1. Working for Water Use of evidence in developing a South African Government Programme Nicky Allsopp & Frank Matose

2. WfW (Working for Water) To remove invasive alien plants from water catchments and riparian zones

3. 3 Objectives Ensure optimal water delivery Conserve biodiversity Promote social cohesion

6. History Catchment monitoring programmes NGOs: small scale clearing trials Research on control mechanisms and impacts 1994 democracy 1995 Dept. Water Affairs & Forestry develops WfW programme to address three objectives Continued funding on basis of Extended Public Works Programme

7. How was the decision made? Advisor inspires Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry –Is there evidence behind the inspiration? –Does evidence continue to feed the programme?

8. National level decision making Regional managers Local Stakeholder groups Stakeholder groups Implementers Conservation agencies Municipalities NGOs/Private Workgroups Structure for planning, revision and implementation of the programme

9. National and regional decision makers n=15 Qualifications What do they use to make decisions?

10. Qualifications PhD or MSc 7 Four year degree 4 (2 studying towards MSc) National Diploma 2 Secondary education 2 Nature conservation, entymology, water resource management, environmental science, civil engineering, development studies, ecology, agriculture, business management Twelve read scientific articles with ease, and nine read them frequently

11. Decision making Deputy Director: coordinates and disseminates research A working group derived from more than one organization: 12 always or usually use this for decision making Diverse sources of information investigated Although high scientific article readership, less often used in decision making Ten >50 % evidence based Five >50 % experience based

13. Stakeholders Who are they? –Two groupings The antagonists: Forestry Beekeepers Farmers and unions The cooperators The precursors e.g. Botanical Society The collaborators e.g. WWF The adopters e.g. LandCare

14. The stakeholders n=6 Higher Diploma 1, 3 year degree 2, MSc 3 Are they consulted: –Not consulted: 3 –Sometimes: 2 –High level of interaction: 1 No research: 3, Do research: 3 All read scientific articles with range of ease and frequency

15. Example of partnerships for research Players: WfW NGO Business University

16. Kouga Riparian Rehabilitation Project: Best Management Practices Rhodes Restoration Research Group: R 3 G Department of Environmental Science Rhodes University WWF-SA Freshwater Programme Keystone Initiative

17. Social development of the WfW programme Extended Public Works programme Work for two years max. –General training –Specialised capacity (overseers, small business management, specialist services) Aimed at forming private clearing teams Value adding: secondary industries

18. Summary of social evaluation Integration of social development into WfW linked to set targets though limited in scope Poverty reduction – although targets set for the programme are met across many projects limited by duration of two years and no subsequent follow-ups Gender issues- need to target women for contractors and to mainstream gender into all facets of the programme –limitations in scope

19. Conclusions Strong evidence approach supports the water provision and biodiversity conservation objectives However, management not necessarily supported by scientific research Questions still out on evidence for social cohesion

20. A moment in history when such idealistic policy was possible?

21. Thank you and thanks to: Pierre Corroyer WfW WWF