Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
30 November 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
At the National Symposium where agricultural water management scenarios for South Africa were discussed, were from the left: Emily Mathi from Agbiz; Chantel Ilbury; Prof Abiodun Ogundeji, Associate Professor in the UFS Department of Agricultural Economics; and Prof Andries Jordaan.

The Disaster Management Training and Education Centre (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State (UFS) hosted a national symposium on agricultural water management. The symposium took place on 24 November at the Grain Building Agri-hub in Pretoria, with delegates also connecting via Zoom. 

At the symposium, the project leader of the research study, Prof Andries Jordaan (Executive Director: Résilience Globale Pty Ltd and Research Fellow: DiMTEC), presented the research findings of a study that DiMTEC conducted for the Water Research Commission (WRC). Three years ago, he applied for funding from the WRC to develop water management scenarios for South Africa for the period 2020 to 2030. Master’s and PhD students worked with him on the project.

Presenting at the symposium on behalf of the WRC, was Sylvester Mpandeli, the Executive Manager. He believes that education and knowledge transfer are a priority for the future and says that strategic partners such as universities are playing an important role through their research on water. 

Other important role players in the agricultural sector also presented their views. Prof Anthony Turton, Affiliated Professor in the Centre for Environmental Management at the UFS, who is known for extreme views on water management, delivered a presentation titled, Water is a Flux, so why Manage it as a Stock? where he posed the hard questions around this scarce commodity. 

The implications for food security

He pointed out a number of factors that, if not addressed, would have severe implications for food security in South Africa. 

“Firstly, although South Africa has world-class water legislation in the National Water Act, we failed to implement strategies to improve the quality of water. Water quality is below accepted standard and it is deteriorating. The ecological health of our ecosystems is worse. Rivers became eutrophic, a condition which is difficult to turn around. Sewerage discharge and people dumping garbage in the rivers contribute to this problem.”
 
He also indicated that infrastructure did not keep up with the demand. “It has been overloaded and very little is being done to upgrade our water infrastructure. The infrastructure is not fit for purpose anymore,” he says. 

Another concern pointed out was the fiscal cliff, a reality that was magnified with the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding for important structures such as the water commission and universities (playing a role in water research) will be lacking due to this fiscal cliff, he says. 

He states that we need to tackle sensitive topics, including expropriation without compensation, and bankruptcy of municipalities. He goes on to say that irrigation boards ought to be protected, empowered, and not taken over by the state. They must receive freedom to set tariffs to sustain themselves. He also adds that South Africa needs an independent water regulator. 

The insightful presentation by Chantel Ilbury from the company Mind of a Fox and member of the research team, sketched possible water management scenarios for South Africa that were developed during the research. She gave four scenarios: the conventional, the Z or no hope, the frustration, and the eagle scenario. The ideal is the latter, where water is seen as a strategic resource in agriculture by all stakeholders and it is driven by efficiency, good management, and new technologies. There is food security and good private/government relationships.

The Z or no hope scenario sketches a dark picture, with a declining agricultural sector, water misuse, and increasing water conflicts. She says this scenario indicates little new technology and innovation in the sector and ultimately a food insecure scenario for South Africa in the next 10 years.

Collaboration between government and private sector a must

After Ilbury’s presentation, Prof Jordaan provided measures that could be implemented through policy formulation to steer the country towards an eagle scenario.

Key issues investigated in the research study include governance, implementation of policy and political leadership, private sector involvement, innovation, technology, and respect for water by society. He points out that collaboration between government and the private sector is not negotiable – it is a must. 

Also touching on the point of water infrastructure, he proposes investment in new water infrastructure and water-saving technology. “The President’s economic development plan should emphasise capital formation in the water and energy sector.”

However, he says drought “is the trigger that can worsen the impact of negative scenarios”. He proposes that innovative policy on drought management should be implemented with a focus on disaster risk reduction. 

The Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof Francis Petersen, provided a higher-education perspective. He says that universities are institutions that can find solutions to the greatest challenges of our time. “Universities are living laboratories, developing solutions to local, national, and global challenges.”

He believes that postgraduate studies and short courses can contribute in terms of skills development to further our understanding of key water issues. He also says that innovation is key to sustainable water futures. “There needs to be an intentional focus on collaboration, co-creation, and knowledge sharing among different sectors of the economy to inform policy and practice on all aspects related to water.”

Importance of infrastructure development

AgriSA, the Agricultural Business Chamber, and the African Farmers Association of South Africa (AFASA) also provided their views on water management in South Africa. 

Theo Boshoff, representing the Agricultural Business Chamber, emphasised the importance of infrastructure development. “Infrastructure development is an enabler and a positive sign, and it need to be implemented now.”

Keith Middleton, representing AFASA, states that black farmers do not want to remain small. We need to look at how we can increase black commercial farmers. Most of agricultural water is still in commercial hands. The redistribution of water will impact the development of black farmers. He proposes that everyone reapplies for water rights. “The current situation hampers the entrance of black farmers into the sector,” he says.

“We want equity with access to water.”

Janse Rabie, speaking on behalf of AgriSA, confirmed the conviction of some of the other speakers, who all believe in the importance of good relationships between the role players. “The biggest risk is not talking to each other,” he says.

 

 

WATCH: Symposium Provides Course of Action for Good Water Management - Prof Andries Jordaan



 

 

WATCH: Symposium Provides Course of Action for Good Water Management - Chantel Ilbury



News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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