Limpopo and Olifants rivers coincide downstream of their confluence, as it happened in 2000 (CGIAR, 2003).

Figure 9 illustrates the positive association of the variability in rainfall and the variability in runoff between 1959 and 1984 recorded at Beitbridge in Zimbabwe. However, it can be observed that during the 1983-1984 drought, above average runoff was recorded. This demonstrates that flash floods do occur in the Limpopo Basin, due to sudden severe storms that give large amounts of runoff associated with flooding. It is also important to note that the Limpopo basin experiences cyclones during the months of January to March which compounds the problem of floods.

Figure 9: Association of deviations from the mean for both runoff and rainfall in the Limpopo River Basin between 1959 and 1984

Data Source: Zimbabwe National Water Authority & Zimbabwe Meteorological Services Department

9


1.4. Socio-economic characteristics1

Macro-economic considerations

The Limpopo Basin countries exhibit considerable macro-economic variability since per capita Gross Development Product (GDP) for Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Botswana is 3, 13, and 16 times respectively than that of Mozambique. With the exception of Zimbabwe, all countries registered positive GDP growth rate in the last decade.

Likewise, agricultural value added per worker, a measure of agriculture sector productivity, is twice in Zimbabwe, four times in Botswana, and 27 times in South Africa. With the only exception of Botswana agricultural value added per worker has increased during 1990s. Industry and services are the dominant sectors of employment for Botswana and South Africa, while over 80% of total employed workforce is engaged in agriculture sector in Mozambique. Zimbabwe has a fairly equal spread between agriculture and industry, a quarter each, while services sector employs nearly half of the total employed. Therefore, on all accounts, among the Basin countries, Botswana and South Africa are economically strongest, while Zimbabwe is weaker and Mozambique lags behind.

Livelihood conditions in each riparian country

Botswana agriculture sector contributes only 4 percent to the national GDP, but 65% of country’s total population on agricultural holdings lives within the Limpopo catchment, and derives their livelihood mainly from agricultural activities. However, several studies indicate that in Botswana living conditions in rural areas are much worse than in urban areas: (i) over half of rural households live below the poverty line; (ii) average rural household income (cash income) is 37 (28) percent of their urban counterparts; (iii) about 16% urban and 64% rural households fall in poorest quintile; and (iv) only 32% of rural household heads are employed, compared to 79% in urban areas.

Table 2 describes the socio-economic situation in Gaza Province, which occupies most of the Limpopo Basin within Mozambique. The table analyses the structural vulnerability of each District of Gaza Province using the following categories: (i) Severe risk of drought, i.e. less than 600 mm annual rainfall; (ii) Moderate risk of droughts, i.e. more than 600 mm annual rainfall; (iii) Risk of flood, i.e. areas experiencing periodic flooding that can be detrimental to crop production; (iv) Self-sufficiency, measuring the local production from the two agricultural seasons; (v) Structural vulnerability is determined by combining different data including climatic, agricultural production, livestock, sources of income, access to markets, and coping strategies.

Table 2: Structural vulnerability in Gaza Province, Mozambique

Districts of Gaza Province

Severe risk of drought

Moderate risk of

drought

Risk of Flood

Self-sufficiency (months)

Structural vulnerability

Xai-Xai X X 10-12 None

Bilene- Macia X X 10-12 None

Manjacaze X X 10-12 None

Chokwe X X 10-12 None

Chibuto X X 10-12 None

Guija X 7-9 Slight

Massingir X 7-9 Slight

Mabalane X 5-6 Economic

Massangena X 5-6 Economic

Chicualacuala X 5-6 Economic

Chigubo X 3-4 Food Insecure

1 The information presented in this section has been extracted mainly from CGIAR (2003).

10


Although South Africa is economically much better off compared to the other riparian countries, the situation is far worse in the Limpopo Province, which shows: (i) the highest poverty rate in the country (nearly 80%); (ii) one of the lowest percentages of economically active population (21%); (iii) one of the highest unemployment rates (46%); (iv) youngest population (63% are under aged 24 years); and (v) highest percentage of population aged 20 with no schooling (35%). As evidence that the situation in South Africa varies greatly from province to province, high levels of income are observed in the industrial areas of the Gauteng Province which partially falls within the Basin.

Vulnerability assessments in Zimbabwe show that many of the communal areas in the Limpopo Basin are below the food security threshold, especially the southern-most districts of Beitbridge, Bulilimamangwe, Gwanda, and Matobo. These areas are very dry with poor soils, and are not well-suited for rainfed agriculture, especially maize. Other cash crops (groundnuts, bean, sunflowers) generate some income, but it varies significantly between communal areas depending on the rainfall pattern. There is very little irrigated land in these areas. However, some of the highest concentrations of cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys in the country are found in the Limpopo Basin.

The following cross-cutting socio-economic constraints need to be taken into account: 1. HIV/AIDS infections impair human capacity and may result in degeneration of agricultural

labour force. 2. Relatively low levels of education and literacy, particularly in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. 3. Communal land tenure system and lack of formal land titles hamper land development and

taxes system sustainability. 4. Rangeland management under communal grazing rights may be highly detrimental to the

environment. 5. Women, by necessity, do engage in vital livelihood strategies, but their effort is poorly

rewarded.

Land tenure issues

Much of Southern Africa, especially Zimbabwe and South Africa, are characterised by a dual system of land tenure: (i) large commercial, intensively managed crop or grazing land; and (ii) small-scale/subsistence, tribal or communal lands, usually not intensively managed and characterised by low productivity. This duality implies large productivity and socio-economic costs. A further problem is the lack of purchasing power for acquiring critical farm inputs such as feed, fertilizers and seed, particularly among resource-poor small-holders. The obvious solution, establishment of communal schemes to pool resources, is usually fraught with such problems as management disagreements and waste of resources (Roth and Haase, 1998). Therefore, land tenure security issues are an important, but politically sensitive, facet of community empowerment and poverty eradication in these settings.

Land and water management activities

Due to the above-reported unpredictable nature of rainfall and runoff in the Basin, irrigation directly from a river usually only occurs when flow is stabilised by a large dam on the watercourse. In many areas high silt loads carried by the river that would quickly fill any impoundment prevent the development of new storage dams and irrigation schemes. Furthermore, the rainfall variability has a significant effect on the reliable supply of irrigation water, even from a large storage dam.

The Chokwé irrigation scheme is the biggest irrigated area in Mozambique, supplied entirely by gravity drainage. It stretches over a length of more than 50 km and is 2 to 15 km wide along the right bank of the Limpopo. Its poor state of conservation is leading to substantial waste in irrigation water; the unit of water consumption is currently too high (30,000 m3/ha/yr). The Xai-Xai area is estimated to have a total of about 40,000 ha of irrigable land, however only about 6,500 ha are being currently used for irrigation. At colonial times, such irrigation scheme supported several important agro-industrial processing production, such as: rice processing, cotton milling, tomato caning, etc. After the damages provoked by the 2000 floods, a severe salinisation process is occurring due to the flow of sea water entering this scheme. The recent conclusion of the Massingir Reservoir’s rehabilitation works should help in improving the current situation.

11


In the lower Limpopo Basin the population pressure on land has resulted in the phenomenon of most fallowing cycle practices now consisting of 5 years with 3 years of cropping and 2 years of fallow. There is a significant reduction in soil fertility as the fallow gets too short to allow the natural regeneration of soil fertility. Pressure on land is also driving some farmers to move to marginal land where either the topography is steep or the soil is fragile and prone to erosion hazard, accelerating soil and environmental degradation.

Water resources within the Limpopo Basin are heavily utilised by all four riparian states, including groundwater. Table 3 presents the irrigation potential and the total reservoir volumes within each state. It can be observed that South Africa is irrigating more than the calculated potential according to FAO standards, since less water is used per hectare. Abstractions upstream (i.e. outside Mozambique) are increasing because water demand is growing, hence there is currently a greater investment in storage facilities.

Table 3: Irrigation potential and estimated volume of reservoirs in the Limpopo Basin

Country Existing irrigated area (in ha)

Potential irrigated area (in ha)

Total volume of reservoirs (Mm3)

Botswana 1,381 5,000 280

Mozambique 40,000 148,000 2,8401

South Africa 198,000 131,500 2,200

Zimbabwe 2,000 10,900 1,210

Total 241,381 295,400 6,530

1NB: The storage indicated for Mozambique is completely within the Massingir Reservoir in its rehabilitated status.

1.5. Institutional, legal and policy settings2

At the basin level

Sustainable management of shared water resources has been ratified by international treaties and agreements. At the regional level, under the umbrella of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems exists since 1995, which was revised in 2003. It has been prepared based on various international instruments on water such as the Helsinki Rules, the Dublin Principles, the Agenda 21 and the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.

The Protocol is premised on the need to maintain a balance between national development interests of Member States and the global interest of ensuring environmental conservation and sustainable development. Importantly, it promotes the establishment of shared watercourse agreements and associated institutions such as River Basin Commissions among riparian States as well as River Basin Authorities. The Water Sector Unit within the Infrastructure and Services Directorate of the SADC Secretariat is the overall monitoring institutional authority.

At the Limpopo Basin level, an “Agreement on the Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee” was signed in June 1986 by heads of delegations of the 4 riparian countries. This Agreement constitutes the legal framework that established the Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee (LBPTC). The latter is comprised of 4 representatives of each watercourse country with the unit’s chairmanship rotating from country to country. Each country bears the costs of its representatives to the LBPTC meetings. The mandate of this institution is to advise the 4 riparian countries on water management and development measures to be undertaken at the Basin level for addressing issues such as: (i) division of flows; (ii) aspects related to droughts, floods and pollution; (iii) programmes and activities that jointly benefit the 4 countries.

2 The information presented in this section has been extracted mainly from UN-HABITAT/UNEP (2007).

12


The LBPTC was non functional for a decade due to political differences among the riparian countries. After political changes that occurred in South Africa in 1995, the LBPTC was re-activated and the ensuing negotiations among the Contracting Parties (i.e. the 4 watercourse countries) resulted in the establishment of the Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM) in 2003 to which they are all signatories. However, the LIMCOM is still not operational since the multilateral accord has not yet been ratified. In the meantime the LBPTC produced a LIMCOM Action Plan in conjunction with the SADC Water Sector Unit in 2005.

At the country level (water sector, disaster management and land use planning settings)

Botswana has a National Water Policy and a Water Act whose development was influenced by the international and regional policy frameworks. The responsible institution is the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) within the Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs. This is an important institution in a water scarce country such as Botswana, with qualified professionals. The DWA is the national counterpart during the LBPTC meetings.

Botswana approved in 1996 a National Policy on Disaster Management which is coordinated by the National Disaster Management Office within the President’s Office. The policy has four main components that are mitigation (prevention), preparedness, response and recovery, and development. The Office of the President has overall responsibility for disaster management with disaster committees at district and village levels. At present there is no legal instrument on disaster management. Water Affairs and Meteorological Services are at the core of the early warning system through issuing of bulletins on flow levels and rainfalls.

The legislation regarding land use planning and management covers land use, land rights and management of biotic and abiotic resources. District Land Use Planning Units produce integrated land use plans at sub-national level while the Department of Town and Regional Planning produces Regional Master Plans. At the local level, Land Boards are responsible for land management.

In Mozambique, the National Directorate for Water (DNA) is the institution responsible for water resources management. The Regional Water Authorities for the Southern part of the country (ARA-Sul), which includes the lower Limpopo River, is operational since 1992 and receives guidance and technical support from DNA. These settings allow a much closer water management to the water users, and provide central planning authorities with data that are more realistic, although the scarcity of technically qualified personnel and financial resources continues to be a constraint. Noticeably, the Water Act created a National Water Commission (CNA), which is an inter-ministerial body mandated to ensure integrated water resource management. The Act has been amended as to harmonise with SADC’s Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse.

The Government of Mozambique adopted the Disaster Management Policy in 1999, which emphasises preparedness. Importantly, the policy promotes community participation and encourages the development of alternative mitigation measures. Although a draft of the Disaster Management Law was produced in 2002, it has not been approved yet by Parliament. The National Institute for Disaster Management (INGC) is the institution tasked with day-to-day implementation of the policy directives. There is also a Coordination Council for Disaster Management (CCGC), which is comprised of other Ministries and is chaired by the Prime Minister. If a disaster occurs, this unit springs into action for coordinating relief work. The National Institute of Meteorology (INAM) is responsible for maintaining the early warning system, while the National Directorate of Water Affairs (DNA) has the task of monitoring river flows.

Under the framework of the very recently approved Territorial Planning Law, the National Directorate of Territorial Planning (DINAPOT) has the task of advising public and private institutions on land use issues in both rural and urban areas. The directorate advises on high and low risk settlement areas; however people often prefer to settle in flood prone areas as they are fertile lands. While the National Remote Sensing and Cartography Centre (CENACARTA) is responsible for land use mapping, it has a limited capacity in terms of human resources.

South Africa has undertaken significant water sector reforms since 1994. The White Paper on Water Policy was issued in 1997 with the National Water Act being instituted in 1998. These tools

13


were influenced by international and regional policy tools. The Water Act also establishes Catchment Management Agencies. Of interest is the section of the Water Policy on Public Safety and Disaster Prevention, which acknowledges the disastrous nature of extreme events (i.e. floods and droughts) on environmental and socio-economic systems if not provided for in integrated water resources development and management. It also acknowledges that disaster management is often poorly coordinated and focuses on remedial action after the event has occurred rather than on preventive mechanisms. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) is currently developing a new approach to disaster management, focussing more strongly on implementing proactive and pre-emptive approaches in water-related disaster prevention.

The Disaster Management Act was approved in 2002. The National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) within the Department of Provincial and Local Government is the institution that implements policy directives through its provincial and district offices. DWAF runs early warning system through monitoring river flows while Meteorological Services deal with rainfalls.

There is an elaborated legal, policy and institutional framework in South Africa dealing with various issues related to land use planning. Central Government has an overall planning responsibility while land use planning and management responsibilities are delegated to provincial and municipal authorities. Departments of Agriculture and Housing support rural communities in establishing planned settlements.

Since 1998, Zimbabwe has approved a Water Act and a Water Policy which are harmonised with the SADC’s Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse. These instruments specifically address the issue of natural disasters such as floods and droughts, and adopt a unified approach to the management of surface water and groundwater. The Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZIMWA), established in May 1994, is responsible for coordinating the functions of regional water authorities and those of the Department of Water Resources. The ZINWA is primarily a water management and bulk raw water supplying parastatal. This institution works closely with catchment and sub-catchment councils involving a high degree of stakeholder participation on catchment planning and management, environmental protection and water allocation.

While an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Management Act is still in preparation, the Civil Protection Act of 1989 is the current legal instrument for disaster management. The latter has a focus on prevention and recognises the linkages between disasters and development. According to this Act, the responsibility for disaster management coordination is placed under the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and Urban Development, which advises the President to declare and gazette a state of disaster. In summary, the Civil Protection Act provides for the establishment of a system of multi-sectoral committees at national, provincial and local levels.

A number of land use planning laws exist dating back to the 1970s on such aspects as regional, town, country, agricultural land, forestry. The Department of Physical Planning is tasked with regional, urban and country planning. The lowest level at which it carries out land use planning tasks is the Rural Service Centre. It is through the extension services of the Ministry of Agriculture that land use is determined for settlement, arable and grazing purposes.

1.5. Conclusion of Chapter 1

The Limpopo River Basin supports 5,200 human settlements, of which most are located in flood-prone areas close to river valleys, with a total population of about 14 million people. It is characterised by high biodiversity, an extremely variable climatic and hydrological regime which often results in floods and droughts, a complex and heterogeneous socio-economic situation and a still fragile institutional and political framework.

Understanding the above natural, socio-economic and political complexity is important while undertaking land use planning in the Basin. Within this context, participatory land use planning was found to be a meaningful mitigatory tool for trying to minimise the adverse impacts of floods and droughts on land, ecosystems and human livelihoods (UN-HABITAT/UNEP, 2004). The following chapters will present a diagnostic problem analysis resulting in the formulation of a draft action plan aiming at reducing the vulnerability to floods and droughts in the Limpopo Basin.

14


Chapter 2 Diagnostic Problem Analysis

This chapter presents a Diagnostic Problem Analysis (DPA) of the issues constraining sustainable land use planning for reducing vulnerability to floods and droughts in the Limpopo River Basin.

The diagnostic is based on the findings of the project “Sustainable land use planning for integrated land and water management for disaster preparedness and vulnerable reduction in the Limpopo Basin” (UN-HABITAT/UNEP, 2004), as written in the following documents:

• Project proposal, as submitted to the GEF;

• National baseline reports for Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, describing the legal, policy and institutional framework for sustainable land use planning, land use management and disaster management at the national level (respectively: Kgaodi D., 2007; Perrin S., 2007; Merka J., 2007; and Muianga M., 2007)

• Regional baseline report, describing the legal, policy and institutional framework for sustainable land use planning, land use management and disaster management at the basin level (Timmermans H., 2007);

• Legal and policy recommendations for promoting integrated flood management in the Limpopo River Basin (Kaseke E. et al, 2007);

• Sub-regional workshop and training reports for improving inter-country flood forecasting and early warning in the Limpopo Basin (Murwira A., 2006);

• Participatory land use and contingency plans prepared in selected rural settlements of Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe (respectively: Mpho T. et al, 2007; Trindade C. et al, 2006; Perrin S. et al, 2006; and Murwira A. et al, 2006);

• Land use planning and disaster preparedness tools and guidelines prepared and disseminated at the basin level (Feuerhake. E, 2006);

• Maps and database at the basin level (Maló S. and Da Conceição P., 2007).

It is known that lack of attention to socio-economic and ecological issues in areas that are prone to floods and droughts often results in these phenomena being destructive to both human society and natural ecosystems. Historically, several great civilisations grew along rivers such as the Nile, the Euphrates and Tigris, etc., thanks to the intimate understanding of the river not only as a giver of fertility and wealth but also as a potential threat during times of floods. Therefore, absence of disaster mitigation strategies through meaningful land use planning and effective early warning systems based on deep knowledge of the river’s behaviour can exacerbate the negative effects of floods and droughts.

This might have been the case in the Limpopo Basin in the year 2000, when considering the destructiveness of the floods in that occasion, specifically:

More than 700 people were killed; Hundreds of hectares of irrigation schemes were destroyed; Thousands of houses made of traditional materials were washed away; Roads were destroyed and schools were cut from the villages; Cattle and crops were drowned; There was disease outbreak, e.g. malaria, cholera and other water related diseases; Wild animals, particularly elephants, encroached on settlements; There was significant soil erosion; It took a long time for people affected to be helped; There was no flood shelter in any of the affected areas; Communication about the impending flooding situation was poor.

After this terrible flood event, a long and severe drought period started affecting several parts of the Basin, confirming the instable hydrological regime described in the previous chapter.

15


The review of the above-mentioned project documents and reports resulted in the construction of a problem tree (see Fig. 10). The identified focal problem in the Limpopo basin is “increased vulnerability of human settlements and ecosystems to the negative effects of floods and droughts” as evidenced by the destructiveness of the floods in the year 2000 and the following drought period. The problem tree considers both a national level pathway and a basin level pathway.

Figure 10: Problem tree for the Limpopo Basin identifying the causal linkages between the main problems contributing to increased vulnerability of ecosystems and human settlements to the negative effects of floods and droughts.

At country level, the identified root causal problem is the absence of clear guidelines on workflows and responsibilities at national level regarding disaster management coupled with the inappropriateness of centralised decision making to local community situations. This results in existing land uses, i.e. settlements, arable areas, infrastructure such as roads and irrigation schemes, that do not adapt to long term environmental conditions such as floods and droughts.

For example, the hilly and mountainous landscape in the high and middle Limpopo River would allow to site human settlements at topographical levels with low likelihood of being flooded, and at the same time at an acceptable distance from the fertile lands located close to the riverbed. This does not correspond to what can be observed at present conditions, with settlements lying very close to the river in Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa. In the lower stretches of the River within Mozambique, which are characterised by a flat terrain, no safe havens have been planned in the floodplain. In addition, the building materials for houses, as well as other infrastructure are not designed to be flood resistant.

In general, from the participatory land use planning workshops held in rural settlements in Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, it emerged that the management of land, settlements, wildlife, etc., is not well integrated with water management (e.g. irrigation schemes) and water-related hazards (floods and droughts).

16


It was observed also that there is limited communication capacity between disaster management agencies at the central level and the local communities and vice-versa, due to lack of radio and telephone links. This is especially true in the isolated flood-prone areas located close to the borders separating the different riparian countries, where phone and radio networks are non-existent. This situation hampers seriously the flow of early warning information, which has to be prompt especially in case of an impending flood.

At basin level, the root causal problem remains the absence of clear guidelines rooted in a harmonised policy framework for establishing effective inter-country cooperation for flood and drought disaster management and mitigation. This situation leads to a limited information flow among riparian countries, resulting for in each country developing unrelated early warning models.

Overall, the above critical aspects at both national and sub-regional levels result in a weak organisational framework and low levels of preparedness at the local level to floods and droughts, with the net effect being increased vulnerability to this type of natural threats.

Figure 11 illustrates the objective tree derived from the problem tree depicted in figure 10. The goal is “to reduce vulnerability of ecosystems and human settlements to the negative effects of floods and droughts in the Limpopo River Basin”. This is done through two main pathways: (i) land use planning for disaster risk reduction (on the right-hand); and (ii) the improvement of coordination among disaster management agencies at both national and basin levels (on the left-hand).

On the right-hand pathway, the objective is to develop capacity to undertake participatory land use planning for disaster risk reduction, as a preamble to implement land use plans that aim at effectively reducing flood and drought vulnerability at the local level.

On the left-hand pathway, the idea is to have inter-country agreements prepared and efficient early warning systems set up in order to improve the institutional coordination on flood and drought management at both country and basin levels.

Figure 11: Objective tree identifying the set of objectives to reduce vulnerability of ecosystems and human settlements to the negative effects of floods and drought.

This objective tree forms the basis for the formulation of the drafted Strategic Plan presented in the next Chapter.

17


Chapter 3 Proposed Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan

The goal of the Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan is to establish and implement common policies and practices among the four riparian countries for reducing the impact of floods and droughts on the built and natural environment and on its socio-economic potentialities.

Figure 12: The goal and the two pillars of the proposed Limpopo Basin Strategic Plan

The proposed Strategic Plan is organised around two pillars (as shown in Figure 12):

1. Improvement of coordination for disaster management and preparedness, which involves: Theme A: strengthening of the legal and policy framework; Theme B: improvement of the institutional set-up; Theme C: strengthening of disaster preparedness.

2. Production of participatory land use plans and tools for disaster preparedness and vulnerability reduction, which includes:

Theme D: sustainable ecosystem utilisation; Theme E: flood/drought safe infrastructure development.

It is important to note that the Strategic Plan hereby presented represents just a framework for discussion, hence new pillars and components will surely be added while preparing the final document for approval by all riparian countries.

Tables 4 and 5 present the proposed activities for each pillar in the short-medium term (from 0 to 4 years) targeting 3 specific levels:

(a) basin level; (b) national level; and (c) local level.

Tables 6 and 7 propose tentative implementation plans of the two identified pillars, which include the estimated required budget for carrying out each activity, the expected timeframe and the responsible/lead institutions.

18


Table 4: Proposed activities for improving the coordination for disaster management and preparedness (1st Pillar)

Themes a. At the basin Level b. At the national level c. At the local level

Theme A

Legal and policy framework

AA..aa..11.. Prepare and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among basin countries for establishing formal coordination mechanisms for flood & drought forecasting and early warning.

AA..aa..22.. Support the elaboration of a SADC policy on natural disaster management which promotes inter-sectoral approach and integrated land & water management.

AA..bb..11.. In those riparian countries where it is needed, complete the formulation and/or approval process of legal instruments on disaster management.

AA..bb..22.. Design and implement a national dissemination and capacity building programme of existing disaster management policies.

AA..cc..11.. Encourage discussions at the provincial, district, municipal and village levels on existing regulatory mechanisms for a more efficient involvement of local authorities and communities in disaster management operations.

AA..cc..22.. Based on Activity A.b.2, deliver capacity building activities at the local level to enable the effective implementation of disaster management policies.

Theme B

Institutional set-up

BB..aa..11.. Strengthen the LBPTC and the LIMCOM to include technical expertise and decision-making procedures on disaster management and land use planning issues.

BB..aa..22.. Based on the MoU prepared under Activity A.a.1, streamline institutions dealing with disaster management among the different riparian countries for improving inter-country coordination and flow of information.

BB..bb..11.. Reinforce national institutions responsible for disaster management, focussing on preparedness.

BB..bb..22.. Clarify roles and responsibilities of the different ministries by promoting the inter-sectoral dialogue.

BB..bb..33.. Identify strategic institutional set-ups for increasing funds for disaster preparedness and mitigation, and simplifying access to disaster funds during emergency.

BB..cc..11.. Progressively build adequate capacity of local authorities and community leaders to implement disaster management operations at ground level.

BB..cc..22.. Improve flow of disaster management information at the different local levels by clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Theme C

Disaster Preparedness

CC..aa..11.. Based on Activity B.a.2, set-up formal early warning communication mechanisms for floods & droughts among riparian countries, operating a Geographic Information System (GIS) which integrates hydrological and meteorological information from each riparian country.

CC..aa..22.. Test the inter-country communication mechanisms by running simulation exercises and evaluating the response obtained at the local level; identify gaps and weaknesses and prepare a capacity building programme to be delivered at the basin level.

CC..bb..11.. As part of the system established in Activity C.a.1, set-up mechanisms for sending SMS flood alert messages directly to community leaders.

CC..bb..22.. Based on Activity C.a.2, deliver training on flood & drought forecasting, monitoring and early warning at the central level.

CC..cc..11.. Improve/upgrade network stations and establish adequate management/maintenance mechanisms by involving local communities.

CC..cc..22.. Create adequate capacity for preparing vulnerable communities to cope with floods & droughts, in particular by setting up the SMS system as per Activity C.b.1, flood level markers, identifying evacuation routes & safe havens, as well as the organisational settings for operating rain water harvesting and small-scale irrigation schemes.

19


Table 5: Proposed activities for producing participatory land use plans and tools for disaster preparedness and vulnerability reduction (2nd Pillar)

Themes a. At the basin level b. At the national level c. At the local level

Theme D

Sustainable ecosystem utilisation

DD..aa..11.. Reinforce the implementation of current transfrontier park initiatives, in particular by promoting community participation and sustainable use of natural resources.

DD..bb..11.. In coordination with relevant ministries, prepare an integrated land & water management plan for disaster preparedness and vulnerability reduction in the Limpopo Basin, including aspects such as:

• Flood-prone and drought-prone areas;

• Suitable areas for implementing irrigation and dam management schemes, in order to store flood water for use during drought periods;

• Rural-urban linkages to be developed for facilitating access to markets for selling agricultural surplus from irrigation projects;

• Critical areas where improved agricultural practices are needed to reduce land degradation;

• etc.

DD..cc..11.. Carry out participatory planning sessions at community level to collect relevant data for preparing the plan as per Activity D.b.1, as well as to design locally adapted solutions to cope with floods and droughts.

DD..cc..22.. Promote community-based wildlife management initiatives to improve livelihood of vulnerable population.

Theme E

Flood/drought safe infrastructure development

EE..bb..11.. Based on the plan drafted in Activity D.b.1, identify suitable areas for developing safe havens or elevated platforms provided with basic water and sanitation facilities, to be used both during floods or droughts.

EE..bb..22.. Design and deliver a capacity building programme to promote adequate building techniques and solutions for increasing resistance of housing, social services and infrastructures to floods, including rainwater harvesting systems.

EE..bb..33.. Promote investments for constructing or rehabilitating small irrigation and dam management schemes, as per plan drafted in Activity D.b.1.

EE..cc..11.. Based on the local solutions designed during Activity D.c.2 and on the locations identified in Activity E.b.1, construct elevated platforms (e.g. markets) and social services (schools, health posts, warehouses for storing food and basic goods, etc.) equipped with flood-proof water and sanitation facilities, and including rainwater harvesting systems; these solutions will work as save havens during floods and as important social/basic facilities during droughts.

20


Table 6: Tentative implementation plan for proposed activities under the 1st Pillar

Proposed Activity Estimated

Budget (in US$)

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Responsible Institutions

Theme A: Legal and policy framework

AA..aa..11.. MoU for flood & drought forecasting and early warning

50,000 Disaster Management Institutions,

Hydrol. and Meteorol. Services At the basin level AA..aa..22.. Elaboration of a SADC policy

on disaster management 100,000

Disaster Management Institutions and SADC Secretariat

AA..bb..11.. Formulation/approval of disaster management legislation

100,000 x 2 Disaster Management Institutions

in Mozambique and Botswana At the national

level AA..bb..22.. Dissemination & capacity building on disaster mngt policies

50,000 x 4

Disaster Management Institutions

AA..cc..11.. Discussions for a stronger involvement of local stakeholders in disaster mngt operations

At the local level AA..cc..22.. Capacity building delivery for

effective implementation of disaster management policies

100,000 x 4

Disaster Management Institutions, local authorities, CBOs

Sub-total for implementing Theme A US$950,000

Theme B: Institutional set-up

BB..aa..11.. Strengthen LBPTC and LIMCOM

200,000

LBPTC and LIMCOM At the basin level BB..aa..22.. Streamline disaster

management institutions 80,000


BB..bb..11.. Reinforce disaster management institutions

200,000 x 4


BB..bb..22.. Promote inter-sectoral dialogue

40,000 x 4 Disaster Management Institutions

and key Ministries At the

national level

BB..bb..33.. Identify strategies for increasing and simplifying access to disaster funds

20,000 x 4 Disaster Management Institutions,

Ministries of Planning & Finances

BB..cc..11.. Build local capacity to carry out disaster mngt operations

At the local level BB..cc..11.. Improve flow of disaster

mngt information at the local level

200,000 x 4


Sub-total for implementing Theme B US$2,120,000

Theme C: Disaster Preparedness

CC..aa..11.. Set-up inter-country early warning system using GIS

200,000

At the basin level CC..aa..22.. Run simulations, evaluate

and prepare capacity build. progr. 100,000

Disaster Management Institutions, Hydrological and Meteorological Services

CC..bb..11.. SSet-up SMS flood alert mechanisms to reach communities

50,000 x 4

Disaster Management Institutions At the national

level CC..bb..22.. DDeliver training on forecast., monitoring and early warning


Hydrol. and Meteorol. Services

CC..cc..11.. Improve network stations and establish mngt mechanisms involving communities

400,000 x 4

At the local level CC..cc..22.. Prepare vulnerable

communities to floods & droughts 100,000 x 4


Sub-total for implementing Theme C US$2,900,000

Total needed for implementing 1st Pillar: US$5,970,000

21


Table 7: Tentative implementation plan for proposed activities under the 2nd Pillar

Proposed Activity Estimated

Budget (in US$)

Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Responsible Institutions

Theme D: Sustainable ecosystem utilisation

At the basin level

DD..aa..11.. Reinforce implementation of transfrontier park initiatives

200,000 Ministries of Environment and

Tourism

At the national

level

DD..bb..11.. Prepare integrated plan for disaster preparedness and vulnerability reduction in the Basin


Ministries of Environment, Land, Water, Agriculture, Planning, etc.

DD..cc..11.. Participatory planning at community level for data collection & design of locally adapted solutions to cope


local authorities, CBOs At the local level

DD..cc..22.. Promote community-based wildlife management initiatives

50,000 x 4 Ministries of Environment and

Tourism

Sub-total for implementing Theme D US$1,000,000

Theme E: Flood/drought safe infrastructure development

E.b.1. Identify suitable areas for developing equipped safe havens or elevated platforms


Ministries of Public Works

E.b.2. Deliver capacity building to promote adequate building techniques and solutions


Ministries of Public Works, Science and Technology

At the national

level

E.b.3. Promote investments for constructing/rehabilitating small irrigation and dam mngt schemes

50,000 x 4 Ministries of Agriculture, Water

Affairs, Planning & Finances

At the local level

E.c.1. Construct elevated platforms and social services equipped with water & sanitation facilities, rainwater harvesting systems, etc.


Ministries of Public Works and Water Affairs

Sub-total for implementing Theme B US$3,680,000

Total needed for implementing 2nd Pillar: US$4,680,000

Therefore, the implementation of the hereby presented Strategic Plan would require an estimated amount of US$10,650,000 to be implemented within a timeframe of 4 years, through the active involvement of all 4 riparian countries.

22


References

CGIAR (2003). Limpopo Basin Profile: Strategic research for enhancing agricultural water productivity. Water for Food Challenge Programme. Kaseke, E. et al. (2007), Legal and Policy Recommendations for Promoting Integrated Flood Management in the Limpopo River Basin. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Kgaodi, D. (2007). National Baseline Report for Botswana - Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Land Use Planning, Land Use Management and Disaster Management. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Merka, J. (2007). National Baseline Report for Zimbabwe - Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Land Use Planning, Land Use Management and Disaster Management. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Mpho, T. (2007). Developing Participatory Land Use Tools and Plans for Sustainable Land Management in Shoshong Village & Taung Ward, Ramotswa, of Botswana's Limpopo River Basin, in order to reduce the impact of Floods on Land, Ecosystems and Human Settlements. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Muianga, M. (2007). National Baseline Report for Mozambique - Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Land Use Planning, Land Use Management and Disaster Management. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Murwira, A. (2006). Improving Inter-Country Flood Forecasting and Early Warning in the Limpopo Basin - Sub-Regional Workshop Report, St. George Hotel, Pretoria, 6-7 June 2006; and Training Report, Boskop Training Centre, Potchefstroom, 11-15 September 2006. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Murwira, A., E. K. Madamombe, et al. (2006). Sustainable Land Use Planning for Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Reduction in the Limpopo River Basin: Zimbabwe component. UN-HABITAT/UNEP. Perrin, S. (2007). National Baseline Report for South Africa - Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Land Use Planning, Land Use Management and Disaster Management. UN-HABITAT/UNEP Perrin, S. and Mhlongo, M. (2006). Development and implementation of participatory land use tools and plans for sustainable land management in the Limpopo River Basin in order to reduce the impact of floods on land, ecosystems and human settlements - South Africa. UN-HABITAT/UNEP. Roth, M. & Haase, D. (1998). Land tenure security and agricultural performance in Southern Africa. BASIS-CRSP, Land Tenure Centre, University of Wisconsin, Madison Wi, USA. Trindade, C. T. G. and Givá, N. I. (2006). Planeamento de Uso da Terra e Mitigação de Desastres através da Participação Comunitária - Moçambique. UN-HABITAT/UNEP. UNDP (2003). Human Development Report. UN-HABITAT/UNEP (2004). Sustainable land use planning for integrated land and water management for disaster preparedness and vulnerable reduction in the Limpopo Basin. GEF MSP Proposal

23

Date post:	06-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE PLANNING FOR INTEGRATED LAND …

Documents