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 Council approves a new Language Policy
2016-03-11

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) approved a new Language Policy with an overwhelming majority during its meeting held on the Qwaqwa Campus today (11 March 2016).

In the newly approved policy, the university commits to embed and enable a language-rich environment committed to multilingualism, with particular attention to Afrikaans, Sesotho, isiZulu, and other languages represented on the three campuses situated in Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa.

Based on the core values of inclusivity and multilingualism, the following principles in the newly approved policy were approved by the Council:

  1. English will be the primary medium of instruction at undergraduate and postgraduate level on the three campuses situated in Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa.
  2. Multilingualism will be supported among other activities by an expanded tutorial system especially designed for first-year students.
  3. In particular professional programmes such as teacher education and the training of students in Theology who wish to enter the ministry in traditional Afrikaans speaking churches, where there is clear market need, the parallel medium English-Afrikaans and Sesotho/Zulu continues. This arrangement must not undermine the values of inclusivity and diversity endorse by the UFS.
  4. The primary formal language of the university administration will be English with sufficient flexibility for the eventual practice of multilingualism across the university.
  5. Formal student life interactions would be in English, while multilingualism is encouraged in all social interactions.

“This is a major step forward for the UFS. I commend Council for their constructive and positive manner in which the discussion took place,” says Judge Ian van der Merwe, Chairperson of the UFS Council.

The university furthermore committed in the newly approved policy to:

  1. Ensuring that language is not a barrier to equity of access, opportunity and success in academic programmes or in access to university administration.
  2. Promoting the provision of academic literacy, especially in English, for all undergraduate students.
  3. Ensuring that language is not used or perceived as a tool for social exclusion of staff and/or students on any of its campuses.
  4. Promoting a pragmatic learning and administrative environment committed to and accommodative of linguistic diversity within the regional, national and international environments in which the UFS operates.       
  5. Contributing to the development of Sesotho and isiZulu as higher education language within the context of the needs of the university’s different campuses.
  6. The continuous development of Afrikaans as an academic language.
  7. Recognising and promoting South African Sign Language and Braille.

Today’s approval of a new policy comes after a mandate was given to the university management on 5 June 2015 by Council to conduct a review of the institutional Language Policy through a comprehensive process of consultation with all university stakeholders. A Language Committee was subsequently established by the University Management Committee (UMC) to undertake a comprehensive review of the parallel-medium policy, which was approved by Council on 6 June 2003. The committee also had to make recommendations on the way forward with respect to the university's Language Policy. During its meeting on 4 December 2015, Council adopted guidelines from the report of the Language Committee regarding the development of a new policy for the university.

The newly approved Language Policy will be phased in as from January 2017 according to an Implementation Plan.

Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Email: news@ufs.ac.za

Related articles:

http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive-item?news=6567 (26 November 2015)
http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive-item?news=6540 (28 October 2015)
http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive-item?news=6521 (20 October 2015)
http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive-item?news=6469 (30 August 2015)
http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive-item?news=6444 (25 August 2015)

 
Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Brand Management)
Telephone: +27(0)51 401 2584 | +27(0)83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za
Fax: +27(0)51 444 6393

 

 


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