**6. Conclusion**

Given that integration of water allocation and land reform is very important but at the same time also a problem in South Africa, not only in terms of policy development but also in terms of implementation, what recommendations can be given for more effective integration of these two processes in future? In addition, what lessons does this chapter provide to other countries in terms of the impacts of non-integration and the challenges to successfully implementing integrated reform programmes?

With the Departments for Water Affairs and Rural Development and Land Reform (DWA and DRDLR) jointly acknowledging the importance of joint water allocation and land reform (Kleinbooi, 2009), there is a renewed onus on the South African government to achieve higher levels of integration between these two processes. The question now remains how this can best be achieved.

Integrated water allocation and land reform needs to go beyond quick-fix attempts to try and merge different existing programmes, and instead has to focus on identifying the root causes of why existing programmes are not working and how these causes can best be addressed. It is of course also important to ground any water and land reform integration programmes in the context of the South African legislative framework to ensure that the ethos of the country's progressive legislation is adhered to. Noticeably, existing transsectoral coordination efforts seem to have focused mostly on collaboration between the departments (DAFF, DRDLR and DWA). Other government departments that might also have an important role to play, such as the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), in terms of the environmental sustainability of agricultural practices, and the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (DCGTA), perhaps need to be more involved.

In addition, three important premises can be identified to achieve more effective integration between the water allocation and land reform processes in South Africa? Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the multiplicity of the actor landscape and the presence of different stakeholder perspectives, linkages and interdependencies with other resources and sectors as a starting point. This may involve bringing on board other key stakeholders such as macro- and micro- lending institutions (for example, the Land Bank), commercial farmers who function as "strategic partners", irrigation boards, water user associations, land reform beneficiaries, and members of civil society, to try and find more innovative and inclusive solutions to address the need for integration. By determining the needs of stakeholders on the ground, it may be easier to establish how coordination between different parties may function more effectively. What should be key for government departments when involving a range of stakeholders is knowing when to solicit whose inputs and doing so strategically to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed by too many inputs all at once as this could be counter-productive.

Secondly, different government structures need to stop working in silos and need to start cooperating in terms of budget allocation and promoting integration.

Thirdly, there needs to be an acknowledgement that increased levels of integration and communication can take a long time, which necessitates patience, endurance and a long term vision on behalf of those who are seeking to improve integration.

Other countries can also benefit from this analysis by taking note of some of the impacts of non-integration of water and land management related programmes and the challenges to successfully implementing integrated reform programmes. The impacts of non-integration include governments having to deal with the effects of failed programmes and stakeholder collaboration, and the simultaneous manifestation of a disjuncture between policy and practice. Another impact is that failed integration efforts cause promising paradigms such as IWRM to lose credibility, both at the national and international level. It seems so difficult to implement integration focused water and land management programmes because of the bureaucratic culture of managing projects and programmes in silos. Implementation is furthermore impeded by government structures traditionally being hierarchical and compartmentalised and making it difficult for information to flow freely and easily between different units within government. Therefore there is a need in South Africa and elsewhere, when promoting greater levels of integration between water and land management related programmes, to try to ensure that different government structures work together both horizontally across sectors, and hierarchically from the national to the local level. In addition, a multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral effort is required at all levels, from the local to national if integration is to be operational and implementable.
