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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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