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

Q and A with Prof Hussein Solomon on ‘Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Africa’
2015-05-29

 

Political Science lecturer, Prof Hussein Solomon, has launched his latest book, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Africa: fighting insurgency from Al Shabaab, Ansar Dine and Boko Haram, on Wednesday 26 May 2015 at the UFS.

In his book, Solomon talks about the growing terrorist threat in Africa, with the likes of Al Shabaab, Ansar Dine, and Boko Haram exploiting Africa's vulnerabilities to expand their operations. Explaining both the limitations of current counter-terrorist strategies and possible future improvements, this timely study can be appreciated by scholars and practitioners alike.

Q: If you speak of Al Shabaab, Ansar Dine, and Boko Haram expanding operations, do you see possibilities for their expansion even into South Africa, or is expansion mainly focused on northern African countries?
 
A: All three movements are operating out of their respective countries. Al Shabaab has attacked Kenya and Uganda and tried to attack the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa. So yes, there is a danger that they are here and, more importantly, newer groups like ISIS are recruiting in SA already.
 
Q: If the traditional military response is ineffective, what would be a better approach then?

 
A:
What is important is that the force of arms needs to complement the force of ideas. What is being waged is an ideological battle, and, just as the West defeated Communism ideologically in the Cold War, we need to defeat radical Islamism ideologically. In addition, the military response needs to complement the governance and development responses.
 
Q: External players like the US have insufficient knowledge of the context, what would be the knowledge about context necessary for anyone concerned about the terror problem in Africa?
 
A: Allow me to give you some examples. The US trains African militaries to fight terrorist groups, but, when they return to their countries, they stage a coup and topple the civilian government. The US does not seem to understand that arming a predatory military and training them makes them more predatory and brutal, which results in civilians being recruited by terrorists, as happened in Mali. Similarly, the US sent arms to the Somali government, and members of that government sold those arms to Al Shabaab terrorists, the very people they were supposed to fight. So the Americans do not understand the criminalisation of the African state, which undermines good governance and promotes terrorism.

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