Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 March 2025 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Andre Damons
Dr Willem Daffue
Dr Willem Daffue, veterinarian, adventurer, explorer, and conservationist, delivered the first plenary keynote address on the first day of the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025).

Africa’s mountains are being destroyed – not by global warming, but by small-scale farming caused by overpopulation on the continent.

This is according to Dr Willem Daffue, veterinarian, adventurer, explorer, and conservationist who delivered the first plenary keynote address on the first day of the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025). The conference, which follows a highly successful first conference in 2022, is currently taking place at the Champagne Sports Resort. It ends on 20 March 2025.

Comparing photos that he took 40 years ago in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with more recent photos, Dr Daffue painted a dire picture of the future of Africa’s mountains and the unique animals found there.

Overpopulation

Dr Daffue works for the Himalayan Wildlife Project, tracks bears in the Karakoram Mountains, documents and photographs endangered species on a global level – such as the Javan rhino and Sumatran rhino. He is also involved in the Giraffe Project of the University of the Free State (UFS).

“Global warming has not yet affected Africa’s mountains. The rainfall in these areas actually increased. So has the population. Humans are destroying the mountains. The small-scale farmers have caused the most destruction. The reason for this is overpopulation.”

“Overpopulation is forcing people to invade national parks where they start farming for survival. These people are poor, uneducated, and is dependent on aid. All the animals in these areas are critically endangered.”

In his presentation, Dr Daffue talked about the Erta Ale, an active basaltic shield volcano in the Afar region of northeastern Ethiopia, the Simien Mountains in northern Ethiopia, as well as the Bale Mountains in the highlands of Ethiopia – with unique animals exclusive to the areas, including the wild ass, baboons, beisa oryx, Soemmerring's gazelle, Walia ibex, the golden jackal, and the Simien wolf.

Endangered animals

“Almost all the animals found in Ethiopia are endangered. It is the total destruction of nature. Only 4% of all mammals are still wild animals. 96% off all mammals on earth are humans and domesticated animals, and 70% of all birds on earth are chickens.”

“So, we are going to lose it. We are already past a point where we could save some of the animals and nature; it is an emergency but if we wake up now, we might still have a few things to save,” said Dr Daffue.

The answer is to curb the population growth, to educate the people, and to lift them out of poverty. Which is extremely difficult to do.

According to Dr Daffue, a conference such as the SAMC is extremely important, as it brings together different role players, including academics, researchers, communities, and policy makers. It helps in making plans, sharing knowledge, and getting policies out to people, the decision makers.

The conference

The Southern African Mountain Conference – conceptualised by the UFS Afromontane Research Unit (ARU), the African Mountain Research Foundation (AMRF), and Global Mountain Safeguard Research (GLOMOS) as a joint initiative between Eurac Research and the UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security – is unique, as it seeks to integrate the science, policy, and practitioner sectors for sustainable interventions in Southern African mountains.

Southern African mountains comprise those situated south of the Congo Rainforest and Lake Rukwa and include the mountainous islands of the western Indian Ocean. Thus, SAMC2025 is targeting Angola, the Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (southern mountains), Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, La Réunion, South Africa, southern Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The SAMC series is implemented by The Peaks Foundation (a non-profit company). SAMC2025 is held under the patronage of UNESCO.

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