Water & Sustainable Development

The nature and extent of the world’s current water crisis and how the crisis affects South-Africa, in relation to:

                                                                                                                                     

(a) The incidence of water scarcity and its relationship with climate change;

(b) Local participation in water resource management, lessons from the  BWP case study;

(c) Impact of climate change on indigenous knowledge in the Congo basin;

(d) Dealing with the water crisis;

i. Water management can improve urban resilience;

ii. Lessons about water management from The Tamil Nadu case study;

iii. The “soft option” to address water scarcity

(e) The impact of  the water crisis on South-Africa

Abstract

The water crisis worldwide is very real pressurized by population growth and exacerbated by climate change. In dealing with this crisis there are different approaches such as water management weaponry to improve urban resilience, the “willing seller/ willing buyer” approach and the improved water productivity or “soft path” approach. Participation in water management processes is deemed ineffective if government-led. Indigenous knowledge practices in the Congo basin are untenable when climate change adversely affects rainfall patterns.

By: Henry Badenhorst

20 March 2010

Introduction

Water is vital for sustaining life as a whole and without it, life would cease to exist (Treurnicht.2008:5). According to Fortune magazine: "Water promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century: the precious commodity that determines the wealth of nations." (http://lege.net). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states about water: “Everyone understands that water is essential to life. But many are only just now beginning to grasp how essential it is to everything in life – food, energy, transportation, nature, leisure, identity, culture, social norms, and virtually all the products used on a daily basis” (www.wbcsd.org). These statements emphasize our absolute reliance on water.  Global population growth has skyrocketed over the last several decades. Since water is a non-renewable resource, access to water is becoming a growing global problem for the fast-growing world population. Water availability is furthermore, impacted negatively by climate change, due to global warming.

The world is in the midst of a water crisis. According to CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (http://slideshare.net/cpwfbfp), one in every five people in the world, lacks safe drinking water. The future position will not improve, since it is estimated that over the next two decades, our estimated use will increase by about 40 percent (http://slideshare.net/cpwfbfp). Water scarcity will be discussed in terms of whether the world is currently in a state of water scarcity or not, by looking at statistics. The impact that climate change has on water availability and its relationship with water scarcity receive attention. The issue of local participation, by means of the government-driven participatory process, in water scarcity management, in the context of the BWP (Berg Water Project) is dealt with. 

The negative impact that climate change, specifically an increase in precipitation, is having on the slash and burn farming practices in the Congo basin, will illustrate the linkage between indigenous knowledge and climate change. In dealing with the water crisis, three different approaches that can address this problem, are brought under the spotlight, namely improved water management that will strengthen urban resilience; a unique flexible “willing seller/willing buyer” approach in water management adopted by the Tamil Nadu local government in India; and Gleick’s “soft path for water” that focuses on the overall improvement of water productivity. Lastly, the effects of the water crisis in South Africa is investigated.

Water scarcity and its relationship with climate change

The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food Water (www.waterandfood.org) points out that water scarcity is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today, since sufficient water is required for adequate human health and furthermore is a prerequisite for poverty reduction. According to the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009:40), 1.3 billion people, are “water-stressed”, in the sense that they face extreme water scarcity. Half the world’s population lacks access to sanitation, many rural poor do not access to water for productive purposes, groundwater levels in key aquifers are falling rapidly and many rivers are no longer reaching the sea (Risjberman.2006:341) Water scarcity is a reality for many, especially in the developing ‘South’. 

What does the term ’water scarcity’ mean, and how does it impact us? When a person has no access to safe and affordable water to satisfy his/her needs for drinking, washing, or livelihood purposes, he/she is water insecure; and when a large number of people in the area are water insecure for a significant period of time, the area is called water scarce (Risjberman2006:329 Lack of access to water, has a major impact on people’s well-being (Risjberman2006:329). A lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation, combined with poor personal hygiene, cause many health problems, particularly through diarrhoeal diseases (Risjberman2006:329). An estimated 2.3 million die annually due to a lack of adequate water and sanitation (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:42) “Chronic shortages of fresh water are likely to threaten food production, reduce sanitation, hinder economic development and damage ecosystems” (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:40). Water scarcity decreases food security, because less water is available for farming, causing crops to wilt and leading to poor rural farmer’s vulnerability (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:40).

Climate change, brought about by global warming, severely impacts water availability. “Every year climate change, leaves over 300 000 people dead, 325 million seriously affected, and economic losses of US$ 125 billion” (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:1). Furthermore, climate change, threatens sustainable development, and all eight Millennium Development Goals (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:4) Climate change impacts on people in food security, due to reduced agricultural yield; health issues such as diarrhoea, asthma and malaria with increased temperatures; increased poverty, when livelihoods are destroyed when weather-related disasters eliminates income potential; water scarcity due to a lack overall supply of clean water and frequent and severe floods and droughts; displacement due to sea level rises, desertification and floods; and human security, due to migration, people have to face continuous potential conflict (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:22). “Although future population growth, increasing food demands and unsustainable agricultural practices, place the largest pressures on the world’s finite freshwater resources, climate change exacerbates water scarcity and ads new risks to farming systems” (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:43) 

Most notably when climate changes impact water scarcity; it sets a chain reaction in motion. Water scarcity, acting as a trigger sets off a chain reaction of other areas where climate change impact society (food security, health problems, poverty, displacement, and human security), like a domino effect. Rising temperatures leads to water scarcity, which in turn reduces the amount of arable land, in turn aggravating food security, leading to reduced crop productions, causing loss of income, leading to malnutrition, rendering people too weak to work and consequent financial instability and eventually, to migration, which in turn may lead to social unrest (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:29). These consequences mutually enforce and strengthen each other, leading to people being trapped within poverty and human insecurity. “Climate change compounds existing poverty by destroying livelihoods“(Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:33) 

Places, severely affected by water-related climate change, according to the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009:44-45) are Morocco and Mexico City. Morocco, situated on the edge of the Sahara, has always had water scarcity problems, but now due to climate change, the problem has been exacerbated (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:44). The government, however, is using 20-30 percent of the national budget on water management projects such as irrigation and water pipes with huge success (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:44). Fast-growing urban areas, like Mexico City, is also vulnerable to water problems (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:45) Water scarcity problems in Mexico City, is further compounded by human factors such as over-exploitation, fast-growing populations, especially in squatter communities and outdated basic services, leading to sewage overflows and flooding after heavy rains (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:45) Mexico decided to shut down its water supply for 3 days per month from an overexploited basin, instead of drawing water from groundwater, but it has led to its depletion (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:45) With a projected 5 percent fall in precipitation by 2020, water scarcity is bound to get worse in Mexico City (Global Humanitarian Forum.2009:45).

Lessons from Local participation in water resource management 

There has been recent developmental stress on local participation in natural resource management, particularly water, such as the WCD (World Commission on Dams) dialogue and report in 2000 (Thompson.2005:486). This seems to have influenced South-Africa on all levels (Thompson.2005:486). Thompson’s working paper on participatory processes focuses on participation around water scarcity management in the Western Cape, specifically the building of the BWP (Berg Water Project), where formal spaces of participation were set up by the government of South-Africa (Thompson.2005:486). Thompson (2005:488-489) describes two participatory processes. The first process involved a long government driven participatory process which included “all interested and affected parties, to debate options for solving the Western Cape’s water crisis and included scientific and environmental assessments released for public comment (Thompson.2005:488-489).  The second process, was the institutionalization of the civic input concerning the actual building of the dam, by means of the EMC (Environmental Management Committee), which included the election of groups, including representatives of the environmental movement. Both these processes show a very high level of government commitment to include civil society, Community Based Organisations and NGO’s in NRM (Natural Resource Management) (Thompson.2005:488-489).

There are however shortcomings when formal participatory spaces are created by the government for “interested and affected” parties to voice their concerns on issues such as the environment. Firstly, the creation of specific spaces for resistance can lead to the watering down of the force of organized resistance to the point where it becomes ineffective (Thompson.2005:489). These so-called “Democratic spaces” takes away the impetus from more unorganised potential forms of resistance according to Thompson (2005:512) Secondly, the success of the resistance depends on timing and whether the social movement, invited to participate, can play the game according to the rules set by government (Thompson.2005:489). If there is a time lag in sustained environmental and social mobilization, like there was in the BWP, resistance will fail (Thompson.2005:495). Thirdly, social movements rely on ‘mass mobilization’ and the absence of it neutralizes their impetus to resist effectively, which is exactly what happened during the building of the BWP (Thompson.2005:495-496). Governments tend to neutralize resistance by employing a strategy that there is indeed water scarcity, when in fact it may or may not be the case (Thompson.2005:496).

Further constraints neutralizing the effectiveness of the resistance in particular with respect to the building of the BWP, was the lack of synergy between locally based forms of activism and the environmental NGO’s (Thompson.2005:492); the fact that the environmental movement’s resistance only gained momentum after the formal government-led participation processes had taken place (Thompson.2005:491); the fact that disadvantaged groups, which are more concerned with the economic impact of water resource management and issues of service delivery, (the so-called brown environmental issues), would only unite with the Environmental movement, on “brown” issues (Thompson.2005:495); and the EMC’s (Environmental Management Committee) lack of power to act on grievances, remaining a toothless watchdog, and being the only space through which questions of ecological impact can be debated (Thompson.2005:508)

The lessons we can take home from the BWP is that government-led participatory processes can lead to a watering down of the effectiveness of organized resistance to water management projects, and that water scarcity is sometimes used by the government as a scare tactic to neutralize resistance and bring environmental activism on board.   Social activism should be aware of these constraints on their freedom to effectively resist. The can challenge and prevail against local and global hegemonic discourses, influence norms and value, mediate between state and society and perform state regulatory functions (Thompson.2005:490). The condition to effectively resist, seems to be a refusal to be pulled in by government-led participatory processes, which can turn them into toothless watchdogs, there for the show, but unable to effect change. 

Impact of climate change on Indigenous knowledge

The water crisis in the world is mostly assumed to be water scarcity, but as the following case study of slash and burn farming practices in the Cong basin, will show, wetter isn’t necessarily better. Nearly 20 million forest farmers in the Congo basin rely on indigenous knowledge to generate a livelihood (Wilkie, Morelli, Rotberg & Shaw.1999:527) The indigenous knowledge, in this case, being slash and burn farming practices that entail clearing forest areas during the dry season and burning the debris to provide soil with sufficient nutrients to ensure proper yields for the families to sustain themselves. 

Climate change due to global warming will, according to climate models, affect the Congo basin in that there will be an increase of rainfall of 0.5- 1.5 mm/day (between 200 and 600 mm per year), by the 2050s (Wilkie et al.1999:527-528). Little attention has been given to these rainfall increases, since agronomists usually view too little, and not too much rain, as a critical constraint to agricultural production (Wilkie et al.1999:527). If global warming does as predicted, cause an increase in annual and dry season rainfall within the Congo basin, then the frequency of weak dry seasons will likely increase as well as the frequency and severity of the pre-harvest hunger periods, already in existence (Wilkie et al.1999:530). This 1 mm/day increase is predicted to increase food shortages from once every four years to once every 1-2 years, leading to two to four-fold increase in food insecurity (Wilkie et al.1999:530).

If global warming increases precipitation in the Congo basin, rendering age old traditional practices, like slash and burn-farming increasingly less productive, what alternatives remain to these farmers to maintain rural livelihoods? (Wilkie et al.1999:530). Climate change, in this case, excessive rainfall, as opposed to water scarcity in most other regions, can impact whole communities, setting off a chain reaction of food insecurity, displacement, and social unrest.

Improved water management to strengthen urban resilience

In order to combat increased weather-related risks, such as floods and water and power supply failures, due to climate change, predicted to occur over the next century, Muller (2007:238,241) proposes improved water management in order to build resilience within urban areas. He proposes different instruments to the disposal of water managers that would improve their ability to manage variability’s due to climate change and which will ultimately strengthen urban areas’ defenses against water-related risks (Muller.2007:240). The instruments or “weapons” he proposes in the arsenal of water managers to address the variability of water resources, are water infrastructure and institutional mechanisms (Muller.2007:241).

The first mechanism that Muller proposes is the traditional solution of increased and improved water infrastructure. Throughout history, water infrastructure, such as river training, floodwalls, flood diversion canals, tanks, and dams, has enabled households and communities to manage the variability of water resources (Muller.2007:240). The water managers, i.t.o. of water infrastructure has according to Muller several ways to manage the impact of climate variability on water resources, namely; capturing and controlling river flows which are in excess of user requirements, releasing them at a later stage when low flows are insufficient; secondly, storing peak flows during floods, for later use, avoiding flood damage and disasters; thirdly, storing water for electricity generation, in order to sustain growing settlements; and lastly, constructing other waterworks, such as canals, tunnels and pipelines, not only supplying human demands directly, but also creating linked systems that will suffer less variability and improved supply security, like stormwater drainage systems and wastewater disposal (Muller.2007:240-241).

The second weapon to the water manager’s disposal, are institutional mechanisms. These institutional mechanisms, help in dealing with climate variability, achieving goals such as supplying water to people, industries and farms, as well as protecting communities from flooding, while sustaining eco-systems (Muller.2007:241). The following institutional instruments are mentioned by Muller, namely rules on water allocation, that prioritize different uses of water at different times, usually enforced by water legislation; and land use planning, preventing settlements to be located in vulnerable areas as well as infrastructure such as floodwalls (Muller.2007:241).

Muller points out that a failure to address the impact of climate change on water resources will leave urban residents vulnerable to a host of acute and slow onset disasters; such as flood damage to urban settlements; water and electricity supply failures, impacting on public health as well as on the economic performance and sustainability of urban areas; and financial costs that will render water and related services unaffordable, potentially causing their collapse (Muller.2007:250). Therefore building resilience into water management systems is critical, if the needs of economic water users are to be met (Muller.2007:250).

A different approach to water management

In Tamil Nadu state, India, the state has had a severe water crisis, and water availability in 2006 was less than 500 m³ per capita per year, well below the 1000 m³/capita/year, Falkenmark indicator figure, signaling absolute water scarcity (Bhatia, Briscoe, Malik, Misra, Palainisami & Harshadeep.2006:21). Severe water scarcity and droughts in the lower Cauvery delta, disputes with neighbouring states over the allocation of inter-state water, inadequate raw water supply for Chennai city, dramatic reductions in groundwater tables and pollution threats to scarce water supplies, are just some of the symptoms of the water-scarce ill Tamil Nadu, which has to support 60 million people of which 55 percent urban (Bhatia et al.2006:21).

The state government of Tamil Nadu, responded to these crises primarily through attempts at supply- side augmentation, from within and beyond the state, coupled some demand-side management interventions (Bhatia et al.2006:22). The state government had four approaches in addressing these crises. Firstly, the state attempted to capture a larger proportion of rainfall by constructing large and small dams and water harvesting structures, but they were only in effect “robbing Peters”, to create water entitlements for themselves (Bhatia et al.2006:21). 

Secondly, the state tried to bring more water into the state, by holding on to water obtained historically from neighboring states and getting more water from both inter-state (Cauvery) and peninsular rivers (Krishna and Godavari), which proved unsuccessful (Bhatia et al.2006:22). 

Thirdly, the state augmented water supplies for cities and industries, by desalination and the treating and re-use of wastewater,  for example, industrial reverse osmosis plants in Chennai. Although it has had limited success, it is unlikely to play a major role in the short term (Bhatia et al.2006:22). Lastly, the state government tried to rehabilitate and modernize tanks through both internal and external funding, but proved to be difficult to implement since it required active local community participation (Bhatia et al.2006:22). Repeated droughts, furthermore, has forced the state, to advise farmers to adopt less water-intensive cropping patterns and irrigation systems (Bhatia et al.2006:22). 

The local water supply authority, Metrowater, in Chennai, on the other hand, had a very different and unique approach to these crises. Metrowater noticed that neighboring farmers in the AK aquifer had been using large amounts of water, while Chennai had severe water shortages (Bhatia et al.2006:22). Even though Tamil Nadu’s water policy contained the “hierarchy of water priorities” stating that “water for human use has the highest priority”, Metrowater could not simply confiscate the farmer's water. Instead, Metrowater followed an approach where they made “forbearance payments” to willing farmers, who agreed to forego their customary use of water and to allow the city to use their water (Bhatia et al.2006:22). 

This approach, although being imperfect, was a breakthrough and it could replace the insufficient supply-side solutions or approaches attempted by the Tamil Nadu state government (Bhatia et al.2006:22-23). Metrowater’s approach “abandoned the traditional command and control system in favor of a flexible “willing seller/willing buyer” approach, in which there was voluntary, consensual movement of water from low to high value uses” The proof of its success is in the pudding, with farmers queuing to sell their water in return for assured revenues, whilst most still growing crops and Metrowater being able to buy water at a fraction of the price it would cost them to develop alternative sources (Bhatia et al.2006:23).

The “soft option” to address water scarcity        

In the coming decades, water will become a major constraint for agriculture, particularly in Africa and Asia.  In addressing this problem, major institutional adjustments will have to be made (Risjberman. 2006:328) Gleick (in Risjberman.2006:328), recommends a “soft path” to address water scarcity, focussing on increasing overall water productivity (the conversion rate of water into food). Risjberman (2006:341), mentions traditional infrastructure, particularly dams, to address water scarcity, by increasing human control over water resources and to make a larger share of the total renewable water available for human use. Water infrastructure; however, has been severely critiqued over the last several decades (Risjberman.2006:341). 

Well-established literature calls for a shift from supply management to demand management, which has led to the “integrated water management” movement, which has given birth to the World Water Council and Global Water Partnership (Risjberman.2006:341). Proposals that have come from this movement towards integrated resource manage, are the establishment of ‘water user associations’ as to involve users more in the management of water; the pricing of water to make it a more trade-able commodity, although it has been highly controversial; and the establishment of river-basin authorities, that will integrate government’s fragmented responsibilities into a single authority responsible for a hydrographically defined area, namely the river basin; with limited success (Risjberman.2006:341).

Gleick’s (in Risjberman.2006:342) “soft path for water”, focusses on the overall improvement of water productivity, rather than seeking new supplies of water, as the answer to water scarcity. The 1970’s oil crisis led to many debates on energy scarcity and eventually to significant increases in energy efficiency, encompassing a shift for economies to become less energy intensive, requiring a similar shift in water efficiency  (Risjberman.2006:342). The U.S. has been exemplary in this regard, increasing their GDP/ m³ of water withdrawn, from US$ 6.50 (1900-1970) to US$ 15 since 1970 (Risjberman. 2006:342). Furthermore, national water withdrawals, in the U.S. have stabilized and water use per capita has fallen (Risjberman.2006:342). The IWMI (International Water Management Institute) is also calling for increased water productivity, specifically for water in agriculture, very similar to Gleick’s proposal (Risjberman.2006:342). “By far the largest consumer of water is the cultivation of food. IWMI predicts that the world will have to provide an additional 22 percent of primary water to meet future food needs by 2025, nearly three-quarters of which will be for irrigation” (Overseas Development Institute.2002:1).

The call for increased water productivity has culminated in various publications and research initiatives, focussing on increasing water productivity for food production and rural livelihoods. The CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), answered the call by two initiatives, namely a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture and a Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF), a major effort by the international community to address water scarcity in agriculture (Risjberman. 2006:342) In developing countries, water for agriculture, that is water used to grow food needed, consumes 70-90 percent of the total water use and with global population expected to double over the next 40 years, more food is needed, using less water (www. waterandfood.org). 

The CPWF is an international multi-institutional research initiative to improve the productivity of water in river basins that are pro-poor, gender equitable and environmentally sustainable (www. waterandfood.org). The CPWF offers a new approach through the paradigm of water productivity to natural resources and management research, working towards achieving: food security for all at household level; poverty alleviation through increased sustainable livelihoods in rural and peri-urban areas; and environmental security through improved water quality, and maintenance of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity (www.waterandfood.org).

Water scarcity in South-Africa

South-Africa is in a severe water crisis. South-Africa is one of about 30 countries, who are considered water stressed, of which 20 countries face absolute water scarcities of less than 500 m³ per capita per year (Overseas Development Institute.2002:1). In 2000, the IWMI concluded that by 2025, 33% of the world population, or two billion people, will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity and will be joined by Pakistan, South Africa and large parts of India and China.” (Overseas Development Institute.2002:1). According to Treurnicht (2008:5), South-Africa can only accommodate 80 million people with optimal utilization. At the current population growth rate, it’s only a matter of time before South-Africa cannot supply in its population’s needs.

South-Africa’s current National Resource management Policy framework has been praised by many international organizations for its commitment to social justice. The 1997 Water Services Act laid the basis for the 2001 Free Basic Water services program (Thompson.2005:487). However, the government continues to emphasize the need for more water storage in South-Africa, and the BWP proves the government’s strong bias towards large dam strategy as a vehicle for industrialized development in big cities, and this bias shows no sign of changing, despite South-Africa’s constitutional commitment to  access to water and accompanying legislation, providing for basic services and free water (Thompson .2005:488).

There has been a strong focus on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) since the 1990s, taking river basins as a starting point for water management, constructing a version of good governance of water, based on notions of decentralization, user participation, and demand management. IWRM has begun to dominate national policymaking in regions including Southern Africa, where recent policy and management strategies of South Africa make frequent reference to the idea (Overseas Development Institute.2002:3).

Conclusion

The world is in a water crisis, without a doubt, and due to projected population growth and the nature of water being non-renewable, the future seems quite bleak and all of this is now being exacerbated by climate change due to global warming. Participation in water management processes like the BWP was looked at and it was concluded that government-led participatory processes, may neutralize effective resistance by social movements  and can use water scarcity as an excuse to get what they want, as in the case of the BWP, the building of the Berg Water Dam for industrialization purposes in urban areas. Wetter is not always better was a principle that was explored in the Congo basin case study with regards to the effect of climate change, in this case, increased precipitation, on indigenous knowledge practices, i.e. slash and burn-farming in the Congo basin. The result was that increased rainfall will render indigenous farming practices untenable.  

In dealing with the water crisis, Muller’s improved water management to improve urban resilience, the unique and flexible, willing seller/willing buyer approach by Metrowater, Chennai in the Tamil Nadu case study and Gleick’s soft path approach of increased water productivity as opposed to increased supplies were explored in detail. Muller discussed infrastructural and institutional mechanisms as weapons in the hands of water management to improve urban resilience against water-related risks. The Tamil Nadu case study explored approaches by the local government to the state’s severe water crisis, which had limited success and the Metrowater approach that is highly successful. Gleick’s “soft path” of improved water productivity tends to be the best solution in solving the water crisis. South-Africa’s water crisis is very real, but it seems that government policy and legislation is geared towards addressing these issues, at least on paper. Water scarcity is a very serious problem and is now being further compounded by climate changes and the future will look very ‘dry’ if we don’t act now, act decisively and act collectively.

Bibliography

1. Barlow, M & Clarke, T. Who owns water? The Nation. 2 September. Available at: http://lege.net/blog.lege.net/ratical.org/co-globalize/whoOwnsWater.pdf (accessed on 6/5/2010)
2. Bhatia, R, Briscoe, J, Malik, R, Miller, L, Misra, S, Palainisami, K & Harshadeep, N. 2006. Water in the economy of Tamil Nadu: more flexible water allocation policies offer a possible way out of water induced economic stagnation and will be good for the environment and poor, in Sustainable Development: a reader, compiled by S. Treurnicht. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
3. Challenge Program on Water and Food. 2010. What is the Challenge Program on Water and Food? Available at: http://www.waterandfood.org/about-cpwf.html (accessed on 1/5/2010).
4. Challenge Program on Water and Food Basin Focal Projects. 2010. Water availability and productivity in the Andes region. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/cpwfbfp/water-availability-and-productivity-in-the-andes-region (accessed on 1/5/2010).
5. Global Humanitarian Forum. 2009.  Human Impact Report on Climate Change: The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis. Available at: http://www.ghfgeneva.org/Portals/0/pdfs/human_impact_report.pdf (accessed on 5/5/2010)
6. Muller, M. 2007. Adapting to climate change: water management for urban resilience, in Sustainable Development: a reader, compiled by S. Treurnicht. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
7. Overseas Development Institute. 2002. ODI Briefing paper: The ‘Water Crisis’: Fault lines in Global Debates. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1951.pdf (accessed on 2/5/2010)
8. Rijsberman, F. 2006. Water scarcity: Fact or Fiction? , in Sustainable Development: a reader, compiled by S. Treurnicht. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
9. Thompson, L. 2005. Managing mobilization? Participatory processes and dam building in South-Africa, the Berg River Project, in Sustainable Development: a reader, compiled by S. Treurnicht. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
10. Treurnicht, S. 2008. Only Study Guide for DVASUS4. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
11. Wilkie, D, Morelli, G, Rotberg, F & Shaw, E. 1999. Wetter isn’t better: global warming and food security in the Congo basin, in Sustainable Development: a reader, compiled by S. Treurnicht. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
12. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2010. The WBCSD on Water. Available at:   http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=ODI&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu (accessed on 5/5/2010)

- Soli Deo Gloria -