Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Years
2019 2020 2021 2024
Previous Archive
02 December 2019 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Solomon read more
Poverty in the Thabo Mofutsanyana District (the poorest district in the Free State province) has implications for both the mountain environment and the people in the area. Pictured here is Prof Geofrey Mukwada, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography on the UFS Qwaqwa Campus, also affiliated to the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU).

Poverty, defined by Statistics South Africa as earning less than R300 a month, is a reality that many mountain communities struggle with.

Prof Geofrey Mukwada, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography on the UFS Qwaqwa Campus, also affiliated to the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU), published a number of articles on the mountain population in the Thabo Mofutsanyana District (the poorest district in the Free State province). In a research paper with postgraduate student Solomon Zondo, he specifically focuses on the value-chain analysis of the Witsieshoek conservation area and its environment. 

They looked at the inter-relationship between nature and the rural population and how the environment has changed as a result. For this largely poor community, the income generated from natural resources is an important source of livelihood. 

To earn a living, the community is pursuing several ways to generate an income. This has implications for both the mountain environment and the people in the area. 

Impacting the environment

Whether it is mining for sandstone, herding cattle or selling medicinal plants, all these activities have an ecological and socio-economic impact. 

A large percentage of the population in the Witsieshoek Community Conservation Area derives their income from livestock grazing. Cattle herding often leads to overgrazing – which results in soil erosion in the long term, preventing water from draining into the ground and depriving plants from much-needed moisture. Connected to the excessive removal of indigenous plants, is the spread of invasive species. As invasive trees and vegetation gulp up water, the severe impact of drought in the area is increasing.

Harvesting and selling medicinal plants to generate income for a sustainable livelihood also affect the surrounding environment. The mostly elderly ladies harvest and sell, among others, Arum lily and Pineapple lily for their medicinal properties and ornamental use. Harvesting these plants adds to the spread of invasive species, as they push away indigenous plants.

Small sandstone mining operations are another means to earn a living. Neither the customer, locally or outside the Witsieshoek area, nor the supplier, usually from Witsieshoek, is held accountable for the degradation of the environment. Careless mining not only results in a decline in ecosystem health, with scree from sandstone cutting littering the rangelands and the finer particles causing silt in rivers and dams (damaging any equipment used to extract water from rivers and dams); it also spoils pastures which locals depend on for their livelihood. 

Even with the 15% increase in tourism (2016), a living through the holiday industry is not always keeping the wolf from the door. According to Prof Mukwada, many literature sources have shown that tourism may fail to reduce poverty. During a study, respondents interviewed in the Clarens area indicated that they only receive wages during the busy months of the year (approximately 4–6 months). Many of the workers in Clarens and the Golden Gate Highlands National Park do not have easy access to chain stores, but only to small grocery stores where goods are much more expensive. Travelling to a town where they will pay less for groceries is costly, making it difficult to have the same standard of living as workers elsewhere.

“With the current situation, water insecurity is likely to worsen,” says Prof Mukwada.

Coming up with solutions

Is it possible to look for alternative livelihood sources? It is not easy to come up with simple solutions to the challenges. As Prof Mukwada explained, what might be a solution to one problem could have negative implications on another front. “One needs an integrated approach,” he says. 

In terms of tourism, one could consider training the locals in tourism-related skills, adequately equipping them with skills to increase their value. “Develop tourism that is inclusive and will benefit low-income earners who cannot invest in hotels and restaurants,” Prof Mukwada adds. 

And with a large number of people earning their income from herding, one can suggest that nearby, flatter land is made available to resettle communities, thus providing an alternative area for grazing. In flatter areas there is also less erosion. It is, however, key to determine whether the communities would be prepared to move to a new area.

Having a voice

He also believes that good relationships between industry, government, and the community are important to make a positive difference in the area. A platform is needed where the people’s limited voice will be heard in policy making. 

“The most effective way to find a solution is to listen to the people in the community. Give people the information and find out from them which of these options are possible within their local context. And do not prescribe. One needs to understand the community and its values,” he adds.

When there is understanding between the different role players and when the community has a voice, the park resources, if managed properly, have a chance to provide long-term sustainable benefits to the people of the area. 

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