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

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers
2014-10-03

 

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

  1. No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
  2. At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
  3. The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
  4. In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index.  Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

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