IWC Africa, Water Research Node

Research

The water research node aims to promote and facilitate novel, inert disciplinary and use inspired research. Our current research focuses on the need for cooperation and integration across several boundaries related to water resources; compartments of the hydrological cycle; service sectors such as water, food, environment, energy and health; levels and spheres of governance; disciplines from life, earth, engineering and social science domains; and knowledge forms such as scientific, local, traditional and policy knowledge.

Main research themes:

Freshwater conservation planning and action plans

It is inevitable that trade-offs need to be made between the protection of freshwater ecosystems (to achieve biodiversity conservation targets) and the achievement of economic development. Given the high degree to which society relies on ecosystem goods and services, it is simply not socially or economically possible to maintain all ecosystems in natural or high integrity states. Therefore, a key question that needs to be answered is: How many freshwater ecosystems should be protected to reflect a high level of ecological integrity in order to claim that South Africa is effectively conserving the biodiversity that is associated with these systems? A second question that can be posed is: Which ecosystems are most suited for, and will give the best returns, when they are included in a national design for freshwater conservation?

To address the above questions, and to enable a proactive and systematic focus on freshwater biodiversity, the relatively new discipline of "freshwater conservation planning" has emerged. This discipline draws from concepts and skills from across the fields of systematic conservation planning, conservation biology, aquatic ecology (including hydrology, biology, geomorphology), water resources planning and management, and spatial information technology. We have been instrumental in shaping this new discipline. Key publications include:

• Nel et al. 2007. Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: A systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions 13: 341-352.
• Roux et al. 2008. Improving cross-sector policy integration and cooperation in support of freshwater conservation. Conservation Biology 22(6): 1382-1387.
• Roux et al. 2008. Designing protected areas to conserve riverine biodiversity: Lessons from a hypothetical redesign of the Kruger National Park. Biological Conservation 141: 100-117.
• Nel et al. 2009. Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 474–485.

Learning, cooperation and adaptation for resilient freshwater ecosystems

The responsibility for managing freshwater ecosystems is typically shared by several organizations with overlapping and sometimes conflicting sectoral policy mandates. Furthermore, management of common property natural resources is strongly directed towards achieving an “equitable” distribution of costs and benefits among multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders typically have different expectations, time horizons and values. Given the diverse expectations and mental models of multiple stakeholders, ecosystem management should probably not target an optimal solution for “the problem”. Instead, it should involve ongoing learning and negotiation in which a high priority is given to participative sense-making and adaptation (Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004).

We have to – individually and collectively – reflect on and extract lessons from past experiences, selectively unlearn outdated habits, consider options for the most appropriate future direction, anticipate change, and strategically acquire new knowledge; all at the same time. Our capacity for informed and effective action in a dynamic and uncertain environment, and our ability to improve this capacity, is entirely dependent on our learning proficiency. However, organisations, particularly those in the public sector, are typically designed for applying what they know; they do not easily create new knowledge and do not easily “unlearn” inappropriate existing knowledge.  It would thus make sense for organisations to have strategies in place to understand learning and cooperation processes in relation to their mandate and strategic objectives, and to deliberately advance those conditions that enable good learning and effective cooperation practices.

• Rogers et al. 2000. Challenges for catchment management agencies: Lessons from bureaucracies, business and resource management. Water SA 26(4): 505-511. Available online: http://www.wrc.org.za/archives/watersa%20archive/2000/October/1300.pdf
• Roux et al. 2006. Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1). Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
• Roux et al. 2007. Principles Enabling Learning Environments for Good Ecosystem Governance. In: Turton et al. (Editors). Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. Water Resources Development and Management Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 253-280.
• Roux et al. 2008. Learning to learn for social-ecological resilience: Balancing strategy options in public sector organisations. Pages 599-625 in: Burns and Weaver (Editors). Exploring Sustainability Science: A Southern African Perspective. Sun Press, Stellenbosch.

Current projects

National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA)
Transdisciplinary learning and ASSET - Africa’s Search for Sound Economic Trajectories
WRC Estuarine Research
Cooperation and learning