Water Research Commission: briefing
Science and Technology
13 June 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
13 June 2006
WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION: BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr E Ngcobo (ANC)
Documents handed out
Water-Centred
Knowledge: The Role of the Water Research Commission [please email [email protected] for downloading problems]
Water Centred
Knowledge: Improving the quality of lives of South Africans
SUMMARY
While the Water Research Commission worked closely with the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry this meeting was its first interaction with the Committee.
The Committee was briefed on the Commission’s activities and its role in water
management and was also given a brief summary of some of the Commission’s
projects. Members raised questions related to a number of areas ranging from
seawater harvesting and desalination to ecological sanitation and mine water
pollution.
MINUTES
Water Research Commission (WRC) Presentation
Dr Rivka Kfir, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), briefed the Committee on the
Commission’s activities. The Commission focused on developing and sharing
knowledge around water in order to build greater capacity in terms of water
management services. Its five key strategic areas included water resource
management, water-linked ecosystems, water use and waste management, water
utilization in agriculture and water-centred knowledge.
Dr Kevin Pietersen, the Commission’s Director of Research Coordination and
Partnerships, presented a summary of some of the Commission’s research projects
including research into solar distillation, rainwater harvesting, mine water
pollution, ecological sanitation, climate change and the controversial
precipitation research and rainfall enhancement programme. These projects
addressed issues relating to the role of water in health, commercial,
environmental, economic and social issues.
Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the presenters for their enlightening and
interesting presentation. He had not been aware that so much research was being
done on water. He himself had done some water chemistry during his nuclear studies.
It was important to understand the water and the air around nuclear power
plants.
Ms Kfir said that the WRC too did some research around water and nuclear
energy.
Mr A Ainslie (ANC) commented that people often took water for granted until
their water supply was cut off. He agreed that the presentation was useful and
interesting. The presentation included a map showing the various regions into
which water was running. He wondered how practical it was to harvest water from
the sea. He asked if the WRC could expand on how feasible desalination was as
well as on whether other countries already did some work in this area.
Dr Kfir said while the technology was
available, the main challenge as far as desalination and harvesting water from
the sea was concerned related to the cost of such an exercise. Technology was
advanced and cost was decreasing. Singapore, which was a very small nation and
was an emerging economy, launched the New Water plant where they desalinated
seawater and reused wastewater at the same time. They now no longer needed to
buy water from Malaysia. Of course rich countries of the gulf region had been
doing it for many years.
While South Africa practiced some form of desalination and did a lot of
indirect re-use because it had a lot of brackish water, desalination remained a
costly exercise. South Africa has however the technology and has discussed the
feasibility of desalination. The City of Cape Town had requested studies into
the feasibility of desalination during the heavy drought and water crisis it
experienced recently.
Dr Kfir added that harvesting seawater would change the whole ocean as well as
water resource management since water would then no longer be a scarce
resource. Globally it was believed that this scenario was far fetched because
it was not yet economically feasible.
Mr Ainslie noted that much water went to waste during heavy down pours.
This water ran from the gutters to storm water drains and from there into the
sea. Millions of gallons of this precious commodity went to waste in this
manner. He wondered why especially in bigger cities storm water could not be
run off into underground reservoirs.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) found the developments in rainwater harvesting fascinating
and thought that the WRC should educate communities in settlements and
townships around this practice. In rural as well as townships people should be
taught how to use rainwater for their gardens, which would contribute to food
security.
As far as rainwater harvesting was concerned Dr Kfir commented on South
Africa’s interesting history on its floor reduction policy. Some rainwater
harvesting has been done in recent years, which influenced the Department of
Water Affairs to consider its environmental implications. Preventing rain from
running into rivers or into the sea stopped its flow. The floor reduction
policy was necessary because one would not have a live river if water did not
flow into it. She cautioned that one needed to understand large-scale rainwater
harvesting and carefully consider the implications of blocking the flow of
rainwater into rivers and the sea.
The WRC had, for many years, been practicing (although not formally)
small-scale water harvesting in the form of agricultural dams on many farms
throughout South Africa e.g. in the Limpopo province and Gauteng. Small-scale
farming had however not been developed around these dams. The WRC was trying to
develop it at local level so that communities would benefit from it.
Dr Kfir informed Members that many years ago the WRC researched rainwater
harvesting from rooftops. The material roofs were made of and the fact that
first rain was generally very dirty posed challenges. Storm water too was not
always very clean – her research had indicated that sometimes storm water,
which flowed through an area and cleaned it, was worse than treated sewage. The
quality of storm water was also influenced by the quality of the first rain.
She explained that one managed storm water, got intelligent roofs that would
wash away the first flow and educated people that very good sources of water
could be created. Except in the very few areas with the potential for acid
rain, the quality of rainwater was generally very high. She said that through
research, education and harnessing the Department of Water Affairs more could
be done in the area of rainwater harvesting that would result in it being used
as a source of water.
The WRC was of the opinion that it would be possible to harvest storm water for
irrigation. It would however require a different type of city management. The
city of Ethekweni carefully considered water and its management of water and
had an urban management cycle of water utilizing grey as well as storm water.
Mr Ainslie commented that the WRC did much research and were involved in
various projects e.g. solar energy, rainwater harvesting but experienced much
difficulty as far as rolling these projects out to communities was concerned.
This was a problem across various entities that fall under the Department of
Trade and Industry. Amazing research was done but the Department could not
necessarily roll development out to the wider community. If this was not
happening then people were merely doing research for the sake of research. He
requested the presenters to explain what the difficulties were and what the WRC
was doing to ensure that projects were rolled out.
Dr Kfir said that the WRC was very proud of its success in this regard. She
said that the Commission’ success could be ascribed to the applied nature of
their research and that it had a good relationship with its stakeholders. She
assured the Committee that much WRC funded research was being used. It gave
support to the Department of Water Affairs - many policy decisions were based
on information received from and research done by the Commission. The
Commission formed the research-arm for policymaking and its role in building
the current water strategy and the whole notion of integrated water resource
management was critical.
Dr Kfir had been involved in water quality research for many years. Initially
there had been little or no interest in the research she had proposed into
water quality but eventually her research was funded. Currently Rand Water,
Umgeni and other water utilities throughout the country did routine tests. This
proved that the technology and knowledge emanating from research was being
utilised.
The solar steel featured in the presentation was being transferred to the
municipalities. Petroplants were situated across the country and was licensed
to South Africa free of charge despite the fact that it has been patented.
The application of what the WRC did could be seen in some communities. She
agreed however that the Commission could definitely improve on the application
and dissemination of its research. This was very important. People needed to be
educated around the importance of water – this knowledge was not only important
for the decision makers but also for communities.
Dr Pietersen added that the transfer of research knowledge from a rural
application to a peri-urban application also played a role. Research into how
to facilitate this was on-going. The peri-urban process introduced a whole host
of new dynamics that complicated the matter. A lot of research was being done
in other countries too. There were also initiatives that tried to initiate
these activities especially as far as small-scale gardens were concerned.
Dr Kfir said that multi-use was another project that focused on the use of grey
water. Bath water could be used in irrigation for example. The WRC had projects
in which they used this kind of grey water and rainwater to irrigate small
gardens. The project was very successful. She told of a woman in the Limpopo
who along with other women were very successfully using this method in their
commercial vegetable gardens.
Mr Ainslie wondered whether given industrialisation, etc the quality of
rainwater has changed over time. He asked whether the presenters could confirm
whether the quantity of rainwater had decreased. The Member further requested
the presenters to comment on the quality of South African water. Parliament was
spending thousands of Rands on bottled water. He wondered whether there was a
need for bottled water or whether it was simply fashionable.
Dr Kfir said that there was no need for Parliament to use bottled water. There
was nothing wrong with South Africa’s tap water. Both Ms Sonjica and Mr
Kasrils, former Ministers of Water Affairs and Forestry, used to get upset when
they were served bottled water. She suggested that Committees should, like the
WRC, invest in glass jugs for serving water. If one preferred soda or
carbonated water one could buy it but otherwise there was no need to drink
bottled water in any of South Africa’s major urban areas. She explained that
once water was bottled it became a food product, which would by regulation,
from time to time be removed from the shelves to be tested by the Department of
Health. Tap water on the other hand was tested daily and thus made for a better
product.
The Chairperson added that it was important for the Committee to lead
Parliament and indicated that bottling water was a waste of time and money and
not needed for one’s health.
Ms A Dreyer (DA) sought clarity on the closed system mentioned in
relation to ecological sanitation. She wondered whether this was similar to dry
sanitation.
Dr Kfir confirmed that eco-sanitation referred to dry sanitation, which was
also called urine diversion. She explained that there were two attitudes
towards it: one thought of it as a solution for poor people while the other saw
it as a solution for the rich. In Switzerland whole villages used this form of
sanitation because they did not want waterborne sewage to enter into their
system and wanted to keep their lakes clean. She informed the Committee that
Minister Hendricks often said that poor people in South Africa felt that if
they were given eco-sanitation as opposed to waterborne sanitation they were
being given an alternative that was not good enough.
She admitted that eco-sanitation was still under-researched and she could not
guarantee that it was 100% safe. Eco-sanitation consisted of two elements –
liquid sanitation and dry sanitation. Liquid sanitation consisted of urea,
which were nitrogen-rich. While urine was a good alternative to fertilizer one
had to bear in mind that it also contained chemicals. She could not say how
safe it was in the long run.
Dr Kfir explained that dry sanitation required the waste to be composted. One
needed education in how to compost it so that it could be used in agriculture as
well. With further research eco-sanitation could be a future solution for the
whole world not only the poor or the rich. At the moment much energy and water
was spent to run sewage through the system and contaminating the water, which
then needed to be cleaned again. The WRC ran many projects, such as the big one
with the University of KwaZulu-Natal, around eco-sanitation.
Ms Dreyer said that coming from Gauteng she was very aware of the pollution
caused by mines, in particular by acid mine drainage. Her constituency included
the Cradle of Human Kind, which was a world heritage site. Some caves in this
area were threatened by the run off from the mines. She inquired about the
progress that had been made on the treatment of this water.
Dr Pietersen explained that mine water pollution was a complex issue. The
mining process changed the hydrology of the system quite extensively. The
Department of Minerals and Energy supported by the Council for Geosciences was
busy with a major initiative that would try to address issues around mine water
pollution. The WRC supported this initiative and all other initiatives that
tried to understand when and where the mine water would decant. He added that
these processes were quite complex to predict.
The WRC together with the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) and in partnership with the Gauteng government
initiated the process to bring a number of stakeholders or researchers together
to try and understand the cradle of Human Kind in terms of its hydrology and
the broader environmental impact of mine water acid. The University of Pretoria
also worked on trying to understand the hydrology of the region, which had a
caste that made the prediction of ground water flow mechanisms and systems
quite difficult. The research was ongoing and it was difficult to make
predictions about what would be the outcome. The feeling was that these systems
would, as mining ceased and as the water table rose, decant. This would have an
environmental impact. The WRC had to try to minimise this impact and the
understanding was that the Department of Minerals and Energy was working on
this issue.
Dr Kfir added that the WRC had produced some documents detailing
guidelines for the closure of mines. She explained that even if the mine had
been closed long ago, the consequences of the closure were only felt years
later. One thus had to carefully consider gold and coal mines and the long-term
implications as far as the water table was concerned.
Mr Dithebe wondered if there was any connection between what the WRC was
doing and the research chairs that were funded by the Department of Science and
Technology (DST). He asked whether the WRC had informed the Department that it
would like some of the focus areas to include water–related issues, etc. He
thought that human capital development was needed badly especially considering
that the rainy seasons in South Africa were not as wet as elsewhere on the
globe.
Dr Kfir explained that the WRC was in discussion with the DST as far as
ascertaining whether it could also get research chairs but added that the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry would have to pay for it. The WRC was
pleased that some of the water utilities already had chairs. She added that the
WRC had in recent years moved closer to the DST - a deputy director general
within the Department was actually serving on the WRC’s board. The universities
that were funded by the WRC, was supplemented with funding from the NRF as
well. The WRC did not mind this “double-dipping”.
Mr Dithebe said that in Allenridge, a small mining area in the Free State,
there was a small mine dump where very often during the rainy season water
collected very close to the settlement. The various chemicals present in the
area made the water unsafe for consumption. The local people were ignorant of
the harmful chemicals that may be present in the water. Even after the water
dried up the dust spread around the community.
Dr Kfir explained that BioSURE was a simple process but could not be easily
implemented. To get it to work on a large-scale one needed the mine as well as
a sewage work. The biological effluent was taken from the sewage work and used
to neutralise the mine water. One thus came up with a reasonable substance that
could be returned to the environment.
The WRC could not pilot and distribute this technology on its own. The East Rand Water Care Company (ERWAT) thus took over
the process. It would do the commercialisation and the large-scale development
of the patent while the WRC functioned in a support role. ERWAT had promised
that once the process was functional it would roll it out across the country
and promote it abroad to facilitate its large-scale commercialisation.
She was not sure whether BioSURE would be the solution for the area the Member
referred to. The WRC could, once they had more information about the area,
perhaps provide him with information on some other bodies that might be able to
provide a solution.
Prof I Mohamed (ANC) was concerned about the cracks in the dams, particularly
the Highlands Water Dam in Lesotho despite assurances that the wall was not
very likely to break. If this should happen it would be a major disaster for
Lesotho. He wondered if this fell within the WRC’s area of expertise.
Dr Pietersen explained that the WRC funded projects that looked at dam safety
and the foundation of hydraulic structures. These projects were ongoing. The
Council for Geosciences had a programme that aimed to ensure that the
foundations were stable. It was difficult to predict what would happen and
fortunately nothing serious had occurred.
Prof Mohamed said that he lived in Gauteng and he knew that there were
times when people in Durban and environs suffered water restrictions, while
people from Johannesburg and environs had access to water that was being pumped
from KwaZulu-Natal.
Dr Pietersen said that the inter-basin transfer schemes were a political
issues. It revolved around negotiations between different provinces and
different institutions. The WRC was not in a position to comment on these
issues.
Dr Kfir pointed out that South Africa shared four river basins with
other countries. There was a whole research area directed to hydro-politics –
water could either be a reason for peace or a reason for war. Inter-basin
issues were big issues. The Nile basin initiative tried to get countries that
lived along the Nile river to get along. Ms Dreyer added that the
Okavango-delta held similar lessons as far as the risk of conflict over water
was concerned.
The Chairperson found this information very interesting and welcomed the WRC’s
offer to forward additional information on hydro-politics to the Committee.
Prof Mohamed said that he usually changed the oil in his car himself. He
was aware that garages were supposed to accept this oil so that they could
safely dispose of it but many did not. He was concerned that thousands of
people probably just threw their car oil down the drain.
Dr Pietersen assured the Committee that organic chemical pollution and
oil pollution were increasingly being addressed. He was managing a large
research project that was looking into groundwater protection and trying to
understand how these common contaminants behaved in the environment and how
they could be rehabilitated. The project also looked at how one could influence
policy to put structures in place to deal with the problem.
He said that WRC unfortunately did not have the laboratories to analyse the
different chemicals that played a role. Many samples needed to be sent overseas
for analysis. The research was thus very much in the emerging stages.
Prof Mohamed said that he used to have a constituency in the
Dobsonville, Soweto area and the communities there were plagued by mine dust
that blew into people’s homes and caused various problems. The communities told
him that the mine dumps had been stabilised. People from Australia had alerted
him that certain carcinogenic chemicals had been used in the stabilisation. The
Science Councils refused to respond when he raised this question during a
meeting with them. They merely responded that the research was contracted and
that they were thus not able to disclose whom they did this for. He knew that
they could be forced to disclose the information but this would take much
effort on his part.
Dr Pietersen said that he did not have the knowledge to comment on
issues related to mine dust.
Dr Kfir emphasised that the WRC did not do air pollution research and would not
know about the health risks related to mine dust.
Dr Pietersen added that some research was being done this year into the air
pollution caused by coal plants and the implications deposition would have on
the water environment. The WRC looked at the matter from a water point of view.
The Chairperson said that as a nuclear scientist he would be able to contribute
to this debate. Addressing issues of air pollution was a very important
component of nuclear technology. There were radioactive elements in the ground.
Dust that came from the mines was normally contaminated with these radionuclides.
This posed a grave danger to our health and needed to be looked into.
Dr Kfir said that the WRC had done some isotope studies in water, which were
very controversial. Different regulatory elements felt that the methodology
used was not the perfect one. The WRC would launch a new study in conjunction
with these regulatory bodies.
The Chairperson shared that there was a notion that mine dust would result in
“the second Chernobyl”.
Dr Pietersen added that the WRC was looking at the radioactivity of chemicals
in water and the implications it held for our health. They had just completed
extensive coverage of South Africa in an attempt to understand such things as
its geology. South Africa had a very old geology containing naturally occurring
toxic substances. The WRC was looking at the problem and how it was manifesting
itself in groundwater. Its implications for health would also be considered.
The Commission would also be starting a project looking at radioactivity in
water in mining areas and their implications.
Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) said that that the Josini Dam was the biggest dam and
the Tugela river the biggest river in KwaZulu-Natal yet communities in the
surrounding area had no drinking water. He wondered whether the WRC had done
any research as to how these communities could be assisted and whether they had
advised the relevant department.
Dr Pietersen imagined that this was an institutional and operational
problem in terms of how the water was allocated and brought to different
communities. The WRC, as an organisation that supported research, reflected on
these policies and their implications but the actual issue could only be
addresses by national and local government.
Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) wondered what effect the much talked about global
warming would have on South Africa’s water resources.
Dr Pietersen said that he had tried to highlight the complexity of the
issues around global warming and the impact it would have on the water
resources. He said that it was difficult to offer a definitive answer. It
appeared as though the western parts of Southern Africa were becoming drier
while the eastern parts became wetter. This knowledge was also evolving and the
Commission was very much at the forefront in terms of its research. South
Africa had huge climate wearability so the emphasis should not necessarily be
on mitigation. Instead the focus should be on how people adapted to such
extreme environments and on learning lessons from people who lived in such
conditions.
Ms B Ngcobo (ANC) wondered what role the WRC played in cases where there were
reports of water pollution, as was the case in Mpumalanga in 2005.
Dr Kfir said that the Commission funded research so as to provide people
with the right tools and the capacity to manage water quality effectively. It
did not get involved in disaster situations and did not test water. It did
sometimes survey areas but this was done mainly for research purposes. The WRC
saw local government and the Department of Water Affairs as the people who were
in charge of water quality. An incident such as the one in Delmas occurred
because there was not an effective use of knowledge. South Africa did not lack
the knowledge to manage water quality but sometimes did not have the capacity
to do so effectively. The WRC spent much of its time on how to support capacity
building in local government. If this happened the management of water quality
would improve. Phase one of building capacity in local government has been
completed and the Commission would move into a wider capacity building
exercise, which would support the management of water services and water
resource management in the country.
Ms Ngcobo sought clarity on why the WRC discouraged large-scale farming in
favour of small-scale farming.
Dr Kfir pointed out that the WRC was by no means saying that there was
no need for funding for large scale farming within South Africa. The WRC had
for many years spent a lot of money on how to develop commercial farms. She
admitted that the Commission neglected small-scale farming. Many people used
small scale farming as a form of subsistence. The WRC’s research needed to move
into that area. The WRC started putting into place terms of reference for
research into small-scale farming. She added that some research into
large-scale farming was still being done.
One could not in the long run look at small scale farming as a means of
creating jobs but
at the moment many people relied on it. The WRC also tried to understand the
crops they grew and to help them in growing indigenous crops because they did
not use much water and had a bigger market. The WRC tried to go into indigenous
and organic farming. This was being done in corporation with agricultural
research. Much research was also done into nutritional and water needs.
Ms Ngcobo wondered whether the WRC had representatives in the provinces.
Dr Kfir said that the WRC was very small and consisted of 50 people. It
was a funding agency that needed to lead and give money for research. As such
they tried to keep the Commission very small. The work was done throughout
universities, research organisations, consultants in the water sector and
anyone else that could contribute. The WRC travelled throughout the country but
was based in Pretoria. It did not have provincial presence but worked closely
with provinces, with integrated bodies (e.g. South African Local Government
Association), local government, etc. It tried to work closely with the various
stakeholders and needed to understand their needs.
Ms Ngcobo wondered whether the WRC had knowledge of all the dams that
were in the country and requested the presenters to give a gender breakdown of
its staff.
Dr Kfir said that the WRC had more women than men but was struggling
with getting women involved in the higher echelons. They were trying to get
more and more women into research management positions. Women were better
represented in the support-giving areas than men, but in research the number of
men was greater. In recent years the Commission had put clear strategic
policies in place that were aimed at engaging more women. The Commission tried
to support women involved in the water sector e.g. the water for women award.
The WRC provided a bursary for young scientists in an attempt to get more women
into the water field. Women populated certain areas such as e.g. bio-toxicology
only, while men populated other areas such as hydrology.
The Chairperson wondered if universities offered courses in water studies.
Dr Kfir said that at graduate level there were some water related
courses. She said that at an undergraduate level one did not study water per se
but the science courses offered at this level were needed for postgraduate
studies in water.
The Commission had in recent years started funding many social scientists but
found it very difficult to get social scientists interested in water issues.
People with a background in geography normally did research in social issues.
The Chairperson commented that a matriculant from his constituency had
approached him for advice around what she could study post matric. He would now
be able to advise her to also consider a career in water.
Dr Kfir informed the Committee that it would have an open day on 4 July
2006 at the University of the Western Cape. The WRC’s various projects would be
showcased.
The Chairperson said that it would have been interesting to know what water was
being used in industries e.g. as a saw, or a drill. He suggested that perhaps
the Committee should have a workshop in which they would be able to further
discuss the issues around water.
Adoption of Committee Minutes
The Committee adopted the secretary’s minutes of 6 June 2006 subject to
certain technical amendments.
Other business
The Chairperson informed the Committee that Mr G Doidge, the Chairperson of
Committees and his secretary had said that his office never received any of the
applications for the Swedish trip or the CSIR Innovation, Leadership and Learning Academy
(CILLA) project. The Chairperson had gathered all the correspondence that proved that
he was aware of the trip and that applications had been made. He had informed
Mr Doidge of the CILA project in October 2005 and again after Easter this year.
The CILA course was due to start soon and the Committee could not at this point
in time be grappling with such issues.
The Committee agreed that it would forward all correspondence related to this
matter to the Speaker of the House so that the matter could be attended to at
that level.
The Chairperson informed the Committee that Minister Mangena had invited them
to attend the research and development media launch and imbizo on 22 June 2006
at eleven o’ clock in the morning. The Committee agreed that it would attend
provided the event did not clash with their programme.
The Chairperson said that the Committee had been invited to spend two days at
the SASOL plants in Sasolburg and Secunda. Mr Dithebe said that since SASOL was
the Department’s biggest contributor in terms of research and development it would
be best for the Committee to accept the invitation. The invitation would be
processed.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.