Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 April 2025 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
Dr Tafadzwa Maramura
Dr Tafadzwa Clementine Maramura is a Senior Lecturer and NRF-Rated Researcher in the Department of Public Administration and Management at the UFS.

With roughly half the world’s population experiencing severe water scarcity for at least part of the year, according to the UN World Water Development Report 2024, a researcher from the University of the Free State (UFS) seeks to understand how South Africa and the rest of the African continent can ensure that every person has access to water.

Besides Dr Tafadzwa Clementine Maramura, Senior Lecturer and NRF-Rated Researcher in the Department of Public Administration and Management at the UFS, research focusing on service delivery, especially delivery of water to the most vulnerable and poorest households, her work also focuses on the water-health nexus. In February she was appointed the Secretary for the Institutional Governance and Regulations Framework – a sub-specialist group for the International Water Association (IWA), becoming the first black African female to be appointed to this position.

According to statistics quoted by Greenpeace, 5.52 billion people out of a population of 7.78 billion in 186 countries face water insecurity, of which, 1.34 billion are Africans, accounting for more than 90% of the continent’s population. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2024: water for prosperity and peace; facts, figures, and action examples state that as of 2022, 2.2 billion people were without access to safely managed drinking water.

 

Research focus

With this, and with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – especially Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation) – in mind, Dr Maramura seeks to understand how South Africa and the rest of Africa can ensure that everyone gets access to this particular resource. “My research focuses on water governance and sustainable service delivery, public policies, and the green economy in the African, as well as the South African, context. What I found is interesting and really saddening at the same time. When you break it down, you realise that one in every three people in Africa don’t have access to potable water.

“Water is a basic human right, you can survive without electricity and other luxuries, but not without water. Each time you brush your teeth or flush your toilet with at least 15 litres of clean water or you are watering your garden with clean water, there are people that actually don’t have access to basic drinking water,” says Dr Maramura.

She is also investigating what the government is doing to ensure it delivers on this service it is mandated to, as South Africa has all the policies in place, and the best constitution in the world, but still the poor and most vulnerable communities do not have water.

“Access to clean water is not just a basic need; it is a matter of dignity, equality, and survival. As a young African woman, through my research, I see first-hand how the burden of water scarcity falls disproportionately on women and girls, robbing us as women, of education, economic opportunities, and health.

“But we are not just victims – we are leaders in this fight. By empowering women and investing in sustainable water solutions, we can transform our communities and break the cycle of poverty. The time for action is now because water is life, and every African deserves it.”

 

The water-health nexus

Dr Maramura has book chapters coming out in June this year that focus on the water-health nexus in failed states, thereby merging SDG 3 and 6 on health and water respectively. Water plays an indispensable role in the world as it is important for accomplishing several other SDGs, such as zero hunger, poverty eradication, good health and well-being, and affordable and clean energy. It all depends on the achievement of goal 6.

Says Dr Maramura: “You cannot solve problems in isolation; you cannot look at the water problem in isolation. If you have a water problem, you have a health and education problem because kids can’t go to school if there is no water. Hospitals can’t function when there is no water.

“SDG 3 speaks to health and SDG 6 speaks to water and that is where the nexus is, nexus meaning connection between water and health. How can we ensure that we merge the two together and ensure researchers working on health and water can find common ground to address any challenges arising from the lack of water so that we don’t have these health issues?”

South Africa is an upper-middle-income country but still struggles to deliver potable water to everyone and many communities in the country still rely on ventilated pit latrines due to limited access to modern sanitation facilities. With the deadline for achieving the 17 SDGs only five years away, South Africa is at risk of failing to achieve the SDGs.

 

Solving the water problems

According to Dr Maramura, there is no magic wand that can be used to solve all the country's water problems, but a collaborative and comprehensive effort is needed. “There is work that needs to be done. The government, private sector, the communities, as well as other role players need to work together. South Africa is a water-stressed country with rainfall below the global average. We realised that we have scarce groundwater resources.

“The community needs to understand, participate, and be aware of how much damage we can do by just drilling boreholes and digging wells. The private sector needs to know what it is that they can do to ensure that they also play a part through their corporate social responsibility and philanthropic dimensions in assisting the community.”

From the government side, she says, the policies are there so the government needs to consult with the communities, the private sector, and all other relevant stakeholders. They need to involve affected communities and after consultations, they need to engage these communities because they understand their problem best.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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