Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
31 May 2023 | Story Prof Anthony Turton | Photo Supplied
Prof Anthony Turton
Prof Anthony Turton is a water expert from the Centre for Environmental Management at the University of the Free State.


Opinion article by Prof Anthony Turton, Centre for Environmental Management, University of the Free State.


This week, our national sewage crisis really began to bite. A media storm has erupted over the cholera outbreak in Hammanskraal, while some families are now grieving for their dead relatives. It is important that we start this story by remembering the dead, because they were breadwinners in families, all doing their best to survive the tribulations of our times. They died unnecessarily, the victims of the slow onset disaster I spoke of in 2008 at a conference titled ‘Science Real and Relevant’.

At that conference, reference was made to three water quality challenges that we, in the dwindling aquatic sciences community, were all too aware of, but unable to speak about. We noted trends that data sets were showing us, and we felt a growing sense of alarm about the consequences of the trajectories on the graphs. We noted that our systems were failing rapidly, with much of our hard infrastructure in the water sector approaching the end of its useful design life. We noted with alarm the loss of skills, as the ravages of purging took its toll on our science, engineering, and technology core.  We noted the loss of dilution capacity in all our rivers after the first National Water Resource Strategy (NWRS), mandated by the National Water Act (NWA), indicated that we had allocated 98% of all the water in all our rivers and dams, as far back as 2002. We noted the migration of plumes of uranium moving into the headwaters of both the Vaal and Crocodile Rivers, both tributaries of the Orange and Limpopo respectively, driven by uncontrolled decant of acid mine water, as the gold mining industry started to collapse.

From these sets of data, a simple conclusion was drawn – SA was heading for a slow onset disaster unless we could convince our political leadership that we need to do things differently.

Here are some facts in the wake of the cholera crisis.

Fact 1 – The South African economy ran out of water in 2002 when the NWRS revealed that we had already allocated 98% of all the water we have legally available in terms of the NWA. This means that we cannot convince investors to have confidence in our future. We face an investment drought as a direct result of this startling but irrefutable fact.

Fact 2 – We produce more than 5 billion litres of sewage daily, all of which is discharged into our rivers and dams, only about 10% of which is treated to a standard that makes it safe for direct human contact.

Fact 3 – The Green and Blue Drop Reporting System was suspended by Nomvula Mokonyane when the data was showing trends in the failure of our sewage treatment works. This is like a pilot in a commercial airliner switching off the radar screen because the information being revealed was becoming uncomfortable to the poorly trained, but rapidly promoted cockpit crew. This is the undeniable genesis of the deaths we are seeing today.

Fact 4 – Because of Facts 1 and 2 combined, our tsunami of sewage can no longer be diluted in our rivers. In fact, more than 60% of all our large dams are now eutrophic, with highly enriched water breeding toxic cyanobacteria, all thriving off the warming water and growing flow of nutrients from sewage. In simple truth, we have lost our dilution capacity, and our rivers have been turned into hazardous sewers breeding harmful pathogens, including the flesh-eating bacteria that cost RW Johnson his leg. This means that cholera is only one of the risks we are facing from raw sewage in our rivers. For example, Hepatitis A is a waterborne pathogen directly related to sewage-contaminated rivers, but this is being reported separately in our slow onset disaster, so the penny has yet to drop.

Fact 5 – The current Minister of Water and Sanitation, Mr Senzo Mchunu, was brave enough to reinstate the Green and Blue Drop Reporting System, which has now shown that more than 90% of our wastewater treatment works are dysfunctional. He is a brave man in so doing, and I want to publicly support him as he tries to rebuild the trust that was destroyed by a previous minister.

So, this is where we are today. People are dying as a direct consequence of decisions made by a former minister, who clearly failed in her custodial role. She must ultimately be held to account for her dereliction of duty and blatant betrayal of public trust. Just this week, a spokesperson for the Presidency noted that his office was unable to intervene in another crisis, because the cooperative governance clause in our constitution prevented one sphere of government from intervening in the activities of another sphere. We must challenge this constitutional weakness and seek clarification from the appropriate court. How can a constitutional clause be so irrational as to prevent one part of government from intervening in another to avert a catastrophe? How many more lives must be lost to the absurdity of legal protection for those in power, while their activities are clearly not in the best interest of society as a whole? Surely a constitutional democracy is about empowering the citizens by protecting them against the consequences of failed service delivery.

From the depths of despair in the families of those whose lives have been lost to an entirely preventable illness, let us find the strength to rally as one and shout out, ‘enough is enough’. Our noble constitution grants all citizens rights to a better life in an environment that is safe from harm. Let us restore that dream by demanding that our sewage flows be brought under control. Surely this is the basis of modern civilization, irrespective of political persuasion or ideological preference.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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