The National Water Act In Conclusion

 Overall, I have argued for greater female-led governance to guide inclusive development concerning water/sanitation issues. However, this has revealed a fundamental tension between principle and power in Southern Africa, existing in the formal agreements promoting equal access to water, and the unequal gendered relations on the ground. This is exemplified in South Africa, a country whose National Water Act (1998) (NWA) alluded to in prior posts, was hailed as one of the most progressive pieces of water legislation, yet its implementation has been weak. To conclude my blog, this entry explains the NWA’s limitations, and what other countries can learn.

Under Mandela’s cabinet (1994-1999) the NWA redefined the racially discriminatory Water Act of 1956  and revised the European rule of law upon which it was based, inappropriate for water scarce South Africa.

Figure 1: A map confirming South Africa as a water scarce country, notably in the West, by illustrating annual rainfall from 2011-2012.

Source: Grain SA (2012).

Equity was a crucial tenet of the NWA, as articulated in the country’s 1996 constitution: ‘everyone has the right to have access to…sufficient food and water’, alluding to gender inequality in recognition that women are a disadvantaged group. 

However, a significant gap between law on the page and law in action remains. Critics contend that the NWA implemented ‘too much too fast’, facing too many targets with a lack of technical staff, deterred by poor working condition and inadequate funds. As a result, inequalities have been perpetuated rather than transformed throughout the 19 water management areas (Figure 2). The government has been unable to even ‘ge[t] the basics right’, an issue magnified 13 years later through the ‘toilet wars’.

Furthermore, there has been a lack of government accountability with annual performance bonuses continually paid out to heads of office, even if their targets were not achieved, nor delivered within agreed time frames. This evidences a lack of motivation and progress on the ground, to meet equality principles.

To remedy these limitations, implementation plans must be improved, based on available resources, with clearly deliverable time frames against which managers can be held accountable. Of which, the recent South African Vision, revising water needs in the context of climate change and articulating gender-specific needs, still seems to overlook.

Figure 2: A map to illustrate the 19 geographical areas where water management takes place in South Africa.

Source: Water Science (2021).

If state-led progress continues to fall short, decision making should be decentralised. This calls for private service providers, NGOs, and the scientific community to heed participatory developmental processes. Harnessing these partnerships with the community, can help find innovative solutions, provide funding outcomes, and monitor progress, whilst foregrounding local actors to ensure the solutions are gender- sensitive.  My posts analysing CLTS and inclusive business development evidences the success of this, with women empowered to assume leadership positions and fulfil their water/sanitation needs.

Reflecting on what other countries can learn from South Africa, they should positively embed 

equality principles throughout their own water frameworks, yet learn from the limitations of the NWA when implementing these. In countries where the expectation of the state to deliver water and sanitation services is minimal, lessons can be learnt from South Africa regarding how communities successfully mobilise their own solutions, evidencing the potential to deliver rights ascribed in the 1996 constitution, looking to the future.