Identifying Key Risks to the Effectiveness of Water Use Authorization Systems through Theory of Change (ToC): The Case of South Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Application of the Theory of Change (ToC) Approach
2.2. Results-Based Pyramid, ToC Map, and Causal Narrative
- What is the legal mandate for the WULA system (design)?
- What inputs are required to implement the WULA system (inputs)?
- What actions are required to implement the WULA system (activities)?
- What outputs do the WULA system produce (outputs)?
- What immediate and intermediate outcomes do the WULA system deliver (outcomes)?
- What does the WULA system aim to achieve (impact)?
2.3. Development and Validation of the ToC Map and Causal Narrative
- Step 1—Inception workshop: The content of the initial ToC conceptual framework and ToC narrative was developed based on the understanding of the WULA system in South Africa and outputs from the workshop, involving internationally recognized researchers in the field of the ToC approach to evaluation, ecological water requirements, water law, as well as professional legal experts on the WULA system. The 12 researchers and professionals attending the inception workshop had more than 150 years combined experience in the water sector. The researchers and professionals applied the components (design, input, activity, output, outcome, impact) of the ‘results-based pyramid’ to the South African WULA system based on their experience and professional judgement and produced the first version of the ToC map and causal narrative with key assumptions.
- Step 2—Specialist/Consultant workshop: The ToC map and narrative developed during the inception workshop were presented to consultants and specialists directly involved in the WULA process. The purpose of the workshop was to obtain a water consultant and specialist perspective on the initial ToC map and narrative. In total, 16 consultants and specialists participated from across the country with a combined experience in the water sector of more than 200 years.
- Step 3—Applicant workshop: The ToC map and narrative were next presented to applicants directly involved in applying for WULAs. The purpose of this workshop was to obtain perspectives from the range of applicants seeking a water use license through the South African WULA system. A total of nine applicants from various sectors, including mining, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, forestry, and local government, participated in the workshop, each having been intimately involved in various WULA processes.
- Step 4—Regulator workshop: The ToC map and narrative were next presented to regulators directly or indirectly involved with reviewing and issuing of water use licenses. A total of 11 regulators from national and regional offices and catchment management agencies (including Gauteng, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal, North-West, Western Cape and Inkomati-uSuthu Catchment Management Agency (CMA), and Berg-Gouritz CMA) participated. The purpose of this workshop was to obtain a regulators perspective on the WULA system. The administrators and officials involved in the assessment, review, and decision-making process of the WULA system had a combined working experience of more than 90 years.
- Step 5—Public workshop: The ToC map and causal narrative were also presented to 13 members of public forums, including the MooiRiver Catchment Management Forum (CMF), uSuthu to Mhlathuze CMF, Upper Olifants CMF, and Berg River CMF. The purpose was to obtain a civil society perspective on the WULA system.
- Step 6—Finalization workshops: A finalization workshop was held to review and reflect on the comments and inputs from the key stakeholder workshops during steps 1 to 5 that included specialists, consultants, applicants, the public, and regulators. The ToC map and narrative with key assumptions presented in this paper are the results from these workshops.
3. Results—ToC Map, ToC Causal Narrative, and Underlying Assumptions
“The South African WULA system is guided by policy and mandated trough legislation and regulations (design component), and requires skills and competencies, information, data, co-operative governance, time and money (input component) to administer and implement a prescribed process (activity component), which produces high quality information, communicated in technical and specialist reports (output component) to inform a licensing decision-making process (outcome component) for specific water uses towards the progressive realization of our environmental and water rights as stipulated in sections 24 and 27 of the Constitution (impact component)”.
3.1. Design Component
3.2. Input Component
- Assumption 1: Sufficient skills and competencies are in place to implement the WULA system.
- Assumption 2: Necessary infrastructure, communication, data, information are available, up to date, and adequate to support the WULA system.
- Assumption 3: Catchment Management Agencies have been established and are functioning.
- Assumption 4: Resource classification, resource quality objectives, and the Reserve have been determined.
- Assumption 5: Funds are available to support and sustain the WULA system
3.3. Activity Component
- Phase 1 Pre-application enquiry: The pre-application enquiry is initiated by the applicant planning to apply for a water use license [7] with the intent of information dissemination between the applicant and responsible authority regarding the application.
- Phase 2: Application and information gathering: The applicant should gather and collate information in support of the application for informed decision-making by administrators/officials. The public consultation and participation process should also be initiated during this phase, contributing towards information gathering and involvement of all relevant stakeholders [7].
- Phase 3: Legal and technical assessment, evaluation, and input: The administrators/officials assess and review the application to determine completeness. If the application contains all the necessary information for decision-making, a technical assessment will be undertaken to verify whether all findings and recommendations are in line with relevant operational policies and strategies [7].
- Phase 4: Assessment review, recommendation, decision, and appeal: After the legal and technical assessment, recommendations, as well as a draft license with conditions, are submitted to the relevant authority for final consideration. After a decision has been reached on the water use license application, the decision and the license must be returned to the appropriate office, which then informs the applicant of the outcome as well as other interested and affected persons. The issuing of the license and any condition contained in the license may be appealed through the formal appeals process which is subjected to a review by the Water Tribunal [7].
- Assumption 6: All relevant water uses have been identified during the site inspection.
- Assumption 7: It is possible to agree on the requirements for the technical review.
- Assumption 8: The public is willing to participate and to do so in good faith.
- Assumption 9: Scientific/technical reports are valid, of high quality, and comprehensive.
- Assumption 10: Impacts on the water resource can be accurately predicted by means of an established method, criteria, and credible baseline information.
- Assumption 11: Administrators/officials read applications/scientific/technical reports.
- Assumption 12: Administrators/officials understand the content of the application/scientific/technical reports.
- Assumption 13: Administrators/officials are rational, impartial, unbiased, and objective during the review process.
- Assumption 14: Water use license applications are processed within the set time frames.
- Assumption 15: The Water Tribunal is objective and impartial.
3.4. Output Component
- Assumption 16: An effective and efficient process leads to high-quality reports.
- Assumption 17: High-quality reports lead to informed decisions.
3.5. Outcome Component
- Assumption 18: Decisions are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
- Assumption 19: Water use licenses contain informed conditions to protect water resources.
- Assumption 20: Decisions are underpinned by decision-making principles.
3.6. Impact Component
- (a)
- to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
- (b)
- to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future
- (i)
- prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
- (ii)
- promote conservation; and
- (iii)
- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”
- Assumption 21: Informed decisions regulating water use that are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair will lead to the progressive realization of sections 24 and 27 of the Constitution.
4. Discussion
Nr | Key Assumption | Key Risk | Relevant Literature Informing the Key Risk |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sufficient skills and competencies are in place to implement the WULA system | There are insufficient skills and competencies in place to implement the WULA system | [8,61,64] |
2 | Necessary infrastructure, communication, data, information are available, up to date and adequate to support the WULA system | Infrastructure, communication, data, information are unavailable and/or outdated and/or inadequate to support the WULA system | [9,12,66,73] |
3 | Catchment Management Agencies have been established and are functioning | Catchment management agencies have not been established or are not functioning | [50,62,63] |
4 | Resource classification, resource quality objectives and the Reserve have been determined | Resource classification, resource quality objectives, and the Reserve have not been determined | [15,49,70] |
5 | Funds are available to support and sustain the WULA system | No funds are available to support and sustain the WULA system | Lack of literature in the water sector |
6 | All relevant water uses have been identified during the site inspection | Not all relevant water uses have been identified during the site inspection | [16] |
7 | It is possible to agree on the requirements for the technical review | There is no agreement on the requirements for the technical review | Lack of literature in the water sector |
8 | The public is willing to participate and to do so in good faith | The public is unwilling to participate or do not participate in good faith | [17,74,75] |
9 | Scientific/technical reports are valid, of high quality, and comprehensive | Scientific/technical reports are invalid, poor quality, and are incomplete | [65] |
10 | Impacts on the water resource can be accurately predicted by means of an established method, criteria, and credible baseline information | Impacts on the water resource cannot be accurately predicted | [57,76] in relation to EIA. Lack of literature in the water sector |
11 | Administrators/officials read applications/scientific/technical reports | Administrators and officials do not read applications/scientific/technical reports | Lack of literature in the water sector |
12 | Administrators/officials understand the content of the application/scientific/technical reports | Administrators and officials do not understand the content of reports | Lack of literature in the water sector |
13 | Administrators/officials are rational, impartial, unbiased, and objective during the review process | Administrators and officials are irrational/ biased and subjective during the review process | [58,77] in relation to EIA. Lack of literature in the water sector |
14 | Water use license applications are processed within the set timeframes | Applications are not processed within the set time frames | [16,53,65] |
15 | The Water Tribunal is objective and impartial | The water tribunal is not objective and impartial | [16] |
16 | An effective and efficient process leads to high-quality reports | An effective and efficient process does not lead to high-quality reports | Lack of literature in the water sector |
17 | High-quality reports lead to informed decisions | High-quality reports do not lead to informed decisions | Lack of literature in the water sector |
18 | Decisions are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair | Decisions are not lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair | [34,55,56] in relation to EIA. Lack of literature in the water sector. |
19 | Water use licenses contain informed conditions to protect water resources | Water use licenses do not contain relevant information and set weak conditions | [16,53,65] |
20 | Decisions are underpinned by decision-making principles | Decisions are not underpinned by decision-making principles | [34,55,56] in relation to EIA. Lack of literature in the water sector. |
21 | Informed decisions regulating water use that are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair will lead to the progressive realization of the sections 24 and 27 of the Constitution | Informed decisions that are based on the principles of administrative justice do not ultimately lead to the realization of sections 24 and 27 of the Constitution | [34,55,56] in relation to EIA. Lack of literature in the water sector. |
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Thompson, H. Water Law: A Practical Approach to Resource Management and the Provision of Service, 1st ed.; Juta: Cape Town, South Africa, 2006; p. 769. [Google Scholar]
- Movik, S.; De Jonge, F. License to control: Implications of Introducing administrative water use rights in South Africa. Law Environ. Dev. J. 2011, 7, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
- Thomashausen, S.; Maennling, N.; Mebratu-Tsegaye, T. A comparative overview of legal frameworks governing water use and waste water discharge in the mining sector. Resour. Policy 2018, 55, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wepener, V.; Malherbe, W.; Smit, N.J. Water resources in South Africa. In Environmental Management in South Africa, 3rd ed.; King, N., Strydom, H., Retief, F., Eds.; Juta: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018; pp. 351–400. [Google Scholar]
- Tewari, D.D. A detailed analysis of evolution of water rights in South Africa: An account of three and a half centuries from 1652 AD to present. Water SA 2009, 35, 693–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stein, R. Water Law in a Democratic South Africa: A Country Case Study Examining the Introduction of a Public Rights System. In Proceedings of the 23rd Summer Conference—Allocating and Managing Water for a Sustainable Future: Lessons from Around the World, Boulder, CO, USA, 11–14 June 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. National Water Act No. 36 of 1998; Department of Water and Sanitation: Pretoria, South Africa, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Mackay, H.M.; Rogers, K.H.; Roux, D.J. Implementing the South African water policy: Holding the vision while exploring an uncharted mountain. Water SA 2003, 29, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Koppen, B.; Schreiner, B. Priority general authorisations in rights-based water use authorisation in South Africa. Water Policy 2014, 16, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Koppen, B.; Vand der Zaag, P.; Manzungu, E.; Tapela, B. Roman water law in rural Africa: The unfinished business of colonial dispossession. Water Int. 2014, 39, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muller, M.; Schreiner, B.; Smith, L.; Van Koppen, B.; Sally, H.; Aliber, M.; Cousins, B.; Tapela, B.; Van der Merwe-Botha, M.; Karar, E.; et al. Water Security in South Africa; DBSA Development Planning Division Working Paper Series No. 12; DBSA: Midrand, South Africa, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Schreiner, B. Viewpoint—Why has the South African national water act been so difficult to implement? Water Altern. 2013, 6, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
- Chikozo, C.; Managa, R.; Dabata, T. Ensuring access to water for food production by emerging farmers in South Africa: What are the missing ingredients? Water SA 2020, 46, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pegram, G.; Mazibuko, G.; Hollingworth, B.; Anderson, E. Strategic Review of Current and Emerging Governance Systems Related to Water in the Environment in South Africa; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 1514/1/06; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Schreiner, B.; Pegram, G.; Von der Heyden, C. Reality Check on Water Resources Management: Are We Doing the Right Things in the Best Possible Way? DBSA Development Planning Division Working Paper Series No. 11; DBSA: Midrand, South Africa, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Centre for Environmental Rights. Stop Treading Water: What Civil Society Can Do to Get Water Governance in South Africa Back on Track; Centre for Environmental Rights: Cape Town, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- King, P.; Reddell, C. Public participation and water use rights. Potchefstroom Electron. Law J. 2015, 18, 944–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, S.E. Water Allocation for Productive Use: Policy and Implementation. A Case Study of Black Emerging Farmers in the Breede-Gouritz Water Management area, Western Cape, South Africa; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 2530/1/18; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson, M.; Magagula, T.; Dlamini, X.; Muller, H.; Dlamini, T. Benchmarking South African’s National Water Policy and Legislation and the Development of a Framework for Monitoring the Progress of Current and Future Water Policy and Legislation: Review of South Africa’s Water Policy and Legislation; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 2417/1/17; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, P.; Barnes, M. Constructing Theories of Change: Methods and Sources. Evaluation 2007, 13, 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, I. Review of the Use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International Development: Review Report; UK Department for International Development (DFID): London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Archibald, T.; Sharrock, G.; Buckley, J.; Cook, N. Assumptions, conjectures and other miracles: The application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development. Eval. Program Plan. 2016, 59, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lankford, B.; Makin, I.; Matthews, N.; Mccornick, P.G.; Noble, A.; Shah, T. A compact to revitalise large-scale irrigation systems using a leadership-partnership-ownership ‘Theory of Change’. Water Altern. 2016, 9, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, W.; Cruz, J.; Warburton, B. How decision support systems can benefit from a theory of change approach. Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thorton, P.K.; Scheutz, T.; Förch, W.; Cramer, L.; Abreu, D.; Vermeulen, S.; Campbell, B.M. Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agric. Syst. 2017, 152, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biggs, D.; Conney, R.; Roe, D.; Dublin, H.T.; Allan, J.R.; Challender, D.W.S.; Skinner, D. Developing a theory of change for a community-based response to illegal wildlife trade. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alberts, R.C.; Retief, F.P.; Roos, C.; Cilliers, D.P. Re-thinking the fundamentals of EIA through the identification of key assumptions for evaluation. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcconnell, J. Adoption for adaptation: A theory-based approach for monitoring a complex policy initiative. Eval. Program Plan. 2019, 73, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oberlack, C.; Breu, T.; Giger, M.; Harari, N.; Herweg, K.; Mathez-Stiefel, S.; Messerli, P.; Moser, S.; Ott, C.; Providoli, I.; et al. Theories of change in sustainability science. GAIA–Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2019, 28, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Perofmance Monitoring and Evaluation. National Evaluation Policy Framework; National Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, C.H. Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts; Fullbright-Anderson, K., Kubisch, A.C., Connell, J.P., Eds.; The Aspen Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Stein, D.; Valters, C. Understanding Theory of Change in International Development; Justice and Security Research Programme, Ed.; International Development Department: London, UK, 2012; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Romero, C.; Putz, F.E. Theory-of-Change development for the evaluation of forest stewardship council certification of sustained timber yields for natural forests in Indonesia. Forests 2018, 9, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alberts, R.C.; Retief, F.P.; Cilliers, D.P.; Roos, C.; Hauptfleisch, M. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) effectiveness in protected areas. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2021, 39, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, A.J. Confirmatory program evaluation: A method for strengthening causal inference. Am. J. Eval. 1998, 19, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Republic of South Africa. National Water Act No. 36 of 1998: Water Use License Application and Appeals Regulations; (Notice R267), Government Gazette, 40173; Department of Water and Sanitation: Pretoria, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Internal Guideline: Generic Water Use Authorisation Application Process; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. External Guideline: Generic Water Use Authorisation Application Process; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Retief, F.P.; Alberts, R.C.; Roos, C.; Cilliers, D.C.; Siebert, F. Identifying key risks to the performance of privately protected areas (PPAs) through theory of change (ToC). J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shreiner, B.; Van Koppen, B.; Khumbane, T. From bucket to basin: A new water management paradigm for poverty eradication and gender equity. In Hydropolitics in the Developing World: A Southern African Perspective; Turton, A., Henwood, R., Eds.; African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU): Pretoria, South Africa, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bosman, C.; Kidd, M.; Alberts, R. Water quality management. In Environmental Management in South Africa, 3rd ed.; King, N., Strydom, H., Retief, F., Eds.; Juta: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018; pp. 995–1054. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. White Paper on a National Water Policy for South Africa; Department of Water and Sanitation: Pretoria, South Africa, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; Government Printer: Pretoria, South Africa, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000; Government Printer: Pretoria, South Africa, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003; Government Printer: Pretoria, South Africa, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Water and Sanitation. National Water Resource Strategy, 2nd ed.; Department of Water and Sanitation: Pretoria, South Africa, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Resource Directed Management of Water Quality: Volume 2.1: Summary Strategy, 1st ed.; Water Resource Planning Systems Series, Sub-series No. WQP 1.5.1; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pollard, S.; Du Toit, D. Integrated water resource management in complex systems: How the catchment management strategies seek to achieve sustainability and equity in water resources in South Africa. Water SA 2008, 34, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinn, N. Water governance, ecosystem and sustainability: A review of progress in South Africa. Water Int. 2012, 37, 760–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meissner, R.; Funke, N.; Nortje, K. The politics of establishing catchment management agencies in South Africa: The case of the Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. National Water Resource Strategy, 1st ed.; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kidd, M. Environmental Law; Juta: Cape Town, South Africa, 2008; p. 270. [Google Scholar]
- Pegasys Institute. Enhancing the Water Use Authorisation Framework: Simplified for Small Impact Productive Users; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 2536/1/17; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Republic of South Africa. National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998; Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment: Pretoria, South Africa, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Retief, F.P.; Fischer, T.B.; Alberts, R.C.; Roos, C.; Cilliers, D.P. An administrative justice perspective on improving EIA effectiveness. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alberts, R.C.; Retief, F.P.; Roos, C.; Cilliers, D.P.; Fischer, T.B.; Arts, J. EIA decision-making and administrative justice: And empirical analysis. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 65, 1914–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holling, C.S. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management; Blackburn Press: Caldwell, NJ, USA, 1978; p. 377. [Google Scholar]
- Kornov, L.; Thissen, W. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: Implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2000, 18, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karar, E.; Mazibuko, G.; Gyedu-Ababio, T.; Weston, D. Catchment management agencies: A case study on institutional reform in South Africa. In Transforming Water Management in South Africa: Designing and Implementing a New Policy Framework; Schreiner, B., Hassan, R., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 145–164. [Google Scholar]
- Vienings, A.; Lima, M. Integrated Water Sector Skills Intervention Map Based on a Sector Skills Gap Analysis; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 2113/1/14; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Grobler, D.; Jacobs, K.; Maenhout, A. Improving Water Education and Training Skills in South Africa: Vision for Water–Implementing Water Education and Training Strategies. 2012. Available online: https://www.worldwateracademy.com/publish/library/71/iwets_report_10.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- Bourblanc, M.; Blanchon, D. The challenges of rescaling South African water resources management: Catchment Management Agencies and interbasin transfers. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 2381–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. Applying the concept of fit to water governance reforms in South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sershen, S.; Rodda, N.; Strenström, T.A.; Schmidt, S.; Dent, M.; Bux, F.; Hanke, N.; Buckley, C.A.; Fennemore, C. Water security in South Africa: Perceptions on public expectations and municipal obligations, governance and water re-use. Water SA 2016, 42, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Myburgh, C. Identification and Critical Analysis of the Factors Influencing Procedural Efficiency in Water Use Licence Application. Master’s Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Colvin, J.; Ballim, F.; Chimbuya, S.; Everard, M.; Goss, J.; Klarenberg, G.; Ndlovu, S.; Ncala, D.; Weston, D. Building capacity for co-operative governance as a basis for integrated water resource managing in the Inkomati and Mvoti catchments, South Africa. Water SA 2008, 34, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bourblanc, M. Transforming water resources management in South Africa. ‘Catchment Management Agencies’ and the ideal of democratic development. J. Int. Dev. 2012, 24, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dollar, E.S.J.; Nicolson, C.R.; Brown, C.A.; Turpie, J.K.; Joubert, A.R.; Turton, A.R.; Grobler, D.F.; Pienaar, H.H.; Ewart-Smith, J.; Manyaka, M. Development of South African water resource classification system (WRCS): A tool towards the sustainable, equitable and efficient use of water resources in a developing country. Water Policy 2012, 12, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odume, O.N.; Griffin, N.; Mensah, P.K. Literature Review and Terms of Reference for Case Study for Linking the Setting of Water Quality License Conditions with Resource Quality Objectives and/or Site-Specific Conditions in the Vaal Barrage Area and Associated Rivers within the Lower Sections of the Upper Vaal River Catchment; Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) No. 2782/1/17; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Belcher, A. The ecological reserve and river health monitoring: A practical approach in water resource management. In Proceedings of the Biennial Conference of the Water Institute of Southern African, Cape Town, South Africa, 2–6 May 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Glazewski, J. Environmental Law in South Africa, 2nd ed.; LexisNexis: Durban, South Africa, 2005; p. 740. [Google Scholar]
- Du Plessis, A. Public participation, good environmental governance and fulfilment of environmental rights. Potchefstroom Electron. Law J. 2008, 11, 170–201. [Google Scholar]
- Meissner, R. Paradigms and theories in water governance: The case of South Africa’s National Water Resource Strategy, Second Edition. Water SA 2016, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du Toit, D.; Pollard, S. Updating public participation in IWRM: A proposal for focused and structured engagement with catchment management strategies. Water SA 2008, 34, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, J. Assuming too much? Participatory water resource governance in South Africa. Geogr. J. 2011, 177, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Retief, F.; Bond, A.; Pope, J.; Morrison-Saunders, A.; King, N. Global megatrends and their implications for Environmental Assessment (EA) practice. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 61, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, S.; Rayner, T.; BINA, O. New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ. Plan. A 2004, 36, 1943–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moolman, J.; Alberts, R.C.; Roos, C.; Retief, F.P. Identifying Key Risks to the Effectiveness of Water Use Authorization Systems through Theory of Change (ToC): The Case of South Africa. Water 2022, 14, 3830. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233830
Moolman J, Alberts RC, Roos C, Retief FP. Identifying Key Risks to the Effectiveness of Water Use Authorization Systems through Theory of Change (ToC): The Case of South Africa. Water. 2022; 14(23):3830. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233830
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoolman, Jurie, Reece Cronje Alberts, Claudine Roos, and Francois Pieter Retief. 2022. "Identifying Key Risks to the Effectiveness of Water Use Authorization Systems through Theory of Change (ToC): The Case of South Africa" Water 14, no. 23: 3830. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233830
APA StyleMoolman, J., Alberts, R. C., Roos, C., & Retief, F. P. (2022). Identifying Key Risks to the Effectiveness of Water Use Authorization Systems through Theory of Change (ToC): The Case of South Africa. Water, 14(23), 3830. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233830