Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
04 April 2019 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo JohanRoux
Prof Chapagain  Inaugural
Prof Ashok Chapagain, Senior Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, recently delivered his inaugural lecture on the university’s Bloemfontein Campus. The title of his lecture was Counting Water: Simple yet Complex. From the left are: Dr Engela van Staden, Vice-Rector: Academic; Prof Ashok, Dr Frikkie Maré, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics; and Prof Danie Vermeulen, Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.

Virtually every economic sector, from agriculture, power generation, manufacturing, beverage, and apparel to tourism, relies on fresh water to sustain its business. Yet, water scarcity and water-pollution levels in river basins around the world are increasing due to growing populations, changing consumption patterns, and poor water governance.

These are the words of Prof Ashok Chapagain, Senior Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS), who recently delivered his inaugural lecture on the university’s Bloemfontein Campus. The title of his lecture was Counting Water: Simple yet Complex.

He believes that in a world of increasing interconnectedness, equitable and sustainable resource management has become not only a local phenomenon, but also a global one. “The critical factors in managing these resources lie at both ends of the production and consumption chains. The interlinkages between agriculture, trade, economic, and energy policy and water-resources management must be understood,” he said.

Water footprint from farm to cup

The water footprint of a product is the volume of fresh water used to produce the product, measured over the various steps of the production chain. Water use is measured in terms of water volumes consumed or polluted, e.g. a cup of black coffee would take 140 litres of water as a result of water used in various processes, from the farm to the cup! 

Prof Chapagain said: “With the emergence of the water footprint concept, the public could for the first time see that the issue is not only related to direct water use in their houses, but also to their consumption of goods and services, such as food, fibre, and electricity. For example, a developed nation would typically state their water consumption data as around 100-200 litres per capita per day. This information is misleading, as it does not capture the massive amount of water needed to produce food, goods, and services consumed by the nation, which makes the daily water consumption a whopping 3 000-8 000 litres in these developed nations. Consumers, governments, and businesses are beginning to understand how their interests could be sustained in the long run, using this new approach to water-resource management.”

He also spoke about water as an economic enabler. According to him, harnessing the full benefit of water is constrained by three limits: hydrological limits, limits in production efficiency, limits and risks in externalising water footprints. He further elaborated, “Each river basin is unique with respect to amount of rainfall and pattern, rainfall-runoff relation, total available runoff, environmental flow requirements, groundwater recharge, etc. The actual available quantity of water is determined by all these parameters. Hence, there is a hydrological limit to water use in a river basin/aquifers”. He said: “On the other hand, making a process more efficient comes at a price, marking a limit on local efficiency gains. Similarly, importing virtual water to relieve pressure on local water resources would require second-order resources such as foreign currency, and a political will to move from a ‘water and food self-sufficiency’ policy towards a ‘water and food security’ policy. Enhancing the global water-use efficiency by means of trade has socio-economic limitations.” His current research focuses on unravelling these limits to growth, and on developing a generic analytical framework to find optimal solutions to growth under these water limits.

Trade can relieve the strain

Regarding the latter, he said trade in water-intensive goods and services could help relieve the strain on local/national water resources. For example, Switzerland covers merely 18% of its water demand from its internal water resources, i.e. 82% of it is external! South Africa’s external water footprint is only 22% of the total water footprint of national consumption. Hence, the scope of international trade to help alleviate local scarcity is limited by the availability of second-order resources such as foreign exchange, institutional capacity, socio-political context, etc. 

However, globalisation of fresh water brings both risks and opportunities. “Although national water resources could be saved for best alternative uses, the risks of a growing external dependency and the associated risks related to events elsewhere, are often not visible. These water-intensive production processes are vulnerable to the availability of water at the various locations where the production processes take place. The vulnerabilities may result from a range of factors – from reduced river flows, lowered lake levels, and declined ground-water tables to increased salt intrusion in coastal areas, pollution of freshwater bodies, droughts, and a changing climate,” he said.

Water footprint assessment

Prof Chapagain also touched on the Water Footprint Assessment; he believes it has provided a sound method to analyse the water footprint in the relevant context and formulate appropriate response strategies. “The water-footprint assessment breaks down the different water-footprint components and checks the sustainability of these components against three sets of criteria: environmental, economic, and social. The application of the Water Footprint Assessment has evolved from basic quantitative studies to a powerful advocacy tool that can support decision-making and policy processes and help mitigate water-related business risk.

“Counting water drops is simple, yet unravelling the underlying complexities is the key! I count on you to start by counting water drops in counting for sustainable growth,” he concluded.

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture
2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept