TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS

THE PROBLEM OF WATER IN SOUTHERN AFRICAAND IN PARTICULAR THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER

IN SOUTH AFRICA

Franck Lustenberger

E-mail : Franck.Lustenberger@agroparistech.fr

February 2010

AgroParisTech - Engref à Montpellier Ministère de l’Ecologie, de l’Energie,B.P.44494 – 34090 MONTPELLIER Cedex 5 du Développement Durable et de la MerTél. (33) 4 67 04 71 00 92055 La Défense CedexFax (33) 4 67 04 71 01

2/27

SummarySince the middle of the 50s massive water transfers have been established in SouthernAfrica, mainly from the initiative of the Republic of South Africa.These developments have several objectives which the guideline is to compensate for animbalance between the large eastern basins (well watered) and the western lands (semi-arid). The transfers are intended primarily to enhance the semi-arid lands South and West ofthe country, and encourage the development of some mining towns (Johannesburg for goldmining, Kimberley for diamond mining). Politically, these equipments are supported by theideology of apartheid, that chose to provide water for vast regions held by white farmers (whohave often political responsibility too), rather than to develop activities in regions naturallybetter watered and occupied by people of African descent (example of the Bantustansterritories on the eastern coast).The end of apartheid in 1994 seemed to announce a new water policy, based on a moreequitable share of resources ("Some, for all, for ever" slogan of the new Water Act) andbetter consideration of the needs of the aquatic environment, within the definition of instreamflow requirements. The principles of sustainable development were supposed to betranscribed within the new water policy. A review of the institutional and regulatory frameworkfor 15 years should suggest that water supply management is still more important than waterdemand management.

KeywordsRepublic of South Africa, Orange River, water installation, water transfers, equitable share,instream flow requirements, supply management, water reallocation

3/27

Glossary

ANC African National Congress

CMA Catchment Management Agency

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

IFR Instream Flow Requirement

LHWP Lesotho Highlands Water Project

ORASECOM Orange-Senqu River Commission

ORDP Orange River Development project

SADC Southern African Development Community

WCD World Commission on Dam

WUA Water User Association

4/27

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................... ...................................................................................5

The multiple roots of the transfer policy of water in South Africa.................................... 5

o A large Hydrographic disparity ................................................................................... 5

o A settlement on dried land ......................................................................................... 6

o Fron the hydraulic complexity to the hydro-politic complexity in South Africa ............. 6The "hydraulic mission" of South African engineers ....................................................6The bond with the construction of the apartheid regime..............................................7Major water projects to support the apartheid regime .................................................7

The organization of water transfers in southern Afr ica................................................ .....8

o The Orange River Development Project : restoring faith in the Republic of SouthAfrica ................................................................................................................................. 8

The genesis of the project : the myth of the Boer ........................................................8Description of the ORDP.............................................................................................9

o The Lesotho Highlands Water Project : responding to the thirst of Johannesburg...... 9The genesis of the project : a strong geopolitical issue ...............................................9Project Description....................................................................................................10

o Other transfers..........................................................................................................10

o Water transfers and dams : production and manipulations of lands ..........................11Transfer shape in time and space geography of South Africa ...................................11Hybridization of rivers ...............................................................................................11From passive to active space....................................................................................12

The management of water after apartheid : ambition and pragmatism..........................12

o The New Water Act of 1998 : from the desire of breaking out into the economicrealism..............................................................................................................................12

"Some, for all, for ever" : a new policy framework for water.......................................12The economy to save transfer...................................................................................13The need for a new governance ...............................................................................13

o The difficult implementation of water sharing ............................................................15The ecological part of the reserve : the myth of return to natural flow .......................15The reallocation of resources to meet customary rights and land issues...................15The difficult financial equalization of water services ..................................................16

o What future for the hydropolitical system of South Africa? ........................................17Some examples of transfer projects..........................................................................17A convergence of factors rather favorable to the prosecution of transfers.................17

Conclusion......................................... .................................................................................18

Références......................................... .................................................................................19

APPENDIX...........................................................................................................................23

5/27

INTRODUCTION

With several billion cubic meters of water transferred each year, extreme climatic variabilityon its territory (from temperate to hyper arid), and a multitude of structures of transfer (dams,canals, tunnels, pipelines), southern Africa displays extreme data on water management. Butunlike other regions of the world which have also deployed this transfer policy, southernAfrica stands out in a very unequal sharing of water between racial groups. The racist policyof apartheid, which ruled the region until the mid-90s, has left its mark in the politicalmanagement of space and resources, including through the principle of "separatedevelopment" between black African population and a minority of white descendants of earlysettlers. In this context, South Africa combines all these features and emphasizes at a largescale what can be observed in neighboring Namibia, Botswana or Zimbabwe ; therefore thisstudy will focus mainly on this country.On this basis, it is legitimate to wonder about the interrelations between spatial hydraulicorganization in South Africa, and the more general policy held by the apartheid regime andby its successor : what are the key elements that can now better explain the introduction ofthe policy of water transfer in South Africa? Specifically, how do they organize the transfersand what is the relationship with the management of space? Finally, did the end of apartheidbring changes in water management in South Africa?

THE MULTIPLE ROOTS OF THE TRANSFER POLICY OF WATER IN SOUTH AFRICA

The water management in South Africa is based on many water transfers. They cover almostall the rivers of the region and bordering countries. Their justification is complex, involvinghydrological arguments and historical, and political features of the past, through the regionmarked by the apartheid regime (see map in Appendix 1 : resource and water demand inSouth Africa (Blanchon, 2009), p. 23).

O A LARGE HYDROGRAPHIC DISPARITY

In southern Africa, as in other countries where they are implemented, water transfers areused primarily to offset a sharp disparity between geographic regions where water resourcesare abundant, and others where it is lacking, or whose needs exceed local resources(Lasserre, 2009). It is therefore primarily a policy of supply management.The case of southern Africa make no exception to these characteristics : the transfers areorganized to reduce the high variability of resources available through the use of space bybringing water requirements and available resources (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).Southern Africa is marked by high rainfall on the east coast bordered by the Indian Ocean(Blanchon, 2009). The relief rises west to the Drakensberg plateau, above 2000 to 3500 mwhere the highest rainfall is concentrated (Blanchon and Turton, 2005). The precipitationthen declines very rapidly between the Drakensberg and the West Coast Atlantic, it is asuccession of vast semi-arid areas bordered by the cold Benguela current.Apart from some small coastal rivers that flow perpendicular to the coastline, the watersystem is organized mainly around the Orange River Basin. It rises on the plateau ofDrakensberg in Lesotho, and flows westward to the Atlantic, marking the border betweenNamibia and South Africa. The Limpopo River is the second major area, which flows from theDrakensberg to the north to Mozambique. The Orange River is deeply marked by a decreasein the quantity of water to the Atlantic coast. The drastic reduction in rainfall by this gradientfirst, the importance of drawing on the resources but also evaporation in this semi-aridsecondly explain what is called "double allogeneic River" (Blanchon, 2009). It results in asubstantial reduction in its regime on a east-west gradient.At this disparity in the spatial distribution of the resource, it should be added a strong intra-and interannual variability. Serious droughts have marked the history of the region, especiallyduring the decades 1930s and 1980s. These have emphasized the fragility of the resourceand its variability. The need to transfer and store water has become obvious (Blanchon,2009).

6/27

O A SETTLEMENT ON DRIED LAND

In this wide disparity in the geographical distribution of water availability has been added bydevelopment of economic activities on land that was lacking of water (or at least withinsufficient water compared to the needs) (Blanchon, 2006). While black populations in Africaexisted before colonization, spread mainly on the eastern coast, the European colonistssettled on land poorly endowed with water.Mining activities explain much of the current organization of water transfers. Johannesburg isdeveloped on the basis of the exploitation of gold veins, while the city is situated on thedividing line between the drainage basins of the Limpopo and Vaal River (a tributary of theOrange River), with annual rainfall of 600 mm (Blanchon 2009). Kimberley follows a similardevelopment on the basis of diamond mines in a region where annual rainfall is only 400mm.Other regions are growing in the south and west of the country for reasons related to portactivities : the Cape became in the seventeenth century the port company of Holland EastIndia.The agricultural issue, including the installation of white farmers in the west (in the middleand lower Orange River) is more complex. The settlement on the more or less fertile landbrought subsistence farming ("Boer", name given to the first white settler, means “farmer” inDutch). Later, the South Africans retain a deep commitment to values and symbols worn bythe white farmers, which justified itself to provide water to the desert (Turton et al, 2004).The dichotomy between the natural availability of water resources and the history of thedevelopment and colonization of South Africa explains for a significant part the need toestablish large systems of water transfer on the South African territory. Johannesburg,founded after the discovery of gold in 1886, began to pump water into the Vaal in 1903 andthe first dam was built in 1922 (Blanchon, 2006).

O FRON THE HYDRAULIC COMPLEXITY TO THE HYDRO-POLITIC COMPLEXITY INSOUTH AFRICA

The "hydraulic mission" of South African engineersTraditionally the Water Act of 1912 of South Africa dedicated the customary rights to riparianrights : water and its uses belong to the owners of land crossed by rivers, mainly from thewhite minority. There is no constraint imposed on the uses (Blanchon, 2009).When the resource is missing, a second phase of management begins, to implement large-scale facilities to meet needs.The first dams appear early in the twentieth century in South African, with the construction ofthe Vaal Dam in 1922 to provide water to Johannesburg.South Africa had this substantial financial resource (thanks to its mineral resources), but alsotechnical skills : the engineers are formed in different Commonwealth countries and theUnited States. The development of irrigation on large scale areas in semi-arid Colorado atthe same time (first half of the twentieth century) opens a considerable scope for policymakers to conquer new lands. They brought back an important technical expertise and theambition of competing with the big structures in place in the Colorado or in some areas ofAustralia or India (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).It was more than an economic necessity; "to bloom" the desert belonged to a moral duty(Blanchon, 2009).In addition, on these arid lands, water was used as a control element of South Africansociety. Thus the organization of irrigation, particularly through the Water Act of 1912, shouldnot only be understood as a means to create wealth in the territory. It must also beinterpreted through the role that she could play in balancing the relationship between theEnglish and Boer in the new South African Union of the early twentieth century : the controlof irrigation necessarily tied to the new landowners central power, and allowed, in fact, abetter control of rural areas (Conca, 2006).

7/27

The bond with the construction of the apartheid reg imeThe archives of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry show that the transfer policywas discussed early on, including within the governing bodies of the apartheid regime newlyin power (the National Party, which spearheaded the segregationist plan, has existed since1914 but officially came to power in 1946). The bulk water transfers have indeed a significanteconomic cost, and their economic justification is questioned by some in the government.Critics wish to assert a more localized management, not only responding to the satisfactionof demand (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).In the 40s various options were discussed, involving scenarios of relocation for agriculturalactivities and/or for industrial areas to better-watered east coast, or otherwise pursuingdevelopment based on management of water demand (Blanchon and Turton 2005).In 1949 L. A. Mackenzie, then Director of Department of Irrigation, highlights toward theHouse of Industry of Johannesburg the disproportionate cost of transporting water over longdistances. He defended a relocation of industrial (and agricultural) activities in the east. Thisoption also presented to the defendants the advantage of being coherent with the policy ofseparate development of apartheid : industrial development on the east coast would becloser to black labor workers numerous and not expensive ; it could develop the economy ofthe Bantustans (mainly the territories of the Transkei and Ciskei), and attach there the blackpopulation (Blanchon, 2001).

This option was not selected for two reasons.The economic importance of the Gauteng (Johannesburg area) is highlighted and the choiceis made to keep the mining and industrial activities. This small region located on the dividingline of the waters of the Vaal and Limpopo concentrates 50% of the country's wealth,consumes 85% of the country's electricity (and 50% of that of the southern African region).The river flow is often modest, when not zero : the Upper Vaal shows an average flow of1,5 m3/s. The support of his business (and the associated population) needs the continuationof the transfer policy. In addition, the Gauteng region concentrates the majority of thepopulation of European descents, the separate development policy of apartheid involvesnecessary arbitrations for white populations, including on water network (Blanchon andTurton, 2005).Furthermore, the Afrikaner farmers claimed their political and social importance during thesediscussions. The arrival at power of the national party in 1948 was analyzed through an over-representation of certain voters from Platteland (the rural areas) ; the government had to besensitive to the arguments of white farmers.But it was the deep attachment of the South African population to values and image of the"Boers" who explained that their final claims have been heard. The white farmers of themiddle of the Orange River and further downstream depend directly from transfered water toexpand irrigated areas, and thus maintain their activity in rural areas. It was primarily tomaintain a significant presence of the white population in these rural areas where they werelargely in minority (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).It is clear here that the rivers are no longer flowing by natural directions, but now byanthropogenic directions : those of money and power (Turton, 1999).

Major water projects to support the apartheid regim eIn the years 1960/1970 the transfer system continues to be the subject of strong criticism byvarious opposition groups. They emphasize that transfers promote development ofagriculture (for irrigation of the middle Orange, with the support of East-West transfer andNorth-South) to the detriment of the industry (mainly in the Gauteng région, on the basis oftransfers from South to North). In addition, the ecological impact of these schemes ofdiversion of rivers began to be questioned (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).Despite these arguments, evolution of the international geopolitical situation and internalpolitics led the South African government to continue its policy of equipment.

8/27

Various events are indicative of the political issues underlying the trade-offs made with thetransfer projects.In 1960 riots broke out in Sharpeville, which are the subject of violent repressions by theapartheid regime. The regime was threatened, discredited internationally, and thegovernment wants to galvanize the people through a large project. In addition, the followingyear in 1961, the Republic of South Africa was proclaimed. It is in this context that theOrange River Development Project (ORDP) was created (see The organization of watertransfers in southern Africa, p. 8). Van Roebbroeck1 then a young engineer, said "the onlycause of the development of [ORDP] is Sharpeville" (quoted by Blanchon and Turton, 2005).In addition, the project was made to attract foreign companies, who would have hesitated toinvest in the discredited country at that time. The construction of the Gariep Dam (the keywork of the ORDP) allows to attract Dumez2 : the site contributed from 1964 to 1970 to 11%of the turnover of the company.The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) was established in 1986 after a coupsupported by the South African government. The Pretoria regime, which is then subject tointernational economic sanctions (notably an embargo) manages to build the project with theregime of Lesotho. By this mechanism, South Africa managed to divert the internationalsanctions and introduce international donors, among which the World Bank (Blanchon,2009).These examples illustrate that the management of the resource transfers is linked for thePretoria regime with a much broader vision than that of South Africa. In this way, it managesto break up its national space (consistent with the principle of separate development), whilemaintaining a policy of hegemony, or "hydrohegemony”, on the southern African region(Turton, 2005b; Turton 2005c).These water networks are thus seen as symbols of handling territorial apartheid (Blanchon,2009), which earned them the term "Pipelines of Power" (Turton, 1999).

THE ORGANIZATION OF WATER TRANSFERS IN SOUTHERN AFR ICA

South Africa presents 23 major transfers on its territory. It concerns a total of 4,2 km3/year, or12,5% of the resources of the country that can be used : 22% of water used in South Africacomes from transfers. The storage capacity of various dams is about 25 km3 representingover 75% of valuable water resources of South Africa. Most of these transfers are associatedwith the watershed of the Orange-Vaal, representing two thirds of the transfers and 90% ofthe volume transferred (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).Two systems are nevertheless very important concerning their economic and politicalimplications : the Orange River Development Project (ORDP) and the Lesotho HighlandsWater Project (LHWP) (see map in Appendix 2 : Water transfers in South Africa (Blanchon,2009), p. 23).

O THE ORANGE RIVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT : RESTORING FA ITH IN THEREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The genesis of the project : the myth of the BoerThe Orange River Development Project (ORDP) is the culmination of the "hydraulic mission"accomplished by Afrikaner engineers, when the young republic goes through a rapideconomic development (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).The diversion of water from the Orange River project is particularly old, since the first planswere drawn up in 1886. At the very beginning it is an agricultural project (for the developmentof irrigation in the middle of the Orange River).

1 President of the International Commission on Large Dams from 1996 to 19992 Today subsidiary of Vinci.

9/27

Initially applications of the Afrikaner farmers were not necessarily taken into account.Farmers in the Great Fish River were grouped in the Cape Midlands DevelopmentAssociation. Their arguments to support the scheme of the Orange relied primarily on the riskof depopulation of the region, and the decline of white people compared to black populations.The election in 1948 of the National Party, however, known as supporter of the whitefarmers, did not unlock the initial project. It was not until the government's response to theSharpeville massacre in 1960 and the proclamation of the Republic of South Africa in 1961that the project was finally validated (see Major water projects to support the apartheidregime7) (Emmett and Hagg, 2003 ; Blanchon, 2009).

While DWAF emphasized very early (in 1970) the economic cost of these dams, it alsounderlined the importance of irrigated agriculture to preserve the cultural and spiritualinfluence of the rural society in the national organization (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

Description of the ORDPThe ORDP is finally the combination of two projects : the diversion of water towards theGreat Fish and Sundays (south) on the one hand, development of irrigation in the middle andlower Orange River ( west) on the other. These two goals are implemented in practice by theconstruction of specific structures.

The Gariep Dam (completed in 1971) is the main structure of the system. With a storagecapacity of 5 500 million m3 and a reservoir with an area of 370 km², it is one of the largestdams in South Africa in terms of capacity. It produces about 90 megawatts of electricity forreleasing a flow of 200 m 3/s (World Commission on Dams, 2000).From the Gariep Dam, the tunnel extends from the Orange-Fish (completed in 1975), whichcarries the water over a length of 82,8 km and a maximum speed of 54 m3/s to Eastern Caperegion to the Fish River. The water is then gradually transported to different sections of rivers(Great Fish and Small Fish, then Sundays) before being led through a pipeline to PortElizabeth. On this journey, the different water supplies irrigated areas (World Commission onDams, 2000).

The development of irrigation in the middle and lower Orange is made thanks to theregulation of the river flow. This is done primarily by the Gariep Dam, which then releaseswater to the Vanderkloof Dam. The dam, completed in 1977, has a storage capacity of 3 200million m3. Different systems of canals and pumping then punctuate the river and providewater for irrigation downstream (World Commission on Dams, 2000) (see Appendix 4 :Location of Gariep Dam and Van der Kloof Dam (World Commision on Dams, 2000), p. 25and Appendix 5 : Organization of transfers within the ORDP(World Commision on Dams, 2000), p. 26).

O THE LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT : RESPONDING TO THE THIRSTOF JOHANNESBURG

The genesis of the project : a strong geopolitical issueThe Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) was conceived later than the ORDP, whilepolitical pressures are already numerous on the apartheid regime ; the LHWP must berelocated in a geopolitical perspective and at a continental scale (Blanchon and Turton,2005).The abundance of water in Lesotho has been known for a long time. Early studies focusingon the resources of this small landlocked country in its neighbor South Africa date back to1950 (Blanchon, 2009). In 1971, a capital project failed to be achived, due to a disagreementover the price of water sold by the Lesotho. The negotiations were totally interrupted in 1976after the bloody repression of Soweto, the international community wished to isolate thePretoria regime (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

10/27

The LHWP was finally implemented in 1986 under the apartheid regime and with the supportof many bilateral agencies and multilateral financial. There are two goals of the project. ForLesotho, it is to make revenue through royalties, generate hydropower and promote ruraldevelopment. For South Africa, the LHWP is to provide 70 m3/s in the region of Gauteng,(27m3/s for Phases IA and IB, respectively 18 and 9 m3/s). The waters of Lesotho have alsoa high quality (non-polluted and sediment-laden little) compared to the Vaal or lower Orange(Lageat and Liman, 2001).The launch of the project comes in the wake of the coup occurred in Lesotho in the sameyear, and supported by South Africa. Through the project, South Africa could access tointernational donors, which was forbidden since the establishment of international sanctionsagainst the apartheid regime (Colombani, 2003).

In addition, the coup of 1986, helped by Pretoria, put into power a military junta mostfavorable to the apartheid regime, depriving the ANC a foothold regional importance. Theimplementation of the LHWP depended on Lesotho's political choice : Pretoria hoped thenew government to join the "Constellation of Southern African States” (organization foundedby South Africa in 1979 in opposition to the SADC, hostile to apartheid). If in 1986 theLesotho SADC actually leaves, they did not join the Constellation. However, the smalllandlocked kingdom became with the LHWP even more dependent on neighboring SouthAfrica, through royalties paid for water (James, 1980 ; Blanchon, 2009).

Project DescriptionThis project is initially built in 5 phases (IA, IB, II, III and IV), 5 dams in the Maluti mountains,which form the upper catchment of Senge (upstream basin of the Orange ) (see Appendix 6 :Schematic section through the Lesotho Higlands Water Project (phases 1 to 3) (Blanchon,2003a), p. 27 and Appendix 7 : The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Blanchon et Turton,2005), p 27).

Its natural flow is directed toward the southwest, the project aims to transfer water northwardtowards the Vaal River and the South African province of Gauteng (Johannesburg area, theeconomic capital, and Pretoria, the political capital). This transfer occurs through a tunnellinking the Katse dam in Lesotho, to the Ash River in South Africa (Colombani, 2003).The agreements signed in 1986 committed the two countries only on stages IA and IB,completed at this point.Phase IA of the project amounted to a total investment of 2.5 billion dollars. It is organizedaround a large dam reservoir, the Katse Dam, with a capacity of 1 950 km3, a dam support(the Muela Dam), and 82 km of tunnel water transfers. Muela dam is equipped with ahydroelectric structure with an installed capacity of 72 MW for supplying electricity toLesotho. Phase IB includes the Mohale Dam (capacity of 0.938 km3), the diversion ofMatsoku and a 30 km tunnel to connect Mohale and Katse. It skips to a rate of 29 m3/secapproximately, with an estimated cost of 1.5 billion dollars (Colombani, 2003).The implementation of phases II, III and IV, which would allow a transfer of 70 m3/second in2020 has not be achieved yet. It would involve environmental impact very negatively on thelower Orange River, with which cooperation agreements exist with Namibia. These items arethe subject of strong criticism from the environmental movement. In addition, the partnershipagreement signed in 1986 under the apartheid regime should be renegotiated : thegeopolitical balance of power in the region has changed (see What future for thehydropolitical system of South Africa?, p. 17) (Colombani, 2003).

O OTHER TRANSFERS

In addition to ORDP and LHWP, South Africa has five other transfer systems (Blanchon andTurton, 2005).

11/27

Two transfers are linked to the Orange-Vaal system : the first is the network of Mpumalanga(formerly Eastern Transvaal), which is to capture the small rivers of Natal, as well as to theVaal Basin Olifant since dam Grootdraai, all to fuel power structure of SASOL, whichtransform coal into oil (technology developed in response to energy blockade imposed on theapartheid regime). The second is the transfer to the Tugela Vaal : pumping allows the waterto cross an escarpment of 453 m (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

Other transfers are independent. On the one hand those of the Riversonderend to Berg inthe Cape Province of the West, for the agricultural areas of the valley of the Berg and toincrease the supply of Cape Town. On the other hand the transfer to Buffalo, which suppliesthe city of East London. Finally the system supplies Mooi/Mgeni serving the cities ofPietermaritzburg and Durban (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).For all of these transfers, the location of major urban centers determine the direction of flow,supporting the hypothesis that "water flows to money and power" (Turton, 1999 ).

O WATER TRANSFERS AND DAMS : PRODUCTION AND MANIPULAT IONS OFLANDS

Transfer shape in time and space geography of South AfricaWater transfers, reshaping the distribution of the resource, have deeply changed thegeography of South Africa. Mechanisms involved are complex (Blanchon, 2009).From an initial will to regulate the river flow by dams (construction of the Vaal Dam in 1922 toregulate the flow of the Vaal), some adjustments have led to a dissociation of the River : thecase for example of the Bloemhof Dam and the Vaal Dam, which dissociate the lower andupper Vaal. Exchanges can also occur between watersheds (eg the transfer of the Orange tothe Great Fish, itself extended by an extension of the transfer to Sundays), or within thesame watershed where the water passes through an other watershed and then return to theinitial one: this is the case of the transfer from the Orange to the Riet and Modder (within theORDP) trough a channel starting from the dam Vanderkloof. Finally, the sense of natural flowof the river itself can be reversed : the LHWP is one of the examples, with a series of damsthat will turn the course of the High Orange (after all phases of the project). In extremecases, several of these processes can be combined as in the case for example of the GariepDam, which regulates the flow of the Orange Senqu separating the lower and Orange, andcan divert water to Great Fish (Blanchon, 2009).Finally, the temporal dimension is a major component of the overall organization of thetransfer systems, as a reflection of developments in technology, but also political pressurefrom various strata of the population. The study of the Orange-Vaal system shows thesuperposition and succession of different forces : small agricultural dams built in the earlydays of colonization, and establishment of the first regional dams before the Second Worldcontemporary plants of the ORDP, created under farmers’pressure. The LHWP is thewitness of a last stage of equipment designed to respond to the needs of urban populationsand industries (Blanchon, 2009).

Hybridization of riversIn this system, the concept of watershed is losing its relevance : the water flows through asystem where the natural stream is no longer the only element, in a context where most ofthe basins are interconnected (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).The links between systems or between regions may be entirely artificial (canals and tunnels),natural (river in the usual sense, as the lower reaches of the Orange) or entirely hybrid is thecase when the rivers are used simply as aqueducts between two artificial links. The exampleof the Great Fish can give, from the time it receives the waters of the LHWP and begins thetransfer on Sundays (Blanchon, 2009).Similarly, the interconnections between systems and links are of various kinds : natural (ifconfluence of river) or artificial (with passage of the natural surface or vice versa) (Blanchon,2009).

12/27

Finally, the breaking points in systems have the same characteristics : natural (eg AugrabiesFalls on the Orange below) or artificial (Bloemhof Dam which disconnects the Upper Vaaland its lower part) (Blanchon, 2009).These phenomena of hybridization between natural and anthropogenic influences can alsobe seen on a smaller scale. The case of Cannon Island and rocky islands of Keimos hasbeen studied : the farmers settled on the alluvial banks of the Orange and adjust plots ofcrops in the floodplain. Irrigation canals, drainage, diversion and thresholds punctuate thesite.Then confronted with problems of profitability of crops (too much variability regime of theriver, distance from centers of consumption), these farmers are pushing to regulate the flowof the Orange through the ORDP and these massive transfers. An examination of somespecific settings (alluvial deposits, decreased flow, development of phragmites responsiblefor significant withdrawals on the resource) shows the synergy of actions betweenadjustments made at different scales : "transfer triggers a negative and latent effect of localmanagement, local management allows the expression of a negative effect of thetransfer"(Blanchon, 2009).

From passive to active spaceAll these factors led to identify regions of South Africa as "active" receiving water fromanother catchment area, face of source regions, called "passive", which export water outsidetheir catchment area (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).The Gauteng region is undoubtedly the typical “active” region, in which the growth of urbandevelopment and industrial activities lead today to divert much of the available water. On thecontrary, the more rural areas like the Lower Orange, Tugela and Berg below are morepassive. Although they enjoy the flow regulation of watercourses by dams further upstream,they must often produce the most significant efforts to adapt to water shortages. However,this characterization of space may change over time : the Great Fish was originally an“active” region at the launch of ORDP, and now gradually becomes passive with the LHWP,with more and more water for the center city of Port Elizabeth (Blanchon, 2009).

THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER AFTER APARTHEID : AMBITION AND PRAGMATISM

O THE NEW WATER ACT OF 1998 : FROM THE DESIRE OF BREA KING OUT INTOTHE ECONOMIC REALISM

"Some, for all, for ever" : a new policy framework for waterAt its arrival at the government in 1994, the ANC wished to break radically with thepositioning of the former regime, including the issue of water transfers. These are put atstake, regarding the exclusive benefit to the white minority, and the expensive managementof the water that they represented (Blanchon and Turton, 2005). Specifically, two key issueswere raised : the waste of agricultural water distributed at very low prices to white farmers,and under-equipment in the black disadvantaged populations (Blanchon, 2003).An important institutional reform is undertaken through the "White Paper for a National Policyon Water”3 and finalized by the promulgation of the new Water Act in 19984.It sets a framework for action which will often be summarized through the slogan carried outby K. Asmal (new minister of water in the ANC government) : "Some, for all, for ever" ; itemphasizing the principle of equity and sustainability of the new governance framework(Earle et al, 2005).Three major themes emerged from the new water law : the nationalization of water resources(thereby breaking with the principle of riparian rights established by the Water Act of 1912)the ; the break with practices based on water supply management to switch to a policy of

3 White Paper on a national water policy for South Africa, 19974 National Water Act of the Republic of South Africa No. 36, 1998.

13/27

water demand management, involving the reallocation of water rights, particularly inagriculture and finally, the definition of a "reserve" by sections 16 to 18.The “reserve” consists of two parts. On the one hand the definition of basic human needs fordrinking, food preparation and hygiene. They are assessed at about 25 liters per person perday. Later, this principle was detailed in the principle of free access to each home to 6 m3 permonth, with a water point located at a maximum distance of 200 meters (White andGhesquières, 2006). On the other hand, an environmental reserve, which is supposed toallow the protection of aquatic environments (Blanchon, 2003b). For the first time, thelegislative framework of South African integrated environmental requirements5.In practice, the application of these principles had to be translated by the cessation of largehydraulic engineering and research for greater efficiency in water use. The first speech israther understood as the abandonment of the transfer policy (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).This is also supported by the White Paper of 1997 which establishes the principle of reversedburden of proof : with the new policy set, "the watershed to which water will be transferredwill show before that the water currently available in this watershed is used optimally and thatreasonable measures to save it are implemented."6

The economy to save transferThe new regime was quickly faced with two contradictory elements : improving the serviceoffer knowing that 12 to 14 million South Africans lack access to safe drinking water, while atthe same time preserving natural resources (Blanchon, 2003b). Quickly, the ANCgovernment was positioning itself for the needs of previously neglected communities in aprocess of rupture with the past segregationist policies (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).The most representative case was the one of the LHWP, some phases being still negotiatedat the time of the fall of apartheid.

Against all odds, the new ANC government positioned itself for the LHWP, in the name ofeconomic imperatives. In 1996, the new ANC Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry said :"Ten years ago, I was opposed to the Treaty on the LHWP for economic reasons, and now Ihave to bring it into service (...).Meanwhile much has changed (...).South Africa needs waterfor its economic development which is so essential to advance the standard of living of ourpeople (...). In a region where unemployment is omnipresent, we can not confine ourselvesto zero development on behalf of environmental protection. "(Asmal, 1996).The services of DWAF quickly try to assess and quantify the direct effects as indirect use ofwater by volume, in terms of number of jobs created and produced wealth. The figuresclearly show the multiplier effects on the economy, particularly in terms of jobs in theindustrial Gauteng, and especially on low skilled workers. On this basis, the ANCgovernment has seen without hesitation the interest of supporting these major projectsregarding their impact on the poorest people, especially since the cost of transfer would beborn by the high consumption users (Blanchon, 2003a).

Critics of this argument point out that it fails to distinguish domestic consumption needs ofindustrial needs, and does not take into account the environmental costs associated withlarge transfers. In addition, the assumption of rising water prices is taken by the richestpeople but also by the less advantaged households, while the growing needs relate mainlyon white residential areas (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

The need for a new governanceThe management of water under the apartheid regime was marked nationally by a takeoverby authoritarian white minority, and internationally through a policy to support hegemonicregime (as in Lesotho with LHWP). The new ANC government therefore had, in theory and in

5 National Water Resource Strategy of the Republic of South Africa, 20046 White Paper on a national water policy for South Africa, 1997

14/27

its willingness to break with the old regime, to establish a democratic management of water,and to support a more equal sharing towards its neighboring countries.Nationally, the new government supports the nationalization of the resource with the creationof 19 river basins (Catchment Management Agencies - CMA) to meet the demands ofdemocratization (Blanchon, 2003b). They include Water User Associations (WUAs) that willreplace the old "Irrigation Boards" controlled by white farmers (Oosthuizen, 2002). Theirmodus operandi appears to guarantee a new distribution of the power, since the votes areallocated equally among the different user groups (farmers, municipalities, domestic users)(Blanchon, 2009). Both bodies are controlled by the DWAF and the whole system is more aprocess of devolution (Blanchon, 2003b).In general, the CMA must be a more integrated and participatory water management. Theirskills, as defined in the 1998 Act, are wide enough : they have an advisory role on theprotection of the resource, promotion of public participation, the creation and management oflicenses, the rules restricting uses in times of deficit. Their implementation remains slow :except the lack of financial means of the new government, the establishment of CMA is arevolution in the governance of South Africa, that is used since the beginning of the centuryto management areas dimensioned for irrigation Agriculture (Blanchon, 2009).

Internationally, the new ANC government joined soon after its election the southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC), previously hostile to the policy of apartheid. The need fora shared governance of major transboundary basins is expressed early in 1995 through thefirst "Protocol on Shared Watercourse”7 which was utdated in 20008. Its goal is to establish amanagement of international basins for an equitable access to resources. Operationally,these agreements provide for the establishment of institutions for watershed management (orcatchment committee) for each watercourse, comprising the riparian countries (UnitedNations Environment Program, 2005).In this context the ORASECOM (Orange-Senqu River Commission) is the first committeecreated in 2000 in terms of the Protocol on Water for the Orange basin. It also recognizesother international agreements relating to the management of international river basins : theHelsinki Rules of 1966 relating to the use of international water basins, and the UNConvention on international waters (1997) (Turton, 2005b). It brings together in a commontreaty South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana and Namibia ; targets refer to an equitable sharing ofresources and a rational use of the system. A desire to strengthen relationhips of "goodneighborhood" is also highlighted (Maupin, 2006).The effectiveness of these basin commissions and more generally in the SADC regionalgovernance of water is questionable. SADC has on its territory (apart from Orange) the twomajor basins of the Zambezi and Congo in the northern part, and it would be legitimate topropose protocols for the management of shared resources, effective, and based on a policyof demand management (Colombani, 2003).

Nevertheless, a review of the first year of operation of the ORASECOM suggests that theinstitutional running has difficulty establishing effective management of the resource. Inaddition, investment by countries that have ratified the SADC Protocol seems to be muchmore on the local level through bilateral agreements (South Africa / Lesotho, South Africa /Namibia9)- which seem to work well -- rather than regionally (Turton, 2005a ; Maupin, 2006).

7 Protocol on shared watercourse systems in the southern African development community (SADC)region, 19958 Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community(SADC), 07/08/20009 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Namibia and the Government of theRepublic of South Africa on the Establishment of a Permanent Water Commission, 14/09/1992

15/27

O THE DIFFICULT IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER SHARING

The ecological part of the reserve : the myth of re turn to natural flowAnalysis of the hybridization process shows the interrelationships and impacts ofcombinations between local facilities and transfers to the regional scale (see Hybridization ofrivers, p11).

Therefore, the naturalness of the river can be examined under two headings. The first wouldbe to blame dams for most of the negative impacts on the watercourse, and an idealmanagement should seek a return to the wild character of the original river. This position isprimarily held by representatives of the World Commission on Dam (WCD) (Mc Cully, 2001).The second position tends to take into account the interrelations between the impacts oftransfers and local custom. It is then to integrate the concept of hybridization, including thenatural processes in an environment that is both natural and artificial. The extremecomplexity of this positioning in the implementation of actions of "restoration" of ecosystemscan be underlined (Blanchon, 2009).

This second paradigm is retained by the Water Act of 1998. The concept of ecologicalreserve ("Instream Flow Requirement, or instream flow) demonstrates the ambiguity ofenvironmental discourse carried by the new government. The fact that the ecological part isput on with the "human" part of the reserve (the "Basic Human Needs") imply that theinstream flow is understood as the amount of water needed to maintain the functions of watersystems to continue to be exploited and they normally, without any negative impact on thehealth of residents (Blanchon, 2009).Initially the first calculation methods were approaching the instream flow as a tenth of themodule (in the 80’s). Gradually the need for a more detailed evaluation, taking into accountthe need of the environment and the variability of rivers has become more necessary(Blanchon, 2006).The process of setting instream flows now implies a prior classification of rivers into fourcategories, A (defined in rivers naturally) to D (man-made rivers completely or heavilypolluted), the establishment of an objective of quality for the ecosystem. It determines thequality of water for the ecosystems to protect and finally, the calculation of the "Reserve" foreach stream of fourth order. Finally, the reserve consists of Maintenance Low Flows, HighMaintenance Flows, and Drought Low Flows (Lesotho Highlands Development Authority,2003 ; Blanchon, 2009).The application of this method along the Orange River shows a significant gap between theaverage monthly flow of the river and the reserve. In addition, the calculation does not takeinto account the variability of the river (which flows "natural" is sometimes punctuated bydrought before the establishment of dams, or by floods), and a fortiori the interannualvariability ( Blanchon, 2009)These results demonstrate the inadequacy of the method, originally designed for and by thenorthern hemisphere, on rivers where the problem is the decrease in flow, not its variabilityas in southern Africa’s rivers. In this sense, the use of dams to support the flow of the riverbecomes entirely possible.

The environmental approach supported by the New Water Act of 1998 may therefore involve,paradoxically, the use of transfer structures (Blanchon, 2009).

The reallocation of resources to meet customary rig hts and land issues"Some for all ..." : the first words of the slogan of the new water law were claiming for a moresocially equitable reallocation of water resources. The new legislative framework of 1998proposed two new approaches, including the reallocation of resources (the other being thedefinition and respect of basic human needs). In reality, the implementation of theredistribution of access to water is complex (Ashwin, 2005).

16/27

Some economic indicators do not necessarily argue for a reallocation of resources fromagricultural to industrial activities. Agricultural irrigation accounts for 62% of total waterconsumption, and contributes only to 11% of South African GDP. Conversely, mining andmanufacturing industries consume 23% of water and contribute 19% to national GDP.However, these economic evaluations also show that in trying to target the reallocationprocess on these marginal areas in terms of creation of GDP, they also impact the mostvulnerable population. A reallocation of resources within sectors (ie within the agriculturalsector), based on the efficiency of water use would be more beneficial for the poorest people(Juana et al., 2006).

Moreover, the reallocation of resources requires a major recast of the management andwater sharing, at least compared to the period before 1994, through the establishment ofCatchment Management Agencies and Water Users Associations. These bodies still struggleto be implemented. If lack of funds has been raised to explain this delay, the analysis alsoshows the importance of customary rights (or traditional) in the management of local water.Particularly important in rural areas, they are organized around a water sharing and conflictresolution by local traditional authorities. The issue of integrating these customary rights inparticipatory management, as the water law asked for, is complex : if the CMA and the WUAshall uphold the principle of subsidiarity and adaptation to local conditions in themanagement of the water, customary rights are not necessarily guarantee of an equitableaccess to the resource : unequal treatment between generation, empowerment of women,hereditary power incompatible with the democratic expression (Malzbender et al, 2005).

Finally, the issue of the management of lands is highly active in a country deeply marked bymore than a century of water legislation based on the riparian rights. From all the difficultiesthat threat an equitable sharing of water, the renegotiation on lands seems to be the mostcrucial, combined with low capacity of government intervention, and a lack of demographicdata allowing an assessment of shared water needs (Ferrand, 2009).

The land issue in South Africa faces a double divide : firstly, that of black people againstwhite people, but its resolution lies in a consensus policy introduced since 1994 (system offinancial assistance from the state on the basis of sale and buy). On the other hand, a tribaldivision, more difficult to reform, that does not guarantee equitable access to land (andtherefore water) (Vircoulon 2003a ; Sohn, 2005).On this basis, the reallocation of resources is just to be established, despite its meaningdeeply reformist (Sonjica, 2005). It is today more a methodological research on themodalities of implementation, than a real operational application (Movik, 2009).

The difficult financial equalization of water servi cesThe issue of water sharing in South Africa can also be considered at the level of waterservices, an argument for the continuation of the transfer policy carried by the ANC being theimpact of costs on disadvantaged populations.The question of "basic human needs" is widely debated in South Africa, especially as itspractical application has resulted in the delivery of a quantity of free water for all households.The quantification of these basic needs (attached to 6m3 per household per month) is thesubject of much criticism. But it is the issue of funding the free water which is questioned, thegovernment taking part through a grant (Equitable Share) paid depending on the number ofhousehold receiving less than 1,100 rand per month (Vircoulon 2003b ; Ghesquières andWhite, 2006).The needs of technical skills and funds lead many municipalities to rely on public-privatepartnerships to manage their water service while implementing the policy of free water. Theintroduction of private companies in water management is also the subject of heavy criticism,the privatization of water being seen as a setback to the nationalization of the resourceprovided by the Act Water 1998 (Conca, 2006; Muller, 2009).

17/27

In all urban areas of South Africa, services are faced with outdated systems in the formertownships, the need to expand networks to cope with the arrival of people from rural areas,but also at a low rate of bill recovery. These characteristics are also similar to those of otherAfrican regions (Jaglin, 2001a). All led to tense situations often where the threat of watershortages, the demand on the part of free water, and lack of payment culture disturbs thepublic debate and makes it sometimes confusing (Jaglin 2001b ; Ghesquières and White,2006; Johannesburg Water, 2009).In rural areas, the vast majority of water input is provided through common standpipes ; thisconfiguration induced water consumption rarely higher than the 6 m3/household/month. Theoverall consumption can be covered by the Equitable Share, which is no incentive forcompanies. This is especially true since the release of habitat on these areas leads to highservice costs, more than in urban areas (White and Ghesquières, 2006).The arrangements for sharing water on the level of services are therefore greatly differentbetween urban and rural areas. While urban centers are able to attract investors, on thecondition they improve recovery rates, rural areas has high service costs for the poorestpeople.

O WHAT FUTURE FOR THE HYDROPOLITICAL SYSTEM OF SOUTH AFRICA?

Some examples of transfer projectsThe current transfer projects in South Africa are mainly the increased production of waterfrom the Vaal Dam. This corroborates the analysis showing the influence of Gauteng in thedirection of transfer policies (the main region consuming water of the Vaal Dam), and moregenerally the influence of urban industrial centers in the management of the South Africanwater (see Appendix 3: The proposed new water transfers (Blanchon, 2009), p. 24).Specifically, increased transfers from the Tugela is discussed, with water intakes locatedmore downstream in the region of Kwazulu-Natal, this project would present high chance ofsuccess in the short run (2010) (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).Other projects seem more hypothetical, though seriously considered by the DWAF. It is thecreation of an additional dam on the Orange just downstream of Lesotho, to feed the VaalPipeline, reversing the course of Caledon by a succession of dams (a project that has thepolitical disadvantage for South Africa to associate Lesotho), and transfer of all waters of theTranskei by a network of dams and pipelines on nearly 800 km to the Vaal and Tugela(Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

A convergence of factors rather favorable to the pr osecution of transfersDespite a strong desire to break with the former policy of apartheid, the governments since1994 continue to support the transfer projects. In the discharge of the ANC, transferscurrently under implementation have been the subject of negotiations since before 1994.These important projects involve a certain institutional inertia that is difficult to stop quickly(Blanchon and Turton, 2005).

But more realistically, some analysis points to excessive tension between previous policiesand disruption claimed in the Water Act of 1998, which would explain the need for necessarytransfers back into management policies. While technology transfer is under control, theestablishment of a policy of demand management involves a deep reform of water use(Colombani, 2003 ; Blanchon and Turton, 2005).However the "hydro-hegemony" frame that has prevailed in the implementation of majorsystems transfers before 1994 has evolved, and the ongoing negotiations on the futurephases of LHWP show that clearly.

18/27

While stages IA and IB of the project are completed, the agreement between South Africaand Lesotho on the LHWP is still being negotiated. However, the discussion focus onassessing the volume of water requested by South Africa which will probably be downgradedto : assessment of the level of household consumption (estimated in 1986, before therestrictive measures imposed by the 1995 drought), or demographic data that did not includeat that time the ravages of AIDS in the region (Colombani, 2003). But beyond these technicalparameters, the post-apartheid South Africa does not need most of Lesotho as a "screen"policy for access to international capital, which in itself is a major argument to renegotiate thepartnership that bound the two countries (Blanchon and Turton, 2005).Other parameters necessarily affect the decision-making on large systems of water transfers.The increasing rural exodus to urban areas contributes to increasing needs of thesegeographic areas to the detriment of rural areas (White and Ghesquières, 2006 ; Vircoulon,2003).

Furthermore, South Africa faces a major energy crisis (increase in demand, supplydisruption, the issue of equalization tariff for access to the poorest) who fail to influence thedebate on the the future of hydrolic structures (Malzbender, 2005).

CONCLUSION

The organization of water transfers in southern Africa is dominated by the giant South Africa.Water management has been built gradually over time, as a response to various naturalconstraints, the main one is the mismatch between needs and available resources. But it cannot be understood without taking into account its use within the context of political processesrelated to apartheid. Tensions within the country, desire to dominate the region : the Pretoriaregime before 1994 was undoubtedly used to transfer water to control its political andgeographical space.In South Africa brought about by the ANC after 1994, an ambitious course of reform hoped toreposition the management of water in a triptych balance including economic development,protection of the environment and an equitable redistribution of resource, particularly towardsthe previously neglected populations. Decision-making processes have emphasized theeconomic argument in the management of water, leading to the new scheme supportingtransfer previously fought. The other pillars of sustainable development today hardly succeedin implementation : difficult expertise of the environnemental needs, reallocation of theresource encountering land management issues marked by the customary rights and theloss of local governance.These are all signs that suggest a continued policy of water transfers, albeit it is not today inthe favour of a single minority ruling class. But these trends also suggest that managementof water, placed in a broader context, faces challenges that go beyond the split white/black:slow evolution towards a policy of demand management, changes in the South African ruralsociety marked by the exodus to urban centers, settlement of a new regional cooperationframework with other SADC countries. In this sensitive context South Africa must set a fairuse of water transfers in the political management of the resource.

19/27

RÉFÉRENCES

Ashwin R. S., 2005. Progress with Water Allocation Reform in South Africa. In : OECD,OECD Workshop on Agriculture and Water, Markets and Policies, Adelaide andBarmera (Australia), 14-18/11/2005. Paris, OECD, 15 p.

Asmal K., 1996. Speech by Prof K Asmal, Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. Paarlfarmers' association on the water law review, Simonsvlei Winery, 16/04/1996.Disponible sur Internet :http://www.search.gov.za/info/previewDocument.jsp?dk=%2Fdata%2Fstatic%2Finfo%2Fspeeches%2F1996%2F960624_60.htm%40Gov&q=%28+%28+asmal+%29+%3CIN%3E+title%29&t=ASMAL%3A+PAARL+FARMERS%27+ASSOCIATION+ON+THE+WATER+LAW+REVIEW, [consulté le 15/11/09].

Blanc A., Ghesquières C., 2006. Décentralisation et politique de l'eau gratuite en Afrique duSud : quelle place pour le secteur privé ? Paris, Agence française de développement,29 p. Document de travail.

Blanchon D., 2001. Les nouveaux enjeux géopolitiques de l'eau en Afrique australe.Hérodote, 102, 113-137.

Blanchon D., 2003a. L'économie au secours du transfert. Le Lesotho Higlands Water Projet :Can economy save the Lesotho Highlands Water Project ? La Houille Blanche, 3,154-158.

Blanchon D., 2003b. La nouvelle politique de l'eau en Afrique du Sud : vers une gestionenvironnementale des ressources ? L'espace géographique, 32 (1), 21-30.

Blanchon D., 2006. La politique de l’eau en Afrique du Sud : le difficile équilibre entredéveloppement durable et valorisation optimale de la ressource. Développementdurable et territoires, 6, 15 p. Disponible sur Internet :http://developpementdurable.revues.org/index1735.html, [consulté le 28/09/2009].

Blanchon D., 2009. L'espace hydraulique Sud-Africain. Le Partage des Eaux. Paris, Karthala,294 p. Collection : Hommes et Sociétés.

Blanchon D., Turton A., 2005. Les transferts massifs d'eau en Afrique du Sud. Ch. 12. In :Lasserre F. (Ed.), Transferts massifs d'eau : outils de développement ou instrumentsde pouvoir ? Sainte-Foy (Québec), Presses de l'Université du Québec, pp. 247-283.

Colombani P., 2003. Le Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) : une coopération réussiedans l'attente d'une politique régionale de l'eau. Afrique contemporaine, 205, 91-102.

Conca K., 2006. South Africa : "With water we will wash away the past". In : Conca K. (Ed.),Governing Water : Contentious Transnational, Politics and Global, Institution Building.Cambridge, The MIT Press, pp. 311-371.

Earle A., Goldin J., Kgomotso P., 2005. Domestic Water Provision in the Democratic SouthAfrica, changes and challenges. Pretoria, University of Pretoria, 40 p.

Emmet T., Hagg G., 2003. Politics of Water Management : The Case of the Orange RiverDevelopment Project. In : Khosa M. (Ed.), Empowerment through EconomicTransformation. Durban, Africa Millenium Press, pp. 299-328.

Ferrand N., 2009. Research officer, CEMAGREF-UMR G-EAU, Montpellier. Interview dated05/11/2009.

Jaglin S., 2001a. Villes disloquées ? Ségrégations et fragmentation urbaine en Afriqueaustrale. Annales de Géographie, 110 (619), 243-265.

Jaglin S., 2001b. L'eau potable dans les villes en développement : les modèles marchandsface à la pauvreté. Tiers-Monde, 42 (166), 275-303.

20/27

James L. H., 1980. Total water strategy needed for the Vaal triangle. Construction inSouthern Africa, 2, 103-111.

Johannesburg Water (PTY) Ltd 2009, 2009. Johannesburg welcomes judgement on watermeters. Johannesburg, Johannesburg Water (PTY) Ltd 2009. Disponible sur Internet: http://www.johannesburgwater.co.za/, [consulté le 03/11/2009].

Juana J. S., Kirsten J. F., Strzepek K. M., 2006. Inter-sectoral water use in South Africa :efficiency versus equity. In : 26th International Association of Agricultural EconomistConference, Gold Coast, 12-18/08/2006. Milwaukee, International Association ofAgricultural Economist, 16 p.

Lageat Y., Liman F., 2001. Le Lesotho : enclavement et dépendance d'un royaumemontagnard. Ch. 2. In : Bart F., Morin S, Salomon J. N. (Ed), Les montagnestropicales : identités, mutations, développement. Bordeaux, Presses universaitairesde Bordeaux, pp. 315-322. Espaces tropicaux, 16.

Lasserre F., 2009. Il est plus efficace de mieux gérer l'eau localement. Le Monde, 20148, 4-4.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority, 2003. Lesotho Highlands Water Project.Development of a Policy for Instream Flow Requirements. Information Document.Maseru, LHDA, 10 p.

Malzbender D., 2005. Domestic Electricity Provision in the Democratic South Africa. Pretoria,University of Pretoria, 32 p.

Malzbender D., Goldin J., Turton A., Earle A., 2005. Traditionnal Water Governance andSouth Africa's "National Water Act" - Tension or Cooperation ? In : Internationalworkshop on 'Africa Water Laws : Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural WaterManagement in Africa', Johannesburg, South Africa, 26-28/01/2005. Johannesburg,IWMI, University of Greenwich, the Faculty of Law of the University of Dar-es-Salaam, the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 13 p.

Maupin A., 2006. Du risque hydrologique au risque hydropolitique en Afrique Australe. In :1re Rencontre du Réseau des études africaines en France, Paris, 29/11-01/12/2006.Ivry, Réseau des études africaines en France, 6 p. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.etudes-africaines.cnrs.fr/communications/maupin.pdf, [consulté le14/11/2009].

McCully P., 2001. Silenced rivers. The ecology and politics of large dams. London, ZedBooks, 359 p.

Movik S., 2009. The Dynamics and Discourses of Water Allocation Reform in South Africa.Brighton, STEPS Centre, 46 p. STEPS Working Paper, vol. 21.

Muller M., [mis à jour le 21/07/2009]. A 'Phiric' victory for the poor. Johannesburg, Mail &Guardian Online. Disponible sur Internet : http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-07-21-a-phiric-victory-for-the-poor, [consulté le 14/11/2009].

Oosthuizen L. K., 2002. Land and water resources management in South Africa. In : Workinggroup on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management (WG-ILWRM), 18thICID Congress, Montreal, Canada, 21-28/07/2002. Bloemfontein, University of theFree State, 11 p.

Sohn C., 2005. De l’urbanité post-apartheid à Windhoek (Namibie). Socio-anthropologie, 16,11 p. Disponible sur Internet : http://socio-anthropologie.revues.org/index431.html,[consulté le 18/10/2009].

Sonjica B., 2005. Water Allocation Reform in South Africa : National Consultative Workshop.In : CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria, 12/04/2005. Pretoria, DWAF, 4 p.

21/27

Turton A., 1999. Precipitation, People, Pipelines and Power : Towards a "Virtual Water"based political ecology discourse. London, University of London, 25 p. MEWREWOccasional Paper, Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African Studies(SOAS), University of London, vol. 11.

Turton A., 2005a. Desecuritization as a foundation for Benefit-Sharing : Lessons from theOkavango River Basin. In : Mekong River Commission Forum, Chiang Rai (Thailand),29/11/2005. Paris, RIOB, 22 p. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.riob.org/divers/chiang-rai/Session2/5-Turton.pdf, [consulté le 21/10/2009].

Turton A., 2005b. Hydro-Hegemony in the context of the South African Cold War Experience.In : 1st Workshop on hydro-hegemony, Kings College (London). 21-22/05/2005.Paris, RIOB, 25 p. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.soas.ac.uk/waterissues/papers/file38418.pdf, [consulté le 21/10/2009].

Turton A., 2005c. Hydro Hegemony in the context of the Orange River Basin. In : 1stWorkshop on hydro-hegemony, Kings College (London), 20-21/05/2005. London,CSIR, 37 p. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.awiru.co.za/pdf/5Hydro%20Hegemony%20in%20the%20Context%20of%20the%20Orange%20River%20Basin.pdf, [consulté le 26/11/2009].

Turton A., Meissner R., Mampane P.M., Seremo O., 2004. A hydropolitical history of SouthAfrica's international river basins. Pretoria, University of Pretoria (African WaterIssues Research Unit – AWIRU), 432 p.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2005. Hydropolitical Vulnerability and resiliencealong International Waters : Africa. Nairobi, UNEP, 164 p.

Vircoulon T., 2003a. Les questions de la terre dans la nouvelle Afrique du Sud. Hérodote,111, 99-115.

Vircoulon T., 2003b. L'eau gratuite pour tous ? L'exemple de la nouvelle politique de l'eau enAfrique du Sud. Afrique contemporaine, 205, 135-150.

World Commission on Dams (WCD) Secretariat, 2000. Orange River Development Project,South Africa. Cape Town, World Commission on Dams, 136 p.

Regulatory texts, official documents, international agreementsA draft position paper for water allocation reform in South Africa, towards a framework for

water allocation planning, discussion document from the Republic of South Africa,2005. Disponible sur Internet :www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Policies/WARdraftJan05.doc, [consulté le 14/10/2009].

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Namibia and the Government of theRepublic of South Africa on the Establishment of a Permanent Water Commission,14/09/1992. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/documents/regionaldocs/nambia-southafrica.html, [consulté le 29/11/2009].

National Water Act of the Republic of South Africa No. 36, 1998. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Legislature/nw_act/NWA.pdf, [consulté le28/11/2009].

National Water Resource Strategy of the Republic of South Africa, 2004. Disponible surInternet : http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Policies/NWRS/Default.htm, [consulté le12/10/2009].

Protocol on shared watercourse systems in the southern African development community(SADC) region, 1995. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.africanwater.org/SADCprotocol.PDF, [consulté le 21/10/09].

22/27

Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community(SADC), 07/08/2000. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/159, [consulté le 29/11/2009].

White Paper on a national water policy for South Africa, 1997. Disponible sur Internet :http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Policies/nwpwp.pdf, [consulté le 14/10/2009].

23/27

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 : resource and water demand in South Africa (Blanchon , 2009)

Appendix 2 : Water transfers in South Africa (Blanchon, 2009)

24/27

Appendix 3: The proposed new water transfers (Blanchon, 2009)

25/27

Appendix 4 : Location of Gariep Dam and Van der Klo of Dam(World Commision on Dams, 2000)

26/27

Appendix 5 : Organization of transfers within the ORDP (World Co mmision on Dams, 2000)

27/27

Appendix 6 : Schematic section through the Lesotho Higlands Wate r Project (phases 1 to 3)(Blanchon, 2003a)

Appendix 7 : The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (B lanchon et Turton, 2005)