Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 January 2024 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. 


South Africa and Australia, both arid countries with historical ties to the British Empire, face significant water management challenges. Despite common legal and parliamentary systems, the two nations diverge in their approaches to water sector governance, leading to markedly different outcomes in economic prosperity.

In examining the disparities, it becomes evident that contemporary South Africa is grappling with a scenario resembling a failed state, particularly evident in the breakdown of the electricity and water services sector. This raises a fundamental question – why is the South African water sector faltering while its Australian counterpart thrives? 

Why is the South African water sector collapsing?

Addressing the collapse of the South African water sector requires a nuanced understanding rooted in historical context. The origins of the issue can be traced back to the British Empire’s consideration of federalism during the Anglo-Zulu War. While federalism found success in Canada and Australia, it failed to take root in South Africa.

Fast forward to the present, South Africa operates as a unitary state with a centralised water policy and national water law. This uniform approach leaves little room for local variation, resulting in a cookie-cutter model applied nationwide. Despite water being a constitutional right and given that free basic water is guaranteed to all, the sector faces challenges such as high levels of unaccounted-for water, leakages, and poor management. The absence of justiciable water rights and the separation of water from land ownership hinder private sector involvement. Consequently, utilities are reliant on government bailouts, a situation exacerbated by failing water and electricity grids, diminishing the tax base, and escalating unemployment. 

Australia’s flourishing water sector: A model of innovation 

Australia’s federal structure facilitates a diverse array of state policies and laws, promoting adaptability to local conditions. Boasting over 30 distinct water authorities, each tailored to meet local needs, Australia thrives on a justiciable water right system that allows private ownership. Market forces drive water to its most productive use, and investor confidence is a cornerstone in decision-making. 

Australia’s innovative and market-oriented approach has resulted in well-managed utilities with robust balance sheets. The ability to raise capital from the bond market reduces reliance on public funds for bailouts. Groundwater plays a vital role, accounting for around 40% of the total resource, while innovative technologies, such as seawater desalination, are embraced at the utility scale.   

South Africa’s water sector: uninvestable and facing challenges 

Contrastingly, South Africa’s water sector faces challenges. A lack of innovative approaches, coupled with a rigid, cookie-cutter methodology has stifled local imagination. The state’s hostility towards private capital has rendered the water sector generally uninvestable. While some large water boards still maintain strong balance sheets, the growing debt burden from non-payment by municipalities poses a threat. Limited development of groundwater at utility scale, coupled with a reluctance to replicate successful initiatives, further compounds the challenges. Sea water desalination, where it exists, is confined to small package plants in distressed municipalities along the coast, often seen as unsustainable. 

Australia’s innovative solutions: integrating technology and conservation

Australia stands out for its innovative solutions. With a vibrant private sector driving constant technological advancements, groundwater is a key element in most utilities, actively integrated into the grid and accounting for around 40% of the total resource. Building codes align with water conservation, ensuring rainwater harvesting and aquifer recharge are actively pursued at various levels, including suburb and city. The management of sewage, increasingly sophisticated water recovery from waste, and seawater desalination at utility scale funded by private capital showcase Australia’s forward-thinking approach.  

Centralisation versus decentralisation  

In conclusion, the weakness of South Africa’s water sector lies in the highly centralised approach, resulting in ineffective, one-size-fits-all solutions. Local authorities often lack imagination, relying heavily on taxpayers and hindering innovation. Suspicion towards capital and technology further limits the sectors development. In contrast, Australia’s decentralised approach fosters vibrant water utilities capable of attracting both capital and technology. Entrepreneurs’ initiatives in desalination and water recovery programmes inspire investor confidence, leading to capital influx and secure, water-efficient local economies.

News Archive

UFS agreement on staff salary adjustment of 7.5%
2011-11-10

 
At this year's salary negotiations were from the left, front: Mr Lourens Geyer, Director: Human Resources; Ms Ronel van der Walt, Manager: Labour Relations; Ms Tobeka Mehlomakulu, Vice Chairperson: NEHAWU; Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, convener of the salary negotiations; back: Mr Ruben Gouws, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Ms Esta Knoetze, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Mr David Mocwana, fultime shopsteward for NEHAWU; Mr Daniel Sepeame, Chairperson of NEHAWU, Prof. Nicky Morgan, Vice-Rector: Operations; Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS; Ms Mamokete Ratsoane, Deputy Director: Human Resources and Ms Anita Lombard, Chief Executive Officer: UVPERSU.
Photo: Leonie Bolleurs


Salary adjustment of 7,5%

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a general salary adjustment of 7,5% for 2012.
 
The negotiating parties agreed that adjustments could vary proportionally from a minimum of 7,3% to a maximum of 8,5%, depending on the government subsidy and the model forecasts.
 
The service benefits of staff will be adjusted to 9,82% for 2012. This is according to the estimated government subsidy that will be received in 2012.
 

UVPERSU and NEHAWU sign
 
The agreement was signed (today) Tuesday 8 November 2011 by representatives of the university’s senior leadership and the trade unions UVPERSU and NEHAWU.
 

R2 500 bonus
 
An additional once-off, non-pensionable bonus of R2 500 will also be paid to staff with their December 2011 salary payment. The bonus will be paid to all staff members who were in the employment of the university on UFS conditions of service on 31 December 2011 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2011. The bonus is payable in recognition of the role played by staff during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence and as confirmation of the role and effectiveness of the remuneration model.
 
It is the intention to pass the maximum benefit possible on to staff without exceeding the limits of financial sustainability of the institution. For this reason, the negotiating parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Multiple-year, Income-related Remuneration Improvement Model used as a framework for negotiations. The model and its applications are unique and have as a point of departure that the UFS must be and remains financially sustainable. 
 
 
Capacity building and structural adjustments
 
Agreement was reached that 1,54% will be allocated for growth in capacity building to ensure that provision is made for the growth of the UFS over the last few years. A further 0,78% will be allocated to structural adjustments.
 
Agreement about additional matters such as funeral loans was also reached.
 
“The Mutual Forum is particularly pleased that a general salary adjustment of 7,5 % could be negotiated for 2012. Taken into account the world financial downturn, marked cuts in university subsidies and the growth of the university, this is a remarkable achievement,” says Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, Chairperson of the Mutual Negotiation Forum. 
 

Increase for Professors, Deputy and Assistant Directors
 
According to Prof. Grobbelaar the Mutual Forum is also pleased that Professors and Deputy and Assistant Directors will benefit from the structural adjustments. These increases will align the positions with the median of the higher education market. The 1,54% allocated for growth will ensure that appointments can be made where the needs are the highest. The special year-end bonus of R2 500 is an early Christmas gift and implies that the employees in lower salary categories receive an effective increase of almost 9,5 %.
 
“The UFS is in a unique position when it comes to salary negotiations, because the funding model developed more than a decade ago, has stood the test of time and ensured that the staff receive the maximum possible benefits. Of particular note is the fact that the two majority unions (UVPERSU and NEHAWU) work together. The mutual trust between the unions and management is an example of how large organisations can function to reach specific goals and staff harmony,” says Prof. Grobbelaar. 

The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2012. The adjustment will be calculated on the total remuneration package.

 

 

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