UMZIMVUBU RIVER
CATCHMENT, SOUTH AFRICA
October 2022

UMZIMVUBU RIVER
CATCHMENT© CI/TRONDLARSEN
UMZIMVUBU
RIVER
CATCHMENT| 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was made possible by the development of the Freshwater Health Index underConservation International’s Freshwater Science Program and Conservation South Africa,
with funding from the Pisces Foundation, and in collaboration with various institutional
partners, including the Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership (UCP).
Special thanks to all the participants of the project meetings who contributed to the governance survey, weighting exercises, and validation of results, and gave valuable input on
the main issues they are facing in the Umzimvubu River catchment in South Africa.
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of our FHI team (http://www.freshwaterhealthindex.org/project-staff), which provided the technical guidance and support
throughout the Freshwater Health Index application.
Led by:Institutional partners:

2 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXTABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Ecosystem Vitality: Indicator and Sub-Indicator Results
2.1. Water Quantity
2.1.1. Deviation from Natural Flow
2.1.2. Groundwater Storage Depletion
2.2. Water Quality
2.2.1. Water Quality Index
2.3. Catchment Condition
2.3.1. Bank Modification
2.3.2. Flow Connectivity
2.3.3. Land Cover Naturalness
2.4. Biodiversity
2.4.1. Species of Concern
2.4.2. Invasive & Nuisance Species
3. Ecosystem Services: Indicator and Sub-Indicator Results
3.1. Provisioning
3.1.1. Water Supply Reliability Relative to Demand
3.1.2. Biomass for Consumption
3.2. Regulation & Support
3.2.1. Sediment Regulation
3.2.2. Water Quality Regulation
3.2.3. Disease Regulation
3.2.4. Flood Regulation
3.3. Cultural
3.3.1. Conservation of Cultural Heritage
3.3.2. Recreation
4. Governance & Stakeholders: Indicator and Sub-Indicator Results
4.1. Enabling Environment
4.1.1. Water Resources Management
4.1.2. Rights to Resource Use
4.1.3. Incentives & Regulations
4.1.4. Technical Capacity
4.1.5. Financial Capacity
4.2. Stakeholder Engagement
4.2.1. Information Access
4.2.2. Engagement in Decision-Making Process
4.3. Effectiveness4.3.1. Enforcement & Compliance4.3.2. Distribution of Benefits from Ecosystem Services
4.3.3. Water-related Conflict
4.4. Vision & Adaptive Governance4.4.1. Monitoring Mechanisms
4.4.2. Strategic Planning & Adaptive Governance5. Conclusion
Appendix 1: Methods for Calculating Indicators 			References 							

5
8
10
10
10
10
11
11
13
13
14
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
32
38

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 3

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT

Figure 1. Map of the assessment area.

4 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENTThe Umzimvubu Catchment is an important freshwater system in South Africa. The
catchment includes two Strategic Water Source Areas (SWSA) that contribute 50% of meanannual runoff from just 10% of the catchment area (Nel et al. 2013). The Umzimvubu is
considered one of the least modified freshwater systems that remain in the country. This
catchment is also rich in biodiversity, supporting more than 2,000 plant and animal species
unique to the landscape.
The Umzimvubu Catchment falls in one of the former homeland areas known as the Transkei,
and this has shaped the current challenges of poverty and environmental degradation in thisarea. The catchment supplies water for more than 2 million people, predominantly in ruraland peri-urban settlements. Thus, there is a great need for water advancements that fulfill thegrowing demand for water (e.g., domestic use, agriculture) to improve the quality of life forthe people living in the landscape.
Considering these factors, the Freshwater Health Index (FHI) was applied in the Umzimvubu
Catchment to evaluate its overall health in three components: Ecosystem Vitality, Ecosystem
Services and Governance and Stakeholders. Importantly, the assessment process included
stakeholder meetings in order to obtain some of the data necessary for the FHI calculations
and to validate results. Stakeholder engagement also provided additional understanding of
how the FHI can contribute to resource management as managers increasingly understandsynergies between the biophysical system, provision of benefits and the water governancesystem in place.
The FHI can be used to monitor and measure the achievement of collaborative efforts
adopted within the Umzimvubu Catchment, through the Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership(UCP). The UCP is a platform where various stakeholders have committed to foster collective
action to implement a catchment management strategy and restoration plan for the benefitof people and nature. The FHI’s usefulness stems from its ability to identify opportunities
for conservation, address underlying issues rooted in governance and provide clarity
in communicating complex ecological phenomenon, thus contributing to the pursuit ofachieving the goals of the UCP.
The sustainability of water resource management is based on the joint consideration ofvarious dimensions: social, environmental, economic, cultural and political. The latter being
critical to ensure the proper involvement and development of institutions and the legal andregulatory frameworks. These dimensions of sustainability must be integrated throughout
the water resource management process – from the planning stage, through the systematic
assessment of resources, to the final stage of assessing management impacts. Thus, theFHI provides a neutral platform for sharing knowledge about the state of the Umzimvubu
Catchment, evaluating the biophysical (‘Ecosystem Vitality’, ‘Ecosystem Services’) and social
components (‘Governance & Stakeholders’) of the catchment.
The FHI can also contribute to the generation of specific results for the UCP partners
who are involved in initiatives that address development of sustainable natural resourcesmanagement and maintenance that supports functioning ecosystems, social cohesion, andlivelihoods. This can be attained through enhancing the flow of services from the landscapeto the people. More specifically, the FHI is a tool that provides a “State of the Catchment”
report that can be used to inform the initiatives and approaches of stakeholders working inthis landscape.
UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 5

KEY RESULTS• The Ecosystem Vitality component obtained a score of 47, suggesting that theecosystem itself is showing signs of degradation, which may impact the deliveryof services in the future. Of the indicators evaluated, Water Quality and Catchment
Condition received the highest scores (69 and 67, respectively). Biodiversity received
a score of 36, and Water Quantity obtained the lowest scores (30) under thiscomponent. The low score for Biodiversity is driven by a high number of criticallyendangered species, as well as the pervasive presence of invasive alien plants,
which impact not only riparian habitat but also water flow. Water Quantity rated poorly
because of an exceptionally low score for the Deviation from Natural Flow subindicator (14); despite its reputation as being one of the least modified catchments inthe country, the combination of invasive alien plants and thousands of small dams tocatch runoff have dramatically altered the flow regime, in terms of when water flows
and how much reaches the sea.
• The Ecosystem Services component received the lowest component score (32),indicating that the Umzimvubu basin is not adequately meeting the needs of thepeople who depend on it. There are already indications that supply for some services
is being compromised. The priorities uncovered by the FHI are for the following
services: Water Supply Reliability (29), Sediment Regulation (18) and Conservationof Cultural Heritage (11). In addition to these priorities, catchment managers should
consider that provisioning services were considered the most relevant for the
stakeholders consulted, as they received a high overall weight (nearly half of the total
for all three Ecosystem Service indicators, with Water Supply Reliability receiving thehighest overall weight). In other words, the integrated and sustainable management of
the catchment depends not only on making decisions to ensure the adequate supplyof services, but also on considering and balancing stakeholders’ collective interests.
• The Governance and Stakeholders component received a score of 51, the highest of
the three components though still an area of concern. The lowest scoring indicator
was Enabling Environment (44), with particularly low scores for the Financial Capacity(30) and Technical Capacity (38) sub-indicators. The Stakeholder Engagement
and Vision and Adaptive Governance indicators both scored higher (57 and 58,
respectively), which suggests that efforts such as the establishment of the UCP
may already be having a positive impact. Of note, the sub-indicator Engagementin Decision-making processes received one of the highest overall scores (60). But
there is still a gap in terms of overall implementation and execution, as measured by
the Effectiveness indicator (49). Here, comparatively higher scores for Distribution ofBenefits (55) and Water-Related Conflict (53) are offset by a low score for Enforcement(42), signaling a need to consider how existing policies and laws around land andwater use can be better upheld.
The results of the baseline evaluation of the Freshwater Health Index appear to be inline with the reality on the ground for the Umzimvubu Catchment. The higher score of
Ecosystem Vitality in relation to the Ecosystem Services component is an interesting
result, as the environment usually shows signs of degradation in its biophysical factors
before exhibiting a reduction in the provision of services. But in this case, two of thelowest scoring sub-indicators are due to a lack of supporting infrastructure – piped water
for households and formal protections for lands and waters with cultural significance.

6 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXIt is also important to highlight that management priorities should be aligned with thecommon interests of stakeholders. In the case of the Umzimvubu Catchment, collectively,
the most important ecosystem service is water supply for domestic and agricultural use.
Thus, integrated management of the catchment should balance the provision of the most
relevant services for stakeholders and areas that need attention from managers (thosewith lower scores).

CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPSThe Umzimvubu Catchment FHI assessment demonstrated that the ecosystem service
delivery is under stress, mainly due to poor water supply reliability and cultural service
delivery. These results show the need for enhancing the supply of benefits that people
in the catchment need and strengthening the institutional decision-making for water
resources management. One of the factors that the results confront is the current andfuture role of spring rehabilitation and protection work to alleviate the identified water
access challenges in the catchment.
This assessment provides a process to engage more deeply with stakeholders’practices and their commitment to improved water resources management. It provides
a broad understanding of the status quo of freshwater systems that managers anddecision-makers can use to further investigate some of the challenges identified inthis assessment. This process can be done through extensive modeling, mapping andground-truthing of these variables to further justify and inform the development of ashared vision for the catchment. The shared vision should reflect the findings fromthis report, address the data gaps highlighted and suggest plans to improve poorperforming indicators. This plan should be spatially explicit and align with the work of the
stakeholders in the Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership.
The index provides a guide for future investment in freshwater systems in the catchment
and has the potential to inform future priorities. These priorities should be captured in
the shared vision and catchment plan and done in consultation with all stakeholders.

Figure 2. Baseline scores of the Freshwater Health Index for the Umzimvubu catchment.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 7

UMZIMVUBU UPPER CATCHMENT © CI/CAROLINE ROSE

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Umzimvubu catchment and river system lies along the northern boundary of theEastern Cape Province and extends for more than 200 km from its source in the MalotiDrakensberg watershed on the Lesotho escarpment to the coastal mangroves of Port
St. Johns, where it joins the Indian Ocean. This catchment is characterised by a complex
mix of grasslands, forest, thicket and dune vegetation, which are habitats for a diverse
community of plant and animal species. This area holds four Key Biodiversity Area
classes within the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot, and these priority areas are of
global importance for terrestrial and aquatic species.
The Umzimvubu River System has been prioritised nationally as being one of the leasttransformed freshwater systems. Still, it is classified as vulnerable as a result of rapid
rates of degradation in the watershed. There is, for example, a growing concern about
rapid invasion of alien plants (mainly Acacia mearnsii and Acacia dealbata), uncontrolledburning, overgrazing, inappropriate infrastructure location and land degradation, which
could irreparably alter the amount and quality of the water in this catchment.
This Umzimvubu catchment covers 2 million hectares and is comprised of almost 70%
communal land. It falls into 10 local municipalities, that fall under the Alfred Nzo, OR
Tambo and Greater Kokstad district municipalities. The catchment primarily sits within
the Eastern Cape Province, with a small portion in the KwaZulu Natal Province. The
communal land tenure is generally complex and multifaceted, as this land is under thecustodianship of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) on
behalf of communities. The local management of communal lands is under the traditional
authority of the chiefs and headmen in the villages.
Although the scenic view of the Umzimvubu Catchment shows largely intact landscapesand naturally functioning ecosystems, the intensification of human activities in thecatchment is beginning to put pressure on its ecosystem. The Umzimvubu Catchment
Partnership (UCP) supports the restoration and maintenance of these systems. Thisis done through collaborative efforts to protect and conserve water resources inan equitable manner. The UCP provides a platform for strong collaboration anddemonstration of varying initiatives in the catchment to encourage alignment andexpansion of the work in the next two decades. The partnership is heavily focused on
working with stakeholders, state and non-state, and developing the freshwater system
sustainably. The UCP follows an approach to restoring catchment integrity, improving
livelihoods and building resilient ecosystems through collaborative governance. Thisis mirrored by the FHI goals, that seek to encourage an integrated and participatory
approach toward freshwater management.
The FHI was applied in this catchment to help stakeholders assess conditions andimprove planning for the future through understanding key priorities for stakeholders
and measuring overall health in three dimensions: Ecosystem Vitality, Ecosystem
Services, and Governance and Stakeholders.

8 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXTable 1. Results for Freshwater Health Index Indicators

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 9

2. ECOSYSTEM VITALITY: INDICATOR AND SUB-INDICATOR RESULTS
The Ecosystem Vitality component of the Freshwater Health Index measures the integrity
and functioning of ecosystems (streams, rivers, wetlands and forests) within the catchment.
Healthy ecosystems are essential to provide clean water, fish, flood protection and a variety
of other benefits that people depend on. The four main indicators within the Ecosystem
Vitality component measure are: Water Quantity, Water Quality, Catchment Condition andBiodiversity. They are presented at the sub-catchment level, where possible, to illustrate how
the scores of the sub-indicators vary spatially.
Combining the four main indicators, the Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 47
for Ecosystem Vitality. This suggests that ecosystem health requires attention, though it isworth noting that some indicators have better scores than others (Table 1). In addition, there
are notable data deficiencies that need to be addressed. It is important to highlight that,
unlike the other two components of the FHI, the Ecosystem Vitality component indicatorsand sub-indicators are not weighted by stakeholders before they are aggregated, because
they represent characteristics inherent to the environment or ecosystem, whereas the otherindicators are more readily influenced by stakeholder preferences.

2.1 Water Quantity
The Water Quantity indicator measures the amount and flow of water within the catchment,
including surface water and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems depend on seasonal water
patterns in the catchment, and, in many places, people also rely on seasonal fluctuations. The
pattern of these natural fluctuations can be altered by the construction of dams to regulate
periods of flooding and droughts. That is, the natural condition is sacrificed to meet humanneeds. However, these trade-offs can have negative consequences for aquatic biodiversity
and for human communities that rely on a natural flow pattern, such as for fishing. The Water
Quantity indicator is measured through two sub-indicators: Deviation of Natural Flow and
Groundwater Storage Depletion. The Umzimvubu Catchment obtained a score of 30 for
the Water Quantity indicator; this indicator is considered critical and requires improvement.

2.1.1 Deviation from Natural Flow Regime
The Deviation of Natural Flow sub-indicator measures the degree to which the flow
pattern has been altered by land-use changes. This indicator measures the degree towhich current flows have changed in relation to historic natural flows. The presenceof reservoirs, agricultural activities, deforestation, and urbanization can affect theregime and volume of surface flows, which in turn influence the general functioning ofrivers and streams – and, consequently, the ecosystem services provided to people.
For example, drastic changes in the landcover can be a major driver of change in thepresent observed flow. Landcover alterations from poor land management, invasion ofalien species and land degradation can substantially change the flow. The Deviationof Natural Flow received a score of 14 for the Umzimvubu Catchment, suggesting,with the maximum modification of flow and far less water reaching downstream
than would be expected under baseline natural conditions.

2.1.2 Groundwater Storage Depletion
The Groundwater Storage Depletion sub-indicator measures changes in theavailability of water stored in underground aquifers. Underground water resources
represent a significant portion of the water resources available for human use and,usually, their reserves are much higher than surface water availability. Increasingly,
groundwater extraction is becoming important to meet the demands of ruralcommunities in the Umzimvubu Catchment, although knowledge about the number
of wells/springs and their volumetric capacities is lacking. In general, the data andlevel of knowledge about the basic characteristics of groundwater in the catchment

10 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

is quite limited. The Strategic Water Source Areas for groundwater (SWSA-gw)
that have been delineated as part of a Water Research Commission (WRC) project(K5/2431) reflect areas that have high groundwater recharge. These are areas
which have high groundwater availability and thus are of national importance.
However, this dataset does not reflect the groundwater storage stress ordepletion. The Groundwater Resource Assessments II study done in 2004, aimed
to provide an approach to quantifying groundwater resources and areas where
the underlying groundwater system is clearly stressed. The Groundwater Storage
Depletion sub-indicator in the Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 65,
indicating reasonably good health (Figure 3). Stakeholders in the catchment
identified the need to invest in groundwater research to understand the locations
and trends in groundwater storage fully as this has implications for provisioning ofwater through springs and boreholes in the catchment.

2.2 Water Quality
Water Quality refers specifically to the physiochemical characteristics (e.g.,concentrations of substances) required to maintain aquatic biodiversity in the mostnatural state possible. Pollution by sewage or nappies disposal, for example, candirectly damage aquatic life and alter the ecological balance by triggering theproliferation of harmful algae. This indicator consists of a single sub-indicator, theWater Quality Index, that comprises multiple quality parameters.

2.2.1 Water Quality Index
The Water Quality Index measures how much the physiochemical characteristics(e.g., concentrations of water quality parameters) differ from thresholds necessary
to maintain aquatic biodiversity. The Water Quality Index in the Umzimvubu
Catchment received an aggregate score of 69, indicating reasonably good
health.

Figure 3: Results for the groundwater storage depletion indicator.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 11

Separately, the Kinira sub-catchment (T3H002Q01 station) scored 77 and the Mooi
sub-catchment near Maclear (T3H009Q01 station) received a score of 76, that is,
the water quality measured at the two stations in the upper catchment reflects
relatively good health. In the case of middle and lower Umzimvubu Catchment,
the most problematic stations (with a score lower than 70) were: Umzimvubu River
at the Mzinto confluence (T3H005Q01 station) (68), Umzimvubu at the Kromdraai
confluence (T3H008Q01 station) (65), Mzintlava sub-catchment (T3H004Q01)(62), and Tsitsa sub-catchment (T3H003Q01) (61). The results for these four
stations reflect a deviation from the acceptable limit for concentrations, primarily
for turbidity and E.coli coliforms, which were the lower performing parameters.
The low score for the Mzintlava sub-catchment at Kokstad (T3H004Q01 station)
may be associated with the irrigation systems from the dairy farming impacting
the increased sediment and fertilizer concentrations in the river, and the Mount
Ayliff wastewater treatment works (DWS, 2017). The low score for the Tsitsa subcatchment (T3H003Q01) may be a result of the wastewater treatment works in
Tsolo, which is considered a critical risk. This may lead to increased nutrient in theriver (DWS, 2017).
There is a need for more water quality monitoring in the catchment to obtain acomprehensive picture of the state of water quality, especially the streams in theupper catchment. This sub-indicator included water quality data from 2017 and2019, measuring several parameters, although some of the datasets included very
sparse data. There is a need for more extensive data collection. In general, it isnoted that the water quality of the catchment could be better evaluated if there
were an expansion of the monitoring network to allow the provision of a status
for the entire Umzimvubu Catchment area. At present, monitoring is only at 6
stations, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Results of the Water Quality Index.

12 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

2.3 Catchment Condition
The Catchment Condition indicator measures the extent of physical modifications, bothof land cover (e.g., forests converted to agriculture) and of streams and rivers (e.g.,
the construction of dams or the expansion of canals), which can affect the flow andquality of water, as well as habitat for aquatic life. The Catchment Condition indicator ismeasured through three sub-indicators: Bank Modification, Flow Connectivity and Land
Cover Naturalness. When these three sub-indicators were combined, the Umzimvubu
Catchment received a score of 67, indicating reasonably good health.

2.3.1 Bank Modification
The Bank Modification sub-indicator assesses the lateral connectivity of flows
responsible for the exchange of material between rivers and floodplains. Lateralconnectivity determines how surface water flows reach rivers and streams, andhow materials (e.g., nutrients and sediments) are exchanged between terrestrial
and aquatic systems. Changes in this pattern, whether by channeling or flooding
through dams, affect the establishment of native riparian vegetation and wildlife(including spawning fish and waterbirds), the biogeochemistry of streams, aswell as the extent of floodplains. The Bank Modification sub-indicator received
a score of 88, indicating minimal changes to the banks of rivers and streams
being observed in the Umzimvubu Catchment.
This score is consistent with thereasonably low degree of land coverchange in the catchment. Inspection by
high-definition satellite images confirmedthat the degree of bank modification
can still be considered low, as there are
few instances of human-made channels.
In general, it is noted that the changes
to banks occurred mainly in the upperand middle catchment where there issubstantial gully erosion (Figure 5). The
main regions with bank modifications
were the areas below the Maclear Town,
the tributaries of the Inxu and Thina
Rivers, as well as in the upper parts of thecatchment, in the tributaries of the KiniraRiver.

Figure 5: Bank Modification in the Umzimvubu Catchment.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 13

2.3.2 Flow Connectivity
The Flow Connectivity sub-indicator measures drainage network fragmentationand is particularly important for the movement of aquatic life, such as fish, butalso affects the natural flow of materials. The connectivity of flows can be alteredby natural obstructions, such as waterfalls, or artificial obstructions such asengineering structures (e.g., dams and weirs). Reduced connectivity can negatively
impact fish migration and reproduction and can prevent sediments and othernutrients from naturally flowing downstream. In this case, the Port St John’s Coastdepends on this natural pattern of material flow. The Umzimvubu Catchment
received a score of 44 for this sub-indicator, indicating a high fragmentation of
the freshwater system. The Umzimvubu Catchment does not have large dams;
however, data from the Department of Water and Sanitation shows that there
is a dense network of small to medium dams in this catchment. A total of 1,329
dams were identified in the catchment; most of these are designed to catch runoff
but 76 dams are located in perennial streams (Figure 6). Additionally, 16 weirs(functional and non-functional) are located within streams and are consideredobstructions to the river network. The dams are concentrated north-east of thecatchment, around Kokstad, evidently because of the extensive agricultural farms
in this area.

Figure 6: Fragmentation of river network in the Umzimvubu Catchment caused by instream dams and weirs.

14 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXONGELUKSNEK - UPPER CATCHMENT © CI/TROND LARSEN

2.3.3 Land Cover Naturalness
The Land Cover Naturalness (LCN) sub-indicator measures how much land coverin the catchment has been modified by human activities. Forests and wetlands
regulate the flow and quality of water, but when degraded or converted into
pastures, agricultural areas or urban areas, the ecosystem loses its ability toregulate the water cycle. The Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 77,
indicating that the natural vegetative cover has been only moderately modified
so far. Throughout the catchment, the natural and semi-natural land is maintained,
although there are areas where the land cover has been transformed or culturally
assisted, i.e., modified in some way by humans. This is characterized by seasonalor permanent vegetation cover with atypical species, and this is in line with theinvasive alien plants distribution in the biodiversity indicator. The “completely
artificial” areas are mostly characterized by barren land and gully and rill erosion. It
is important to highlight that this sub-indicator is one of the most important driversof change in other Ecosystem Vitality sub-indicators (Groundwater Depletion, Water
Quality Index, Bank Modification and Species of Concern).

2.4 Biodiversity
Biodiversity refers to the status and trends of populations of animal and plant species
that live directly in or near watercourses. Data on reductions in native species orincreases in invasive species are used as indicators of ecosystem degradation. In
addition, aquatic and riparian biodiversity are often positively associated with fishingand cultural services such as recreation. The Biodiversity indicator is divided into
two sub-indicators: Species of Concern, which focuses on endangered, threatenedor vulnerable species, and Invasive Species. When these two sub-indicators
were combined, the Umzimvubu Catchment received a Biodiversity score of36, suggesting critical health. This sub indicator represents only the proportionof threatened and invasive species in relation to the total, and data on species
populations over time are necessary to improve the evaluation of the trends of
biodiversity.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 15

© RU/GARY KYLE NICOLAU© RU/GARY KYLE NICOLAU© EZEMVELO KZN WILDLIFE/SKHUMBUZO KHUBEKA© SAIAB/PAUL SKELTON

Figure 7: Images of the four critically endangered species in the catchment: (a) Amatola toad, (b) Hogsback dainty frog, (c)Maloti minnow and (d) Eastern Cape redfin.

2.4.1 Species of Concern
The Species of Concern sub-indicator measures how much of the native aquatic andriparian species are threatened. The decrease in species diversity is a warning signof the deterioration of the ecosystem and may also correspond to declines in benefits
for people, such as fishing. The Species of Concern sub-indicator received a scoreof 48, indicating critical state for the biodiversity of the Umzimvubu Catchment.
That is, there are fewer freshwater species that were identified and assessed in thecatchment, and almost 22% of those species are considered threatened in relation to
the total number of evaluated species. This considers the most problematic classes(critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable).
The catchment has four recorded critically endangered species: Vandijkophrynus
amatolicus (Amatola toad)-which is endemic to the Eastern Cape province, Tomichia
tristis – a small freshwater or brackish snail, Tomichia cawstoni- freshwater snail
typically found in the Kokstad area in South Africa and Pseudobarbus senticepsfish species that inhabits the mountainous streams with clear to peat tainted water.
In addition to these species is the Cacosternum thorini (Hogsback dainty frog),
Pseudobarbus afer (Eastern cape redfin fish) and Pseudobarbus quathlambae(Maloti minnow) which are all endangered and endemic to this region (Figure 7).
These populations are becoming rare due to the altering of their habitats and theimpact of invasive species such as the exotic bass species and Labeobarbus aeneus(smallmouth yellow fish). Thus, this sub-indicator is closely related to the sub-indicatorsin the Condition of the Drainage Catchment indicator (Bank Modification, Flow
Connectivity, Land Cover Naturalness).

16 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

2.4.2 Invasive & Nuisance Species
The Invasive Species sub-indicator specifically measures the presence of exotic
species introduced into the ecosystem, both intentionally and accidentally, thatcan compete or that impose a threat to native species. Increasing numbers
and populations of exotic species can put pressure on native species, degrade
ecosystems and negatively impact the economy and human health. The
Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 27. This value is based on theprevalence of invasive alien plants, mainly Acacia dealbata, which is a major
driver of change in the Catchment (Figure 8).
The result shows that 10% of the total area of the catchment is invaded bythis woody species, with certain sub-catchments exceeding 20% of their area
being invaded. This is a potentially significant problem, as invasions havebeen estimated to result in >5% reductions in mean annual runoff in the region(Le Maitre et al., 2020). While the invasive species are not as prevalent in thedownstream areas of the catchment, these areas still may be receiving impacts
from the upstream as their presence has a substantial impact on biodiversity andwater resources. The tool developed for the UCP, the Water Calculator, can beused to further understand the impact of these woody invasive alien plants on thecatchment’s water resources.

Figure 8: Invasive woody alien plants distribution in the catchment.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 17

MVENYANE RIVER IN THE UMZIMVUBU CATCHMENT © CI/CAROLINE ROSE

3. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: INDICATOR AND SUB-INDICATOR RESULTS
The second component of the Freshwater Health Index, Ecosystem Services,
measures water-related benefits, including, for example, the supply of drinking
water, sediment regulation and protection against floods. These benefits, oftendelivered in place of or as a complement to infrastructure, allow people to connect
to the natural ecosystems on which they depend. Ecosystem Services are commonlyclassified according to how people experience them, and this is reflected in thethree main indicators within this component: Provisioning (goods/services extracted
from the ecosystem), Regulation and Support (“background” processes that occur inecosystems, in other words, the functioning of ecosystems) and Cultural (experiencesthat people obtain from ecosystems).
Combining the three main indicators of Ecosystem Services, the Umzimvubu
Catchment received a total score of 32. This suggests that the catchment needs
immediate and specific attention in order for it to meet people’s welfare needs. It is
important to note that the final score for this indicator weights each sub-indicator andindicator differently, i.e., according to the relative importance given by stakeholders
to each of the indicators and sub-indicators. Weighting revealed a preference for
Provision Services (55%) in relation to Regulatory and Support services (30%) andCultural (15%). For ecosystem service sub-indicators associated with Provisioning
and Regulation and Support, scores are calculated based on spatial, temporal andmagnitude factors, further explained in Appendix 1.

3.1 Provisioning
Provisioning services refer to the physical benefits, mainly water and fish, that people
get from aquatic ecosystems. These benefits provided by aquatic ecosystems are
essential elements for economic development and are essential for food security andwater supply security. The Provisioning Services indicator has two sub-indicators:
Water Supply Reliability and Biomass for Consumption. The Provisioning Services
indicator obtained a score of 34, indicating that the catchment is significantly
underperforming in this area. Stakeholders assigned a much higher weight (84%) for
the Water Supply Reliability sub-indicator compared to the Biomass sub-indicator (16%),
which indicates the higher importance they place on a secure water supply to meetvarious needs.

18 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

3.1.1 Water Supply Reliability Relative to Demand
The Water Supply Reliability sub-indicator measures the catchment’s current
capacity to meet water demand from various sectors throughout the catchment
area. It considers seasonal variability, minimum amounts of water for ecologicalmaintenance, known as environmental flows, as well as the distributionof water access infrastructure (piped water). A decrease in water supply
reliability corresponds to increased water insecurity, ecological degradation,or unsustainable water consumption. In the Umzimvubu catchment, Water
Supply Reliability received a score of 29, indicating that there are significant
challenges in meeting demand for water for human use, particularly in thedownstream areas. It should be noted that only data related to household use
was analyzed for this calculation. Agricultural use was not taken into account.
It is interesting to note that the outlier is the sub-catchment of Greater Kokstad,which had a significantly higher score for this indicator, as seen on the map below(Figure 9).

3.1.2 Biomass for Consumption
The Biomass for Consumption sub-indicator evaluates the amount of biomass(aquatic biota) that is used or acquired for consumption. The Biomass for
Consumption sub-indicator obtained a score of 76, which is a good score.
In the absence of data available on the consumption of fish harvested in the
Umzimvubu Catchment, stakeholder surveys were used to analyze this indicator.
Medicinal plants were one of the key biomasses harvested, followed by fish andthe harvesting of thatch grass (iingca). It was also noted that some of this biomass
harvested was to support livelihoods of people. There is the need for additional
methods to understand biomass dependency in the catchment so that theseresources can be managed sustainably.

Figure 9. Access to drinking water is progressively worse as one moves downstream. Additional data indicates that thesedownstream communities are even more reliant on natural, unprotected water sources such as streams and springs.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 19

3.2 Regulation & Support
Regulation and Support services refer to natural processes that (1) maintain theavailability of water and fish (e.g., keeping water clean and flowing) and (2) provide
protection against flooding and other hazards. Water resource management decisions
often ignore the regulatory processes provided by the ecosystem, even replacing these“free” regulation services with built infrastructure, which can be costly. The Regulationand Support indicator comprises four sub-indicators: Sediment Regulation, Water Quality
Regulation, Disease Regulation and Flood Regulation. The Umzimvubu Catchment
received a score of 45 for this service group, which shows critical health. This score
was weighted according to the relative importance given to the different services bystakeholders. Stakeholders placed greater weight (40%) on the Water Quality Regulation
service, followed by the Sediment Regulation service (22%). Flood regulation (20%) andDisease Regulation (17%) were weighted as less important.

3.2.1 Sediment Regulation
The Sediment Regulation sub-indicator measures the ecosystem’s ability toregulate the flow of sediment from terrestrial systems to streams and on tofloodplains or downstream outlets. Excessive sediment, for example, fromexacerbated erosion, can compromise the capacity of reservoirs to store water,or it can degrade water quality. In contrast, a lack of sediment distributed
downstream generally deprives aquatic life and agricultural land of criticalnutrients. The Sediment Regulation sub-indicator in the Umzimvubu Catchment
received a score of 18; which is a critically low score.
This sub-indicator was calculated considering potential erosion risk in the different
sub-catchments. The score obtained indicates that soil erosion is still very high,which, in turn, causes excessive flow of sediments into rivers and streams. It is
worth noting that areas where there is extremely high erosion risk are in theupper and middle of Umzimvubu Catchment, and these are areas more naturally
susceptible to erosion and where the natural land cover has been altered.

Figure 10: Exposed soil after removal of natural vegetation. Photo credit: Sibusiso Ndaba (CSA)

20 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

3.2.2 Water Quality Regulation
Water Quality Regulation refers to the ability of the ecosystem to regulate theconcentrations of different water quality parameters in terms of potability forhuman consumption and other uses. Ecosystems “filter” many pollutants fromwater, but this capacity can be easily overcome by the volume of pollutantsreleased by different human activities. This sub-indicator obtained a score of70, indicating a good ability to regulate water quality for human activities.
This result confirms that the Umzimvubu Catchment still has a very low urban
population, and human activities that can pollute rivers and streams, such asindustry and agriculture, are still growing in the region. Waste (e.g., litter, nappy
disposal) released into rivers in rural areas, where there is no municipal waste
collection, and certain agricultural practices (e.g., excessive application offertilizers) reduce the water quality for human use. Stakeholders assigned this subindicator the highest weight among the Regulation & Support group, twice as highas any other sub-indicator, signaling its importance regardless of presently good
health.

Figure 11: Water quality parameters and thresholds in the Mzintlava River near Kokstad monitoring station (T3H004Q01).
E. coli and Turbidity stand out as having concentrations well above their regulatory thresholds (red lines).

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 21

3.2.3 Disease Regulation
The Disease Regulation sub-indicator measures the exposure of the population towater-associated diseases. Freshwater ecosystems play an important role in thetransmission and containment of pathogens and vectors associated with various
common diseases such as dengue, malaria and yellow fever. These diseases are
one of the main causes of hospitalizations worldwide, and their risk to people
increases with human changes to freshwater ecosystems (e.g., dam construction,
pollution, riparian forest degradation). The Umzimvubu Catchment received ascore of 67 for Disease Regulation. This data was collected using surveys tounderstand if there were any illness outbreaks that were caused by the local water.
The results showed that 30 % of the participants indicated an outbreak in the local
villages. These results highlight the impact of poor water access in this region,
especially in rural areas, where there is an absence of piped water. Many families
must use rivers and streams near their homes to meet basic needs, exposing
themselves to the risk of contracting water borne diseases. It is worth noting that
this result requires further review, since there is very limited data on the prevalenceof water borne illnesses or diseases in this area.

3.2.4 Flood Regulation
The Flood Regulation sub-indicator measures the ecosystem’s ability to reducesurface runoff volume by decreasing downstream peak flows and/or absorbing
flood waters. The bare soils reduce water infiltration and increases floods duringhigh rainfall periods, which, in turn, leads to the need for measures to control theexcess water. Floods are one of the more expensive natural disasters, and intact
forests and wetlands can help reduce the level of this hazard and keep people
and property out of harm’s way. The Flood Regulation sub-indicator obtained
a score of 43, indicating that the Umzimvubu Catchment’s ability to control
flood is relatively low. In the case of the study region, whose coverage has been
modified by transformative atypical species, this result reflects the reduced abilityof the catchment to slow the timing of peak flow downstream and attenuate flood
water. This is also a reflection of the condition of wetlands in the catchment, as
there has been degradation to these ecosystems too. The predominance of
natural floods affects human populations and agricultural activities located in
the natural floodplains. Climate change could further exacerbate the present
challenges to flooding in Umzimvubu Catchment in the future. This sub-indicatorneeds to be further investigated to ensure continued flood regulating services.

3.3 Cultural
Cultural Services refer to the non-material benefits people experience from aquatic
ecosystems, such as their scenic beauty, recreational and cultural opportunities,
or spiritual practices. These cultural services are linked to the benefits of physical,
emotional, and mental health, as well as to opportunities for economic development(such as ecotourism). Freshwater ecosystems, in particular, are often associatedwith the cultural identity of a society. Stakeholders attributed a lower weight to thisindicator (15%), which suggests that it currently has less importance in relation to
Provisioning and Regulation and Support services. The Cultural indicator comprises
two sub-indicators that represent experiences and values associated with freshwater
ecosystems: Conservation of Cultural Heritage, and Recreation. The Cultural Service
indicator overall obtained a score of 14. The stakeholders of the Umzimvubu
Catchment gave much greater importance (84%) to the sub-indicator Conservationof Cultural Heritage than to the Recreation Service sub-indicator (16%). This is not
surprising, given that cultural activities are generally linked directly to the naturalenvironment and therefore more highly valued.

22 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXFigure 12: Conservationof Cultural Heritage in the
Umzimvubu Catchment.
Source: Critical Biodiversity
Areas Statutory Reserves
for the Eastern Cape (DWAF,
2007) and Important Bird
Areas of Southern Africa(Barnes, 1998).

3.3.1 Conservation of Cultural Heritage
The Conservation of Cultural Heritage sub-indicator measures the degree towhich freshwater ecosystems are preserved for their cultural importance, including
biological and spiritual importance. These areas may relate to or reflect a society’s
cultural, religious and scientific values. This sub-indicator received a score of
11. This critically low value directly reflects the low number of protected areas(official and potential) within the Umzimvubu Catchment, where only 23,284 ha areprotected (1.2% of the total area). These areas include Malekgonyane (Ongeluksnek)
Wildlife Reserve, Mount Currie Nature Reserve, Penny Park, Franklin Vlei andMatatiele Commonage. Figure 11 shows their locations. It should be noted, however,that there is a need to include areas related to traditional communities and regions
relevant to religious, spiritual and traditional practices, which may confer substantial
additional protection on the natural landscape. However, spatial data on thesepractices were not available. It is suggested that a further assessment consider
these regions to better represent this sub-indicator.

3.3.2 Recreation
The Recreation sub-indicator refers to water-related recreational activities suchas fishing, hiking, boating or enjoying waterfront landscapes. These recreational
activities provide important benefits for physical, emotional and mental health, but
can also offer opportunities for economic development, especially if they attract
tourism from people outside the catchment. The Recreation sub-indicator obtained
a score of 61, this reflects a moderate provision of recreational opportunities
in the catchment. The main activities noted as being important were swimming,
boating, walking along streams, visiting wetlands, bird watching and fishing.
Stakeholders also indicated the importance of municipal parks as a key option for
visiting recreational sites and indicated that they would appreciate having morenature-based recreational options in the catchment. They also indicated that river,lakes and wetlands are important for cultural identity.
The score suggests that there is still space to increase the attractiveness ofrecreation and tourism activities in the catchment, especially due to the high degreeof enthusiasm around nature-based recreational activities. The realization of thispotential depends on increasing protected areas and access infrastructure in theseareas.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 23

Figure 13. The first stakeholder meeting conducted in Matatiele, South Africa in October 2020. Photo credits: Fezile Matandela (CSA)

4. GOVERNANCE & STAKEHOLDERS: INDICATOR AND
SUB-INDICATOR RESULTS
The third component of the Freshwater Health Index, Governance and Stakeholders,assesses the structures and processes by which people make decisions related towater resources. In contrast to the indicators of the Ecosystem Vitality and Ecosystem
Services components, where data are routinely collected and measurement methods
are widely known, governance measurement is an emerging area without standardized
approaches. Topics are also more subjective, which means that people’s perceptions
are a valid source of information. To gather information for this component, asurvey was conducted with a group of key stakeholders whose work relates tothe management of the Umzimvubu Catchment. The stakeholders represented
government officials, researchers, the civilian community, and others with knowledgeof governance issues in the Umzimvubu Catchment.
Combining the results of the survey, the Umzimvubu Catchment obtained a scoreof 51 for the Governance and Stakeholders component. Improving this score
should be a priority for decision-makers in the Umzimvubu Catchment, particularly
considering the expected increases in water demand and climate variability. The
detailed assessments below provide information about where these improvements
can be made. It is also important to note that the indicators and sub-indicators of
this component were weighted by stakeholders, which revealed a preference for
the Enabling Environment indicator (weight of 37%), followed by the Stakeholder
Engagement indicator (weight of 32%). The weights reflect preference by stakeholders,highlighting what they deem as critical and needing to be prioritized.

4.1 Enabling Environment
The Enabling Environment indicator is related to the policies, regulations, market
mechanisms and social norms that exist to help govern and manage water resources.
Together, these attributes determine which rights and assets are protected within ariver catchment, as well as their management in the face of conflicts. Combining thefive sub-indicators below, the Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 44 forEnabling Environment. This result suggests the need for significant improvements,
which may involve national, regional and local actors. Among the five sub-indicators
within the Enabling Environment indicator, stakeholders attributed the highest weightto the Water Resources Management sub-indicator (31%). The second highest value
was attributed to the Rules for Resource Use (23%). Relatively similar values were
given to the three remaining sub-indicators: Incentives and Regulations (18%), Technical
24 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXCapacity sub-indicator (13%) and Financial Capacity (14%). The highest evaluatedfunction was the adequacy of the water policy coordination, rules for administrative
boundaries, following Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes, and honorary
recognition programs. The lowest evaluated function was pertaining to whether thenumber of staff to fulfil necessary functions and level of investment in service delivery
systems was adequate. This trend showed high consensus, meaning that people
generally agree with this result.

4.1.1 Water Resource Management
The Water Resources Management sub-indicator assesses the degree to which
institutions are responsible for performing functions such as coordination within
the catchment, planning and development of infrastructure, mobilization offinancial resources, and protection of ecosystems. Water Resources Management
is a complex set of tasks, usually involving various public agencies and otherstakeholders. Fragile coordination between these groups can lead to inefficient,
unfair or ineffective results. The Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of
46 for Water Resources Management. Among the evaluated functions, thehighest rated function was: “Policies and actions are in line with water resources
improvement and management in the catchment.” The lowest-rated function,according to the survey, was: “Ecosystem’s conservation priorities are developed,
and actions are implemented – such as protection of forest watersheds, wetlands,
or developing an aquatic species biodiversity action plan.” Put another way,stakeholders perceived ecosystem conservation to be inadequately incorporated
into water resources management in the catchment.

4.1.2 Rights to Resource Use
The Rights to Resource Use sub-indicator measures the clarity of rights to water andwater-related resources. Clear and enforceable rules, whether formal or informal(e.g., community rights), are important for the efficient use of water resources andtheir equitable distribution throughout the catchment. The Umzimvubu Catchment
received a score of 51 for this sub-indicator. This was also the highest scoreamong the sub-indicators of Enabling Environment. While this sub-indicator received
the highest score under this indicator, the score indicates that there is room for
improvement. Among the rules evaluated, the highest score was for “Rules forallocating water among different sectors (e.g., municipal, industrial, agricultural) areclear and transparent.” This is important, since unclear rights regarding water use
are often a source of conflict.

4.1.3 Incentives & Regulations
The Incentives and Regulations sub-indicator evaluates the availability of different
management tools, such as impact assessments or financial incentives, which
can be applied to reduce negative impact on water and related environmental
resources. The Umzimvubu Catchment received a score of 49 for Incentives andRegulations. Among the incentives and regulations evaluated, stakeholders gave
the highest ratings for “Environmental and social impact assessments for all majorwater projects, regardless of funding source, are carried out prior to decisions being
taken” and the “Existence of honorary recognition programs”. This suggests thatboth formal and informal tools are in use in the catchment.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 25

4.1.4 Technical Capacity
The Technical Capacity sub-indicator assesses the adequacy of the workforce, interms of number, skill level and training opportunities, to fulfill technical functions
related to the management of water resources. Even with sufficient financial
capacity, the scarcity of technical skills, such as environmental engineering,
can hinder the efficient and sustainable development of water resources. The
Technical Capacity sub-indicator for the Umzimvubu Catchment received ascore of 38, which is the second lowest score among the five sub-indicatorsof Enabling Environment. Stakeholders indicated that, among the four aspectsof technical capacity analyzed (number of personnel, specialized personnel,
training opportunities and professional certifications), the number of staff to fulfill
necessary functions received the lowest score. This highlights the challenges inthe backlogs (work waiting to be done) in certain agencies, poor services delivery
and limited monitoring and evaluation in the catchment. It is important to note that,
despite a perceived shortage of technical capacity within the catchment, there is
the potential to tap into the technical resources (government, universities, etc.)
provided by the membership of the UCP.

Figure 14. Virtual Stakeholder Meeting for the Umzimvubu Catchment.

4.1.5 Financial Capacity
The Financial Capacity sub-indicator measures the extent to which the necessary
investments are made to support the development and protection of water
resources. Public investment is necessary to ensure adequate funding forsafeguarding, protecting and remediating ecosystems. In the Umzimvubu
Catchment, the Financial Capacity sub-indicator obtained a score of 30, thelowest score among the sub-indicators within Enabling Environment andthe lowest among all sub-indicators of the Governance and Stakeholders
component overall. In general, the low score for this sub-indicator suggeststhat stakeholders believe that it is difficult to procure financial resources tomake improvements in the catchment. Specifically, stakeholders indicated thatthe “Level of investment in service delivery systems is inadequate”, thus thisfunction received the lowest score. This reflected the limited financial resources
for building and maintaining water distribution networks (i.e., piped supply) or
household wells in the catchment.

26 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXFigure 15: Groupdiscussions during thefirst stakeholder meeting
conducted in Matatiele,
South Africa in October
2020. Photo credits:Fezile Matandela (CSA)

4.2 Stakeholder Engagement
The Stakeholder Engagement indicator refers to all forms in which actors interact witheach other within the catchment and the degree of transparency and accountability
that characterizes these interactions. While stakeholder engagement takes place indifferent ways around the world, it is generally regarded as a key principle of goodwater governance. It ensures that the full range of concerns are considered before
important decisions are made to avoid possible conflicts and ensure equitable
distribution of benefits. The Stakeholder Engagement indicator is divided into two
sub-indicators: Information Access and Engagement in Decision-Making Processes.
Stakeholder Engagement received a score of 57, which reflects that there is still
space for improving this indicator. Stakeholders attributed weights to the two subindicators within this indicator group: Information and Knowledge with a value of 39%
and Engagement in Decision-Making Processes with a value of 61%.

4.2.1 Information Access
The Information Access sub-indicator assesses the availability and accessibilityof data on water quantity and quality, resource management and development.
Even in cases where data is routinely collected, if they are not available to thoseinterested in research or analysis, decisions may be considered less transparent.
Access to data also helps communities hold decision-makers accountable (forexample, to determine whether a particular policy or project is delivering the
expected results). In the Umzimvubu Catchment, the Information Access subindicator received an overall score of 54. This indicates that stakeholders are
not satisfied with the level and availability of information about the catchment.
In general, stakeholders indicated that the information does not meet expected
quality standards, in terms of frequency, level of detail, and subjects of interest to
stakeholders. This includes but is not limited to time series data on streamflow,
water levels, or water quality for specific locations within the catchment.

4.2.2 Engagement in Decision-Making Process
The Engagement in Decision-Making Processes sub-indicator measures theextent of stakeholder participation in some aspects of decision-making processes
and the degree to which they have a voice in the policy and planning cycle.
While there are different levels of “adequate” commitment, greater participationis generally associated with better transfer of more specific and equitable
information, plans and policies, transparency and accountability, and conflict
reduction. Engagement in Decision-Making Processes received a score of 60,
which is the second highest score among all sub-indicators. This score indicatesthat the actors recognize the role of existing participation platforms for different
stakeholders to inform decision-making processes of the Umzimvubu Catchment.
This score reflected the role that the UCP has played in bringing stakeholders
together to discuss water resources management in an open and transparent way.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 27

4.3 Effectiveness
The Effectiveness indicator evaluates the results of water-related policies andinvestment decisions. In other words, it is meant to measure whether the governancesystem is achieving what it was intended to do. Around the world, there is often a gap
between policy and practice, between what is expected based on a complex decision
and what actually happens. Thus, the effectiveness sub-indicators try to assess
whether decisions are having the intended effects. The Umzimvubu Catchment
obtained a score of 49 for this indicator, suggesting a disconnect between policy
and practice. Among the three Effectiveness sub-indicators, stakeholders attachedgreater importance to the Enforcement and Compliance sub-indicator (44%), followedby the Distribution of Benefits from Ecosystem Services (39%), followed by the WaterRelated Conflict indicator (17%).

4.3.1 Enforcement & Compliance
The Enforcement and Compliance sub-indicator measures the degree to whichlaws are respected and agreements are executed. The “compliance gap” mayreflect insufficient regulatory capacity or lack of accountability, which weakens
the effectiveness of laws and policies. The Umzimvubu Catchment received
a score of 42 for the Enforcement and Compliance sub-indicator – thestakeholders surveyed show significant concern about the effectiveness oflaws and policies. Among the execution of the five types of guidelines analyzed(for water abstractions, groundwater abstractions, flow, water quality and landuse guidelines), stakeholders indicated that surface and groundwater abstraction
guidelines are not well enforced in the catchment.

4.3.2 Distribution of Benefits
The Distribution of Benefits from Ecosystem Services sub-indicator refers to
the impacts of decisions on the management of water resources, with special
attention to the different segments of society: rural, urban, migrants without local
work registration, and those employed in resource-dependent sectors, such as
fishermen. Water-related ecosystem services are, by nature, unequally distributed
in a catchment, so measures (such as the development of reservoirs and water
distribution networks) often must be taken to ensure that resources are allocatedequally. The Umzimvubu Catchment obtained a score of 55 for this subindicator. This score reflected the need to improve the distribution of ecosystemservices across the catchment. The responses from the survey showed the lowest
score for “All districts and actors share in the benefits from ecosystem services.”

4.3.3 Water-related Conflict
The Water-Related Conflict sub-indicator reflects tensions between the parties
when there is competition for scarce resources such as water. Tension results inlegal battles or can prevent the resolution of conflicts and, therefore, can delay
or weaken decisions within the catchment. The FHI is restricted to the evaluationof disputes over water allocation, access, pollution, diversion, and infrastructuredevelopment. In the Umzimvubu Catchment, the Water-Related Conflict subindicator received a score of 53. Stakeholders currently view the presence ofwater-related conflict as the least worrisome theme in water. In other words,
more efficient resolution of water-related conflicts is not a major priority needing
immediate improvement. Among the five types of conflicts analyzed (overlapping
jurisdictions, allocation of water rights, conflicts of access to water, positioning of
infrastructure, and conflicts over water quality and other negative downstream
impacts), the most frequent, according to stakeholders, are those related to waterrights allocation.

28 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEX

4.4 Vision & Adaptive Governance
The Vision and Adaptive Governance sub-indicator measures the ability to gather
and interpret information and then use this information to establish policies,
develop plans for the catchment, and adapt to changing circumstances. Effective
management of water resources requires flexible and integrated forms of governanceto address often changing conditions and uncertainty associated with climatechange and other emerging challenges. Therefore, Strategic Planning and Adaptive
Management is an important aspect and is one of the sub-indicators here, along with
Monitoring Mechanisms, which allow updating and adapting management actions as
circumstances change. The Umzimvubu Catchment received an overall score of 58
for Vision and Adaptive Governance, the highest score among the indicators of theGovernance and Stakeholders component. Stakeholders attributed similar weights tothe two sub-indicators: 39% for Monitoring Mechanisms and 61% for Strategic Planningand Adaptive Management.

4.4.1 Monitoring Mechanisms
The Monitoring Mechanisms sub-indicator refers to the quality and use of physical,
chemical and biological monitoring of water resources in the catchment to guideplanning policies and processes. Ideally, decisions on water resource management
are based on robust data and information, but this requires collecting this information(which incurs costs) and use of that information by decision-makers. The Umzimvubu
Catchment obtained a score of 61 for this sub-indicator, the highest score among
the sub-indicators of the Governance and Stakeholders component. All four
variables analyzed (quantity, quality, biological, and access to monitoring) were given
relatively high scores, and stakeholders also indicated that this theme is not of criticalimportance currently.

4.4.2 Strategic Planning & Adaptive Management
The Strategic Planning and Adaptive Management sub-indicator is concernedwith the extent to which strategic planning (i.e., the accounting of land and water
use and infrastructure development) takes place within the catchment. Having
comprehensive plans, with well-defined objectives and long-term resource
development priorities, can help establish a vision to sustainably meet waterneeds. More importantly, perhaps, plans should be adjusted as circumstanceschange, when new information is made available, or when unforeseen eventsoccur. In the Umzimvubu Catchment, the Strategic Planning and Adaptive
Management sub-indicator received a score of 56. The three elements evaluatedfor this sub-indicator are: establishment of shared vision for the catchment to guide
future development, use of strategic planning mechanisms, and use of an adaptive
management structure. Stakeholders gave the lowest rating to the use of adaptive
management, highlighting an area that could use improvement, particularly in lightof climate change.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 29

A STREAM IN THE CATCHMENT © CI/CAROLINE ROSE

5. CONCLUSIONThe Umzimvubu Catchment FHI assessment demonstrated that the ecosystem service
delivery is under stress, mainly due to poor water supply reliability and cultural service
delivery. These results show the need for enhancing the supply of benefits that people
in the catchment need and strengthening the institutional decision-making for water
resources management. One of the factors that the results confront is the current andfuture role of spring rehabilitation and protection work to alleviate the identified water
access challenges in the catchment. Collaborative work between ANDM/MLM and CSA
to integrate springs with existing municipal infrastructure can help address this, matchinglabor from the villages with hard infrastructure from the municipality.
The FHI assessment provides a process to deeper engage more deeply withstakeholders’ practices and their commitment to improved water resourcesmanagement. It provides a broad understanding of the status quo of freshwater
systems that managers and decision-makers can use to further investigate some of thechallenges identified in this assessment. This process can be done through extensivemodelling, mapping and ground-truthing of these variables to further justify and informthe development of a shared vision for the catchment. The shared vision should reflect
the findings from this report, address the data gaps highlighted and suggest plans toimprove poor-performing indicators. This plan should be spatially explicit and align withthe work of the stakeholders in the Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership.

30 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXThe index provides a guide for future investment in freshwater systems in the catchment
and has the potential to inform future priorities. These priorities should be captured in theshared vision and catchment plan and done in consultation with all stakeholders. Someof the suggestions that were highlighted by stakeholders on improving the governancecomponent:

Finally, there were several data deficiencies that were highlighted through theassessment process. It is clear that many catchment residents are dependent on
harvested products in the catchment (fish, reeds, thatch, etc.); this dependency
should be better understood so that these resources can be managed sustainably.
Similarly, there is limited data on the prevalence of waterborne illnesses and diseases
in the catchment, and so the current estimates may be conservative. And regarding
Conservation of Cultural Heritage, it was acknowledged that areas related to traditional
communities, and regions dedicated to religious, spiritual and traditional practices, all
may serve to protect the natural landscape, but without spatial data on these practices,
they were not considered in the estimate (which was based on formally designatedprotected areas).

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 31

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR CALCULATIONS
The full documentation of the methods for the Freshwater Health Index (FHI) isavailable in the FHI User Manual, which can be accessed through the website(freshwaterhealthindex.org). The following are details of the methods and data used
for the evaluation of the Umzimvubu Catchment in South Africa. It is important tohighlight that all sub-indicators were aggregated at the level of the indicators, which,in turn, were aggregated at the component level. The aggregation of sub-indicatorsand indicators of the Ecosystem Vitality component was done by geometric mean,
while the sub-indicators and indicators of the Ecosystem Services and Governanceand Stakeholders components were aggregated by weighted geometric mean,considering the relative importance (weight) given by stakeholders to each of theindicators and sub-indicators. It is important to note that a geometric mean oftendelivers values that differ from the more commonly calculated arithmetic mean,
because it is less influenced by outliers (a single exceptionally low or high score in aset).

ECOSYSTEM VITALITY
Deviation from Natural Flow Regime
We used WRSM2000 (Pitman) rainfall-runoff hydrological model of the Umzimvubu
Catchment system to determine deviation from natural flow regime. We compared
the modeled regulated flow against modeled unregulated flow using the Amended
Annual Proportion of Flow Deviation indicator (AAPFD) (Gehrke et al., 1995; Gippel etal., 2011). This was for the period of 1965 to 2009. The AAPFD gives a score, whereby
the higher the number, the greater the alteration. This score was transformed andnormalized to a 0-100 range, with 100 being no deviation from the natural flow regime.
The basin-wide deviation from natural flow regime score was the weighted (by meanannual discharge) arithmetic mean of the scores from five locations: (1) T3H009 theMooi river at Maclear; (2) T3H006 the Tsitsa River at Xonkonxa; (3) T3H005 the Tina
River at Mahlungulu; (4) T3H008 the Umzimvubu River at Komdraai; and T3H004 theMzimtlava River at Slang Fountein.

Water Quality Index
The Water Quality Index measures how much water quality parameters differ fromthe values needed for the functioning of aquatic ecosystems and is calculated using
the modified CCMW method (Canadian Council of Environment Ministries, 2001). Thismethod incorporates three elements: 1) Scale: the number of variables that do notmeet water quality limits; 2) Frequency - the number of times quality limits are notreached; and 3) Amplitude - to what extent objectives are not achieved. The index
produced is a number between 0 (worst water quality) and 100 (best water quality) thatis used as a score for the FHI.

32 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXCITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE CATCHMENT © CI/NOMPUMELELO TENZA

Data from 15 parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium, calcium carbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia nitrogen,ammonia, phosphate, turbidity, E. coli coliforms) measured in 6 monitoring stations.
This was for the period of 2017 to 2019, and data was provided by the Departmentof Water and Sanitation. It is worth mentioning that the map that shows the locationof the monitoring stations used for the ‘determination of water resource classes
and Resource quality objectives for the water Resources in the Umzimvubu
catchment Status Quo report’ (DWS 2017). Thus, the FHI analysis, same stations
were considered, and recent datasets were.
The thresholds used for the parameters necessary to ensure the conservation of
aquatic ecosystems were obtained mainly from the South African Water Quality
Guidelines (DWS, 1996).
The final score of the catchment was a geometric mean between the indexes
obtained for each monitored station, using the length of the drainage network(according to the Hydrocatchment database, Lehner and Grill, 2013) above eachmonitoring station as weight.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 33

Bank Modification
Bank Modification was evaluated using the loss of riparian vegetation as a proxy for changes in the riverbanks. Land use within
a 100-m riparian zone was extracted from the South African National Land-Cover map (SANLC) generated from the Sentinel
2 satellite imagery for the year 2018. A score was assigned for each class of land use, ranging from 0 – no modification to
1 - complete modification, such as rectification of rivers and creation of artificial channels. Specifically, for the Umzimvubu
Catchment, the following scores were used: 0 for near natural riparian corridor; 0.25 for some modification (including agriculturaluse); 0.5 modifications are visible; 0.75 large sections of the channel are clearly modified and 1 for fully modified channels.
Scores were assigned for all the classes and were verified by visual inspection using high-definition satellite images of
Google Earth (Google Earth, 2020). In general, riparian areas showed some level of degraded in some parts but, overall, themodification in riparian zones is low. The study by Mararakanye and Le Roux in 2012 on the gully location map at a national
scale for South Africa, provided and additional layer to assess the changes in the riparian zone caused by gully erosion, which isa major driver of change in the landscape. These gully erosion areas aligned with the determined modified areas using the land
cover map.

Flow Connectivity
Flow Connectivity was evaluated using the Dendritic Connectivity Index (DCI). It was assumed that “passbility”, that is the ability of afish to cross a dam in any direction, was one in river channels which were considered ‘critical corridors for movement of fish species’(CSIR, 2011) and zero for where no information was found on the design of the dams. The DCI, therefore, was calculated as a functionof the length of the channel fragments compared to the total length of the drainage network. For the analysis, we used: (1) map of thedrainage network provided by the National freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nfepa) (CSIR, 2011), more specifically the shapefile‘Nfepa rivers’, and (2) shapefile of dam locations (kindly shared by the Department of Water and Sanitation-East London Office). Given
that the Umzimvubu Catchment open out to the Indian Ocean, the DCI was calculated by weighting both, the potadromous anddiadromous fish species.

Land Cover Naturalness
The Land cover Naturalness was evaluated using the land use map produced South African National Land-Cover map (SANLC)
generated from the Sentinel 2 satellite imagery for the year 2018 (DEFF, 2018). The different classes of land use on the map
received scores ranging from 0 to 100, according to the following criteria: 100 for forest, savannah, natural pasture, shrubby
vegetation, swamp, water, 60 for agricultural areas with shrubs, 50 for irrigated agricultural areas, 0 for urban use. Subclassifications are suggested based on three factors:•

Management of the water cycle: manually altering the flow and/or use of water to maintain a particular land-use type•

Pollution: chemical and physical pollutants entering the local water cycle due to cultural practices, such as fertilizer andpesticide use, and increased soil runoff from croplands as well as urban runoff and point-source wastewater loads fromurban and industrial lands•

Vegetation characteristics: degree of native vegetation and permanence of vegetative cover

The naturalness was calculated in relation to a pixel of 20m. The score for each of the sub-catchments was the mean value
calculated using the zonal statistic. The final score for the entire Umzimvubu Catchment was calculated using geometric meanusing the values for each sub-catchment.

Species of Interest
Species of Interest is the degree of threat to aquatic species (fish, amphibians, crustaceans, mollusks, insects and plants).
As there were no continuous species monitoring data for the Umzimvubu Catchment, this sub-indicator represents only the
proportion of species with some kind of threat in relation to the total diversity of species already observed. This proportion isweighted according to the IUCN classification for each species, that is, critically threatened, threatened, vulnerable and almost
threatened. For the Umzimvubu Catchment, data from the species of interest were obtained from the IUCN Red List (2021) andthe Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (FBIS) with spatial information for amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, mollusks,
insects, birds, and fish.

34 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXInvasive Species
This sub-indicator is the predominance of invasive species in the catchment. As there is no continuous monitoring data ofinvasive species for the Umzimvubu Catchment, the calculation used the proportion of invasion of woody alien plant species(Acacia dealbata is one of the main drivers of change in this region) to the total catchments area. There was no invasive alienplant map for this region, therefore the sentinel-2 product was used to identify and map IAP through supervised classification.
Known ground points were used to train and ground truth the output, though there is still space to further develop this product.
The map is an indication of the extent of woody alien plant invasion, although there is still a need to also consider the impactthat these plants have of freshwater systems. To convert this map data into an indicator, we first calculated the percentage of
IAP coverage in each sub-catchment. We then used the Ecosystem Services Indicator (Shaad et al., 2022) method to calculate
an index score, using a threshold of “minor invasion” (<2%) to measure good health (Van Wilgen et al., 2018). The ESI approachconsiders the number of sub-catchments that exceed the threshold, as well as the magnitude of each excursion, in compiling ascore from 0-100.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
All Ecosystem Services sub-indicators were calculated using the same general approach, the Ecosystem Services Indicator (ESI)
method documented in Shaad et al. (2022), which measures where within the catchment demand for a service is unmet, howfrequently this occurs, and the magnitude of unmet demand. Input data vary according to the service, but at a minimum, requirea map with discrete spatial units (e.g., sub-catchments) and a threshold, or expected level to satisfy demand.

Water Supply Reliability Relative to DemandThis indicator is designed to give a measure of the ability to meet water demand from various sectors, with respect to total
water available. In this case, however, we focused exclusively on household access to safe drinking water, given its importanceto many stakeholders, its relevance in the regional context, and the availability of a robust dataset covering the catchment.
Using data from the South Africa’s Community Survey 2016 (http://cs2016.statssa.gov.za), we evaluated access to safe drinking
water at the local municipality (ADM3) level in the catchment. Using the ESI method and a threshold based on the 2016 national
average of 82.5% access, we calculated an indicator score for each local municipality that reflects how far above or below thenational average each local municipality was.

Biomass for Consumption
There was limited information on assessing biomass for consumption related to freshwater systems in this catchment. This indicatorseeks to understand the yield of fisheries, wild food, fiber, and other materials from freshwater systems for human use. However, in
the absence of existing data, a stakeholder survey was administered to understand the use of biomass. A total of 123 participants
completed an online survey, these individuals are from or reside in the upper, middle, or lower catchment. The main categories forbiomass use were medicinal plants, fishing, hunting, harvesting of thatch grass (ingca), harvesting of river beads (ubuchwabase),
Reed harvesting (iingcongolo/umhlanga) and clay for pottery. Participants also indicated if they were using the harvested material
for supporting their livelihoods, and if there are any rules for harvesting of these resources. There is an apparent need toinvestigate this trend and pursue additional studies that can complement these findings.

Sediment Regulation
This indicator seeks to identify areas affected, the frequency and degree of change in sediment deposition and erosion thresholds
in a catchment. Sediment regulation indicator assesses the loss in reservoir storage capacity, loss in floodplain deposits andchange in delta deposition/erosion. The indicator was calculated using the potential erosion risk generated through the RUSLE
model (Le Roux et al., 2008). This modeling was conducted by Le Roux et al. at a national scale to account for the potential andactual water erosion risk. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation model was adopted for this study as a robust way to estimate
sheet and rill erosion by runoff from slopes under various land use. In addition, the model considers climate, soil profile, relief,vegetation, and land management practices in estimating this risk.
The threshold value for potential erosion rate was recently estimated for the sub-Saharan region for 2012 in a global assessment(Borrelli et al., 2017). It was considered more useful to use a regional threshold than to use the generic tolerable rate of 10 tonnes
per hectare, as the Borrelli et al. (2017) considers the different degrees of agricultural practices applied by different countries, which
may reflect the level of development of a given region.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 35

Water Quality Regulation
The Water Quality Regulation was evaluated by the same method of the Water Quality Index, described in the Ecosystem Vitality
component. The difference is that the thresholds for this sub-indicator are less restrictive. For the analysis, the same data used
to calculate the Water Quality Index in the Vitality component were included. We considered the acceptable limits necessary
to ensure the potability of water determined by national legislation (South African Water Quality Guidelines 1996), which
establishes limits for the quality of water intended for human consumption. The legislation provided the limits for pH, electricalconductivity, temperature, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, sulfate, iron, manganese and fecal coliforms turbidity, nitrite,
total dissolved solids, oxygen saturation and total coliforms.

Disease Regulation
The Disease Regulation Indicator was evaluated using stakeholder perceptions about the prevalence of water related illnesses
in local villages. There is limited data available on recorded water related diseases in this region. Data for this indicator was
sourced from a study by Environmental Rural Solutions (ERS) and Dartmouth College, undertaken in 2021. This study was
to understand the current practices and perceptions related to livestock, water, and biomass. This study focused in six local
villages, namely Moshoeshoe, Sibi, Makhoba, Mafube, Mzongwana and Nkosana, with 300 participants. The study showed that
30% of the respondents indicated that they have experienced an illness outbreak in their village that was caused by the local
water source.
Through this study it was possible to understand which villages in the Umzimvubu Catchment have experienced water relateddisease outbreaks, which could be used as indication of the water quality issues in these areas. These villages are a subsetof the total catchment area, thus there is a need to better understand the water related illnesses that dominate this catchment
through in-depth studies. To further investigate which type of disease, where in the catchment is it prevalent, what are theacceptable thresholds and subsequently develop strategies to address their impacts. Literature shows that the cholera epidemic
in 2000-2001 which spread from Northern KwaZulu Natal to the Eastern Cape was one of the well documented water relateddisease outbreak recorded. This outbreak raised awareness on access, functionality, and quality of water resources in theseprovinces. It also highlighted the lack of piped infrastructure, and the irregular water supply in infrastructure that exists, resulting
in many households using traditional water sources (collecting from rivers and springs) which were often contaminated (SAHR,
2016).

Flood Regulation
Flood Regulation was evaluated by identifying the occurrence, frequency and amplitude of floods. That is, the calculation was
not based on specific data on the number of people affected by flooding—which would be ideal—but rather, based on the flood
events. We calculated the Flood Regulation indicator using the six gauged stations along Umzimvubu River with defined floodlevels (T3H004 - Mzintlava River at Slang Fontein; T3H005 - Tina River at Mahlungulu; T3H006 - Tsitsa River at Xonkonxa;
T3H007 - Mzimvubu River at Ku-Makhola; T3H008 - Mzimvubu River at Kromdraai; T3H009 - Mooi River at Maclear), using the
gauging stations water level time series from 2010-2020. The indicator was calculated using 1) the presence of flooding using
the pre-defined flood levels, and 2) the magnitude of the floods based on their exceedance of the levels.

Conservation and Cultural Heritage
This sub-indicator was evaluated by determining the percentage of the length of the drainage network within protected areas.
The goal is to have at least 17% of the drainage network within protected areas. This percentage is the limit set by the Aichi Goalfor Biological Diversity. The length of rivers and streams within and at the limit of the protected areas system were obtained fromthe river network data set. These were compared with the total length of the Umzimvubu Catchment drainage network, using
the following formula:

36 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXPoR is the percent of river length protected; BL, the length of rivers bordering protected areas; IL the length of rivers withinprotected areas; and RL is the total length of rivers within the Umzimvubu catchment. We used the global target minimum (17%)
of wetlands and waterways, following the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. The value is thenscaled using an asymptotic function:

Additionally, protected areas and areas that have high potential to be designated as protection areas were also included.
These areas may be formally or informally protected, such as nature reserves, parks, important birdlife areas. These areas
include Malekgonyane Wildlife and Matatiele Commonage. Even if they are not under any type of official protection currently,
the inclusion of the potential protected areas was appropriate because they are areas identified with values that are worth
preserving.

Recreation
For the calculation of this sub-indicator, data on continuous monitoring of the number of visitors in waterfalls, rivers, reservoirs,
among other watercourses, in protected areas or not is ideal. As these data were not found for the study catchment, thepotential for recreation was quantified through surveys. A total of 123 participants filled out a survey to understand the water
related recreational activities that exist in the catchment. The sub-indicator score was derived directly from a survey question
asking participants to rate the quality of outdoor water-related recreation using a 1-10 scale. The average was multiplied by 10 toarrive at a final score. The key activities were indicated to be swimming, fishing, boating, taking walks along streams, and visiting
wetlands.

GOVERNANCE & STAKEHOLDERSThe Governance and Stakeholders indicators were determined by applying a perception survey with 50 questions, using a
5-point scale. The perception survey was administered online after the second stakeholder engagement. In total, 14 actors
participated, representing sectors of government, civil society, academy, industries and NGOs, with knowledge on governanceissues in the Umzimvubu Catchment. The scores of each question were then aggregated into average values within modules,
where each module was related to each sub-indicator and included 3 to 6 questions. The mean values were then normalized toa scale from 0 to 100.

WEIGHTING
The assessment of the relative priority that stakeholders give to indicators and sub-indicators of Ecosystem Services andGovernance and Stakeholders components was carried out using a method for measuring multi-attribute utility (Edwards andBarron 1994). This method was administered online after the second stakeholder engagement workshop, where participants wereable to perform a series of paired comparations and then evaluate the strength of their preferences.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 37

REFERENCES
Allan, J. D., Castillo, M. M. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York.
2007.
Barnes, 2013. The Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa. Bird Life South Africa. Accessed here: http://www.birdlife.org.za/
conservation/iba
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R. et al., 2017. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil
erosion. Nature Communications 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7
DEFF, 2018. South African National Land-Cover 2018. Department of Environment, Forestry & Fisheries (DEFF). Downloaded
here: https://egis.environment.gov.za/data_egis.
Department of Provincial and Local Government. 2003. The White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance. Pretoria,
South Africa.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines (second edition). Volume 1: Domestic
Use.
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), South Africa, 2017. Determination of Water Resource Classes and Resource Quality
Objectives for Water Resources in the Mzimvubu Catchment. Status Quo and (RU and IUA) Delineation Report. Compiled byRivers for Africa eFlows Consulting (Pty) Ltd. for Scherman Colloty and Associates cc. Report no. WE/WMA7/00/CON/CLA/0316
DWA (Department of Water Affairs). 2004. Groundwater Resource Assessment II. Available from: http://www.dwa.gov.za/
Groundwater/GRAII.aspx
Edwards, W., Barron, F.H., 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement.
Organ. Behav. Um. Decision. Process. 60: 306–325.
ERS & CSA, 2011. Umzimvubu Catchment Conservation Programme: Phase 1 strategy outline. Restoration Of Ecosystem Services
Through Local Stewardship. Environmental Rural Solutions and Conservation South Africa.
ERS & CSA, 2011. Umzimvubu Catchment Overview. Environmental Rural Solutions and Conservation South Africa.
ERS, 2020. Water Use and Access summary – sample of 300 households in the Matatiele Local Municipality: focus on six
traditional authority areas along watershed. Extract from household level survey undertaken in January-February 2020 by ERS
field interns. Matatiele, South Africa.
Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (FBIS). 2020. FBIS Version 3. Downloaded from: http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.
org on 06 February 2021
Gehrke, P., P. Brown, C.B. Schiller, D.B. Moffatt and A. Bruce (1995) River regulation and fish communities in the Murray–DarlingRiver system, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 15,181–198.
Gippel, C.J., Y. Zhang, X. Qu, W. Kong, N.R. Bond, X. Jiang, and W. Liu (2011) River health assessment in China: comparison anddevelopment of indicators of hydrological health. ACEDP Australia-China Environment Development Partnership, River Healthand Environmental Flow in China. The Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, the Pearl River Water Resources
Commission and the International WaterCentre, Brisbane, September.
Groeve, T., Z. Kugler, G. R. Brakenridge, 2007. Near Real Time Flood Alerting for the GlobalDistaser Alert and Coordination
System. Proceedings of the 4th International ISCRAM Conference (B.Van de Walle, P. Burghardt and C. Nieuwenhuis, eds.) Delft,
the Netherlands, May 2007, pp.33-40. Data retrieved using Application Programming Interface (API) via https://www.gdacs.org/
flooddetection/.

38 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXHopkins, K.G., Morse, N.B., Bain, D.J., Bettez, N.D., Grimm, N.B., Morse, J.L. and Palta, M.M., 2015. Type and timing of stream
flow changes in urbanizing watersheds in the Eastern U.S. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 3, p.000056. DOI: http://doi.
org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000056
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2019. Red List of Endangered Species. Available in https://www.
iucnredlist.org/resources/spatial-data-download.
Le Roux, J.J., Morgenthal, T.L., Malherbe, J., Pretorius, D.J., Sumner, P.D, 2008. Water erosion prediction at a national scale forSouth Africa. Water SA Journal, 34: 3, 305-314.
Lehner, B., Grill G. (2013): Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s
large river systems. Hydrological Processes, 27(15): 2171–2186.
Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area. 2008. 20 Year (2008-2028) Conservation & Development Strategy.
Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Project. 2007. Payment for Ecosystem Services: Developing an Ecosystem Services Trading
Model for the Mnweni/Cathedral Peak and Eastern Cape Drakensberg Areas. Mander (Ed) INR Report IR281. Development Bankof Southern Africa, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Ezemvelo KZN
Wildlife, South Africa
Mararakanye, N; Le Roux, J.J., 2012. Gully location mapping at a national scale for South Africa, South African Geographical
Journal, 94:2, 208-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2012.742786
National Biodiversity Assessment, 2011. Protected areas in South Africa.
Nel, J.L., Le Maitre, D.C., Colvin, C., Smith, J.S., Haines, I. 2011. South Africa’s Strategic Water Source Areas. CSIR report: CSIR/
NRE/ECOS/ER/2013/0031/A
Poff, N.L., Bledsoe, B.P., Cuhaciyan, C.O., 2006. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States:
Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79(3-4): 264-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2006.06.032
Rall, J and Skelton, PH. 2001. Conservation of the Maloti minnow (Phase 1). Distribution and conservation status. Final Report,
Contract 1041, Phase 1. LHDA, Maseru, Lesotho.
Rejmánek, M., Huntley, B.J., le Roux, J.J., Richardson, D.M., 2017. A rapid survey of the invasive plant species in western South
Africa. Afr J Ecol 55:56–69.
SAHR, 2016. South African Health Review. Water sanitation and health: South Africa’s remaining and existing issues. David
Hemson. Health Systems Trust.
Shaad, K., Souter, N.J., Vollmer, D., Regan, H.M., Bezerra, M.O., 2022. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource
Management: An Indicator-Based Approach. Environmental Management https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021001559-7.
Skelton, P.H., 2019. The Freshwater Fishes of South Africa. In: Huntley B., Russo V., Lages F., Ferrand N. (eds) Biodiversity ofSouth Africa. Springer, Cham.
Van Wilgen, B.W. & Wilson, J.R. (eds.) 2018. The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2017.
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch.

UMZIMVUBU RIVER CATCHMENT | 39

40 FRESHWATER HEALTH INDEXUMZIMVUBU UPPER CATCHMENT © CI/CAROLINE ROSE