Water Demand Management (WDM) is defined as “The adaptation and implementation of a strategy (policies and initiatives) by water management institutions to influence water demand and usage of water in order to meet any of the following objectives: economic efficiency, social development, social equity, environmental protection, sustainability of water supply and services, and political acceptability.” (DWAF 1999).
Currently, no country in the Orange-Senqu River basin has a comprehensive and operational countrywide approach to Water Demand Management. While policy trends include Water Demand Management, legislation and implementation strategies lag at the country level (Table 1). Despite a lack of comprehensive Water Demand Management strategies and policies, the region has established some local-level experience with pilot projects – mainly in big cities.
Table 1: Status of Water Conservation/Water Demand Management planning and implementation in the Orange-Senqu River basin states.
|
Country
|
Policy
|
Legislation
|
Applied in Urban Sector
|
Applied in Agricultural Sector
|
|
Botswana
|
in development
|
No
|
Increasing block tariffs, leak detection
|
Extremely limited
|
|
Lesotho
|
Yes
|
in development
|
Increasing block tariffs only
|
Extremely limited
|
|
Namibia
|
Yes
|
in development
|
Comprehensive in Windhoek
|
Limited
|
|
South Africa
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Limited in Durban,
Johannesburg and
Cape Town
|
Limited application.
Research ongoing.
|
Source: Adapted from Rothert 2000
The success of Water Demand Management in individual countries can be crudely measured as the percentage of water unaccounted for, or lost to use or waste, between the inflow and outflow (Gumbo 2004). On this basis, success resulting from direct investment in certain WDM strategies is evidenced by advances in:
-
Water awareness campaigns
-
Customer education
-
Water loss management projects
-
Individual metering of consumers
-
Water-efficient gardening
-
Efficient and informative billing
-
An appropriate management information system (Gumbo 2004)
Effective Water Demand Management is also linked to sound financial management, an equitable standard of water services (at least 90% of the population connected) and waste water recycling and re-use. A study of Water Demand Management strategies in cities across southern Africa (by Gumbo 2004) found that Windhoek has achieved considerable success.
Both Namibia and South Africa have decentralized water management and have shifted water management from the national level to the basin/community level. South Africa is in the process of implementing Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and Namibia is decentralizing rural water supply to Water Point Agencies (WPAs). In Botswana, decentralization of water management is occurring to the extent that District Councils are responsible for the operation and maintenance of water supplies; however there is limited community involvement (Sandstrom and Singh 2000). In Lesotho, water management is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources; however Lesotho's National Environmental Policy states that “the involvement of stakeholders contributes to the efficiency, sustainability and success of water projects” (NeWater 2005).
Below is a comparison of Water Demand Management in three major cities in southern Africa, either in the Orange-Senqu River basin or supplied by water from it. Information for Gaborone, Botswana was not included source study (Gumbo 2004). "Level of Service" is defined as: (1) reticulated: household water, connections that can have taps within the house or within a private plot of land; or (2) stand posts and other:
Table 2: Comparison of Water Demand Management (WDM) in three major cities in southern Africa.
|
Indicator
|
Windhoek
|
Johannesburg
|
Maseru
|
|
Managing institution
|
Municipal
|
Private
|
Parastatal
|
|
Population served (1000s)
|
250
|
3 500
|
170
|
|
% urban population with formal status
|
95
|
75
|
80
|
|
Volume supplied (m3/day)
|
48 000
|
1 100 000
|
29 000
|
|
Per capita gross figure (l/head/day)
|
190
|
310
|
140
|
|
Annual yield from sources (Mm3)
|
22,2
|
|
1,8
|
|
Average rainfall (mm/annum)
|
360
|
710
|
780
|
|
Altitude (m)
|
1 600
|
1 200
|
1 700
|
|
Level of service % reticulated
|
97
|
90
|
79
|
|
% stand-posts and other
|
3
|
10
|
21
|
|
Number of connections
|
38 000
|
617 000
|
32 000
|
|
% of metered connections
|
88
|
70
|
70
|
|
Length of distribution network (km)
|
1 300
|
9 500
|
480
|
|
WDM strategy
|
Yes (1994)
|
Yes (2001)
|
None
|
|
WDM policy
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
None
|
|
WDM legislation
|
None
|
Yes
|
None
|
|
WDM education and awareness programme
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
None
|
|
Major customer complaints
|
Bursts and Billing
|
Billing
|
Inadequate supply
|
|
Dedicated WDM section
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
None
|
|
Total number of employees in water section
|
70
|
3500
|
455
|
|
Number of employees/population served
|
1:3600
|
1:1000
|
1:400
|
|
Number of employees/1000 connections
|
2
|
6
|
14
|
|
Recycling, reclamation and reuse
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
% Level of UAW
|
18
|
30
|
31
|
|
% Domestic consumption
|
74
|
75
|
40
|
|
Block tariff system
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Average cost of water (US$/m3)
|
0,65
|
0,25
|
0,38
|
|
Is essential volume free or at reduced tariff?
|
Yes
|
Free
|
Yes
|
|
Revenue generated (millions per annum)
|
N$45
|
R2 000
|
M28
|
|
Financing at WDM as a % of water account
|
Yes (1%)
|
Yes
|
None
|
* UAW (unaccounted for water) is the difference between the total amount of water pumped into the water system from the source(s) and the amount of metered use by the customers of the water system expressed as a percentage of the total water pumped into the system. UAW generally includes system leakage and unmetered use such as fire fighting, line flushing, broken water mains, etc.. Data from various sources (see Gumbo 2004)
