Working for Water Programme
The WfW programme in South Africa launched in 1995 aims to address the spread of invasive species and the safeguard of freshwater resources and at the same time alleviate poverty through financial incentives. The programme identifies invasive species as a major threat to freshwater resources with the colonization of riparian zones by invasive trees, resulting in a loss of usable water comparable to >4% of total water use in South Africa (Cullis et.al. 2007). Anoxic conditions are also induced by invasions, leading to reduction in fish yields and reduced delivery of cultural and regulating services. It is the largest single natural resource based poverty alleviation scheme in the country and the largest PES scheme in the African continent. Among representative catchments investigated in SA by Mairtre et.al. 2012, it was identified that invasive species reduced natural river flows by 6-22%. Strategically managed to bring together hydrologists, ecologists, engineers and rural populations, the WfW scheme offers the following with an annual budget of USD $50 million (Van Wilgen and Maitre 2008):
1. Employment and training for previously unemployed South Africans to eliminate spread of high water consuming invasive alien plants
2. Sustainable funding and investment in research on invasive species and its impacts
3. Improvement in international cooperation and reorganization of water management personnel
Benefits
Water is a clear constraint to economic growth, particularly in a chronically water stressed country. There are thus understandably increasing pressure for more efficient and sustainable delivery and use of freshwater. PES schemes should inherently be socially progressive as the sustainable delivery of ecosystem services are societally beneficial and that financial incentives attached to ES delivery are capable of empowerment (Suich et.al. 2015). The WfW scheme aims to simultaneously tackle the spread of invasive plants, the efficient delivery of water resources and the empowerment of marginalized communities (Gorgens and van Wilgen 2004). It is the only widespread PES scheme in the continent and is widely regarded as one of the most successful natural resources investment plan in the African continent. Some of the major benefits are listed below:
 |
| Benefits of the WfW Scheme Red boxes indicate potential benefits (Underlying graphic indicates general ecosystem services benefits from water resource management taken from Suich et.al. 2015) |
Environmental
- Encourages biodiversity conservation
- Limit spread of invasive alien plants detrimental to ecosystem and water supply
Social
- Provision of >30,000 temporary jobs over 300 projects across all provinces of S.Africa
- Promote gender quality and empowerment - 52% of those employed were women
- Encourages small business entrepreneurs to bid and compete in WfW contracts in locations where invasive plants are significantly detrimental ecologically and hydrologically
Economic
- Revenue from poverty relief funding
- Creation of secondary industries in communities (eg. furniture making)
- Restoration of agriculturally productive land
Trade-offs
No scheme of this size can be carried out without criticism. There has been some major criticisms to its legislation, management and potential trade-offs. These criticisms also reveal some general pitfalls and concerns of PES schemes.
There are pretty obvious conflicts of interests which the scheme does not address sufficiently. Invasive alien plants, although detrimental to the environment and water provision, are provisioning ecosystem services themselves. Local rural communities often use them as fuel wood, fencing materials and participate in agro-forestry industries. Furthermore, the agro-forestry plantation industry employs over 100,000 people and covers 1.4 million ha. This complicates the successful implementation of the scheme as plantations occupy 10% of land which yields 60% of surface water (Hope 2006).
Socially, as the scheme is dependent on poverty relief funding and is targeted mainly as a poverty alleviation scheme, the scheme risks over reliance on relief funding and may find itself unable to compete with alternative poverty relief programmes in the future (Turpie et.al. 2008). There were also criticisms due to the top-down approach of implementation. Poor communication channels, insufficient information and lack of local community participation led to assertion by some that the government led scheme fails to understand the true nature of work and reality of local life (Buch and Dixon 2008). The scheme merely provides a temporary solution to chronic problems in which participation of laborers are limited to only 2 years after which citizens are required to secure alternative permanent employment. However, the scheme failed to properly address the fact that comparable employment may not be available. Even if they are available, some may not be qualified as the scheme merely trains them in specialist subjects (invasive plant removal) rather than general training (Hope 2006). Income constraints dictated by the climate and erratic working patterns exacerbates the problem. This has led to the WfW scheme being the only secure employer, creating a situation where long-lasting poverty alleviation may be at odds with the top down management of the scheme.
Concluding Thoughts
There is no doubt that this is the largest natural resources based poverty relief scheme in the country and the continent. The practical application of economically valuing ecosystem services (water supply) and impacts (invasive plants) has also proven to be largely successful. There are obvious drawbacks and major trade-offs, particularly problems associated with a managerial, top down approach is applicable across many PES and water supply schemes. More local participation would certainty improve the scheme as success rates of a conservation or development scheme is highest when local people are involved in the decision making process. Nonetheless, the implementation of this scheme in a country where conservation are largely reserved for the rich does effectively integrates sustainability with equity and economic growth and have had significant success.
No comments:
Post a Comment