The prospect of extreme water scarcity makes South Africa vulnerable to climate change-induced crises which could trigger conflict.

Gauteng is heading for Day Zero, with leading scientists pegging the province’s water crisis as a near-term climate change tipping point.

As the engine room of South Africa’s economy, the province contributes over a third of South Africa’s gross domestic product. A water deficit in Gauteng will severely and directly compromise this position, with grave implications locally, nationally and beyond.

There are several other water scarcity hotspots countrywide, making this a national concern, not only in terms of economics but also the potential for conflict. South Africa’s societal and security resilience is lacking, and the July 2021 riots revealed shortcomings in the country’s security and intelligence architecture.

This phenomenon was examined at World Water Week in Stockholm in August, with some insights proving relevant to South Africa. A seminar on water and armed conflict explored the issue from a human security perspective – through classical security, social and humanitarian, and economic impact lenses.

Humans have always fought over water, and perhaps because of this, water has also triggered the development of rules-based societies and sophisticated governance structures.

Water in conflict generally has three characteristics, according to the Pacific Institute. The first is water as a trigger of conflict. When supply cannot meet demand, competition for the scarce resource is prevalent among and within different user groups.

In South Africa, the Water and Sanitation Department’s 2023 Blue Drop, No Drop and Green Drop audit reports paint a poor picture of the water supply situation. The Blue Drop report assesses drinking water quality; No Drop focuses on water losses and non-revenue water in municipalities; and Green Drop covers municipal performance of wastewater management systems.

Only 26 out of 958 (30%) water supply systems earned Blue Drop certification, while 29% were in a critical state. Forty-six percent were assessed to have poor microbiological scores and a direct water quality threat.

Only four of the 144 Water Services Authorities gained No Drop certification for water reticulation efficiency, and the country’s non-revenue water stands at an average of 47%. That means half the water supplied cannot be accounted for financially through billing and payment.

This is a recipe for extreme water scarcity and a strong candidate for climate change to exert its threat multiplier effect. That would elevate the dire situation to a national catastrophe and a sure-fire conflict trigger.

The second characteristic of water in conflict is water as a casualty of conflict. The vandalism of infrastructure to obtain a scarce resource or prevent conflicting parties’ access, can compromise an already fragile water system. The depth of the casualty status would depend on the conflict’s intensity and duration. In South Africa’s case, such conflict could be exacerbated by societal tensions like xenophobia, race and class differences.

The third characteristic is the weaponisation of water. Akiça Bahri, Tunisia’s former agriculture, water resources and fisheries minister and a global water expert, has examined this phenomenon in Palestine over decades.

‘By weaponising water, Israel is desiccating Palestinian life with people suffering from thirst and famine,’ she says. ‘We are witnessing a potential genocide and ecocide with the weaponisation of water, food, energy and environment. It is literally a matter of life and death. If the negotiations are to transform interactions and build a cooperative routinised relationship, more time and resources should be spent on building trust, and good governance.’

Research by academics Mohsen Nagheeby and Jaime Amezaga of the United Kingdom’s Newcastle University calls for a rethink of the global approach to water conflicts, and a move away from the traditional security and peace agenda. They say that equity and the development of a collective identity over shared waters should be primary goals.

What is needed is ‘water conflict transformation,’ by stressing equity-identity and dealing more with the root causes of the conflict to engage with the parties and transform their interests, identities and discourses collectively, and create a shared understanding for a common future. ‘Water conflict transformation is … much more closely associated with the principles of fairness and justice than with the concepts of management and resolution,’ Nagheeby and Amezaga argue.

It’s also important to recognise that water can migrate from being a conflict trigger to a weapon.

If this climate change tipping point is realised in Gauteng, it will mean a changed temperature profile, more frequent heatwaves, higher evaporation rates that compromise the storage capacity of the province’s complex dam systems, and higher-intensity storm surges.

That could weaken the country’s GDP and threaten livelihoods. In terms of water, the supply capacity of the Lesotho Highlands would inevitably be affected, with dire downstream effects for at least Botswana and Namibia.

Another dimension to the water-climate-conflict nexus is corruption. Water Integrity Network CEO Barbara Schreiner introduced the concept of the toxic triangle – the climate-conflict-corruption relationship.

‘There is a well-documented relationship between conflict and corruption. Corruption both fuels and is enabled by conflict. Climate change is exacerbated by corruption (and organised crime),’ she says. ‘Examples include massive illegal deforestation, compromising natural carbon sequestration systems, and accelerating climate change. The latter exacerbates conflict over scarce water resources. And so the three together form a toxic triangle that must be addressed by the water sector.’

Corruption in the water sector globally is well documented, including in South Africa. And the poor, who are least economically resilient, are worst affected. Graft exacerbates water conflict by directly contributing to scarcity and denying much-needed resources to ensure water availability and access. As a criminal enterprise, it also adds a new conflict risk dimension.

The risk of water conflict radically upgrades South Africa’s water challenges. The country experiences repeated service delivery protests, with water and sanitation issues already topping community grievance lists. Climate-induced water scarcity could tip the scales into catastrophe.

South Africa’s climate response strategy for the water sector must be alive to this imminent possibility. Sufficiently robust plans must be designed to increase the climate resilience index, decrease the conflict potential, and eradicate corruption.

Written by Dhesigen Naidoo, Senior Research Associate, Climate, ISS Pretoria