Dams and Development:The KOBWA - ExperiencePractices for balancing social, environmental and economic aspects in water resources management
On behalf of
Dams and Development:The KOBWA - ExperiencePractices for balancing social, environmental and economic aspects in water resources management
5
Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 2. Background ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 82.1 Basin overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Governance Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Legal framework for managing the Komati River Basin ....................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Institutional framework for managing the Komati River Basin .......................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3. Komati Basin Development Project .......................................................................................................................................... 173.1 The Komati River Basin Development Plan ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Construction of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project ............................................................................. 20
3.3 Funding of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project ...................................................................................... 22
3.4 Environment and resettlement aspects of Phase 1 of the project ............................................................................................. 23
3.4.1 Resettlement and compensation at Driekoppies Dam (South Africa) .................................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Resettlement and compensation at Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland) ......................................................................................29
3.4.3 Maguga Dam Environment and Resettlement Aspects ..........................................................................................................32
3.5 Water Management Aspects ......................................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 4. Inter-sectoral Water Governance .............................................................................................................................................. 464.1 The Economic Aspects of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project .............................................................. 47
4.2 Other project economic spin-offs ............................................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 5. Lessons learnt ................................................................................................................................................................................. 515.1 Cooperation between the riparian states ..................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Participation of communities in decision making processes .................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Minimising social impacts during construction phase .............................................................................................................. 52
5.4 Compensation and resettlement .................................................................................................................................................. 52
5.5 Best practice and best principles ................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.6 Institutional set up for the management of water resources as a key success factor .............................................................. 53
5.7 Maintain political will throughout the project phases but keep implementation at technical level ...................................... 53
5.8 Importance of continuity amongst members of the JWC and KOBWA Board during crucial stages of the project............. 53
5.9 Appropriate project policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
5.10 Ensure that the resettlement programme is a part of the infrastructure programme ........................................................ 54
5.11 Maintain interest of resettled communities over time ............................................................................................................. 54
5.12 Establish an effective, inclusive and participatory stakeholder participation process for project implementation ............ 55
5.13 Economic viability and sustainability must be a priority during the planning and implementation of a project .............. 55
Chapter 6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
References ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59
6
Foreword
n In November 2006, the SADC regional seminar “Inter-sec-
toral Water Governance - Towards Integrated Water Resour-
ces Management in the SADC Region” was held in Maputo,
Mozambique to share experiences and elaborate on good prac-
tice. In recognising the importance of knowledge sharing, the
seminar, which was jointly organised by InWEnt, GWP-Sa and
WaterNet and attended by more than 40 water professionals
from the region, resolved that an initial next step should be to
develop in-depth case studies of the practical implementation
of inter-sectoral water governance in the region as learning
tools for regional water managers.
This agenda was taken further in a regional East and
Southern African seminar entitled “Major Water Infrastruc-
ture Development in Africa: Balancing economic, environmen-
tal and social aspects for sustainable outcomes”, convened in
Mbabane, Swaziland, in July 2007. One of the seminar’s key
recommendations was to implement capacity building needs
through learning from good practice in the region.
Following the call for the sharing of regional knowledge
and experiences the following case study documents various
aspects of the practical implementation of intersectoral water
governance and sustainable infrastructure development;
emphasising the progressive learning and subsequent adap-
tation of approaches that has taken place - and still occurs -
throughout the lifetime of a project.
InWEnt is pleased to present this first case study on
KOBWA experiences as an example of “good practice” in inter-
sectoral water governance. Our holistic understanding of “good
water governance” is that of a complex system with the dimen-
sions of management and services that delivers tangible results
to a variety of water users and works under a specific legal and
policy framework (modified after GWP):
Water Governance
... refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to
} Systems
... develop and manage water resources and } Management
.... the delivery of water services at different levels of society.
} Services
It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions
} What?
... through which all involved stakeholders, including citizens and interest groups,
} Who?
... articulate their priorities, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.
} Goal
We hope that this KOBWA case study provides the reader with
sufficient evidence that - despite the huge challenges associa-
ted with the implementation of this ambitious concept of good
water governance – there are also success stories from Africa.
It requires the good will of all stakeholders and the joint efforts
of effective policy guidance and adaptive professional manage-
ment on the ground.
Chris Keevy (CEO KOBWA), Daniel Malzbender (ACWR) and
Thomas Petermann (InWEnt)
The sharing of information and knowledge is critical for the development and management of water
resources and for progress towards achieving integrated water resources management (IWRM). Well
documented case studies are a vital tool for sharing lessons learned on good practices within the local
and regional context. Both the SADC Regional Water Policy (2006) and Regional Water Strategy (2007)
recognise the importance of research and information sharing and prioritise such activities.
7
Acknowledgement
n First drafts of the case study had been prepared by Anton
Earle, Daniel Malzbender and Palesa Mokorosi of the African
Centre for Water Research who captured the insights of semi-
nars, training courses and other reference material and data
that was made available by KOBWA. Chris Keevy, Enoch Dla-
mini and other professional staff as well as Board members
of KOBWA provided valuable comments and amendments
of draft versions. Rev. Jameson Mncina, Adviser Ekuvijel-
veni Traditional Authority and all communities and organisa-
tions who are part of the resettlement and development of the
Komati River Basin provided further insights and guidance.
Alasdair Thompson undertook the proofreading and Nicole
Fritsch prepared the layout and design of the case study.
The authors are also grateful to our international coope-
ration partners Global Water Partnership Southern Africa
(GWP-SA) and WaterNet for their support on organising
SADC regional seminars to promote IWRM practices in the
region. The SADC Water Division provided policy guidance
throughout the process.
The Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) case study benefited considerably from
the discussions and inputs of delegates in a series of SADC-wide seminars and training
courses on IWRM and related topics that had been generously hosted and guided by the
KOBWA authority during the period 2006 to 2008.
8
1 Introductionn Dam issues are not confined to the design, construction
and operation of dams alone, but also embrace the full range of
social, environmental and political choices on which the human
aspiration for development and improved well-being depend.
Dams fundamentally alter rivers and the use of natural resour-
ces, frequently entailing a reallocation of benefits from local ripa-
rian users to new groups of beneficiaries at a regional or natio-
nal level. At the heart of dams are issues of governance, justice
and power (WCD, 2002). According to the World Commission
on Dams (WCD) some 40–80 million people worldwide have
been resettled to make way for dams. Additionally, dams also
have profound and irreversible environmental impacts inclu-
ding the extinction of species, loss of forests, wetlands and far-
mland. An estimated 60% of the world’s large rivers are frag-
mented by dams and diversions. Understanding, protecting and
restoring ecosystems at river basin level is, therefore, essential
to foster both equitable human development and the welfare of
all species. Options assessment and decision-making around
river development should prioritise the avoidance of impacts,
followed by the mini-
misation and mitiga-
tion of harm to the
health and integrity
of the river system.
Avoiding impacts
through good site
selection and pro-
ject design is a pri-
ority; for example,
releasing tailor-made
environmental flows
can help maintain
downstream eco-
systems and those
communities that
depend on them.
The Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) was establis-
hed under the terms of the Treaty on the Development and
Utilisation of the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin,
signed in 1992 between the Republic of South Africa and the
Kingdom of Swaziland. KOBWA was established to implement
Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project com-
prising of the Driekoppies Dam on the Lomati River in South
Africa (Sub-phase 1a) and the Maguga Dam on the Komati
River in Swaziland (Sub-phase 1b). The aim of the project is to
stabilise river flows in the Komati River and to provide water
storage for existing and new developments. In implementing
Phase 1 of the Project, KOBWA had to address the issues rai-
sed above, and in particular to ensure that all those affected
by the developments are left “better off” than they were prior
to project implementation.
The purpose of the KOBWA case study is to document the
knowledge and experience of water resource infrastructure
development projects and highlight the key lessons learnt.
Figure 1: Map of the Incomati River Basin (Source: Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee, 2001)
9
2 Background
n The Komati River Basin forms part of the Incomati River
Basin shared between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozam-
bique. Figure 1 depicts the Incomati River Basin with the
Komati River Basin shown at the bottom. The Incomati River
Basin covers a land area of about 46,700 km² and occupies
2,500 km² (6%) of the Kingdom of Swaziland, 15,600 km²
(31%) of the Republic of Mozambique, and 28,600 km² (63%)
of the Republic of South Africa (Van der Zaag et al, 2003).
The Komati catchment, which comprises the Komati River
and its tributary the Lomati River, originates in the Drakens-
berg Mountains, situated west of the town of Carolina in the
Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. The Komati River then
passes through northern Swaziland before flowing back to
South Africa and joining the Crocodile River at the border
with Mozambique. The Komati catchment covers an area of
about 11, 209 km², including 1,493 km² of the Lomati River.
The total length of the Komati River from its source to the
confluence with the Crocodile River is approximately 450km.
About 2,560 km² of the catchment falls in the northern part
of Swaziland, the remainder is in South Africa (van der Zaag
et al, 2003).
Over the course of time water resources development and
water use levels have increased, putting a lot of stress on
the limited resources of the Komati River Basin. Between
1962 and 1998 five dams were constructed on the Komati
River Basin up stream of Mozambique, three in South Africa
(Nooitgedacht, Vygeboom and Driekoppies Dams) and two in
Swaziland (Maguga and Sand River Dams). The water stored
in the Dams is used for irrigation (mainly sugarcane produc-
tion) and energy production (cooling of thermal power sta-
tions and to a smaller extent hydropower).
2.1 Basin overview
10
ClimateThe general climate of the Komati River Basin is characte-
rised by cooler temperatures in the Mpumalanga Highveld
Plateau in South Africa and hot, dry conditions on the eas-
tern portion towards the border with Mozambique. The entire
catchment lies within the summer rainfall region of Southern
Africa with 80% of the rainfall occurring between Novem-
ber and April. Rainfall ranges from 600mm/annum in the
eastern lowveld to about 1200mm/annum in the highveld.
Evaporation rates are high especially in the summer season
where they average at 1900mm/annum.
Hydrology The Komati Basin has a virgin mean annual runoff of about
1,420 million m3. In 2002, the estimated total consumptive
water use was about 990 million m³/annum (van der Zaag
et al, 2004), including consumptive use of exotic forest plan-
tations. The potential total forestation areas in South Africa
and Swaziland amount to some 123,000 ha and cause a flow
reduction of about 145 million m³/annum (Joint Water Com-
mission, 1992). Total consumptive use therefore represents
70% of the virgin runoff (Gibb, 1992).
Water qualitySurface water quality is generally good for irrigation, ecosy-
stem and domestic and industrial use after treatment (Komati
Basin Water Authority, 2004). However, there have been tem-
poral and spatial trends of decreasing quality due to increased
land and water use (Komati Basin Water Authority, 2004).
Groundwater only occurs in quantities sufficient for large-
scale development in the dolomitic region of the Transvaal
Sequence, the Barberton Greenstone Belt.
Land useExisting irrigated agriculture in the Komati is estimated at
just over 40,000 ha, consuming 870 million m³ water per
annum. Agriculture and forestry are the dominant forms of
land use in the basin, both in terms of land and water use
and the economy. Agriculture consists mainly of irrigated
sugarcane, citrus and some vegetables. Commercial forestry
is principally pine and saligna trees for mining, construction,
furniture and the paper industry.
In 1992, the projections for land use dependent on water from
the portion of the Komati River Basin down to the Crocodile
River confluence were:
• A population of 460,000
• Irrigation of 40,000 ha, including 9,500 ha along the
Mbuluzi River in Swaziland
• Providing for 123,000 ha of existing and additional fore-
station
• Limited mining activity (currently mining activities are
limited to coal mining in the upper reaches of the Komati
river catchment)
• Service industries (mostly small) except for water exported
to the thermal power stations on the Highveld in South
Africa and the sugar mill at Mhlume in Swaziland
Environmental issuesThe Komati Basin provides habitats for a rich variety of ani-
mal and plant species, including some classified as threate-
ned and endangered while some are endemic to the basin.
Two conservation areas are located in the Komati Basin: The
Songimvelo and Malolotja transfrontier conservation parks
located in the upper reaches of the catchment in South Africa
and Swaziland respectively. These conservation parks pro-
vide not only a suitable habitat for breeding colonies of aqua-
tic birds but also water and other ecological services to local
populations. They also provide a habitat for various species
of plants, reptiles and other terrestrial animals.
The most important anthropogenic changes in the river
environment are caused by dams, reservoirs, water abstraction
weirs and interbasin transfers. The impacts of these upstream
impoundments affect the ecology of the river all the way to the
estuary in the mouth of the Incomati River and the associated
habitat destruction posses the major threat to the survival of
indigenous plant and animal species. The Incomati estuary
contains an extensive mangrove forest covering approximately
5,000 ha which has a beneficial impact on the marine habitats
and the coastal zone and protects it from erosion. Upstream
impoundment reduces the freshwater and sediments flows into
the estuary and has, subsequently, changed the flow regime.
This in turn impacts negatively on the estuarine ecosystem
while also increasing salt intrusion.
Water is required to maintain riverine ecosystems. The
Joint Incomti Basin Study (Tripartite Permanent Technical
Committee, 2001) produced an initial estimate of how much
water should remain in the river, and observations indicate that
the amounts required are high and pose a constraint over other
water users. Due to the high water demand in the Komati,
parts of the basin experience severe water stress during low
flow periods (May to October) in years with below normal rain-
fall and runoff.
The general conservation status of the Komati river is
described as modified but primarily natural. The exceptions
are the completely altered areas in the lower Komati and the
Lomati Rivers (Afridev, 2004) resulting from numerous
abstraction weirs and lack of adequate river flows.
11
PopulationIt is estimated that currently over half a million people reside
in the Komati Basin. The majority of the population reside
in South Africa. Water use for domestic consumption repre-
sents 5% of total consumption in the basin. It is expected that
with a growing population and increased economic develop-
ment this primary water use will increase. Despite its econo-
mic significance there are no major urban developments in
the basin. The towns include Carolina, Komatipoort, and vil-
lages such as Schoemansdal, Driekoppies, Kamhlushwa and
Tonga in South Africa, while in Swaziland there is Piggs Peak
and a number of rural settlements along the Komati River.
In addition Mhlume, Tshaneni and Thabankulu, part of the
Mhlume Sugar Company settlement, also get primary water
from the Komati River.
Economic issuesThe sectors providing the mainstay of the economy in the
Komati Basin are agriculture and forestry. Sugarcane pro-
duction in the basin consumes approximately 67% of the
total water used for irrigation, providing employment to an
estimated 30,000 directly employed people in 2003, and
generated an income of US$ 50–100 million per year (van
der Zaag et al, 2003). Both Swaziland and South Africa have
extensive areas of exotic tree plantations, mainly for the
paper industry, that also provides employment and income
for residents of the basin. Sugarcane and commercial fore-
stry dominate the economy of the Komati Basin, mainly
because climatic conditions are favourable and, most impor-
tantly, there is a reliable market for these both commodities.
Sugarcane and timber production require lower levels of
management inputs and are also relatively low risk indus-
tries. Mining activities are limited mainly to small scale
operations in South Africa and Swaziland has developed a
19-mega watt hydropower station at the Maguga Dam uti-
lising water released for irrigation.
Interbasin water transfers and thermal power productionWater transfers represent the third largest water use in the
basin, after irrigation and water consumption by exotic tree
plantations. South Africa exports 132 million m³/annum from
the upper Komati River catchment for thermal power cooling
into the adjacent Olifants River catchment while Swaziland
exports water from the Komati River to irrigate 9,500 hectare
in the Umbeluzi Basin.
2.2.1 Legal framework for managing the Komati River Basin
At national level, water governance in the Komati Basin is
governed by national water legislation. In 1998 and 2003,
South Africa and Swaziland respectively, passed new water
legislation that embraces and promotes the principles of:
• Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM).
• Water for poverty alleviation, environment, peace and coo-
peration.
• Principles of water use efficiency and equity.
• Payment of water use, pollution and monitoring.
• Information sharing.
• Decentralisation of water management to grassroots insti-
tutions.
At a transboundary level there are a number of agreements
that govern water development and management in the
Komati River Basin. These are (i) Piggs Peak Agreement
signed between Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland
in 1991, (ii) Treaty on the Development and Utilisation of
the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin signed bet-
ween South Africa and Swaziland in 1992. However there
are other agreements that have a bearing on the governance
of the Komati River Basin. These are:
1. The Treaty on the establishment and functioning of the
Joint Water Commission between Swaziland and South
Africa signed in 1992.
2. Tripartite Interim Agreement between the Republic of
Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa and the
Kingdom of Swaziland for the Co-operation on the Pro-
tection and Sustainable Utilisation of the Water Resources
of the Incomati and Maputo Watercourses (IncoMaputo
Agreement) signed in 2002.
3. Agreement between the Governments of South Africa Por-
tugal in regard to Rivers of Mutual Interest and the Cunene
River Scheme signed in 1964 and acceded to by the Repu-
blic of Mozambique and the Kingdom of Swaziland.
2.2 Governance Overview
12
4. Agreement between the Government of South Africa and
the Republic of Mozambique relative to the Establishment
of a Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee signed in
1983
5. Southern African Development Community (SADC) Revi-
sed Protocol on Shared Watercourses, signed in 2000.
These agreements are described in more detail below.
The 1964 AgreementThe “Agreement between the Governments of South Africa
and Portugal in regard to Rivers of Mutual Interest and the
Cunene River Scheme” was signed as a bilateral agreement
between South Africa and Portugal in 1964, to which Mozam-
bique acceded at independence. Swaziland acceded to Part 1
(Rivers of Mutual Interest) of this agreement in 1967. The
agreement acknowledges the importance of rivers as water
resource for the development of the respective territories of
the parties as well as the advantages of collaborating in the
development of such water resources.
SADC Revised Protocol on Shared WatercoursesThe SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses is a fra-
mework agreement on shared watercourses. Its objective is to
“foster closer cooperation for judicious, sustainable and coordi-
nated management, protection and utilisation of shared water-
courses” (SADC, 2006). The Protocol advocates for the esta-
blishment of multi-nation Shared Watercourse Institutions
(SWCI) for transboundary watercourses and the harmonisa-
tion of legislation and policies for integrated water resources
management.
Agreement between the Government of South Africa and the Republic of Mozambique relative to the Establishment of a Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee, signed in 1983The agreement provided for the establishment of a Tripartite
Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC), to provide advice
on all technical matters pertaining to the sharing of rivers of
common interest. The TPTC consist of three representatives
from each of the three governments concerned. This commit-
tee convenes on an ad hoc basis, as and when circumstances
require. All decisions are based on consensus. The functions
of the TPTC are to recommend to the three governments;
Any measures to be undertaken to alleviate short-term pro-
blems regarding water shortages in rivers of common interest
during drought periods; taking into account the existing
amount of stored water and water requirements in the three
countries
On the division of flows in rivers of common interest
On procedures, programming, operations, maintenance, mea-
surement of water, abstraction of water, curtailing of abstrac-
tion and supervision with regard to the implementation of any
agreements that are entered into between the governments
Arrangements for the investigations of, and access to, com-
mon watersheds and joint water schemes on rivers of com-
mon interest.
The Treaty on the establishment and functioning of the Joint Water Commission between Swaziland and South Africa, signed in 1992
The JWC was established through the Treaty as a technical
adviser to the parties on all matters relating to the develop-
ment and utilisation of the shared water resources. The JWC
may also perform other functions pertaining to the develop-
ment of the shared water resources as the parties may agree
to assign to them.
Each party is represented by a delegation of three mem-
bers at the JWC. The leader of the delegation may co-opt a
number of advisers. All the decisions by the JWC are taken
on the basis of consensus.
The functions and powers of the commission are to advise
the parties on all technical matters relating to:
• Measures that can be implemented to alleviate short-term
problems resulting from water shortages
• The joint or separate investigations by the parties of the
development of any water resource of common interest
and the construction, operation and maintenance of any
waterworks in relation thereto
• Joint development of water resources
• Criteria to be adopted in the allocation of the utilisable
portion of water of water resources of common interests
and the application thereof
• The taking of action in connection with the operation and
maintenance of any existing waterworks
• Any other matter pertaining to the hydrological regime
of water resources
• The prevention and exercise of control over the pollution
of water resources and soil erosion affecting such resour-
ces
• Any other matter pertaining to the development of water
resources and utilisation of water referred to by the Com-
mission.
Treaty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin signed between South Africa and Swaziland in 1992The purpose of this Treaty is to provide for the development
and utilisation of the water resources of the Komati River
13
Basin and for the establishment of the Komati Basin Water
Authority (KOBWA) for the implementation of Phase 1 of the
Komati River Basin Development Project comprising of the
Driekoppies Dam on the Lomati River in South Africa and
the Maguga Dam on the Komati River in Swaziland together
with the ancillary works (the Project), as well as for all mat-
ters related thereto.
Through the Treaty Swaziland and South Africa acknow-
ledge the rights of the Republic of Mozambique to a reasona-
ble and equitable share in the use of the waters of the Incomati
River Basin of which the Komati River Basin is an integral part.
The Parties agreed to enter into negotiations with each other
when such share is claimed by the Republic of Mozambique.
• The Treaty sets out each Parties financial contribution
towards the costs of the Project. The treaty also sets out
the allocation of water and assurance of the water alloca-
ted to the Parties under the Project.
The 1991 Piggs Peak Agreement South Africa and Swaziland undertook to consult Mozambique
before proceeding with the implementation of the Komati
River Basin Development Project. The consultation resulted
in an agreement signed in Piggs Peak in 1991 where the fol-
lowing was agreed between the three Parties:
• The undertaking of a joint study of the water resources,
demands and development potential of the whole Inco-
mati River Basin
• South Africa offered to finance the study
• The first phase of the Komati River Development is to
proceed
• Pending agreements resulting from the joint study, the
following interim measures were agreed to:
- A cross-border release of 2 cubic meters per second ave-
raged over a cycle of three days be maintained in order
to satisfy present demand in the reach from Ressano
Garcia to the confluence of the Sabie River in Mozam-
bique;
- South Africa will not construct any new water works
with storage capacity in excess of 250,000 cubic meters
or an abstraction rate exceeding 110 litres per second in
the Sabie River sub-catchment, without prior consul-
tation in accordance with the Helsinki Rules and the
1964 Rivers Agreement between the parties concerned.
The Tripartite Interim Agreement between the Republic of Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa and the King-dom of Swaziland for Co-operation on the Protection and Sustainable Utilisation of the Water Resources of the Incomati and Maputo Watercourses (IncoMaputo Agreement), 2002The objective is to promote co-operation among the Parties to
ensure the protection and sustainable utilisation of the water
resources of the Incomati and Maputo Watercourses. This is
a watercourse agreement in the spirit of the Revised Protocol
as well as the UN Convention. The agreement applies general
principles of the Revised Protocol which are:
1. Sustainable Utilisation
2. Equitable and reasonable utilisation & Participation
3. Prevention Principle
4. Co-operation Principle
The Agreement contains the agreed flow regime of the Inco-
mati Watercourse and of the Maputo Watercourse. It also sets
out how the water resources shall be utilised by the various
Parties in terms of Annexures to the Agreement.
In the agreement, the Parties shall, individually and, where
appropriate, jointly, develop and adopt technical, legal, admi-
nistrative and other reasonable measures in order to:
• Prevent, reduce and control pollution of surface and
ground waters, and protect and enhance the quality sta-
tus of the waters and associated ecosystems for the bene-
fit of all
• Prevent, eliminate, mitigate and control transboundary
impacts
• Co-ordinate management plans and planned measures
• Promote partnership in effective and efficient water use
• Promote the security of relevant water related infrastruc-
tures and prevent accidents
• Monitor and mitigate the effects of floods and droughts
• Provide warning of possible floods and implement agreed
upon urgent measures during flood situations
• Establish comparable monitoring systems, methods and
procedures
• Exchange information on the water resources quality and
quantity, and the uses of water
• Promote the implantation of this Agreement according to
its objectives and defined principles
• Implement capacity building programmes in accordance
with Article 14
• Co-operate with the SADC organs and other shared water-
course institutions.
14
The Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC) is the
joint body for co-operation between the Parties and has the
responsibility to exercise the powers established in the Agree-
ment.
2.2.2 Institutional framework for managing the Komati River Basin
The institutional framework for water management in the
Komati River Basin is provided for through the legislative fra-
mework described above. At national level the water legisla-
tion of Swaziland and South Africa created institutions for
water management at various levels from policy to manage-
ment and operational levels. In Swaziland, the National Water
Authority (NWA) is a stakeholder institution responsible for
all water matters in Swaziland. NWA advises the Minister for
Water on policy and legislative matters. Each River Basin has
a River Basin Authority (RBA) that reports to the NWA. For
the Komati River the Komati River Basin Authority is cur-
rently being constituted. Under the RBA are a number of
other smaller specialised water institutions such as Irrigation
Boards/Districts and Water Users Associations. Examples of
Water Users Associations in the Komati in Swaziland inclu-
ded Emandla Ekuphil. Others are being established. There are
also project development agencies such as the Swaziland Water
and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE) formerly
Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE). Transboundary
water resources remain the responsibility of the Department
of Water Affairs that acts as a Secretariat to the National Water
Authority.
In South Africa the Department of Water Affairs and Fore-
stry is responsible for transboundary water resources. Catch-
ment Management Agencies (CMA) representing all stakehol-
ders are established for all river basins in the country. In the
Komati River the Inkomati Catchment Management Agency
(ICMA) has been established. Reporting to the CMA’s are spe-
cialised water institutions such as Irrigation Boards and Water
Users Associations. The Komati Irrigation Board and Lomati
Irrigation Board are the main irrigation boards in the Komati
River Basin in South Africa.
At transboundary level the Joint Water Commission (JWC)
is responsible for overall water governance in the Komati
Basin between Swaziland and South Africa. If the issue at
hand affects the interest of Mozambique the Tripartite Per-
manent Technical Committee (TPTC) will deal with the mat-
ter. The TPTC and JWC are responsible for advising on policy
related matters. The Komati Basin Water Authority is a trans-
boundary project authority responsible for management and
operational matters of the Komati River between Swaziland
and South Africa. KOBWA works with the Komati Joint Ope-
rations Forum (KJOF) that advises KOBWA on the day-to-day
operational matters of the Komati River Basin. The roles and
responsibilities of these institutions and how they interact with
each other in the management of the Komati River Basin are
fully described in Figure 2.
Institutional Framework
South Africa Swaziland Mozambique
TPTC
ISOTGJWC
Operating rules
Management
KOBWABoard
KOMATI Joint Operations Forum
South Africa and Swaziland water users
Figure 2: Institutional framework for
management of Komati Basin
15
The Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC)The TPTC was established in 1983 through the TPTC Agree-
ment between the Governments of Swaziland, South Africa
and Mozambique. The TPTC is the technical advisory body to
the three Governments on water resources of mutual interest,
is the joint body for co-operation between the Parties and has
the responsibility to exercise the powers established in the
Tripartite Interim IncoMaputo Agreement. It is comprised
of three representatives from each of the three Governments,
each country, however, can co-opt any number of observers to
attend the TPTC meeting. The TPTC meets on an ad hoc basis
with the chairmanship rotating among the member states,
usually being held by the host country. The secretariat is also
held on a rotational basis similar to the chairmanship. The
successes of the TPTC include the negotiations leading to the
Piggs Peak Agreement and the Tripartite Interim IncoMaputo
Agreement; both of which contain several important projects
such as the Joint Maputo Basin Study and the Maputo Basin
Study, as well as a number of projects aimed at the implemen-
tation of the Tripartite Interim IncoMaputo Agreement. All
TPTC decisions are made by consensus.
The Joint Water Commission (JWC)The Joint Water Commission Treaty is essentially a conversion
of the Joint Permanent Technical Committee (JPTC) between
Swaziland and South Africa to a Joint Water Commission (JWC).
The object and functions of the Commission is to act as a tech-
nical advisor to the Parties on all matters relating to the deve-
lopment and utilisation of water resources of common interest
to the Parties and to perform such other functions pertaining to
the development and utilisation of such resources as the Parties
may from time to time agree to assign to the Commission. The
Commission has legal personality in the territory of each Party
and consists of two delegations representing the Parties. Each
delegation consists of not more than three members appointed
by each Party, one of whom shall be designated by that Party as
the leader of its delegation. The leader can co-opt any number of
persons as advisors to his/her delegation. The leader of the dele-
gation of the Party hosting a particular meeting shall in respect
of that meeting be chairperson. All decisions of the Commis-
sion shall be take on the basis of consensus, should no consen-
sus be achieved the matter under discussion shall be referred
by the respective leaders of the delegation to the Parties for fur-
ther negotiations. Currently KOBWA hosts the secretariat of the
Joint Water Commission.
Major projects of the JWC include the negotiations leading
to the Treaty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water
Resources of the Komati River Basin signed in 1992 between
Swaziland and South Africa. At the centre of this treaty is the
Komati River Basin Development Project. Phase 1 of the Pro-
ject comprises the construction of Driekoppies Dam on the
Lomati River in South Africa and the Maguga Dam in Swazi-
land. The Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) is responsi-
ble for implementing Phase 1 of the project, with the JWC pro-
viding policy direction.
The Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA)KOBWA was established in 1993 through the Treaty on the Deve-
lopment and Utilisation of the Water Resources of the Komati
River Basin signed between South Africa and Swaziland in
1992. The purpose of KOBWA is to implement Phase 1 of the
Komati River Basin Development Project between South Africa
and Swaziland. Phase 1 of the project comprise the construc-
tion, operation and maintenance of the Driekoppies Dam on
the Lomati River in South Africa and the Maguga Dam on the
Komati River in Swaziland. KOBWA is directed by a Board of
Directors with three representatives from each country. The
KOBWA Board elects its own chairperson for a period of three
years. The Board reports to and takes instruction from the
JWC. The Management of KOBWA is headed by a Chief Execu-
tive Officer (CEO) appointed by the Board. Currently KOBWA
has three departments: Water Management, Environment and
Resettlement and Corporate Support Services. In the manage-
ment of the water resources of the Komati River, KOBWA liaises
directly with the Departments of Water Affairs from Swaziland
and South Africa. Concerning operational matters relating to
the management of the water resources of the Komati River,
KOBWA interacts directly with water users from the two coun-
tries through the Komati Joint Operations Forum (KJOF).
KOBWA Structure
Joint Water Comission
South Africa 3 Swaziland 3
Board membersSouth Africa 3 Swaziland 3
Chief Executive Officer
Chris Keevy
Corporate Support Manager
Chris Brand
Water Management
ManagerEnoch Dlamini
Environmental Resettlement
ManagerIan van Zuydam
Figure 3: KOBWA Structure
16
Incomati Systems Operations Task Group (ISOTG)ISOTG was established in 1998 by the TPTC to assist with the
development of operating rules for the Incomati River Basin,
with the principle focus on the Komati River to ensure that
KOBWA could successfully operate the Maguga and Driekop-
pies Dams. ISOTG also proposed the establishment of an ope-
ration forum where role-players from the countries could meet
and cooperate with KOBWA on the day to day operational mat-
ters pertaining to the management of the water resources of
the Komati River Basin.
Komati Joint Operations Forum (KJOF)The Komati Joint Operations Forum was established on
recommendation of the ISOTG and comprises water user
representatives, representatives of the Departments of Water
Affairs from Swaziland and South Africa and representatives
from KOBWA and basin institutions such as the River Basin
Authority (RBA) in Swaziland and the Inkomati Catchment
Management Agency (ICMA) in South Africa. The KJOF
meets once a month to discuss operational matters relating
to the management of the water resources of the Komati River
Basin. These include among others; river flow regulation and
monitoring, abstraction monitoring, review and approval of
water use and reconciliation statements and issues relating
to the general state of water in the Komati River Basin. The
KJOF is an advisory body to KOBWA. The KJOF is a unique
institution in that it brings together water users, govern-
ment representatives and the water management authority
(KOBWA) to discuss and deliberate on key issues pertaining
to the management of the water resources of the Komati
River. Recommendations from the KOBWA, taking account
of the inputs and recommendation of the KJOF, are submit-
ted to the KOBWA Board of Directors who subsequently make
recommendations to the JWC on matters relating to water
restrictions and policy decisions. Figure 4 reflects the water
management structure.
Figure 4: The water management structure
Swaziland Mozambique Requirements
South Africa
Water Management Structure
other users
Komati water users
Lomati water users
Lomati Irrigation board
Komati Irrigation board
Lomati water users
Komati water users
Komati Joint Operations Forum (KJOF)
Komati River Basin Authority (RBA)
Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy (MNRE)
Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA)
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF)
Incomati Catchment Management Agency (CMA)
Nkomazi Water Office
17
3 Komati Basin Development Project
n The late 1970’s saw increasing water demands for irriga-
tion in the Komati River Basin particularly between Swazi-
land and South Africa. After the failure in 1981by the Joint
Permanent Technical Committee (JPTC) to agree on the
cross-border flow on the eastern border between Swaziland
and South Africa, the JPTC resolved to engage a consultant
to carry out a joint reconnaissance study of the Komati River
Basin. On the basis of the joint reconnaissance study, the
JPTC issued in 1983 a report agreeing on a long-term pha-
sed water resources development plan in the Komati River
Basin (Figure 5).
The JPTC further recommended a feasibility study for the
first phase of the water resources development plan comprising
a joint development project consisting of Driekoppies Dam on
the Lomati River in South Africa and the Maguga Dam on the
Komati River in Swaziland. The feasibility study commenced
in 1984 and in 1986 the JPTC recommended the construction
of the first phase of the project including principles for water
allocation and cost apportionment.
The drafting of the Joint Water Commission Treaty and Tre-
aty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water Resour-
ces of the Komati River Basin commenced in 1987. In 1989
Swaziland and South Africa agreed to proceed with Phase 1
of the project. In 1990 Swaziland initiated a separate review
and feasibility study of the Maguga Dam and the proposed an
3.1 The Komati River Basin Development Plan
Figure 5: Komati River Basin Development Plan (JWC, 1992)
18
irrigation development along the Komati River in Swaziland.
South Africa and Swaziland withheld signing the treaties pen-
ding an agreement with Mozambique. The agreement with
Mozambique was signed in Piggs Peak, Swaziland in 1991.
In the agreement Mozambique agreed that South Africa and
Swaziland could proceed with Phase 1 of the project subject to:
i) The completion of the Joint Incomati River Basin Deve-
lopment Study
ii) An interim 2 m3/s minimum cross border flow averaged
over three days at Ressano Garcia and
iii) South Africa should not to construct any new water works
with storage capacity in excess of 250,000 cubic meters or
an abstraction rate exceeding 110 litres per second in the
Sabie River sub-catchment, without prior consultation.
The Joint Water Commission Treaty and the Treaty on the
Development and Utilisation of the Water Resources of the
Komati River Basin was signed during 1992 in Mbabane, Swa-
ziland, paving the way for the project.
The basis on how the capital costs for the project would be
shared between Swaziland and South Africa during Phase 1
of the Komati River Basin Development Project was based on
the water shortages experienced by each country in 1981. The
interim sharing of the costs to enable implementation to pro-
ceed was also agreed and is shown in Table 1 below.
Project Cost Sharing (Percentages)
Project Phase South Africa Swaziland
Driekoppies Dam (Phase 1a) 100% 0%
Maguga Dam (Phase 1b) 60% 40%
Table 1: Capital Cost Sharing under Phase 1
The agreed allocation of water to the Parties makes provision
for varying levels of assurances and is shown in Table 2 below.
The aim of the project was to stabilise flows in the Komati
River and to provide water to eliminate existing water shor-
tage. In addition some limited water was provided for further
developments in the two countries primarily aimed at poverty
alleviation.
Water Allocations
Country High Assurance Water Allocations Low Assurance Water Allocations
Existing
Uses (1981)
Provisions
for Future
Total Existing
Uses (1981)
Provisions
for Future
Total
South Africa 1400 178 1578 2840 970 3810
Swaziland 109 42 151 1772 830 2602
Total 1509 220 1729 4612 1800 6412
NB: The 2m3/s water for Mozambique average over 3 days come from these allocations
Table 2: Water Allocation under Phase 1
19
Figure 7: Cumulative volume of storage infrastructure over time in the Incomati Basin.
(Source: Carmo Vaz and van der Zaag, 2003)
Figure 6: Water storage infrastructure in the Incomati Basin (After JIBS, 2001)
20
n KOBWA was established during 1993 under the terms of
the treaty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water
Resources of the Komati River Basin to implement Phase 1
of the Project. According to the Treaty, Swaziland was allo-
wed two years from signature to decide if the construction of
the Maguga Dam was to proceed within Phase 1, while South
Africa was allowed to proceed immediately with the construc-
tion of Driekoppies Dam.
KOBWA proceeded with Phase 1a of the Project and
construction of the Driekoppies Dam commenced in 1994
was completed in 1997.
Based on the results of the basis of the review and fea-
sibility study, Swaziland committed itself to the construc-
tion of Maguga Dam in 1994 with construction beginning in
1996. The sod-turning for Maguga Dam was attended by His
Majesty King Mswati III and the Honourable President Nel-
son Mandela, indicating both the strong political support and
will for the Project, but also the good cooperation between the
riparian states in water-centred development matters.
The construction of the Project was carried out with the
aim of maximising local employment and promoting the use of
local small and emerging contractors. For example the Maguga
Dam construction programme was broken down into eight
contracts (MDC-1-8) consisting of:
• Construction of the main access roads to the dam site
• Construction of the Piggs Peak housing infrastructure
• Construction of the Piggs Peak bulk water supply scheme
• Main dam construction
• Hydropower Planning
• Environmental Planning
• Planning and development of the resettlement program
• Planning and construction of the host area infrastructure
and development.
A number of special arrangements were put in place at
both projects to optimise the impacts of the Project on the
communities involved. These arrangements included sour-
cing of unskilled and semi-skilled labourers from the local
community with only skilled labour being imported outside
the project area, measures to minimise the impact of HIV/
AIDS on the local community and construction labourers,
daily transportation of local labourers from their homes, no
housing of labourers was permitted on site, etc. A residen-
tial township was constructed in Piggs Peak to accommodate
imported skilled labourers. Programmes on HIV/AIDS edu-
cation were also put in place for both the local communities
and construction crews.
In 1998 the TPTC set-up the Incomati Systems Operations
Task Group (ISOTG) to propose operating rules for the Inco-
mati River system.
Driekoppies Dam construction was completed in 1997 and
it spilled for the first time in 2000. Maguga Dam construction
was completed in 2002 and spilled for the first time in 2006.
Driekoppies Dam was officially inaugurated in 1998 by
the Honourable Prince Sobandla, Minister for Natural Resour-
ces and Energy of the Kingdom of Swaziland and the Honou-
rable Professor Kadar Asmal, Minister of the Department of
Water Affairs of South Africa. The Maguga Dam was offi-
cially inaugurated in 2002 by His Majesty King Mswati III
and Honourable Jacob Zuma, Deputy President of the Repu-
blic of South Africa. The Misters for water from the two coun-
tries and Mozambique also attended. Maguga Dam and Drie-
koppies Dam and their characteristics are shown in Figure 9
and 10 respectively.
3.2 Construction of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project
Figure 8: HM King Mswati III and Hon. President Nelson
Mandela at Maguga Dam Sod Turning
21
Figure 9: Driekoppies Dam and its characteristics
Figure 10: Maguga Dam and its characteristics
22
n As previously indicated, the Driekoppies Dam was funded
100% by South Africa while the Maguga Dam was funded
on a 60:40 ratio by South Africa and Swaziland. Loan capital
was the main source of funding for the Project. All loans were
raised by KOBWA. Loans for Driekoppies were guaranteed by
the Government of South Africa alone, whereas loans for the
Maguga Dam were guaranteed by South Africa with a back-
to-back guarantee from Swaziland. The balance of the funds
for the Project was provided directly by the Governments.
The table below shows the capital cost of the Project and the
funds raised towards the Project.
3.3 Funding of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project
PROJECT CAPITAL COST PROJECT LOAN FUNDING
Driekoppies Dam (Phase 1a) Capital Cost DBSA Sept 2020 488,401,000
Dam Construction 450,480,613 Nedcor Bank Sept 2019 233,000,000
Resettlement (Swaziland Side) 51,364,247 Gensec Bank Dec 2016 165,000,000
Resettlement (South African Side) – Phase -1 123,263,437 Hambros Merchant Bank
Oct 2027 Bulk pmt
380,000,000
Resettlement (South African Side) – Phase -2 17,951,631 Rand Merchant Bank Aug 2019 380,000,000
Total 643,059,928
Maguga Dam (Phase 1b) Capital Cost TOTAL LOAN FUNDING 1,646,401,000
Dam Construction 659,757,062
Resettlement 244,157,608
Associated Infrastructure 241,773,676
Total 1,145,688,346
Water Management Capital Cost
Water Management Plan 16,187,548
Total 16,187,548
TOTAL PHASE - 1 CAPITAL COST 1,804,935,822
Table 3: A summary of the Project capital cost and loan funding.
23
n The impact of large development projects on the envi-
ronment became an important issue during the early 1990’s,
for all through the 1990 World Summit on Sustainable Deve-
lopment in Rio de Janiero. Further, it led to the amendment
and changes of environmental legislation in various coun-
tries. In 1992 Swaziland enacted the Swaziland Environment
Management Act that paved way for the establishment of the
Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA) in the same year.
In 1998 the World Commission on Dams was established in
Cape Town, South Africa to study these impacts and make
recommendations.
South Africa and Swaziland had been aware of this pro-
blem and in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Development and
Utilisation of the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin,
the Parties agreed “to take all reasonable measures to ensure
that the design, construction, operation and maintenance of
the Project are compatible with the protection of the existing
quality of the environment and, in particular, shall pay due
regard to the maintenance of the welfare of the persons and
communities immediately affected by the Project”. Article 4(a)
of the same treaty tasked the countries with the responsibility
of relocating people impacted by the Project based on a relo-
cation plan approved by JWC. Each country was responsible
for the relocation of its citizens in respect of the dam in their
territory while the relocation cost would, after approval of the
plans by the JWC, become part of the capital cost of the Project.
South Africa conducted the environment and relocation
aspects of Driekoppies Dam. Swaziland initially carried out the
resettlement for Maguga Dam but encountered some problems
as the resettlement programme lagged behind the construction
programme. In 1998 Swaziland requested KOBWA to take over
the resettlement program for Maguga Dam to ensure that it
was integrated into the construction programme. The responsi-
bility for completing the resettlement programme for Driekop-
pies Dam in Swaziland was handed over to KOBWA in 2004.
In addition South Africa also requested KOBWA to take over
the relocation programme for Driekoppies Dam with the objec-
tives of completing the remaining components of the RAP and
of developing a strategy to promote the sustainability of the
existing projects.
The Maguga and Driekoppies Dams were the first dams
in the two countries to be constructed during a time when
relocation matters associated with large dam developments
were under scrutiny (World Commission on Dams, 2000). The
construction of both Dams was preceded by the development of
3.4 Environment and resettlement aspects of Phase 1 of the project
resettlement policies. The relocation policies were put in place
through wide consultation with stakeholders and the affected
people. The underlying principle for the relocation policies was
that people affected by the projects must be left better off than
they were prior to project implementation. Community parti-
cipation structures were established for the relocation process
at both dams to ensure effective communication and partici-
pation with the affected peoples.
Although the underlying policy at Driekoppies Dam was
that the affected households should be better of than prior
to the construction of the Dam, the Relocation Action Plan (RAP) focussed mainly on the short term objectives related to
households that needed to be relocated: Farmers losing agri-
cultural fields, livestock owners losing grazing, disruption of
income generating activities, infrastructure and social disrup-
tion and construction related employment. Activities aimed at
compensating the loss of communal assets like grazing and
medicinal plants included replacement land and the develop-
ment of a nursery, while fuel wood was compensated with a
capital investment for each community.
With the relocation and compensation strategies emplo-
yed with the Maguga Dam Project some of the less positive
experiences from Driekoppies Dam assisted in improving the
relocation process at Maguga Dam. Principally, in the case
of Maguga Dam the people affected by the Project were bet-
ter involved in decisions and so benefit more from the Pro-
ject. They were relocated to an area where they would benefit
from irrigation water provided by the Dam and became actively
involved in their own relocation. They were given three reset-
tlement options to choose from:
• Free Choice – where the affected person could relocate to
an area of their own choosing,
• Host area – where the affected person relocates to a desi-
gnated host area, and
• In-situ – where the affected person relocates within the
Dam area.
Each of these choices had varying levels of compensation
but all individuals were compensated for direct loses (houses,
fruit tree, fences, etc.).
The owner-build option was introduced at Maguga Dam
for replacement housing. This option reduced complaints on
replacement housing and allowed the owners of housing struc-
tures to build houses using local builders of their choice. The
24
main focus for the Maguga Dam relocation was on compen-
sation with development because experience had proven that
compensation alone was not sufficient to restore the livelihoods
of the affected people.
Community assets at Maguga were compensated by impro-
ving or providing alternative community benefits/assets like
upgrading or providing schools, clinics, dip-tanks, roads, etc.
Outlined below are examples of the key resettlement and com-
pensation components developed under Phase 1.
3.4.1 Resettlement and compensation at Driekoppies Dam (South Africa)
Figure 11: Communities at a meeting
Institutional Structure | 2004 - Present
Republic of South Africa
Kingdom of Swaziland
Joint Water Commission
KOBWA
RAP Management Committee
DWAF
DWAFMpumalanga
Trusts (5)
Business Units
Affected Communties
Figure 12: Driekoppies Dam Relocation Structure
The Institutional structure To enable the implementation of the RAP, a number of insti-
tutional structures were put in place by the Project. The first
structure was created in 1993 by the Governments of South
Africa and the former Homeland Government of KaNgwane.
Following the change in the political dispensation in South
Africa in 1994, the institutional framework for the implemen-
tation of the Driekoppies Dam RAP was also revised to reflect
the change in the political landscape. By 2004 the imple-
mentation of the RAP had largely been completed, however
there were a number of outstanding issues, with the main one
being the issue of sustainability of the relocation projects that
were established. The Government of South Africa requested
KOBWA to take over the responsibility of implementing the
outstanding components and in addition to develop a sustai-
nability strategy.
This strategy was developed in wide consultation with the
affected communities. Great care was taken to ensure that
the affected communities were involved in the resettlement.
Appropriate community representation structures were esta-
blished to deal with various aspects of the resettlement process.
The affected communities were represented by Trusts who
oversaw the Business Units that were developed for each reset-
tlement project. During this stage of the resettlement project
the institutional structure was again reformulated to the cur-
rent structure shown in Figure 12 below. The Driekoppies Dam
RAP consisted of projects that were aimed at compensating the
affected people, mitigating environmental impacts as well as
restoration of the livelihoods of the affected people. The pro-
jects are managed as Business Units under each of the Trusts.
In summary, the Driekoppies Dam Relocation Action Plan was
primarily concerned with communities directly impacted by
the Project and can be summarised as follows:
• Households in Schoemansdal to be relocated
• Loss of infrastructure and services as a result of economic
and social disruption
• Loss of arable land at Schoemansdal, Middelplaas and
Schulzendal
• Loss of grazing land at Schoemansdal, Middelplaas,
Schulzendal and Jeppe’s Reef
• Loss of access to medicinal plants
• Loss of fuel-wood
• Temporarily loss of income.
25
Figure 13: Masibmbisane Game Farm Lodge
Figure 14: Phindulwandle Nursery
In total the land affected by the Driekoppies Dam Project is
sumarised in the table below:
Settlement Arable Land Grazing Land
Schoemansdal 273 ha. 938 ha.
Schulzendal 260 ha. 188 ha.
Middelplaas 230 ha. 288 ha.
Jeppes Reef 0 254 ha.
TOTAL 763 ha. 1 668 ha.
Table 4: Summary of land impacted by Driekoppies Dam in
RSA
The Relocation ProjectsA brief overview of the individual projects developed to com-pensate for Driekoppies Dam associated impacts is as follows. Housing
The affected homesteads had an option of being relocated
to the new Schoemansdal Extension or to be compensated in
cash. The bulk of the affected homesteads chose to be reloca-
ted to the new residential area, a total of 227 households were
affected.
Masibmbisane Game Farm This Project compensated for the loss of grazing land that was inundated. Land was made available Masibambisane, a 1,639 hec-tare game farm located some 20 km from the project area; no sui-table land being available closer to the homesteads with which to compensate the live stock owners. The main concern with the game farm is that a land claim has been registered against the property. This matter still needs to be resolved by the relevant government authorities in South Africa.
Phindulwandle NurseryTo compensate for the loss of medicinal plants, the affected com-munities were supported in developing a nursery to propagate medicinal and indigenous plants. Phindulwandle Nursery is situ-ated on the same farm as the Masibambisane Game Farm. The nursery was handed over to the traditional healers after comple-tion of the infrastructure and establishment. The nursery is cur-rently in production and plants are sold to the general public. A training centre has also been developed at the nursery. The future sustainability of this project is in question as it is also affected by the land claim.
26
Figure 15: Impumelelo Mango Orchard
Impumelelo Mango OrchardAs compensation for fruit trees affected by the Dam, beneficia-ries were provided with a mango orchard next to the Masibam-bisane Game Farm. The size of the mango orchard is 26 hectares and owned by 66 beneficiaries. The mango orchard was handed over to the beneficiaries in July 2002. This Project is affected by limited irrigation water and also by the land claim.
Schörnbrunn Grazing ProjectsSchörnbrunn, consisting of 580 hectares, was purchased as com-pensation for grazing lost by the Schulzendal community. The community of Schulzendal is using the farm and infrastructure for grazing (130 beneficiaries). This farm is also subject to a land claim.
Figure 16: Maize at a Dryland Project
Figure 17: Vegetable Garden (left) and vegetables packed for the market (right)
The Dryland ProjectsAffected community members who lost land were compensa-ted with individual and communal dryland projects; in total 406 hectares of land were provided as compensation. Approximately 120 hectares of these projects also fall in areas affected by the land claim.
The Vegetable Gardens18 hectares of vegetable gardens were developed as compensation to the communities who lost their gardens due to the impound-ment of the Dam. The vegetable farmers produce mainly for their own consumption and sell the surplus within the local communi-ties and at informal markets. A total of 138 beneficiaries, mainly women, were accommodated in these gardens.
27
Sugarcane ProjectsIn total 155 ha of sugarcane projects were developed for the com-munities. The policy regarding the sugarcane projects was that such projects would be established and handed over to the com-munity with an operational budget once it reached canopy stage. There after, technical support and training would be provided. Drainage problems were identified as a major threat for future sustainability. This has been addressed with the assistance of the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture.
Dwaleni FarmThe Schulzendal community used compensation funds provided by the Project to purchase a commercial farm with 45 hectare under irrigation and are producing sugarcane and litchis. The Project has a total of 130 beneficiaries.
Other Compensation Interim compensation was paid for the temporary loss of income suffered until a new stream of income could be established. In the case of fodder, medicinal plants and fuel wood a one-off amount was paid out to community trusts. See Table 5:
Component Description Total Paid (SA Rand)
Arable land Interim compensation 3,769,722.
Fruit trees Interim compensation 35,642
Grazing land Fodder entitlement 3,778,885
Medicinal plants Medicinal entitlement 1,123,089
Natural resources Fuel wood entitlement 3,949,344
Total 35,642
Table 5: Compensation Payments
Figure 18: Sugarcane Projects
Figure 19: Fruit Trees at Dwaleni Farm
28
Trust OfficesThe Project also funded the construction of administrative
offices for the community trusts and management commit-
tees of the project business units.
Driekoppies Dam RAP Phase 2: Promoting sustainabilityRAP Phase 2 is aimed at promoting the sustainability of the
projects; including the provision of institutional and techni-
cal capacity building and the development of business skills.
Another area of attention is the resolution of the land claims
on the land on which most of the projects are located. A very
important matter regarding the sustainability of the projects
is that related to the share holdings of the beneficiaries on the
sugarcane projects. A major problem area identified was the
large number of very small shareholders in the agricultural
projects. Share trading options were identified as a realistic
option to help reduce the number of beneficiaries on the agri-
cultural projects.
Figure 20: Trust Administration Offices (left) during official opening (right)
Figure 21: Training of beneficiaries at a sugarcane project
Phase 2: Key elements identified to promote long term viability
The following key elements were identified to help promote
the long term viability and sustainability:
• Drainage in existing irrigation fields
• Machinery and equipment
• Large number of beneficiaries per business unit
• Involvement of government and private sector service
providers
• Capacity building
• Review of the structure of community trusts
• Land claims
Future business and tourism developmentIn 2008 the Project initiated the first phase of the implementa-
tion of a sustainable utilisation and development plan to promote
sustainable business and tourism development around the lake.
Potential development could include day visitor facilities (pic-
nic sites), boating, angling, accommodation, fish breeding, etc.
29
3.4.2 Resettlement and compensation at Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland)
In April 1996 the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland,
through its Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC),
commissioned a feasibility study for the area to be affected by
the construction of the Driekoppies Dam. The study included
biophysical, social and resettlement aspects.
The study included an assessment of and valuation of fixed
assets such as homestead structures and other assets (e.g. ara-
ble, grazing land) and natural. This culminated in an Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Comprehensive
Mitigation Plan (CMP) as intended in the Swaziland Environ-
mental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations of 1996
of the Swaziland Environmental Authority Act of 1992. The
impacts resulted in the classification of the Project as a cate-
gory three requiring a full EIA/CMP developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties.
Like all the Phase 1 projects, the environment and reset-
tlement aspects of the Driekoppies Dam construction were
the responsibility of the Government of the Kingdom of Swa-
ziland in accordance with the treaty. Consequently, the initial
institutional structure was mainly composed of the Govern-
ment institutions led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Coo-
peratives and the Project Coordination Unit (later the Swa-
ziland Komati Project Enterprise and now Swaziland Water
and Agriculture Project Enterprise). The affected communi-
ties and their leadership were always a part of the institutio-
nal structure.
Social aspects of the Driekoppies Dam Swaziland ProjectA multi-disciplinary and integrated development approach was
employed to ensure that relocation and compensation deve-
lopment initiatives adequately integrated the range of diverse
factors that had equal importance in the development process.
The underlying principle to the approach was that the social
benefits of such relocation and compensation development
projects should outweigh the social costs to ensure that the
affected population actively participate and share in the bene-
fits of the development initiatives.
Driekoppies Dam social impactIn Swaziland the Driekoppies Dam inundated approximately
380 hectare of land consisting of 94 hectare of cultivated land,
216 hectare of grazing and 52 homesteads.
Table 6 indicates the Impact statistics of Driekoppies Dam
(Swaziland).
Impact Description
Directly affected
(lost homestead structures)
13
Total homesteads affected 52
Agricultural fields 94 ha
Grazing 216 ha
Fruit trees 114
Graves 95
Table 6: Summary of the Impact statistics of Driekoppies
Dam (Swaziland)
The Resettlement ProcessAll affected homestead structures were assessed and valued at
replacement cost prior to resettlement and based on all struc-
tures, site improvements, fencing and additional infrastructure
such as electricity, water reticulation, telephone connections,
etc. A certified property assessor in the presence of the home-
stead owner or his/her representative did these valuations.
Once these assessments had been undertaken, the affected
homesteads would be compensated either in cash or by the pro-
vision of replacement housing (similar or better to what they
had had). In addition, all the resettled or relocated homesteads
had to be provided with the following:
• Easy access to primary water
• A small (less than 50 square meters) vegetable garden
close to the homestead
• Latrines
• Hygienic and safe refuse disposal sites.
In all cases the cash option was discouraged and only allowed
under specific conditions, for example approval of the entire
household, where homesteads want to be relocated out of the
study area.
The Relocation The directly affected homesteads were allowed to relocate to an
area of their choice; however Nhlambeni was preferred by most
affected homesteads as their area of choice. During the relocation
process the Project agency had to assist the affected households
throughout the resettlement process with transport, temporary
housing (if necessary), advice to resettlers regarding building
materials and suitable construction methods, and the choice of
a suitable contractor. In the case of construction, all construc-
tion work was put out to open tender to local contractors, in an
30
effort to create local employment opportunities and contribute
to local financial empowerment. After relocation, all relocated
households had to be monitored to determine their reaction to the
resettlement process, and where possible implement corrective
actions to ensure the resettlement does not have adverse impacts
on the affected homesteads.
Socio-Economic Issues The initial EIA for Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland) focused on one
aspect of the Project: Relocation of people affected by the Drie-
koppies Dam, but not on compensation for loss of arable land.
At the same time the resettlement and compensation policy for
Maguga Dam was being developed. Learning from the errors
the Maguga Dam Project also included compensation for loss
of arable land, a policy that was applied retrospectively to the
Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland), necessitating the development of
a new EIA/CMP. The policy outlined how those affected would
be compensated and its overall guiding principle was that peo-
ple affected by the Project were to be made “better off” than
they were prior to Project implementation. The aspect of “better
off” brought with it the principle of compensation with develop-
ment. The latest CMP focused on compensation and develop-
ment issues of the Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland).
The Lake Matsamo Community Restoration and Development Comprehensive Mitigation PlanIn 2001, the Swaziland Government through the Swaziland
Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE) completed the Environmen-
tal Impact Assessment and outstanding Comprehensive Miti-
gation and Monitoring Plan for Lake Matsamo (Driekoppies
Dam (Swaziland)). The approach used in the development of
the CMP focused on identifying realistic and sustainable miti-
gation measures that will provide reliable benefits that, at a
point in time, may be completely managed by the communities
themselves. Furthermore, community participation was identi-
fied as key in implementing outstanding issues of the Project.
Interim activitiesDuring the consultation process with the affected commu-
nities, a number of interim measures were implemented to
address outstanding issues that the community insisted upon.
These interim activities included:
• Provision of clean drinking water
• Access to health facilities by ensuring the mobile clinic
service resume its service,
• Provision of vehicular access to inaccessible areas and
continuing
• Provision and extension of an interim bus service for school
children whose access to schools was impacted by the Dam
• Provision of food compensation to homesteads whose land
was inundated.
A new institutional structure was established to implement
the study. The structure included Government Departments,
affected communities, and traditional leaders. In 2004 the
implementation of the Lake Matsamo Restoration Plan was
handed over from SWADE (formerly SKPE) to KOBWA while
SWADE retained a monitoring role. The current institutional
structure is shown in Figure 22 below.
Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise –SKPESWADE is a parastatal of the Government of Swaziland. Its
role as the implementing agent for the Lake Matsamo Resto-
ration plan was handed over to KOBWA in 2004 and SWADE
retained a monitoring role.
The Lake Matsamo Project CommitteeThe Project established a pro-
ject committee in each of the
affected communities under
the Mashobeni Traditional
Authority. These communi-
ties are Madelezini, Timpisini,
Nhlambebi and Mashobeni.
Two members from each were
elected to an executive commit-
Figure 22: Institutional
Structure for Driekoppies
Dam (Swaziland)
31
tee in order to improve the community‘s understanding of the
Project and as well as to be the voice for the community in the
implementation of the projects.
Lake Matsamo Restoration and Development projectsCompensation and development projects
A brief overview of the individual projects to compensate for
the impacts of the Driekoppies Dam is as follow:
Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise –SKPESWADE is a parastatal of the Government of Swaziland. Its
role as the implementing agent for the Lake Matsamo Resto-
ration plan was handed over to KOBWA in 2004 and SWADE
retained a monitoring role.
The Lake Matsamo Project CommitteeThe Project established a project committee in each of the
affected communities under the Mashobeni Traditional Aut-
hority. These communities are Madelezini, Timpisini, Nhlam-
bebi and Mashobeni. Two members from each were elected to
an executive committee in order to improve the community‘s
understanding of the Project and as well as to be the voice for
the community in the implementation of the projects.
Lake Matsamo Restoration and Development projectsCompensation and development projectsA brief overview of the individual projects to compensate for
the impacts of the Driekoppies Dam is as follow:
Irrigated Crop landVery limited land was available to compensate for inundated
arable land. As a result affected individuals had a choice bet-
ween one-off cash compensation or irrigated agricultural land
within a fence line/ expropriation boundary. A number of far-
mers preferred to be compensated with irrigated crop land.
These irrigation schemes where spread throughout the affected
Figure 23: Vegetable production complimented by fishing
around Driekoppies Dam.
areas; namely, Nhlambeni with 7.6ha, Timpisini with 4.3ha
and Mashobeni with 7.1ha of irrigation development.
Access to electricityAs compensation for loss of firewood, the Project provided
bulk electricity supply lines and subsidised the connection fees
within the project area. As a result all homesteads can receive
access to electricity connections at a reduced rate. Currently
180 homesteads have utilised the opportunity to connect to
the electricity network
Roads and bridgesThe Driekoppies Dam impacted on the road access to the com-
munities of Mashobeni, Timpisini, Madelezini and Nhlam-
beni. To address this a ring road with bridges crossing the
Lomati and Nsonyama River was constructed. During the
floods in 2006 the bridge over the Insonyama River and a
culvert over the Ndlalambi stream were destroy. KOBWA has
been successful with a claim against the consultants’ insu-
rers. The Ministry of Public Works and Roads have approved
the proposed remedial work and work should be completed
during December 2008.
SchoolsTo address access to schools that were affected by the Driekop-
pies Dam, the Project constructed a primary school, (Mhlu-
mati Primary) at Mashobeni and a secondary school (Mhlumati
High) at Madelezini. Both schools have been fully equipped
and accommodation has also been provided for teachers. The
secondary school was provided with a laboratory, computer
facilities, workshops, etc. The schools have been handed over
to the Ministry of Education. Funds were also made available
for upgrading of the existing schools.
Water supply and sanitationWater supply schemes to supply all four the communities in
the project area were constructed in consultation with the Swa-
32
ziland Rural Water Supply Board. These schemes either made
use of mountain streams or boreholes as water sources with
reservoirs and a reticulation system.
The 372 homesteads which received access to water were
also provided with Ventilated Pit Latrines (VIP), constructed
in line with the policy guidelines of the Ministry of Health
and Social Welfare.
Improved access to health facilities In an effort to improve access to health facilities for the com-
munities surrounding Lake Matsamo, the Project provided
and equipped a consultation room for the regional mobile cli-
nic. The consultation facilities were included in the community
centre that was constructed at Mhlumati High School.
Business development and TourismIn an effort to promote small enterprise development within the
project area a revolving fund has been established; managed by
a registered financial service provider in Swaziland. Commu-
nity members have accessed the fund and have solicited loans
to help them establish various micro-enterprise initiatives.
Funds have also been reserved for the construction of busi-
ness units, market stalls and other tourism structures. The
implementation of the business and tourism development ini-
tiative has been delayed as a result of internal community dis-
putes.
In consultation with the affected communities and other
stakeholders the following mitigation, restoration and develop-
ment projects were implemented.
3.4.3 Maguga Dam Environment and Resettlement Aspects
By 1990 the Swaziland Government had completed its studies
of the environmental and resettlement aspects of the Project
as part of the wider review and feasibility study for Maguga
Dam and irrigation areas. Institutional structures for the reset-
tlement and for the development of irrigation areas had been
identified during the feasibility stage. In 1995 Swaziland esta-
blished the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) under the Mini-
stry of Natural Resources and Energy (MNRE) to undertake
the environment and resettlement aspects of the Maguga Dam
Project as well as to assist KOBWA by coordinating activities
with the Government of Swaziland and the Project. Swaziland
developed the Maguga Dam Resettlement Policy and Plan in
consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including external
advisory experts. In 1996 the Ministers responsible for water
from South Africa and Swaziland signed the Maguga Dam
Resettlement Policy.
3.4.3.1 Maguga Dam Resettlement Policy
The Maguga Dam resettlement Policy set out the principles
for resettlement and compensation of people affected by the
Maguga Dam. It stipulated who would be considered affected
and how they would be compensated. It defined communica-
tion and institutional structures for resettlement as well as
grievance procedures to be followed by those who were not satis-
fied. The overall policy goal was that people affected by the Pro-
ject were to be made better off than they were prior to Project
implementation. A second principle was that people affected by
the Project should become project beneficiaries. Another key
principle enshrined in the policy was that people who lost ara-
ble land would as much as possible be compensated with land
for land. While some aspects of the policy were later changed,
the main goal remained unchanged. In fact the overall goal was
later strengthened as advised by international experts: They
advised that compensation alone is not sufficient to restore the
livelihoods of resettled and affected people, rather compensa-
tion with development must be the key objective.
Resettlement ChoicesThe Maguga Dam Resettlement and Compensation Policy iden-
tified three choices for resettlement. These were:
a) Relocate within the Maguga Dam Area (In-situ): People who
opted for this choice were compensated for direct losses
such as fruit trees, dwelling structures, arable land, etc.
However, they were not compensated for loss of communal
assets such as schools and grazing lands. They also bene-
fited from development projects in the Dam Area such as
improved roads, dipping tanks, fenced grazing lands, pota-
ble water supplies and electricity infrastructure. An incon-
venience allowance of 10% of the private property losses was
added.
b) Relocate to the designated host area: People who opted for
this choice were compensated for private property losses.
Communal properties were provided at the host area inclu-
ding schools, clinics, roads, dipping tanks, fenced grazing
lands, potable water supplies and irrigation infrastructure.
An inconvenience allowance of 10% of the private property
losses was added.
c) Relocate to a place of their choice (Free Choice): People choo-
sing to relocate to a choice of their own choosing were com-
pensated only for private property loses but not for commu-
nal properties. However, 20% was added to their private
property losses as an inconvenience allowance.
33
Maguga Dam Environment and resettlement processIn 1996 the Project Coordination Unit of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Energy began relocating people along the Maguga
Dam access Roads. At the same time discussions with those in
the inundation area were in progress, including the collection of
important demographic data and assets inventory regarding pri-
vate property losses. Environmental Impact Assessment studies
both in the inundation area and the Mnyokane host area were
undertaken. Institutional structures for resettlement were put in
place as and when required to facilitate proper consultation with
stakeholders.
Institutional Structures for Public ParticipationIt is essential to have proper institutional structures for public
consultation in order to facilitate public involvement in the Pro-
ject as well as to promote effective and efficient communication
channels. The Government of Swaziland had initiated consulta-
tion with the public and affected peoples as early as the review
and feasibility studies. When the work began in the mid 1990’s
the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) setup the Komati Commu-
nity Representative Committee (KCRC). This committee compri-
sed five representatives elected from the five areas of Piggs Peak,
Ekuvinjelweni, Nsangwini, Mnyokane and Nginamadolo around
the Maguga Dam. Its initial purpose was to represent the interests
of the people of the five areas on matters pertaining to the Project.
Its initial activities included working with the Project and the com-
munity to identify and remove graves from the Project construc-
tion areas. Further, it was the key committee responsible for coor-
dinating employment matters in the Project and dealt with com-
plaints and grievances from the community. In the early stages of
the Project the KCRC worked with PCU in the compilation of the
private property inventory.
Relocation of GravesOne of the most sensitive aspects of relocation was the removal
of graves. There were as many as 179 graves in the Maguga Dam
Project area, located in various areas such as access roads, dam
wall area and reservoir inundation area. The owners of these gra-
ves were identified with the help of the KCRC and the graves were
relocated by the Project to areas identified by the owners and their
traditional authorities. The procedure for the relocation of graves
was stipulated in the Maguga Dam Resettlement and Compen-
sation Policy. Each family whose grave was relocated was given
a beast to perform the necessary reburial rituals. A new coffin
for each grave was supplied and a wake fee for other necessities.
In the early stages an undertaker was employed to carry out the
actual exhumation and reburial. As the Project progressed, howe-
ver, the community and their leadership took over the responsibi-
lity to exhume and relocate the graves themselves and were paid
by the Project.
Maguga Dam EmploymentEmployment in the Maguga Dam Project was one of the imme-
diate but contentious benefits. The Project had resolved to employ
all unskilled and semi-skilled labour from the areas surrounding
Maguga Dam. The KCRC was the body that registered job seekers
from the areas around the Dam and all contractors had to source
their labour from the KCRC. Great care was taken to ensure that
there was a balance of employment in the five areas around the pro-
ject area. At the peak of the construction period some 1,500 people
from the local community were directly employed in the Project.
HIV/AIDS and HealthThe impact of migrant labour on rural communities can be deva-
stating, especially the HIV/AIDS impact; consequently, those
responsible for the Project paid particular attention to the spread
and control of the condition. An HIV/AIDS baseline survey was
conducted at the beginning of the Project to monitor the spread
of the disease and control areas were setup in other similar areas
away from Maguga Dam. Among the measures aimed at comba-
ting the spread of HIV/AIDS was the sourcing of all unskilled and
semiskilled labour from the local community with workers being
transported from their homes to work daily. All skilled labour was
accommodated at the newly constructed Mlambo Township (Glen
Village) in Piggs Peak. No construction workers camp was per-
mitted at the Dam site. The Swaziland Red Cross was engaged
to educate construction workers on HIV/AIDS and a permanent
clinic was constructed at the Dam to cater for workers and their
families. A mobile unit was established with a trailer that travelled
into the surrounding communities to educate on HIV/AIDS. The
HIV/AIDS Health Intervention Team (HIT) and the permanent
clinic were later handed over to the Ministry of Health and Social
Welfare of the Government of Swaziland. The monitoring of the
health and HIV/AIDS status of the community was later incorpo-
rated in the ongoing socio-economic, health and land use moni-
toring programme.
Figure 24: Maguga Dam Construction & Community Health
Clinic
34
Maguga Dam Resettlement host areaIn 1992 the review and feasibility study for Maguga Dam iden-
tified the nearby Mnyokane Private Farm as the host area for
Maguga Dam. The area was studied again in 1996 and the
affected peoples were consulted. In 1998 it became apparent
that the identified host area of Mnyokane was not ideal for
relocating the people affected by Maguga Dam: The Mnyo-
kane host area was already occupied by squatters who if moved
would require resettlement themselves. Additionally, it had a
colder climate and not enough arable and grazing land. But
more importantly it was such that the resettled people would
not benefit from the Maguga Dam Project, something that has
impoverished many people resettled by dams. The Govern-
ment of Swaziland then identified a new host area downstream
of the Maguga Dam in the Nyonyane cattle Sisa Ranch. This
inhabited area was found ideal for relocating the people from
Maguga Dam and situated in a place where the resettled peo-
ple could become beneficiaries of the Project. It also had suf-
ficient arable/grazing land and natural resources.
3.4.3.2 Handover of Maguga Dam Environment and Resettlement Programme to KOBWA
By 1998 KOBWA was at an advanced stage with the Maguga
Dam construction programme. Yet progress on the envi-
ronment and resettlement programme by PCU was lagging
behind. The disparity between the construction and environ-
ment and resettlement programme was a major concern for
both the JWC and the Government of Swaziland. Lack of capa-
city and expertise within PCU resulted in the two programmes
not being synchronized effectively and it was feared that if the
situation continued it would have resulted in the affected com-
munities having to be accommodated in temporary accommo-
dation. The experience of accommodating people in temporary
facilities during the construction of the access roads resulted in
grief and discomfort to those affected. In addition, temporary
accommodation was expensive but also socially unacceptable.
In September 1998 the Government of Swaziland requested
KOBWA via the Joint Water Commission to takeover the envi-
ronment and resettlement programme for the Maguga Dam.
KOBWA took over the environment and resettlement pro-
gramme for Maguga Dam and worked closely with the traditi-
onal authorities and PCU who represented the Government of
Swaziland. The Government of Swaziland transformed PCU
into the Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE), a para-
statal, tasked with the responsibility for downstream agricul-
tural development to assist small farmers in the Project Deve-
lopment Areas (PDA) to utilise the water from Maguga once
completed. KOBWA established an Environment and Reset-
tlement Unit with a Project Manager at Maguga Dam to help
implement with the Maguga Dam environment and reset-
tlement project. The traditional authorities became increa-
singly involved in the implementation of the environment and
resettlement for Maguga Dam. The Chief and Council of the
directly affected community of Ekuvinjelweni appointed the
ERC Chairman to work with the Project authorities. This was
a major breakthrough for the Project as it ensured the direct
involvement of the community in their resettlement.
Figure 25: Institutional Structure for Maguga Dam Environment and Resettlement
Institutional Structures for Environmental and Resettlement Issues
Government of South Africa
Government of Swaziland
Joint Water Commission (JWC)
Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC)
KOBWA Board
Evaluation Panel
SKPE Board
Swaziland Traditional Authorities
KOMATI Basin Water Authority
(KOBWA)
Maguga Dam Coordination Committee (MDCC)
Resettlement and Development Action Committee (RDAC)
Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE)
Ekuvinjelweni Resettlement
Committee (ERC)
Host Area Development
Committee (HADC)
Maguga Area Development
Committee (MADC)
Komati Community Representative
Committee (KCRC)
35
3.4.3.3 Maguga Dam People Participation Structure
KOBWA worked with the traditional authorities and the ERC
in particular to review the institutional structures for the reset-
tlement. A new structure was agreed that turned out to be the
key to the implementation of the Maguga Dam environment
and resettlement programme.
The institutional structure for Maguga Dam is shown in
Figure 25 and fully described below.
Resettlement and Development Committee (RDAC)The RDAC was at the core of the public participation struc-
ture. Its role was to approve all proposals coming from other
committees. As implementing agency KOBWA chairs the
RDAC. The other members being the Swaziland Water and
Agriculture Enterprise (SWADE) formerly, the Swaziland
Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE) as the monitoring agency,
and the Chairpersons of four other committees; the host area
Development Committee (HADC), the Maguga Dam Area
Development Committee (MADC), the Ekuvinjelweni Reset-
tlement Committee (ERC) and the original Komati Represen-
tative Committee (KCRC). Traditional authorities nomina-
ted a representative in each of these grassroots committees.
Ekuvinjelweni Resettlement Committee (ERC)The ERC comprised of representatives of resettled people from
the four Ekuvinjelweni communities of Ekwakheni, Ngonini,
Mganwini and Mtototji. The role of the ERC was to deal with
all matters pertaining to resettlement of peoples to the Nyo-
nyane host area.
Host area Development Committee (HADC)The HADC was formed of representative of the people resett-
ling to the host area and representatives of the communities
around the host area (Ntsanjeni, Nyonyane and Mzaceni). The
role of the HADC was to deal with development matters in the
host area that were shared between the resettling communi-
ties and the surrounding host communities. These include
the development of communal infrastructure such as roads,
clinics, and schools and to handle employment and complaint
matters during the construction of the host area infrastruc-
ture. They also managed relationships between the resettling
communities and the host community.
Maguga Dam Area Development Committee (MADC)The MADC comprised of representatives of the communi-
ties around the Maguga Dam. The role of MADC was the
planning and coordination of developments around Maguga
Dam.
Maguga Dam Coordination Committee (MDCC)The MDCC was formed from representatives of Swaziland
Government Departments who had an interest in Maguga
Dam such as, Ministries of Education, Public Works, Natural
Resources, Health and Social Welfare, Environment, Finance
and Economic Planning. The Committee was chaired by
SWADE (formerly SKPE) and coordinated all activities bet-
ween the Government and the Project.
Komati Community Representative Committee (KCRC)The KCRC remained unchanged from its original composi-
tion. However, its role changed to focus on employment and
the recording and resolution of complaints from communities
around the Maguga Dam.
Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC)The DRC comprised legal, environmental, social and technical
experts appointed by the Swaziland Government to adjudicate
on matters of dispute between the Project authorities and indi-
viduals in the Project. The Regional Secretary of the Hhohho
Region, in which the Project is located, chaired the committee.
The committee reported its findings directly to JWC.
Environmental Review Panel (ERP)Due to the sensitivity of large projects involving the resettle-
ment of communities the JWC appointed an Environmental
Review Panel comprised of reputable and renowned experts on
social and environmental matters to review and advise JWC on
the Maguga Dam construction. The panel works with Project
authorities such as KOBWA and SWADE to review progress on
the Project at appropriate intervals and report their findings
and recommendations to JWC. They interact with project com-
mittees, Swaziland Government Department officials as well
as individuals affected by the Project.
3.4.3.4 Social Aspects of the Maguga Dam Project
Interim ActivitiesSwaziland Komati Project Enterprise (SKPE) continued to
complete a number of interim activities such as addressing
numerous complaints along the access roads, including com-
plaints of homes destroyed by blasting and impact rollers. They
provided food and other necessities to those who lost arable
land and organised the construction of permanent accommo-
dation for those living in temporary accommodation along the
access roads. At the top of the agenda for KOBWA was the
immediate task of relocating cattle away from the construc-
tion area, that is, their traditional grazing area. This was a
particularly sensitive issue in that cattle in rural communities
36
in Swaziland, as with Africa in general, are the wealth of the
community. Cattle provide manure for fields, milk for much
needed nutrition especially for children, transport for goods
and power for ploughing and are used for a number of traditi-
onal ceremonies including weddings. Due to lack of alternative
grazing land at Maguga Dam the only option available was to
move the cattle in advance of their owners to the host areas –
Nyonyane Sisa Ranch where their was plenty of grazing land
available. However, this option caused a number of challen-
ges that had to be addressed. It meant that the Project must
provide milk, fertilizer and ploughing power for those whose
cattle were relocated, additionally, not all the cattle grazing in
the Dam area belonged to people who were to resettle to Nyo-
nyane Sisa Ranch. With the help of the traditional authorities
the Project provided milk, fertilizer and ploughing power (trac-
tors). Cattle owners were transported weekly to the Nyonyane
Sisa Ranch to see their cattle. Cattle herders were employed by
the Project from among the families of the cattle owners to look
after the cattle at the host area and were provided with tem-
porary accommodation there. Cattle that died at the host area
were replaced by the Project until the cattle were handed over
to their owners when the host area construction was complete.
Handling of Complaints and Grievances from the ProjectIt is very important in any project that the affected people to
have a clear, simple and reputable procedure for handling dis-
putes and grievances. Accordingly, the Maguga Dam Resettle-
ment and Compensation Policy detailed a procedure for hand-
ling complaints and grievances in the Maguga Dam Project. All
grievances were recorded properly with a complaints number
and signed by both the aggrieved person and the KCRC. An
independent consultant was then tasked with the responsibility
of investigating the complaint together with the KCRC and of
making recommendations to the Project implementing agen-
cies, KOBWA, SKPE or their contractors. The project imple-
menting agencies would resolve the complaint to the satisfac-
tion of the complainant and the two parties would sign-off the
complaint. Only when both parties have signed the complaint
would the complaint be removed from the register. Should a
dispute about the complaint or its resolution arise any of the
parties can request that the complaint be passed on to the Dis-
pute Resolution Committee (DRC). The DRC would investigate
the case, listen to arguments from both sides and make its
expert judgment. In certain cases the DRC would employ the
services of an expert in that field to advise them on the matter.
The recommendation of the DRC would be passed to the JWC
who would rule on the matter and their decision was final. If
either party was still not satisfied with the recommendation
of the DRC and the decision of the JWC the party could either
appeal to the Minster for Natural Resources and Energy who
is the custodian of the Project or could go directly to the legal
courts. In Swaziland if anyone is still not satisfied with the
decision of the Minister or the legal courts they can still take
their matter to their traditional authority and ultimately to the
King of Swaziland.
As expected, there were many complaints about the
Maguga Dam Project. These ranged from complaints about
fields that were silted by sand washed from construction sites,
blast and impact roller damage to structures, silted and pol-
luted water supplies, animals killed by construction vehicles,
blocked access to homes, to name but a few. Efforts were made
to solve these as speedily as possible. However, a number of
these ended up in disputes that had to be adjudicated by the
DRC. A few ended up in the legal courts. Overall the com-
plaints procedure worked very well as none of the cases against
the Project were successful in the legal courts. The majority
were solved before they became a dispute and the DRC mana-
ged to successfully rule on the cases brought to them.
Maguga Dam social impact statisticsThe impact survey for the Maguga Dam Project concluded
that 155 homesteads would be affected: 65 homesteads had to
be resettled while 90 remained as they only lost part of their
fields; 41 homesteads had their graves relocated; 5 homesteads
had only their homes relocated and continued to use their land
as that was not affected. A total of 420 ha of arable land were
affected. A further 6 homesteads were affected by blasting at
the Dam and were temporarily relocated to the nearby Ekufikeni
Primary School; accommodation being provided in permanent
housing structures built at the school and they were given blan-
kets and firewood. The houses were later handed over to the
school to accommodate teachers. Table 7 below show the dis-
tribution of the affected people and the choices they preferred.
Resettlement Choice Numbers
Resettled to host area 45
New splits at the host area 20
Relocate within Reservoir Area 9
Free Choice 11
Remained but lost some fields 90
Total affected 155
Table 7: Number of homesteads choosing various resettle-
ment options at Maguga Dam
The Resettlement ProcessOnce the inventories of the affected homesteads were assessed,
documented and signed and those who had to be resettled had
chosen their resettlement option, efforts turned to the resettle-
37
ment process itself. This centred on the construction of dwellings
for the resettling communities, as well as preparing land for culti-
vation and construction of infrastructure such schools and clinics.
Replacement HousingThe Maguga Dam Resettlement and Compensation Policy
had detailed the procedure for replacing housing structures.
The policy was clear in that dwelling structures would be
replaced with structures built of modern material. The pro-
cedure had been used for some time in many projects such as
road building projects throughout Swaziland. The procedure
was to measure the floor area of the old structure and the pro-
Box 1. Housing replacement: Owner-built procedure
The procedure involved depositing all the funds for the replace-ment housing, including the architect and contractor overheads and profits, into the building owner’s bank account. The traditi-onal authority, through the ERC Chairman, being a joint signatory to the bank account. The building owner would source his own architect or builder and design the house of the owner’s choice and build it; the house owner being alone responsible for agre-eing the rates for building the house with his architect. The Pro-ject was also not involved in deciding the type of replacement structure. This worked particularly well because most of the com-munities had experienced local builders, some of whom were their relatives and who charged competitive rates. The owner would pay his architect or builder from the money deposited in his bank account. The owner of the replacement structure would get quotations for the material for the house from retailers, including transport costs. Material would be bought in such a manner as to reduce massive stocks on site to reduce the risk of theft or fire. The ERC Chairman would approve the quotation based on the stage of the constructed structure. To draw the money to pay for the architect or builders services or to buy the material for the replacement structure, the joint signature of the ERC Chairman and the house owner would be required. The tra-ditional authority and ERC monitored construction progress very closely. To ensure that the quality of the replacement structures was sound, the project would give approval for the builder to proceed to the next stage at critical stages of the replacement structure. These stages were foundation trenches, concrete floor slab and the ring beam. Once the structure with the required floor area being replaced was in place including furnishing the house, the owner could then use the balance of the money in his bank account as he/she see fit without the signature of the ERC Chairman. However, the traditional authorities put a limit on the money the homeowner can have access to after completing his replacement structures. People with huge savings were encou-raged to put their money in savings or investments for the future.
ject would replace the structure with modern material. The
affected communities proposed an owner-built procedure (see
box 1) for housing replacement that was eventually tested and
implemented.
The procedure was tested with the free choice option and with
those relocating around the Maguga Dam and showed success.
The procedure helped solve complaints about the condition and
type of housing structures because the people built the replace-
ment structures of their choice using builders they trusted and
supervised the process themselves. The procedure was then
rolled out to those who relocated to the Nyonyane Sisa Ranch.
At the host area plots were allocated to each of the resettling
community members on a neighbourhood basis; with efforts
made to ensure that people were settled in the same commu-
nity they were in before relocating and preferable with the same
neighbours unless the homeowner specified otherwise. The
resettling community at the host area worked with their tradi-
tional authority and ERC to improve the owner built procedure.
They negotiated as a group for the supply of building material.
A contractor was engaged to make bricks on site using sand
that is plentiful in the area. The contractor also supplied gra-
vel and delivered building blocks and water on order to each
plot. Additionally, agreement was reached with a major sup-
plier of building material such as doors, doorframes, window,
etc. to setup a depot on site and to deliver the material to each
construction site on order. This brought more savings to the
homeowners.
After completing their dwelling structures the ERC reque-
sted residents to move their own household goods and the goats
that had been left behind when cattle were moved in advance.
It was hoped that this approach would reduce complaints of
items getting lost or broken on the way. The project gave the
communities the money that had been budgeted for this pur-
pose and they decided to buy their own truck to transport the
goods instead of renting one. This gave them more confidence
that they can do most of the resettlement activities themselves
and benefit from the project funds. Further, the ERC negot-
iated for more activities from the project to be carried out by
the ERC and the community; this included, for example, the
fencing of homes and grazing camps. This was a unique expe-
rience in resettlement as it paved a way in which the affected
Figure 26: Maguga Dam typical Housing Replacement
38
communities owned the resettlement process. It also made it
easier for the community to operate and maintain these faci-
lities once the project was over.
Host area community infrastructure replacementAfter KOBWA had completed the studies and resettlement
plans for the host area attention turned to the implementa-
tion of the host area plans. These plans comprised of com-
munal infrastructure such as access roads, potable water sup-
ply systems, two schools (primary and secondary), a clinic
and business centre. They also included an agriculture plan
that comprised a canal bringing water from the Komati River
to reduce long-term energy cost, sugarcane irrigation fields,
cattle grazing camps and two cattle dipping tanks. Figure 23
shows some of the host area communal infrastructure. Farm
implements were also purchased to be used by the ERC at the
host area, including tractors and trailers. As per the policy,
the resettled communities were given financial support by the
project for the first two years. During this period the proceeds
from the sale of sugarcane were used to build a maintenance
reserve fund for the communities to assist them to maintain
the project. Like all communal infrastructure in the project,
the host area infrastructure was planned in-line with Govern-
ment of Swaziland requirements and were handed over to the
community and Government for operation and maintenance.
The infrastructure for the host area was completed in late
2001 and the resettling communities moved in.
In February 2002 the host area infrastructure was officially
handed over to the community and the Government of Swazi-
land. Since then efforts have focused on ensuring the sustai-
nability of the resettlement plan put in place. This involves a
lot of remedial works as well as a lot of training and institu-
tion building. This process continues today on an ad hoc and
request basis: The project authorities being called upon as
and when required by the ERC. Otherwise, the community,
together with the Government, is taking care of their own
destiny; the role of the Project now being focused on monito-
ring. The ERC has modified a number of the plans put in place
by the project to better suit the community. One of the major
changes is the diversification to other crops and businesses
away from sugarcane to mitigate the decline in the sugar price.
KOBWA is undertaking the day-to-day monitoring, including
monitoring of the biophysical environment. SWADE on the
other hand carries out the socio-economic, health and land
use monitoring. Results thus far show that by and large the
project objective of ensuring that the effected people are bet-
ter off than they were prior to project implementation is being
realised. However, as the case is when people are displaced, it
will take many years before any conclusive statement can be
made of the Maguga Dam resettlement. And so far the project
has attracted local, regional and international interest. Since
2002 there have been numerous visits to the host area by a
number of organisations who are interested in studying and
learning from the project.
Figure 27: Host area Infrastructure for Maguga Dam. Roads and Bridges (top left), Irrigation Canal (top left), Community
Clinic (bottom right) and School (bottom left)
39
3.4.3.5 Maguga Dam Environmental Aspects (Biophysical Environment)
BackgroundAccording to the World Commission on Dams – WCD (2000)
the construction of large dams has, by its nature, an impact
on the ecosystems, biodiversity and downstream livelihoods.
The WCD states that large dams have led to the serious loss of
forests and wildlife habitats, the loss of species and the degra-
dation of the catchment areas due to inundation of the reser-
voir area. Such impacts could include the loss of aquatic bio-
diversity, for an example important fish species, which in turn
could significantly impact on the people who rely on the river
for their subsistence livelihoods.
The impacts of the Maguga Dam Project on the environ-
ment are no different to other large dam construction project.
Government legislation and the policies of funding institutions
require a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
and Comprehensive Mitigation Plans (CMP) to be drawn up
to minimise the impacts on the environment.
The EIA for Maguga emphasised various environmental
impacts that could be result from the implementation of the
project. These could be categorised into those impacts that
would be related to the immediate area to be inundated, those
affecting the entire river ecosystem (from source to estuary)
and those relevant for the relocation/ resettlement area. For
the sake of this report these impacts are combined and only
the significant impacts are discussed.
Flora ImpactsThe major impact on plants was concluded to be to the threat
to indigenous plant species, such as the Haemanthus paucu-
lifolius (widely used as an ornamental plant), Siphonochilus
aethiopicus (also known as African or wild ginger; widely used
for its medicinal properties and known to be already extinct
in KwaZulu Natal) and Hypoxis hemerocallidea (commonly
known as African star grass or African potato; widely used for
its efficacy as a stimulant of the immune system)
These plant populations, among others, occurred in the
vicinity of Maguga and would have been significantly impacted
by project. To mitigate this impact a comprehensive manage-
ment plan (CMP) was developed which specified how these
populations were to be preserved. In the case of these plants,
translocation and propagation in a nursery was specified; fur-
thermore, plant material was provided to the National Herba-
rium and Nature Reserves for conservation.
Fauna Impacts
ReptilesSwaziland has an endemic lizard, the Swazi thick tailed rock
gecko (Afroedura major); and a near endemic lizard, the Bar-
berton girdled lizard (Cordylus warreni barbertonensis). These
reptile species are endangered and were known to inhabit the
vicinity of the area to be inundated. It was believed that at full
supply level, inundation would lead to the destruction of the
majority of their local habitat and this will contribute to the
decline in the world population numbers. Therefore, the CMP
specified that a small island within the inundation area must
be conserved and maintained as a reptile sanctuary. To miti-
gate the general loss of these species, as active collection plan
was undertaken, with the collected lizards being moved to the
proposed reptile sanctuary.
BirdsThe Environmental studies for the Maguga Dam Project indi-
cated that a total of 195 species of birds were found in the
area to be inundated by the reservoir. A total of 13 bird spe-
cies are endemic to Swaziland and South Africa and nine of
these species are listed as endangered for the three countries
in the area. As a mitigation measure, an annual monitoring
programme was implemented to study changes in trends over
time. A decline in species richness and diversity may serve as
an early warning of environmental degradation
MammalsAbout 46 mammal species were identified in the inundation
zone, compared to 52 found in the whole of Swaziland. One
species, the woodland mouse, had never previously been found
in Swaziland whilst other species had been listed as „practi-
cally extinct“ outside reserves but were found in the area to be
inundated, such species included the African ant bear, Red
duiker, Hippopotamus and Serval etc. To mitigate the impact
of the reservoir on mammals a communal grazing area was to
be maintained on the foothills surrounding the lake.
FishThe construction of the Project and the related infrastructure
such as weirs (Figure 25) across the Komati would have an inevi-
table impact on the fish species as they act as a barrier to migra-
tion. Furthermore, the fish community of the Komati River is
dominated by species adapted to flowing water conditions (e.g.
Chiloglanis spp). These are likely to vanish from the inundated
area and be replaced by lake/still water species. The inundation
would have also created a major obstacle to the movement of
the naturally occurring eel species (Catadromous spp), who’s
survival depends on migration between the headwaters of the
40
rivers and the sea to complete their life cycle. To maintain heal-
thy fish communities, it was essential for the project to manage
the reservoir in accordance with the Instream Flow Require-
ment (IFR), and also have a fish-monitoring programme. This
programme included:
• The annual monitoring of flow and non-flow dependent fish
species in both the reservoir and the river system
• Genetic evaluation of the fish species to assess the impact
of the inundation on the genetic isolation of the fish popu-
lation up and downstream of the reservoir
• The proposed implementation of eel and fish ladders or simi-
lar translocation mechanism to facilitate the movement of
the fish population. This plan is still under review.
Aquatic invertebratesThe major impacts on the aquatic invertebrates are caused by
alterations in water quality variables due to changes in the river
flow regime. This will result in the change in the in the nutrient
levels (which are likely to be increased), and to increased distri-
bution of Bilharzia host snails. The mitigation measures to mini-
mise these changes in the inundated area and downstream are:
• Adherence to the IFR and the operational rules of the
reservoir
• Regular monitoring of the invertebrate communities to deter-
mine if there are changes over time
• Fluctuation of the reservoir levels
• Periodic flushes to remove bilharzias snail and their habitats.
Impacts on Water Quality It was generally expected that inundation will alter the water
quality of the Komati River, for example, that the water released
from the Dam would be a different temperature than the nor-
mal river water. This would affect the life of the entire river eco-
system, for example fish population and aquatic invertebrates.
To mitigate this the Maguga Dam was designed to have various
outlets to ensure water released from the Dam could be mixed
such that the temperature downstream could be maintained
as close as possible to normal, and so minimise the impact on
the ecosystem.
3.4.3.6 Summary of the socio-economic monitoring findings
In conclusion to ensure that most of the above environmental
impacts of the project are minimised various mitigation mea-
sures were put in place to deal with the respective impacts and
a monitoring programme was also implemented to ensure that
the long-term impacts could also be monitored and dealt with.
Figure 28: Migratory flow dependant
fish (left) and weir (right) causing a
barrier to their migration
Maguga Dam Socio-Economic & Land Use Impact Monitoring The socio-economic and land use monitoring in conjunction
with the Maguga Dam is carried out by the Swaziland Water
and Agriculture Development Project Enterprise, an agent of
the Government of Swaziland, on behalf of the Parties. This is
to ensure that the monitoring is conducted by an independent
agent. The results of the monitoring are discussed with KOBWA
the implementing agent and supplied to the Joint Water Com-
mission (JWC). An independent review is conducted at specific
intervals as specified by the JWC and uses in part the monito-
ring reports in their review. The review is conducted by a Panel
of Experts comprised of local, regional and international experts
in the various fields of interest.
The overall purpose of the monitoring programme is to
assess or measure whether the restoration and resettlement pro-
ject is achieving the outcomes required by the Comprehensive
Mitigation Plan (CMP) and the Resettlement and Compensation
Policy. This monitoring process has been ongoing since 2002
and it has covered the following areas:
• The reservoir area
• Host area (Nyonyane)
The expected outcomes from the process were:
• Success in tracking the socio-economic trends in the com-
munity
• To be able to measure the impact of the project on liveli-
hoods by undertaking qualitative and quantitative surveys.
• To highlight opportunities for and constraints to livelihood
restoration.
41
Monitoring methodologyThe monitoring activities include an ongoing monitoring pro-
cess whereby developmental issues and livelihood trends are
tracked as they arise. The periodic monitoring processes also
involve the review of land-use operations and management
practices. Health trends are also part of this segment of moni-
toring, the data being gathered from clinic records. An annual
survey is conducted using key indicators to track socio-econo-
mic and livelihood restoration trends. It is also important to
note that many of the indicators used are not directly related
to the project activities but reflect the changes in the commu-
nity livelihood.
• Water supplyAlthough all directly affected homesteads had been sup-
plied with on-site water, the supply, however, was reported
as being unreliable. As a result the communities were
encouraged to take responsibility for the functioning of
the water supply systems. Local water committees have
been established to fix problems in a timely manner and
the situation has greatly improved.
• Changes in living standardsWhen the living standard of those who were directly
affected by the Maguga Project were measured there was
a slight decline in terms of income, however there was a
significant increase in access to social amenities
• Agribusiness and small enterpriseThese opportunities have been created by the commerciali-
sation of farming activities especially in the fields of infor-
mal fruit and vegetable vendors, transport and farming in
general. There has been ongoing facilitation of support for
small business through government and other private sector
institutions. Training sessions, especially on farming and
business skills on and off the field, have been implemented.
• Institutional and capacity buildingEmpowerment programmes have been taking place to
encourage the affected populations to actively participate in
the planning and implementation processes. The emphasis
being on the long-term sustainability of the projects. The
empowerment programmes have aimed at individual and
collective structures.
ConclusionsThe overall livelihood of the affected communities together
with that of the neighbouring communities, has improved and
people have benefited tremendously from the infrastructure
provided by the project. The trend is moving in a positive direc-
tion because the community has access to a health facility, and
access to sanitation, potable water supply and electricity is also
improving; and more community members are participating in
associations. It can be proudly stated at this point that imple-
mentation of the majority of the CMP tasks has been achieved
and very few issues remain.
Environmental monitoring program (Source: KOBWA Annual Report 2007/08)This program is aimed at maintaining the quality of the aqua-
tic and the terrestrial environment as close as possible to the
natural conditions within the area of operation. The compre-
hensive program includes the following activities:
• Terrestrial environment monitoring around the dams
• Water quality monitoring
• Aquatic ecosystems monitoring.
Terrestrial ecosystems monitoring continues around the foot-
print of various projects of phase 1a and b implemented by
KOBWA around two dams and the resettlement areas. The pro-
gram has been developed to meet the environmental legislative
requirements of both countries. The results of these monito-
ring activities are as follows (state of 2008):
• The condition of the terrestrial environment has not chan-
ged significantly while there has been a slight increase in
vegetative cover as compared to previous years
• The water quality status report 2008 indicates that the
water is in a generally good state when compared with the
three main uses of water namely irrigation, domestic and
aquatic life. There were signs of deterioration at the lower
reaches of the river (see figures 29+30, page 42) which
could be the result of a combination of the following fac-
tors: flow cessation, agricultural return flows and poor sani-
tation or disposal of sewage around human settlements.
• KOBWA Board approved the terms of reference for an
Ecological Water Requirements study for the Komati. The
study will assist the JWC and KOBWA to develop an eco-
logical water policy and management plan for the entire
Komati river basin. KOBWA is also implementing an envi-
ronmental management system to ensure that operations
are in line with accepted international best practices for
environmental management. an accredited laboratory will
be established to monitor water quality and aquatic ecosy-
stem components.
• KOBWA in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives is also involved in training the commu-
nities around Maguga dam and Lake Matsamo on alien
plant in their grazing areas. Until 2008, over 100 ha of
alien plants have been cleared under this program.
42
Figure 29 (above): Microbiological
monitoring of the Komati River.
Fitness for drinking direct from the
river
Figure 30 (below): Status monitoring of
the Komati Catchment: Fitness for the
ecosystem
43
n Articles 9(2)(f) of Treaty on the Development and Uti-
lisation of the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin
Development tasks KOBWA with the development of the
water management plan for Phase 1 of the Komati River
Basin Development Project. In 2002 KOBWA developed the
water management plan for the project based on the Ope-
rating Rules proposed by the Incomati Systems Operating
Task Group (ISOTG) and approved by the JWC. The water
management plan included: (i) Dam Operation and Mainte-
nance Plans, (ii) River Management Plans including Decision
Support Systems, Water Accounting and Ordering System,
Communication System, Monitoring Systems for River Flow
and Aquatic Ecosystem and Drought Preparedness Plans.
One of the important recommendations of the ISOTG
was the establishment of the Komati Joint Operations Forum
(KJOF) to assist KOBWA in the day-to-day operation of the
system. The KJOF is constituted from representatives of the
Water Departments of the two countries and local national
water institutions (e.g. Irrigation Board, Water Users Asso-
ciations, Catchment Management Agencies, etc.). The KJOF
meets once a month to discuss, amongst other things, water
use and dam reconciliation statements compiled by KOBWA.
This has turned out to be the most progressive way to manage
the water resources of the Komati particularly at transboundary
level. It has improved water use efficiency and reduced conflicts
among water users.
Water allocation between Swaziland and South Africa is
based on a long-term, average yield of the system and is sup-
plied at two levels of assurance; high and low. High Assurance
water is basically allocated for strategic purposes such as dome-
stic and industrial use and is available 98% of the time. For the
remaining 2% of the time rationing is applied. Low Assurance
is water for low risk uses such as irrigation and is available in
two levels of assurance. The bulk of the low assurance water
(70%) is available 98% of the time with rationing applied for
the remaining 2%. The remaining portion (30%) is available
80% of the time and rationing is applied for the remaining
20% of the time. Table 2 above shows the water allocations
between South Africa and Swaziland as agreed in the Treaty
on the Development and Utilisation of the Water Resources
of the Komati River Basin. The rationale for allocating water
using high and low assurance categories is that it allows each
country to decide what they want to do with the water without
one affecting the other. These allocations, therefore, set the
fractional share of the countries to the water resources of the
3.5 Water Management Aspects
basin. Each country has a share of the water available in reser-
voir storages as well as river flows in accordance with these
proportions. There are only two factors that would result in a
change of these fractions; i) changes to infrastructure develop-
ment and operation, ii) and changes in hydrology as a result of
climate change or land use. These factors are assessed every
three to five years. Water from the system is also set aside for
evaporation losses on dams, and channel seepage and trans-
mission losses along the river channel. Water losses occur-
ring after the water has been abstracted from the river is the
responsibility of the country and its users. Adjustments to the
abstracted quantities are made where there are utilisable return
flows. Environmental water requirements in each country are
supplied from that country’s water allocations.
The role of KOBWA with regards to management of the
Komati River Basin water resources include; the efficient sup-
ply of water to the parties (through developing and imple-
menting operating procedures, water accounting systems and
a maintenance program for the water infrastructure); provi-
ding information and guidance to the Parties on the guidance
on efficient water use; providing information and guidance to
the Parties on actions required to minimise the impacts to the
aquatic environment; putting efficient communication pro-
cedures with all stakeholders in place and ensuring a sound
human resource and financial management. KOBWA develo-
ped Decision Support Systems to manage the system. Theses
form the basis of long term water allocation (yield model)
between the countries, short-term water allocation (rational
model) and day to day water release (hydraulics model). An
extensive water monitoring program has also been put in place
to improve the effectiveness of these decision support systems.
44
Box 2. Water Management. Excerpt from the KOBWA Annual Report 2007/2008
Water Management is responsible for maintenance and operation of the bulk infrastructure, system operations, systems develop-ment, emergency preparedness and other functions related to the water management.
Water levelsDuring the hydrological year, 2007-2008 reasonable rains and inflows were recorded in the Maguga Dam catchment (Komati River) while below average inflows were recorded in the Lomati River, i.e. Drieskoppies Dam catchment. Figure 30 shows the levels of the Maguga and Drieskoppies Dams increased from 78% in April 2007 and decreased until mid-November when it started to increase and reached a level of approximately 95% at the end of march 2008. This was a combination of positive inflows as well as water banked by the parties. On the other hand, Drieskoppies Dam continued to drop from 77% in April until 61% at the end of the water year.
Water AllocationsOn recommendation of KOBWA, the Joint Water Commission approved 80% of the full treaty allocations for the 2007-2008 water year. The approved low assurance component allocated to the parties below Maguga and Drieskoppies dams are contained in Table 8, i.e. 20% rationing. The approved high assurance allo-cations represent 100% of the full treaty allocations and are contained in Table 9. Provision was made for the water supply to Mozambique, domestic demand and water supply for reset-tlement projects.
Party Low Assu-rance Allocation
2006-2007 Savings
2006-2007 Unused transmis-sion losses
Total
(units in Mio m3)
Swazi-land
191.3 53.2 16.6 261
South Africa
209.2 21.3 25.4 256
total 400.5 74.5 42.0 517
Table 8: Approved low assurance water allocation (2007-08)
Figure 31: Maguga and Driekoppies Dam levels
Party High Assurance allocation (in mio m3/annum)
Swaziland 17.4
South Africa 18.2
total 35.6
Table 9: Approved high assurance water allocations (2007-08)
Water use reconciliationThe parties were allocated 80% of their full treaty low assurance water allocations. They used some of the water banked during the previous water year to supplement their actual allocations. The water use pattern for South Africa and Swaziland is reflected in Table 10 and 11. The figures indicate overuse by both parties relative to the approved ISOTG water use pattern. Users from both parties still have water banked in the dams with Swaziland having 61.2 mio m3 and South Africa 9.2 mio m3 at the end of the water year 2007-2008. The parties are able to bank water because sufficient space was available in the dams. High assurance water use was not measured and was assumed to be drawn at a uniform rate. Based on this assumption, all the high assurance water was used during the year.
Decision Support SystemIn order to promote trust and confidence amongst the parties and water users, KOBWA requires reliable decision support tools to operate the river system. Currently KOBWA is using the Water Administration System (WAS) and the Rationing Model. During the year, KOBWA procured the Mike BasinTM software with the aim of evaluating its capabilities for use to enhance systems performance. It incorporates features such as GIS that will make systems configurations simpler and faster. Other decision support systems include the STELLA model, a shared vision model that can be used for planning and specifically during the development of the drought preparedness plan.
Dam Safety and Emergency Preparedness PlanKOBWA continues to follow the guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the dams as provided in the manuals and regulator monitoring of safety indicators. The indicators are measured and
45
recorded daily for analysis by the dam safety engineer. The final report of the First spilling Inspection at Maguga confirmed that the dam is performing satisfactory. During 2007-2008, a second Statutory Dam Safety Inspection for Drieskoppies Dam was conducted. The initial report also confirmed that the dam is structurally sound but identified some areas for improve-ment to ensure proper house keeping. The opportunity was also sued for the practical training of the water bailiffs and support staff. KOBWA participated in the Nkomazi Municipality campaigns on Emergency Preparedness. This involved public awareness in various schools and public places. In future, more efforts will be directed to
the Swaziland side where the Disaster management legislation and structures have also been put in place.
Risk management: Development of a Drought Preparedness PlanBecause of recurrent droughts in the Komati Basin perpetuated by climate change phenomenon, KOBWA embarked on a drought preparedness study. It comprises of the socio-economic and hydro-meteorological components. These studies will direct the development of the drought preparedness plan in consultation with the parties.
Table 10: Water use by Swaziland
Water Use Downstream of Maguga Dam in Swaziland / 31 March 2008
Amount (in million m3) Amount (in million m3)
Releases from Maguga dam and hydropower weirSubtract stored volume in Hydropower weir on 31 MarchSubtract riverine lossesSubtract domestic and industrial useAdd gross accruals from Maguga and ManangaSubtract flow at Mananga borderIrrigation water use in 2007/2008
275.00.213.717.5
123.0166.7
275.0274.8261.1243.6366.7
200.0
Remaining irrigtion water downstream of Maguga dam on 31 March:SwazilandActual booked irrigation water use in 2007/2008** Expected use which is:Actual irrigation use = 104,5 % of 191, 3 M m3/a rationed low assurance water
-8,7200** M m3
191.3 M m3
NB: Remaining irrigation water downstream of Maguga Dam on 31 March 2008 does not include water banked in the previous year.
Table 11: Water use by South Africa
Water Use Downstream of Driekoppies Dam and Mananga Dam in South Africa / 31 March 2008
Amount (in million m3) Amount (in million m3)
Releases from Driekoppies damAdd flow accross Mananga borderSubtract releases for MozambiqueSubtract riverine lossesSubtract domestic and industrial useAdd gross accuals from Driekoppies to LebomboAdd gross accuals from Mananga to TongaAdd water used from storage in the weirs (assumed)Irrigation water use in 2007/2008*
136.5166.790.133.618.248.936.40.0
303.2213.1179.6161.3
246.7
246.7
Remaining irrigtion water downstream of Mananga and Driekoppies dam on 31 March: SwazilandActual booked irrigation water use in 2007/2008** Expected use which is:Actual irrigation use = 117,9 % of 209,2 M m3/a rationed low assurance water
-37.5 M m3 246.7** M m3
209.2 M m3
NB: Remaining irrigation water downstream of Mananga and Driekoppies Dam on 31 March 2008 does not include water banked in the previous year.
46
4 Inter-sectoral Water Governancen Dam issues are not confined to the design, construction
and operation of dams alone but also embrace the range of
social, environmental and political choices on which the
human aspiration for development and improved well-being
depend.
Dams fundamentally alter rivers and the use of natural
resources and frequently entail a reallocation of benefits from
local riparian users to new groups of beneficiaries at a regional
or national level. At the heart of dams are issues of governance,
justice and power (WCD 2002). Water resources infrastruc-
ture development and management has accordingly become
complex and expensive. Often conflicting issues, be they envi-
ronmental, social or technical, have to be considered as part of
the process and a successful development project is one that
maximises the benefits for all affected and tries to reduce the
associated impacts.
At the time of drafting the Treaty between Swaziland and
South Africa on development of the Komati River Basin, with
particular reference to the construction of Maguga and Drie-
koppies Dams, the primary purpose was irrigation. There was
provision for hydropower as a secondary benefit at Maguga
Dam, provided it did not adversely affect the availability of
irrigation water. During the implementation of the project,
however, it was important to consider all sectors of the eco-
nomy. To achieve this goal it was necessary to have a clear pro-
ject policy. The overarching policy of the project was poverty
alleviation. It is for this reason that the environment and
resettlement policy focused beyond compensation and aimed
at improving the situation of the affected peoples. Develop-
ment became the vehicle to achieve the project aim. This
required properly constituted, appropriate and adequately
functioning institutional structures for project implemen-
tation that involved all sectors of the economy and society.
Transboundary implementation of environmental water requirements Consumptive water use in the basin is estimated at about
990 Mm³, making it one of the most water stressed
catchments in southern Africa. The main water use
sectors are industry and irrigation. Today there are five
large dams in the Komati catchment with a total sto-
rage capacity of about 790 Mm³. The Komati Treaty bet-
ween South Africa and Swaziland is a comprehensive
water sharing agreement, which takes account of the
water requirements of Mozambique. The 2002 Tripar-
tite Interim Inco-Maputo Agreement (TIA) between
the countries promotes co-operation among the Parties
to ensure protection and sustainable utilisation of the
Incomati and Maputo watercourses. Most importantly,
this agreement re-defines water allocations to the Par-
ties on the various sub-catchments of the two river bas-
ins. KOBWA is tasked with the overall management of
the water resources of the Komati River Basin and has
the responsibility of delivering the cross-border flows to
Mozambique as specified in the Treaty as well as the sup-
ply of environmental water requirements for the river
system. In terms of water requirements for ecosystems,
the TIA sets the minimum cross border flow to Mozam-
bique at 2.6m³/s, which is higher than the one agreed to
in Piggs Peak in 1991 (2m³)/s). However, the TIA allows
for this amount to be negotiated between the three coun-
tries during times of droughts.
47
Water supply for agricultureIrrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in the Komati
River Basin. An estimated 40,000 ha of land depends on the
water from the Komati for irrigation and uses about 700 mil-
lion cubic meters per year. In addition to growing sugarcane,
citrus fruits and vegetables, there is an extensive growth of
exotic tree forests – 125 000ha – consuming about 150 mil-
lion cubic meters per year. The commitment to advancing the
plight of small-scale farmers runs through the recent policies
of South Africa and Swaziland.
In Swaziland the Maguga Dam was intended to irrigate
6,000 ha of sugarcane for smallholders; consequently, every
effort was made to ensure that a development component was
added. The project policy for development projects is to involve
the community and the relevant Government Departments in
the implementation of the projects. The project provided mate-
rial and the Government Departments provided the designs
and specifications while the community carried out the work.
This policy was aimed at ensuring sustainability of the pro-
jects once the Project had left and so provide a springboard
for future developments for the community. The Swaziland
Water and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE) was
initially established under the name Swaziland Komati Pro-
ject Enterprise (SKPE) with a role of socio-economic, health
and land use monitoring. SWADE has subsequently assisted
over 20 farmers associations to develop commercial irrigated
sugarcane on communal land. SWADE also regularly provi-
des training to the farmers. Most of the water provision for
the future development is utilised for poverty alleviation pro-
jects in Swaziland.
In the Lower Komati and Lomati Rivers in South Africa,
the Nkomazi Irrigation Expansion Programme involves the
development of 6,500 ha of irrigated sugarcane for subsistence
farmers, drawing from the Maguga Dam and the Driekoppies
Dam. In South Africa, sugarcane production from the Komati
River Basin contributes to 17% of total sugar production for
the country.
Hydropower generationArticle 14(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Development and Utilisa-
tion of the Water Resources of the Komati River Basin permits
each country in its territory to construct and operate at its own
4.1 The Economic Aspects of Phase 1 of the Komati River Basin Development Project
costs, hydro-electric power complexes at any dam in the Komati
River Basin. Swaziland constructed a 19-megawatt hydropower
station at Maguga Dam. The station, which was completed in
2006, utilises water released for irrigation at Maguga Dam
to generate peak power. A 20m, 1 million m3 regulating weir
was constructed below the Dam to regulate water released for
hydropower as well as minimise environmental damaged due
to the peak power releases.
The station was constructed and operated by the Swazi-
land Electricity Board (SEB). The generation of power, inten-
ded mainly for peak power generation in the morning and
evening, depends on the irrigation requirements to release
or conserve water and could vary widely. The twin penstocks
from the bifurcation just upstream of the outlet convey 12.5
cumecs each to the 9.5 MW Francis turbines. The turbines
operate efficiently over a range of 50m to 90m head, producing
about 7 MW each at the lower head. The hydropower station
has benefited Swaziland, especially during the period when
Swaziland’s main supplier of electricity, ESKOM, was load
shedding Swaziland.
Figure 32: Maguga Dam and Hydropower Station
48
Box 2: Multi-purpose use of dams
The Komati Basin is characterized by an ever increasing population. It is esti-mates that more than half a million peo-ple depend on the water from the Komati for survival. Some 200 million m3/annum is used for domestic and indus-trial purposes – mostly by thermal power stations which are essential for the eco-nomy. Instream Flow Requirement (IFR) is a management means to mimic the natu-ral behavior of the river by modifying the flow releases from the Dams. An exten-sive monitoring program of water quality and biological monitoring ensures that the desired results are achieved. Dams can to an extent mitigate the effects of floods. It has been shown that in certain parts of Mozambique, the dams in South Africa helped reduce the level of the floods. One of these dams was the Driekoppies Dam. The Treaty allows each country the liberty to developed tourism ventures in and around the dams. This has to be done in conjunction with the dam owners (KOBWA) so as not to disturbed dam operations and dam safety. Sustai-nable Utilization Plans (SUP) have been developed for the dams. These plans are targeted at promoting tourism initiatives by demarcating and developing certain areas of the water surface and surroun-ding areas for tourism purposes. These initiatives could include boating, surfing, water skiing, golf, sport fishing, commer-cial fishing, grazing, camping, etc.
Flood controlFor management of f loods from the
dams, KOBWA had developed an emer-
gency preparedness plan whose main
aim is to prepare people below the Dam
for f lood situations including a dam
break
Community and livelihoods developmentThe implementation of the Comprehen-
sive Management Plans has resulted in
the general improvement of the standard
of living of both the affected communi-
ties and the neighbouring communi-
ties. In particular the communities have
benefited tremendously from the infra-
structure provided by the project. The
trend is moving in a positive direction
because the community has access to
health and education facilities as well as
major marketing centres. Potable water
supplies and sanitation facilities (toi-
lets) were provided to improve health
and hygiene. In addition, water sup-
plies for small gardens were provided in
order to improve nutrition. Surplus pro-
duce from the vegetable gardens is sold
in informal markets for much needed
income. Access to electricity is also pro-
vided as part of the national rural elec-
trification program. Feeder roads have
also been constructed by the project to
improve transportation.
Infrastructure DevelopmentA number of infrastructures were deve-
loped as part of the Maguga Dam Pro-
ject to help contribute to the economic
development in the region and the coun-
try. These projects were constructed as
part of the advanced infrastructure for
the Project.
4.2 Other project economic spin-offs
Figure 33 (photo 1 and 2): Komati –
Crocodile River confluence in Flood
and Maguga Dam Spilling
Figure 34 (photo 2): Community
vegetable garden at Maguga Dam
49
Access RoadsTwo access roads were constructed for the Maguga Dam, on
the north and south of the Dam site. The access roads were tar-
red to allow access to site throughout the year and they form
part of Swaziland’s roads network. In addition, feeder roads
around the reservoir area were constructed to improve com-
munity access to services such as hospitals, clinics, schools
and markets.
Piggs Peak Bulk Water SupplyA bulk water supply pipeline with five booster pumps stations
was constructed from Maguga Dam to Piggs Peak to provide
potable water for the town of Piggs Peak. The town frequently
experienced water shortages and the water supply situation
would have been made worse by the construction of around
170 houses to accommodate the skilled workers for the Maguga
Dam construction. The water supply scheme also provided water
for rural communities along the pipeline. In addition potable
water supplies and sanitation facilities in the form of ventilated
pit latrines (VIP) were constructed around for all the commu-
nities around the Maguga Dam to improve community health.
Figure 35: Booster pump station for water supply to Piggs
Peak
Figure 36: New high level bridge over the Komati River on
the MR1 Road
Komati MR-1 BridgeAs the existing bridge on the MR-1 main road from Mbabane
to Piggs Peak over the Komati River was to be inundated by the
flooding of the Maguga Dam it was replaced with a new high
level bridge. Additional bridges such as the Mkhomazane and
Mhlatane bridges were also constructed to improve commu-
nity access to services such as schools, clinics and markets.
Mlambo (Glen) VillageAbout 170 housing units were constructed in Piggs Peak to
accommodate the dam construction professional and techni-
cal personnel. The houses were later sold to the general public
while a few were retained to house KOBWA staff.
Gobolondlo Multipurpose HallA multipurpose hall was constructed in Piggs Peak to be used
for various functions and activities by the Piggs Peak Town
Council. The multipurpose hall caters for events such as com-
munity meetings, weddings and various sporting and enter-
tainment events.
Figure 37: Mlambo Village in Piggs Peak Figure 38: Gobolondlo Multipurpose Hall in Piggs Peak
50
Piggs Peak Solid Waste Disposal SiteA solid waste disposal site with a 20-year life span was
constructed to replace the old and unsafe solid waste disposal
site in Piggs Peak. The new site also catered for the expanded
town of Piggs Peak. It is one of only two solid waste disposal
sites in Swaziland where solid waste is sorted and disposed
properly. The disposal site was later handed over to the Piggs
Peak Town Council for operation and maintenance.
Renovation of Piggs Peak ClubThe Piggs Peak Club was renovated to cater for the project
construction staff living at the newly constructed Mlambo vil-
lage. Sporting facilities such as a swimming pool, tennis, vol-
leyball and squash courts were added as well as a new kitchen.
The club was later handed over to its members for operation
and maintenance.
Community ProjectsA plant nursery was established at Nyonyane Sisa Ranch for
Maguga Dam as well as Phindulwandle for Driekoppies Dam
to propagate important medicinal plants. Nationally endange-
red plants from Maguga Dam and Nyonyane Sisa Ranch were
relocated to the national herbarium in Malkerns. The plant
nurseries have become one of the important development pro-
jects for the community. The plant nurseries at Maguga and
Phindulwandle produce trees for woodlots for the community
as well as fruit tree saplings for sale to the public. At Maguga
Dam a vegetable garden has been developed by the commu-
nity and sells vegetables to the community and the general
public. All the homesteads have been provided with fruit sap-
lings and vegetable seedlings to provide nutrition and gene-
rate income where possible. The Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives Extension Office provides technical assistance
to the communities.
Business and tourism developmentThe traditional authorities together with the Government of
Swaziland have joined hands to promote business development
Figure 39: Piggs Peak Club - Renovated by the Project Figure 40: Plant Nursery at Maguga Dam
around the Dams. At Maguga Dam there is now the popular
Maguga Lodge with accommodation and conference facilities.
There is also a restaurant at the Maguga Dam Information
Centre and View Point as well as another restaurant at the
Botanical Gardens near the plant nursery. KOBWA has esta-
blished a boating launch site and a day visitor’s picnic area that
has become very popular. Small crafts are sold at the parking
lot at the Information Centre. The Dam itself has attracted a
number of tourists, school tours and numerous high level tours
by signatories such a heads of states. The route to Mbabane via
Maguga Dam has become the route of choice for tour buses.
The traditional authority and Government are currently nego-
tiating with a number of investors who are keen to setup busi-
nesses at Maguga Dam.
Community Business Development FundIn an effort to spearhead small enterprise development within
the area a revolving fund currently housed by a registered
financial service provider in Swaziland was established. Com-
munity members have since accessed the fund and have solici-
ted loans for various micro-enterprise initiatives. The fund also
caters for communities on the Swaziland side of the Driekop-
pies Dam. Funds have also been set aside for the construction
of business units, stalls and other tourism structures. Unlike
at the Maguga Dam, developments projects around the Drie-
koppies Dam were not incorporated in the project develop-
ment and therefore are not funded by the project. The fun-
ding of these is the responsibility of the local government. The
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, together with local
government, and in consultation with KOBWA have develo-
ped a Sustainable Utilisation Plan (SUP) for Driekoppies Dam.
The SUP was developed in an effort to ensure that Driekop-
pies Dam as a water resource contributes significantly to the
regional economy, and especially those communities affected
by the construction of the Dam, both directly and indirectly. A
similar initiative is planned for Maguga Dam where a zoning
plan is under development to promote business development
around the Dam.
51
Figure 41: Ministry of Agriculture Extension Officer training
community members on farming
Figure 42: Maguga Dam Information Centre and Restaurant
5 Lessons learntn The main challenge that the international basins are faced
with is coming up with a level of cooperative effort that yields
the highest benefits, which would outweigh the costs and are
also politically, socially, economically and environmentally
sound. The KOBWA experience in managing Phase 1 of the
Komati River Basin Development Project offers the follow-
ing key lessons:
5.1 Cooperation between the riparian states
Given that the Komati River Basin is one of the most inten-
sively utilised basins, further use and development in the basin
required coordination and cooperation. The Piggs peak agree-
ment and the Tripartite Interim Agreement of 2002 were esta-
blished in order to coordinate all activities within the basin.
Negotiations on water sharing agreements started in 1967 and
lead to cooperation between the riparian states for many rea-
sons. The basin states are also characterised by a long history
of political instability. In that sense, the three countries share
a common history and geographical space and as such, instead
of conflict arising from water use, negotiations on a water sha-
ring agreement started from 1967–2002.
The joint development and management of the Komati
River Basin ensured that IWRM principles were applied. The
establishment of a legal, independent body with a mandate of
development and utilisation of the water resources, allowed
KOBWA to raise the loans required to implement the project.
By establishing KOBWA, the development of dams was achie-
ved without considering of borders on South Africa and Swa-
ziland. This allowed for a basin approach to water resources
management and not a sectarian approach.
5.2 Participation of communities in decision making processes
Perhaps one of the most important lessons to be learnt from
the KOBWA experience is the level of participation from the
directly and indirectly affected communities. The communi-
ties had a voice and, to a large extent, controlled their own
destiny.
At the beginning of the project, there was very little to no
consultation with the communities of Evikunjelweni. And what
consultation there was, was seen to be more information sha-
ring and not consultative. As a result, the consultants identified
an area to resettle the communities without consulting those
that needed to be moved. Consequently, the people refused to
move arguing that area earmarked for their resettlement was
unfertile and unsuitable to their ways of life. The area was pre-
viously occupied by squatters and is now left barren and unpro-
ductive. The soils of the proposed host area were also different,
as it was in the escarpment of the mountains and not the valley,
which is more fertile. This then escalated to resistance from
the communities. This is the stage of the project that commu-
nities were then consulted and solicited for their preference in
terms of ‘host’ area. An area was identified 2km downstream
and this is now known as the host area. Consequently, a more
robust community involvement programme was initiated with
the objective of increased community participation and, most
importantly, ownership into the project.
An example is the construction of their households. The
household owners felt that they could reduce costs and parti-
cipate in their relocation by building their own houses. This
was based on the premise that, historically, houses were both
designed and constructed by the owners. ERC then requested
from the Project that the affected people should build their
52
own homes under the supervision of the ERC. The Project was
very sceptical at first but gave in after the ERC and the affected
people successfully completed all the Free Choice replacement
housing. They did this on their own, albeit supervised and
controlled by the ERC. The advantage of this model is that
it allows the owner to choose his own contractor and house
design whom he then. In this process the owner receives the
supervision fees, and profits that would have been paid by the
Project to its contractor and consultant. To ensure that skills
are transferred from the technical supervisors, KOBWA cre-
ated a material yard to source the material for construction.
This ensured quality was maintained and the availability of the
material was guaranteed at all times. The major positive gains
from this approach was that the people were able to build much
bigger houses on the same budget as the cost of engineers and
other technical experts were eliminated. Lastly, it created a
sense of ownership in the project and indeed in the host area.
Most importantly, the communities felt there were part of the
decision making process, skills were transferred by the tech-
nical supervision and ensured that problems arising from the
construction of houses were entirely the household owners.
Another key process that also helped foster relationships
between the two parties was the exhumation of graves in the
area of the construction. This allowed the relatives to be invol-
ved and in a way that reduce possible disputes arising from
such sensitive and delicate activities. The grave sites were iden-
tified by the relatives and it was upon the relatives to then
decide on the process.
As a result of this trust that was created between the project
and the communities, other smaller scale projects that could be
handled by communities were then handed over for implemen-
tation and supervision. Examples include the construction of
the fences for livestock grazing areas, a community church and
the interior of an agricultural shed. The savings made from
such initiatives were then used to establish a fund which pro-
vided the communities with start-up capital for more commu-
nity based income generating initiatives such as the botanical
gardens, the nursery and the community vegetable garden.
5.3 Minimising social impacts during construction phase
Social ills such as crime, divorce, the spread of HIV/AIDS
and urban migration are some of the negative social impacts
associated with dam construction. KOBWA, taking account of
this fact, created a policy to mitigate against or, at least, mini-
mise such impacts. For the Maguga Dam construction phase,
150 solid houses and mobile homes were constructed to cater
for both skilled and non-skilled labour coming from outside
the town. It was maintained from the outset that unskilled
labour was to be sourced from the town and skilled labour
were accommodated in the houses in the town. This avoided
a situation where a settlement is created around the construc-
tion area by putting up mobile structures. The workforce was
integrated into the town and thereby reducing social ills asso-
ciated with influx of migrants.
After construction, some of the houses were sold to the
residents of the area and other citizens of Swaziland that were
interested. The remaining houses were used as staff accommo-
dation for KOBWA employees. This was not only seen as a way
of cost recovery, but also increases home ownership and ultima-
tely the peoples of Swaziland are seen to be part of the project.
5.4 Compensation and Resettlement
A study conducted by the World Bank in 1994 concluded that,
in developing countries, at least 10 million people are displaced
to make way for development projects. The study has shown
that communities that are forced to make way for “develop-
ment” inevitably suffer a decline in their standards of living.
In addition to losing their homelands and cultural resources,
local communities suffer from lost economic opportunities as
businesses lose their customer base, productive farmland is
destroyed, and other forms of livelihood are dismantled. The
social fabric of these communities is torn apart; the informal
networks and kinship ties that sustained them in times of need
are destroyed. Realising this, and that there is no standard
procedure in attaching monetary figure to the loss of grazing
area, loss of a home, loss of cultural resource, loss of access to
a natural resource and loss of a community network, KOBWA
resolved that the standard ‘cost-benefit’ method was incapa-
ble of determining a monetary value to attach to a home. In
order to increase the standard of living of the relocated peo-
ple, a more generous approach of valuation was embarked on.
Consequently, compensation was determined using a more
modern valuation of housing. In addition to the compensation
on the loss, an inconvenience allowance was given. During the
construction of the houses, an extra architect’s fee and consul-
tancy fee also formed part of the package.
The compensation process was more consultative than the
drafting of the resettlement and compensation policy. Compen-
sation modalities were extensively debated by all stakeholders
and a consensus was reached. The compensation rates were
then determined and set in the compensation rates document
which is currently guiding the compensation procedure.
All of this was made possible by the fact that it was a joint
project between two countries and as such, countries are at
liberty to produce hybrid policies that are in-line with inter-
53
national principles. Hybrid policies, in the case of joint mul-
tinational projects, take precedence over national legislation
as issues become of international importance. In the case of
KOBWA, the Maguga Dam Resettlement and Compensation
Policy and the compensation rates that were developed subse-
quent to that, are a good examples of hybrid policies that are
in line with international principles.
5.5 Best practice and best principles
In the case for Maguga Dam, lessons learnt in the form of best
practice informed the resettlement process. Experiences from
similar projects in other parts of the world were also used; for
example, the resettlement option which was adopted from the
Lesotho highlands project. Providing the resettlers with an
option of where to relocate to was seen as a form of ‘volun-
tary’ resettlement. The four resettlement options described in
the preceding chapter, seemed to have worked in the previous
development projects
Another best practice that was adopted for Maguga was the
manner in which monitoring was conducted. The monitoring
was seen to be a key success factor. Monitoring was conducted
three different levels:
• Implementation and compliance monitoring
• External monitoring
• Expert evaluation panel monitoring
The international panel of experts from different fields played
an advisory role to the JWC; moreover, their presence reduced
the vulnerability to criticism on the project, for all internati-
onal criticism
5.6 Institutional set up for the management of water resources as a key success factor
In setting up the institutional structures, it is important that
representatives are selected from across societal structures: A
committee should be representative of the societal group it is
representing. In the case of Maguga, one of the critical success
factors of the development is the different institutions that were
established for a different cause.
The manner in which the committee members were
elected was also a contributor to the success of the Maguga
Dam Project. The members were elected by the people from
the respective social groups, with the chair of the commit-
tee being appointed by the Chief. This appointed person then
became the unifying factor in the group. In contrast, the case
of Driekoppies Dam project, the institutions that were establis-
hed did not factor-in the issue traditional practice. It is, there-
fore, very important to understand the cultural practices and
norms in any given setting before setting up local institutions
that have an intention of bringing people together.
At policy making and project implementation level, the
establishment of the Joint Water Commission between South
Africa and Swaziland and the creation of KOBWA through
international agreements are worth noting. These institutions
were created specifically to deal with water issues of common
interest between the two countries. Commitment to the joint
development of the water resources of common interest across
political boundaries and through an integrated river basin
management approach proved particularly to the success to
the project; as all levels of decision making and the participa-
tion of stakeholders therein were catered for.
5.7 Maintain political will throughout the project phases but keep implementation at technical level
The success of the cooperation in the Komati River between
South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique can be attributed
in part to the fact that most issues were discussed at a tech-
nical level and were only brought to the political level once
agreement had been reached. Structures such as the Joint Per-
manent Technical Committee (JPTC), Joint Water Commis-
sions (JWC) and Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee
(TPTC) helped the three countries cooperate on water resour-
ces matters at a time when the political environment between
the three countries was more adversarial in nature and have
helped promote cooperation on water resource management
in the Komati River Basin. New structures such as the Komati
Joint Operations Forum have assisted Swaziland and South
Africa solve long disputes over the use of water on the Komati
in these two countries by implementing operating rules that
were developed by the Incomati Systems Operation Task Group
– a sub-committee of the TPTC.
5.8 Importance of continuity amongst members of the JWC and KOBWA Board during crucial stages of the project
It is crucial to maintain focus when dealing with trans-
boundary water resources projects especially where resettle-
ment is involved. It is important for the participating states to
ensure that in their representation continuity is maintained.
Timely and gradual replacement of vacant positions on repre-
54
sentative bodies such as the KOBWA Board and JWC was very
important during the implementation of Phase 1 and helped
ensure that institutional memory is retained. Loss of institu-
tional memory, in contrast, can lead to confusion and tension
especially on issues affected resettled communities.
5.9 Appropriate project policies
The Parties ensured that appropriate policies are in place prior
to project implementation. These policies help guide the plan-
ning and implementation and to avoid unnecessary and costly
disputes. The Treaty creates a framework on which specific
policies are based.
Policies on constructionThe Joint Water Commission put in place specific policies to be
followed by KOBWA in the construction of the project. In such
transboundary projects the Parties should agree on policy gui-
delines and directives to be applied as the implementation agent
should not be impacted by policy/legislative differences between
the Parties. Employment was an important priority and affected
communities were prioritised in the distribution of jobs. The
JWC also ensured that emerging contractors were given a fair
chance in the project. The work at the Maguga Dam was broken
down into small, homogeneous and manageable tasks to allow
small and emerging contractors to participate in the project.
Contractors from the project area were given priority to ensure
that affected communities benefited from the project. The pro-
ject also put in place policies to ensure that the local environ-
ment was impacted upon to the minimum degree possible. The
effect of the HIV/AIDS pandemic was also prioritised. Measures
were put in place to ensure that the labour force as well as the
local communities were least impacted by the project through
the introduction of foreign job seekers. It is for this reason that
the project adopted a policy of no labour camps on site and intro-
duced HIV/AIDS education both to the labour force and nearby
communities. There were also policies aimed at ensuring that
the local communities benefited from the project. As a result
water supply schemes, community access road and clinics, cattle
dipping tanks and similar infrastructural improvements were
put in place to benefit the communities.
Policies on resettlementLarge water infrastructure developments such as dam deve-
lopment often require people to be resettled from dam sites,
hydropower and irrigation areas. This is a very sensitive mat-
ter that requires due care; otherwise these projects will not be
sustainable. In 2000 the World Commission on Dams studied
the impact of dams on the environment and affected commu-
nities. One of the areas where failure occurred was weak reset-
tlement policy. In the implementation of Phase 1 of the Komati
River Basin Development, this became evident when one com-
pared the Driekoppies Dam and the Maguga Dam resettle-
ment projects. In the Driekoppies Dam project the focus was
on compensation only while this policy was improved in the
Maguga Dam project to focus on compensation with develop-
ment. Studies around the world have shown that compensation
alone tends to impoverish the resettled communities. Com-
pensation oriented resettlement policies also lead to the deve-
lopment of a dependency syndrome among the affected com-
munities since no one is ever satisfied with compensation. In
addition, it is important to consider the broader community in
resettlement projects instead of merely looking at the directly
affected communities.
5.10 Ensure that the resettlement programme is a part of the infrastructure programme
The Treaty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water
Resources of Komati River Basin sees the resettlement of
affected communities in Phase 1 of the project as being the
responsibility of the Government where each dam is located,
while the construction aspects is a responsibility of KOBWA.
While this makes perfect sense, it is important to ensure that
during implementation the resettlement programme is linked to
the construction programme. A problem arose during the imple-
mentation of the Maguga Dam Project in that the resettlement
programme lagged behind the Dam construction programme.
This resulted in households having to be temporarily accommo-
dated in temporary housing structures. Further, they had to be
given interim support such as food replacement because they
could not produce their own since they still had to be perma-
nently relocated. This process is very costly financially and most
importantly emotionally degrading to the affected people. The
resentment that arises from the feeling that the project is more
important than them can be far reaching. It could also build a
dependency syndrome where people get used to being given food
support instead of producing their own. To resolve this matter,
KOBWA was asked to take up the resettlement project and link
it to the construction programme.
5.11 Maintain interest of resettled communities over time
When resettlement policies are focused on compensation
alone, they tend to lead to a stage where the project interest
of the affected communities wane out over time in favour of
55
other pressing matters. The approach is often based on get-
ting the job done and getting out as quick as possible. Studies
have shown that the effects of resettlement could linger on
for generations to come. There are projects such as the Kariba
Dam where these issues are still being debated 30 years since
the project was completed. Once interest is lost over the reset-
tlement process the fate of the resettled communities usually
takes a dive – and normally to the detriment on the reputation
of the project. In this regard project monitoring is planned to
continue for some time to come.
5.12 Establish an effective, inclusive and participatory stakeholder participation process for project implementation
It is important to have an effective, inclusive and participatory
stakeholder participation process at all stages of the project
with involvement of all stakeholders; Government, community
leaders, affected people, etc. at all stages of the project plan-
ning, design, construction and operation and maintenance
including post implementation phases such as monitoring.
Critical is to create these structures such that people partici-
pate in the areas that affect them or where they have a direct
interest. This proved to be the success factor in the Maguga
Dam Project. It is always important to consider the social and
cultural aspects of the people you are dealing with. Western
style democracy may be a noble idea but may not work all the
time in all cases. In some cases it helps to have champions
among the stakeholders. The involvement of Reverend Jame-
son Mncina and a champion for the affected communities in
the Maguga Dam Project proved to be vital. Government offi-
cials also play an important role and need to be consulted and
involved from the onset. In the Driekoppies Dam project the
lack of involvement of certain Government structures proved to
be the downfall later on in the project. In terms of stakeholders,
it may not be sufficient to merely involve them; it may be more
important to give them a meaningful role where they take the
lead. It is also important to watch out for tension or differences
among stakeholders. In the Driekoppies Dam Swaziland reset-
tlement, chieftaincy disputes proved to be difficult to resolve,
yet the resettlement plan did not take this into account. In the
case of the Driekoppies Dam South Africa resettlement, land
claims as a result of a change in Government policies, caused
a major setback to the resettlement programme at great cost.
5.13 Economic viability and sustainability must be a priority during the planning and implementation of a project
It is important to consider matters of viability and sustainability
during the planning phases of projects involving resettlement.
Failure to consider these could lead to a costly dependency syn-
drome or impoverishment of the affected communities. The
use of experts could help minimise such errors. The use of
an expert panel in the Maguga Dam helped change the policy
towards what could be considered a successful resettlement
programme.
56
6 Conclusions
n In an attempt to meet their water needs South Africa
and Swaziland have cooperated to develop the water resour-
ces of the Komati River Basin. From this cooperation, water
development in the form of dam construction and associa-
ted infrastructure occurred both at international and natio-
nal level. However, much as it is often essential to harness
available water resources by way of dam construction, there
are many concerns regarding such infrastructure develop-
ment in relation to their social and environmental impacts.
Among many concerns, dam infrastructures have been
blamed for causing economic disparities among communi-
ties and for leaving adversely impacted communities worse
off than before the development.
The KOBWA case study provided information regarding
the processes that were employed when implementing the dam
projects for both the Driekoppies and Maguga Dams. The case
study has demonstrated the importance of balancing social,
environmental and economic needs in a dam project and balan-
cing different needs as part of managing a river system. The
lessons drawn from the KOBWA experience include the pro-
cesses involved when the three countries sharing the Incomati
River Basin; Swaziland, South Africa and Mozambique coope-
rated to sign a tripartite treaty and when Swaziland and South
Africa cooperated on Komati River Basin utilisation, which is
shared between the latter two.
In addition to the description of the legal and institutional
processes that were followed the case study relates the tech-
nical and financial necessities regarding construction of the
two dams. The case study, further, describes how the social,
environmental and economic aspects of the project were dealt
with. The lessons learned from the KOBWA experience include
issues around cooperation and treaty signing, public and sta-
keholder participation, resettlement and compensation as well
as institutional structures as key success factors in the holistic
management of the Komati Basin.
57
References
Afridev, 2004. Report on the Ecological Water Requirement Monitoring of the Komati and Lomati Rivers.
Clark D. 2000. Resettlement: The World Bank assault to the poor. Centre for International Environ-
mental Law.
Joint Water Commission, 1992. Treaty on the Development and Utilisation of the Water Resources of the
Komati River Basin. Mbabane, Swaziland.
KOBWA 2008. Annual Report 2007/2008. Komati Basin Water Authority. Swaziland and South Africa
Komati Basin Water Authority, 2004. Water Quality Status Report.
Gibb 1992. Review and Feasibility Study for Komati River Basin Development within Swaziland, Sir Ale-
xander Gibb and Partners Ltd.
The World Bank, 1994. Resettlement and Development: The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Invo-
luntary Resettlement 1986-1993.
Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee, 2001. Joint Incomati Basin Study (JIBS).
UNEP, 2007. Dams and Development: Relevant practices for improved decision making. A Compendium of
relevant practices for improved decision making on dams and their alternatives. DDP project. UNEP Nairobi
Van der Zaag P., Vaz A.C., 2003. Sharing the Incomati Waters Cooperation and Competition in the Balance.
UNESCO-IHP Technical documents in Hydrology PC-CP series No 14.
WCD 2000. World Commission on Dams.
Personal referencesKeevy, C. Chief Executive Officer, KOBWA.
Dlamini, E. Manager Water Management, KOBWA.
Van Zuydam, I. Manager Environment and Resettlement, KOBWA.
List of Tables
Table 1: Capital Cost Sharing under Phase 1
Table 2: Water Allocation under Phase 1
Table 3: A summary of the Project capital cost and loan funding.
Table 4: Summary of land impacted by Driekoppies Dam in RSA
Table 5: Compensation Payments
Table 6: Summary of the Impact statistics of Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland)
Table 7: Number of homesteads choosing various resettlement options at Maguga Dam
Table 8: Approved low assurance water allocation (2007-08)
Table 9: Approved high assurance water allocations (2007-08)
Table 10: Water use by Swaziland
Table 11: Water use by South Africa
58
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the Incomati River Basin (Source: Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee, 2001)
Figure 2: Institutional framework for management of Komati Basin
Figure 3: KOBWA Structure
Figure 4: The water management structure
Figure 5: Komati River Basin Development Plan (JWC, 1992)
Figure 6: Water storage infrastructure in the Incomati Basin (After JIBS, 2001)
Figure 7: Cumulative volume of storage infrastructure over time in the Incomati Basin.
(Source: Carmo Vaz and van der Zaag, 2003)
Figure 8: HM King Mswati III and Hon. President Nelson Mandela at Maguga Dam Sod Turning
Figure 9: Driekoppies Dam and its characteristics
Figure 10: Maguga Dam and its characteristics
Figure 11: Communities at a meeting
Figure 12: Driekoppies Dam Relocation Structure
Figure 13: Masibmbisane Game Farm Lodge
Figure 14: Phindulwandle Nursery
Figure 15: Impumelelo Mango Orchard
Figure 16: Maize at a Dryland Project
Figure 17: Vegetable Garden (left) and vegetables packed for the market (right)
Figure 18: Sugarcane Projects
Figure 19: Fruit Trees at Dwaleni Farm
Figure 20: Trust Administration Offices (left) during official opening (right)
Figure 21: Training of beneficiaries at a sugarcane project
Figure 22: Institutional Structure for Driekoppies Dam (Swaziland)
Figure 23: Vegetable production complimented by fishing around Driekoppies Dam.
Figure 24: Maguga Dam Construction & Community Health Clini
Figure 25: Institutional Structure for Maguga Dam Environment and Resettlement
Figure 26: Maguga Dam typical Housing Replacement
Figure 27: Host area Infrastructure for Maguga Dam. Roads and Bridges (top left), Irrigation Canal
(top left), Community Clinic (bottom right) and School (bottom left)
Figure 28: Migratory flow dependant fish (left) and weir (right) causing a barrier to their migration
Figure 29: Microbiological monitoring of the Komati River. Fitness for drinking direct from the river
Figure 30: (below): Status monitoring of the Komati Catchment: Fitness for the ecosystem
Figure 31: Maguga and Driekoppies Dam levels
Figure 32: Maguga Dam and Hydropower Station
Figure 33: (photo 1 and 2): Komati – Crocodile River confluence in Flood and Maguga Dam Spilling
Figure 34: (photo 2): Community vegetable garden at Maguga Dam
Figure 35: Booster pump station for water supply to Piggs Peak
Figure 36: New high level bridge over the Komati River on the MR1 Road
Figure 37: Mlambo Village in Piggs Peak
Figure 38: Gobolondlo Multipurpose Hall in Piggs Peak
Figure 39: Piggs Peak Club - Renovated by the Project
Figure 40: Plant Nursery at Maguga Dam
Figure 41: Ministry of Agriculture Extension Officer training community members on farming
Figure 42: Maguga Dam Information Centre and Restaurant
59
List of Acronyms
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CMA Catchment Management Agency
CMP Comprehensive Mitigation Plan
DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa
DRC Dispute Resolution Committee
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ERC Ekuvinjelweni Resettlement Committee
ERP Environmental Review Panel
HADC Host Area Development Committee
HIT Health Intervention Team
HIV Human Immune Virus
ICMA Inkomati Catchment Management Agency
IFR Instream Flow Requirement
ISOTG Incomati Systems Operations Task Group
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
JIBS Joint Incomti Basin Study
JPTC Joint Permanent Technical Committee
JWC Joint Water Commission
KCRC Komati Community Representative Committee
KJOF Komati Joint Operations Forum
KOBWA Komati Basin Water Authority
MADC Maguga Area Development Committee
MDC Maguga Dam Contract
MDCC Maguga Dam Coordinating Committee
MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy
MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
NWA National Water Authority
PDA Project Development Areas
PCU Project Coordinating Unit
RAP Relocation Action Plan
RBA River Basin Authority
RDAC Resettlement and Development Action Committee
SADC Southern African Development Community
SEA Swaziland Environment Authority
SEB Swaziland Electricity Board
SKPE Swaziland Komati Project Enterprise
SUP Sustainable Utilisation Plan
SWADE Swaziland Water and Agriculture Project Enterprise
SWCI Shared Watercourse Institutions
TIA Tripartite Interim Inco-Maputo Agreement
TPTC Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee
VIP Ventilated Pit Latrine
WCD World Commission on Dams
60
The InWEnt Programme “River Basin Dialogue”
The Division “Natural Resources and Biodiversity” is part of the InWEnt Depart-
ment 5 “Environment, Natural Resources and Food”. Based at the International Trai-
ning Centre Zschortau (near Leipzig), we focus on natural resources policy, regional
management, integrated land and water management, water resources management,
ecosystems management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation.
We are engaged in capacity building programmes through dialogue, training, net-
working and strategic human resources development in Africa, the Near East, Latin
America, Asia, and Southeast Europe.
The InWEnt Programme “River Basin Dialogue” (RBD) commenced in 2008
on behalf of the BMZ as part of the German international cooperation programm
“Transboundary Water Management in Africa” to promote cooperation and exchange
of knowledge among river basins and contribute to capacity building in transbound-
ary water policy formulation on the continent.
RBD aims “to enable decision makers and managers of shared watercourse insti-
tutions (SWCI) to develop institutional processes and implement mechanism at
regional, national and local levels towards collaborative and sustainable integrated
water resources management (IWRM)”. Three RBD components are addressing key
elements of effectively functioning SWCI:
1. Effective Multistakeholder participation in SWCI: Develop multi-stakeholder par-
ticipation strategies and initiate implementation mechanism to facilitate dialogue
and consensus building between user groups in managing river basins sustainably.
2. Sustainable Major Water Infrastructure Development: Promote social and environ-
mental standards and initiate effective decision-making and coordinating mecha-
nism for balancing environmental, social and economic aspects in major water
infrastructure development in shared water courses.
3. Enhancing IWRM competence: Improve capacity to adapt integrated water resour-
ces management regimes in SWCI under conditions of climate change and poten-
tial conflicts over increasing water shortages.
The programme is implemented under the policy guidance of regional development
organisations SADC and EAC and jointly with international cooperation partners such
as GEF-UNDP, UNEP, GWP, and WaterNet.
Further information on the programme as well as proceedings and documents of
seminars and training courses are available on the programme website:
www.gc21.inwent.org/nrm-net; go to <Themes> and <Water Dialogue>
Department Environment, Natural Resources and FoodDivision Natural Resources and BiodiversityLindenstraße 41 (Zschortau), 04519 Rackwitz, GermanyPhone +49 34 202 845 700Fax +49 34 202 845 777
61
InWEnt – Qualified to Shape the FutureInWEnt – Capacity Building International, Germany, is a non-profit organisation with
worldwide operations dedicated to human resource development, advanced training, and
dialogue. Our capacity building programmes are directed at experts and executives from
politics, administration, the business community, and civil society.
Our Programmes60 percent of all our programmes are implemented at the request of the Federal Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). In addition, we conduct programmes
for other German federal ministries and international organisations. We are also working
in cooperation with the Ger-man business sector in public private partnership projects
that can be designed to incorporate economic, social, and environmental goals.
The programmes for people from developing, transition and industrialised countries
are tailored to meet the specific needs of our partners. We offer practice-oriented advan-
ced education and training, dialogue sessions, and e-Learning courses. After the training
programmes, our participants continue their dialogue with each other and with InWEnt
via active alumni networks.
By offering exchange programmes and arranging scholarship programmes, InWEnt
also provides young people from Germany with the opportunity to gain professional expe-
rience abroad.
Our OfficesInWEnt gGmbH is headquartered in Bonn. In addition, InWEnt maintains 14 Regional
Centres throughout the German Länder, providing convenient points of contact for all
regions. Our foreign operations in Beijing, Cairo, Hanoi, Kiev, Lima, Managua, Manila,
Moscow, New Delhi, Pretoria, São Paulo, and Tanzania are usually affiliated with other
organisations of German Development Cooperation.
InWEnt - Capacity Building International, Germany
InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, GermanyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 40 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone +49 228 4460-0 Fax +49 228 4460-1766 www.inwent.org
62
The Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA)
Our VisionFor KOBWA to be recognized as a Centre of Excellence
Our MissionTo ensure that water resources harvested by the project as well as other natural
resources and infrastructure available within the area of operation are managed
in a sustainable manner to maximize the long term benefits of the project to all
stakeholders.
KOBWA Strategic ObjectivesTo manage water harvested by the dams in an effective and efficient manner to meet
the international requirements of the Treaty.
This includes:
• Effective maintenance of dams and other infrastructure
• Effective operation of the dams and other infrastructure
• Effective communication and co-operation with stakeholders.
Ensure full compliance with the implementation of the CMP in order to meet the CMP
objectives. This includes monitoring of the impacts on the environment and people
in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the negative impacts.
Liaise effectively with stakeholders to promote sound relationship and cooperation.
Ensure sound and effective financial and administrative management of KOBWA to
meet corporate governance requirements.
Develop and establish an effective and motivated human resource base to manage
the key functions of KOBWA.
Komati Basin Water AuthorityThe Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) is a bi-national institution established
in 1993 through the Treaty on the Development and Utilization of the Water Resour-
ces of the Komati River Basin signed in 1992 between the Kingdom of Swaziland and
the Republic of South Africa. The purpose of KOBWA is to implement Phase 1 of the
Komati River Basic Development Project.
Phase 1 comprises the design, construction, operation and maintenance of Driekop-
pies Dam in South Africa (Phase 1a) and the Maguga Dam in Swaziland (Phase 1b).
Head OfficeMaguga DamP.O. Box 678Pigg’s Peak, SwazilandPhone +268 437 1463/4Fax +268 437 [email protected]
Water Management CentreDriekoppies DamP.O. Box 518 Malelane, South AfricaPhone +27 (013) 781 0317Fax +27 (013) 781 [email protected]
Imprint
Dams and Development: The KOBWA - Experiences.Practices for balancing social, environmental and economic aspects in water resources management
Edited by:
Chris Keevy (CEO KOBWA), Daniel Malzbender (ACWR) and
Thomas Petermann (InWEnt)
Disclaimers:
The content and views expressed in this publication reflect
the views or policies of KOBWA. The designations of geo-
graphical entities in this report, and the presentation
of material, do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of InWEnt concerning the legal sta-
tus of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning the delineation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Published by:
InWEnt - Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung Capacity Building International, GermanyRiver Basin Dialogue Programme (ASTRA 1008700000)
Division 5.02: Natural Resources and Biodiversity
Lindenstraße 41 (Zschortau)
04519 Rackwitz, Germany
and
Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA)Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of Swaziland
Head Office, Maguga Dam
P.O.Box 678
Pigg‘s Peak
Swaziland
jointly with the
Afican Centre of Water Research (ACWR), Cape Town
Layout:
Nicole Fritsch, Leipzig
Photography:
KOBWA and Thomas Petermann (InWEnt)
Swaziland and Germany
April 2009
ISBN 978-3-939394-29-7
April 2009 · 5.02-0005-2009 · ISBN 978-3-939394-35-8