This article is based on the work that we did over the past few years under the auspices of the National Planning Commission (NPC), in which we were asked to develop a National Water Security Framework (NWSF).  It is an edited version of the speech presented at a research conference on improving water security for smallholder farmers in southern Africa at the University of Venda in May last year. 

The ideas and arguments provided resonate with the regional challenges and opportunities, and perhaps can inform the main objective of this article – which is to create a science-policy-implementation platform for interrogating and sharing insights on the contemporary theme of water security in the context of rural small-scale crop value chains. 

In preparing for this article I took a bit of time to scan through a book I read some years ago as a student of Agriculture, titled “How the other half dies” by Susan George – If you haven’t read it, try it- you’ll find some interesting issues there such as reference to 1) Rich man, Poor man: who’s the thief? 2) and its location of small scale farmers and landless in terms of their very little control over the forces that shape their lives; 3) she further elaborates on the notion of what she calls “the population myth”. 

By the way, the book was first published in 1976 around the same time as the Soweto uprising and interestingly later around the time of the establishment of Thohoyandou as a town; some 24 years after the Albasini Dam was opened in 1952 just up the Luvuvhu River. Some 28 years later Nandoni Dam was opened some 64km downstream of Albasini – keeping these numbers in mind, I ask myself where are we today in respect of changing the lives of people socially, economically and materially? Given the commitments made through the various development frameworks both nationally and regionally, where are we going to be in the next 10 or 20 years or so? And so on... 

The story of the part of Luvuvhu catchment referred to above can be understood by assessing the level of the economy associated with the two dams in respect of agricultural value chains in which local people spend time in the street markets selling products that do not qualify for exports and remaining largely in poverty end of the value chains. 

During the development of the National Water Security Framework (NWSF) similar questions were asked with 3 key apex issues in mind, namely, poverty eradication, reducing inequality and growing the economy, including reducing unemployment levels. 

These questions cannot be addressed without getting to grips with the contribution of the smallholder farming community. My view is that food security and sustainable development should, by design, be anchored around that sector. In fact, during consultations of NWSF, someone even commented about the possibility of allocating 1Ha for small scale farming activities in areas where such activities could be carried out. This reminded me of the structuring of the old irrigation schemes which today are generally underutilised. 

In developing the framework, we noted the dissonance reflected in multiple definitions of water security. We redefined the water security and opted for what is generally referred to as a relational definition that looks at hydro-social relations; in which water is equated to the oxygen we breathe unlike say energy. At the time it was the challenges of energy that triggered the questions about the potential for the water sector to experience what has been experienced in the energy sector. The notion of the presence or absence of water was seen as obvious and perhaps a somewhat “tired” argument – not to say it was unimportant. This approach took us out of the proverbial “water box” to innovative and holistic approaches. Indeed, if you were to look at the agricultural value chains, water in and of itself is only a component of a complex system that is multidimensional and transdisciplinary in nature. We cannot, therefore, use linear approaches to address the challenges as they exist today. 

Key principles to enable water security 

They are eight principles that should form the bedrock and scope in framing water security at the national level; 

However, one principle stands out as informed by the Bill of Rights and the legislative framework of universal access to water. It makes reference to “... total value chain ownership within the trusteeship doctrine”. 

A not so easy principle in a highly politicised environment is that it posits the population as owners and not those that are given the leadership role whether it is governed through a minister or technocrats or bureaucrats or to some degree traditional leadership or the private sector. Generally, a lot goes wrong when a singular solution is punted about what comprises socio-economic development with the water value chain being directed in a manner that perpetuates inequality. I am mindful here no to sound unfriendly to the private sector in that as researchers and farmers, their funding is needed, but it cannot be business as usual. 

Further, an argument is advanced that the water planning cycles should be “decoupled” from political and other cycles including those that are economic in nature. In this instance, it is recognised that planning for water security takes long (up to 20 years for water resource development and around 7 years for typical bulk water schemes, all of which are generally nested cycles). In the water sector, we have seen the impact of changes in leadership or operational policies over the past 25 years or so. 

The water security framework also outlines 10 focal areas and what I refer to – as “plus 1” which refers to monitoring and evaluation to assess the extent to which water security has been achieved and how the various role players have performed. 

The expectation is that the ten focus areas represent the "hooks" from which all institutions attach/hang the interventions as they relate to Water Security at the national level which must be adhered to at every level, across all sectors and sub-sectors interested and affected by water security as per their respective mandates or needs. These are: 

-  Narrowing the inequality gap 

- Diversifying water sources

- Water research, monitoring & information

- Nexus aspects of water security

- Ecological Infrastructure

- Water and spatial planning

- Enabling planning for water security

-Managing water risks - promoting preparedness, building resilience and effectively 

respond and recover from water shocks 

-Communication and Stakeholder empowerment
let me highlight the foundational aspects of these focus areas using a few of them. 

The first one looks into inequality from the perspective of measurable change as measured by the modified human development index. We cannot seriously accept a situation where a small-scale farming community is literally smothered by commercial farming communities and other priorities. For instance, in South Africa, it is said that the number of farmers has shrunk over time whilst the total food production has increased thus concentrated to fewer major commercial farmers – a balance has to be found. 

Agriculture generally should be seen beyond water consumption as its value chains cover all aspects of primary, secondary and tertiary processes. We must assess the contribution to high inequality and systematically address such asymmetries. 

The second key focus area which may be of importance for the small scale farming community is water infrastructure and finance. In this focus, area cognisance is given to the importance of financial flows and their impact on the apex issues of poverty, unemployment and inequality. In this instance, expectations are that infrastructure necessary needs to be available and financing accessible. During the development of the framework, several examples were cited where there has been failure such as lack of integrated funding and intervention by different departments and spheres of government which also compromises the private sector contribution. 

The third aspect identified is that of Managing water risks - promoting preparedness, building resilience and effectively responding to and recovering from water shocks. Here the National Disaster Management Centre argued that the cost of dealing with disaster when it has befallen is far too high, and that of critical importance is to build resilience. Whether it is drought or other forms of hydrological extremes such as the recent floods, and nowadays the health experiences of the COVID pandemic, ultimately the effects are the same. 

For the smallholder farming community it is clear that whichever way one looks at this, they remain a critical cog and thus need to be anchored across the board. For those of us who are researchers and technocrats, there is a need to ensure that the work we do supports this sector much more seriously than in the past. In doing so, we must ensure that the indigenous knowledge systems are never forgotten but also mainstreamed as these are very aligned to sustainable utilisation of natural resources. In this instance, programmes such as water conservation and demand management must be appropriately aligned. 

In addition to the 3 focus areas highlighted above, perhaps an important one would be the water research, monitoring and information where the emphasis is on water intelligence which is seen as key to enabling water security. From an agriculture context, we must see the small scale farming community benefitting as a matter of course. Knowledge and information are critical. Research and technological advances cannot only be located in the commercial and large scale production but an integral tool for empowerment. This includes improving the capacity of the state to support the small scale farming community. 

Finally let me end by paraphrasing the text in the preface of the water security framework which makes reference to the water security framework providing the launching pad to ‘upping the ante’, by taking the water project ... beyond the ‘access’ mantra to enabling the hydro- social and economic development levels with an acknowledgement that as stated in the NDP, 

‘... each and every one of us is intimately and inextricably of this earth with its beauty and life-giving sources; that our lives on earth are both enriched and complicated by what we have contributed to its condition.’ Water is seen within the lens of its various dimensions in living systems.”