Understanding the nexus between energy and water: A basis for human survival in South Africa

ABSTRACT

Despite the fact that the South African economy is highly diversified, the sustainability of its economic growth depends on the availability of two critical resources: water and energy. The national energy grid is mostly based on coal combustion, with very few viable alternative resources. Large amounts of water are needed to produce energy from coal and, in most places where coal reserves are located, there is evidence of water scarcity. The sustainable management of both sectors is essential, since research has shown that access to potable water and energy will lead to a better quality of life for people and help alleviate poverty. This paper will focus on the interlinkages and understanding of the trade-offs between water and energy and its implications for sustainable development in South Africa. The simultaneous implementation of selected Sustainable Development Goals targets could help reduce the trade-off between the two sectors.

KEYWORDS:

• Energy
• poverty
• sustainability
• nexus
• water

1 Introduction

Understanding the complex relationship between energy and water resources is paramount for the sustainable development of individual countries. The Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference highlighted the need to conduct research on this relationship. Many researchers have investigated the nexus concept and its implications for their countries (Hellegers & Zilberman, 2008; McCornick et al., 2008; Mushtaq et al., 2009; Bazilian et al., 2011; Lele et al., 2013; Leese & Meisch, 2015 ; Rasul & Sharma, 2016). Their findings indicate that water and energy face interrelated problems, which are linked to food security and pose a threat to human survival in terms of development, good health and wellbeing (Diamond, 2005). Many countries on the African continent face either energy or water security issues, or both (McCornick et al., 2008; IEA, 2010; Siddiqi & Anadon, 2011). These issues undermine the attainment of Millennium Development Goals targets, and could possibly impede the achievement of the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Semi-arid countries, like South Africa, where the economy is energy intensive and water is a scarce resource, present a typical scenario of the Energy–Water Nexus case study. Climate change has implications for southern African water resources, and could have serious effects on sustainable water supply in South Africa (DWAF, 2009a; WWF-SA, 2011). In order for South Africa to follow a sustainable development path, secure and dependable supplies of water and energy must be in place (UN, 1998). A systematic review of relevant literature and comprehensive analysis of data obtained from government reports was conducted for this study. Based on the positive interaction between water and energy in the South African context and with reference to Weitz et al. (2014) and the ICSU guidelines (2017) a few targets were selected from the SDGs that help to enhance the synergies between both sectors.

2 Overview of energy and water supply

The South African economy is the 11th most energy-intensive globally due to its dominant, large-scale, energy-consuming primary mineral-beneficiation and mining industries, as well as manufacturing industries (Stats SA, 2009, 2012; GCIS, 2010). The country’s energy is mostly based on coal, which accounts for about 92% of its electricity production (OECD, 2013), with natural gas contributing a further small proportion. The production of shale gas through fracking is being considered in the Karoo, despite opposition relating to possible negative environmental impacts associated with it (EIA, 2013; WWF, 2015). Diversifying the energy mix in the country is a big challenge (StatSA, 2009; Eskom, 2016). A large proportion of the oil consumed in the country is imported, and only a small proportion of the natural gas is produced locally (Sparks et al., 2014). Nuclear power contributes 5% through only one power plant, the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant in the Western Cape province. Hydropower constitutes only 2% of the total energy supply in South Africa, with all the potential large-scale hydro plants already exploited (Martin & Fischer, 2012). Bioenergy is derived majorly from waste-from-crops, because generation from biomass is not sustainable in the country, due to the high water consumption needed to cultivate the natural biomass.

The demand for energy in South Africa is still increasing. About 70% of South African households are connected to the national energy grid, and promises have been made to provide energy to those not connected. Most of the households situated in remote rural areas are off the grid, due to the dispersed nature of their settlements and the high cost of installing electricity grids (CSIR, 2009). Electricity used to be supplied in the country at an average cost of no more than R0.25/kWh – the lowest cost in the world. However, since 2008 there has been a significant increase in the price of electricity (Edkins et al., 2010). The last decade saw ‘electricity blackouts in 2007 and 2008 leading to load shedding, petroleum shortages in 2008 and 2011, and gas shortages in 2011 and 2012’ (Sparks et al., 2014). Electricity blackouts resulted in a 10% reduction in electricity use by the mining sector, restrictions on construction projects and the country’s economy losing billions in GDP (CSIR, 2009; Kings, 2016).

The increasing demand for and the need to stabilise electricity has led to two new coal stations being built and two old ones being revived, even though emissions from coal-fired stations constitute about 62.3% of the total emissions in South Africa (Eskom, 2011a, 2012; Tait & Winkler, 2012), which has negative implications for climate change and the environment (Mekonnen et al., 2015). According to IEA (2011), the CO₂ emitted by Eskom in 2011 exceeds that of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Denmark combined. The new power stations will be the third and fourth biggest coal-fired power stations in the world (Munnik et al., 2010; Eberhard, 2011). Medupi Power Station is being constructed in the Waterberg area, which is currently experiencing severe water scarcity (Eberhard, 2011), while Kusile is located in a riverine wetland area. The river ecosystem status of the provinces where both stations are located were classified in 2008 as either mostly critically endangered or endangered (DEAT, 2008). Hence, it was proposed that both power stations utilise dry cooling technology, and depend on interbasin water transfer schemes (Eskom, 2012).

The design of the two new coal-fired stations are said to be more efficient than existing ones in terms of water usage and carbon dioxide emitted per unit of electricity generated. Nevertheless, the electricity price is increasing beyond what some poor households can afford or sustain even though one of the visions of Department of Energy is to make energy affordable for all. This increase is due to the increasing cost of coal (Eskom, 2015, 2016; Kings, 2016). There are indications that it is mostly energy-intensive industries that will benefit from the supply of energy from the new power stations (Tait & Winkler, 2012), especially since the country’s electricity price for industries is the cheapest in the world (CSIR, 2009).

Water insecurity is prevalent on most of the African continent. In a keynote address by Turton (2008) at the CSIR in Pretoria, he predicted that South Africa, which is considered to be the 13th most water-scarce country in the world, will face water shortages in a decade’s time, especially if drought should occur. This prediction is supported by outcomes of similar research (Colvin, 2011; DTI, 2013, cited in Turton, 2008; Sparks et al., 2014). This is the reality facing a country that has an annual average rainfall of 500 mm, which is far below the world average of 860 mm (DWAF, 2003). Drought over the last two years caused rainfall to become seasonal and unevenly distributed across the country. About 98% of the country’s total available water resources have been allocated (Turton, 2008; WWF-SA, 2011), with little remaining as a buffer for times of drought (Wassung, 2010). Most of the available water is of poor quality, resulting in the decline of river ecosystem health. This decline has a significant negative impact on the ecosystem-services functioning of different ecological infrastructure consisting of wetlands and riparian zones. This situation of insufficient and unreliable water makes South Africa a net importer of water (Binns et al., 2001; Eskom, 2009).

The scarcity of water in the country is an important stressor that can lead to livelihood vulnerability and have significant impacts on other sectors, especially water-intensive ones, like energy generation, agriculture and residential use (Feely et al., 2008; Quinn et al., 2011). It is projected that, in 2030, demand for water will exceed supply by about 2.7 billion m³ (Blaine, 2012). Despite these challenges, a significant amount of water is allocated to electricity generation by the Department of Water Affairs, because it is considered to be an important economic use of water (Wassung, 2010).

According to Steel & Schulz (2012): ‘Water is not just an environmental issue but a fundamental one at the very heart of justice, development, economics and human rights.’ Water plays a major role in poverty alleviation. However, the provision of sufficient good quality water is one of the factors limiting economic growth in the country. Unequal access to water is a reality that is experienced daily by millions of people (DEAT, 2008). To date, the problem of water scarcity in the country has been addressed by building dams, and by inter-basin transfer schemes, which can have adverse ecological impacts, such as impeding river and sediment flows that are critical for habitat maintenance downstream, affect the susceptibility of dams to non-native and invasive species, and causes the salinity and aridification of donor basins to increase. Among the effects are loss of aquatic species, wetlands and forest, and erosion of flood plains (Zhuang, 2016).

Water-transfer schemes cannot be sustainable, so other ways of conserving water must be considered. In most cases, water resources are not located where the water is needed, so water has to be transported from places where there is surplus quantity. For example, water is transported over large distances to urban and mining areas, as indicated in Figure 1. Often, these interventions lead to loss of ecological integrity at the source of the water.

Figure 1. Map showing South African climate zones, water source areas, areas of high groundwater use and areas of mine water pollution (adapted from Ololade et al., 2017).

A WRC report titled “The State of Water in South Africa – Are we Heading for a Crisis?” (2009), projects that the demand for water will outstrip supply by 2025 unless urgent attention is given to water demand, considering that the country’s population is expected to increase to 53 million people in that year (WRC, 2009; DWAF, 2009a). Even though various interventions have been put in place, in 2012 there were still a million households without access to water. In 2001 about two million people lacked access to a water supply that met basic water-quality standards (Binns et al., 2001) and 17 million lacked access to adequate sanitation (DEAT, 2008). Since 1994 groundwater has been a major source of water supply for about 9 million people (DEAT, 2008), especially those in rural communities. The competition between local communities and other sectors for this scarce resource is, increasingly, resulting in conflict, with the poor facing the greatest disadvantage. Service delivery protests caused by inadequate access to water, homes and electricity have been exacerbated by factors such as inequality, poverty, unemployment and poor quality of life in informal settlements in rural and urban areas of the country (Bhagwan, 2012; Tapela, 2012). Water has been the common cause of these protests (Molewa, 2012).

In order to offer solutions for the impending water crisis the Minister for Water Affairs in South Africa signed a partnership agreement with Iran in May 2016 for desalination of seawater in coastal areas, with the intention of preventing overdependence on abstraction of surface water (Roelf, 2016). However, desalination activities will increase energy demand, due to the input energy required during operation (IRENA & IEA-ETSAP, 2012; UN Water, 2014). It is also expected that more dams will be built in response to the prevailing drought. However, provision of bulk supply of water is not the main solution for averting water scarcity. Measures to ensure efficient water usage and service delivery need to be put in place, since wastage of water accounts for about one-fifth of the country’s total withdrawals (WWF, 2014). The application of water conservation methods, such as water reticulation and cost-effective treatment of portable water, will enhance water security through reduction of effluent discharge into the environment (Ilemobade et al., 2008).

3 Energy–water nexus implications for sustainable development

3.1 Energy–water interdependence

Energy and water are interlinked, due to the fact that water is needed during energy production, and energy is used in the process of supplying potable water from the source. This interdependence of the two sectors is referred to as the water–energy nexus (Siddiqi & Anadon, 2011; Qin et al., 2015). The economy of South Africa is highly diversified, but the sustainability of the economy and its prosperity is at risk due to limitations in relation to two critical resources, namely, energy and water. The major sectors consuming energy are industry, transport and residential, with the former two creating employment for about 250 000 people (Stats SA, 2009). According to Eskom (2015), ‘about 2.2% of the country’s gross domestic product can be attributed to the electricity, gas and water cluster. The pace at which the country’s energy needs grow is linked to the pace at which the economy grows.’ In the midst of current problems caused by climate change, resource depletion and increasing demands on South Africa’s already overloaded national grid, there is a need to conserve resources and prevent further degradation of the environment. The current status of energy, water and food securities in the country, explored by Ololade et al. (2017), is that the sustainability of both sectors is threatened, hence, in-depth research into the relationship that exits between the two sectors is required (Hoff, 2011).

The water sector in South Africa is becoming more energy-intensive, because of the energy needed for pumping groundwater, constructing large interbasin water transfer schemes and moving water through them (Friedrich et al., 2009). The energy sector is already water-intensive, due to coal being the main source of energy. Eskom acknowledges that availability and quality of water is one of the challenges they currently face (Eskom, 2016). The increasing demand for both energy and water, due to population growth and effects of climate change, such as drought, compound the complex relationship between the two sectors. Scarcity of water as a resource could constrain development, which includes electricity generation and access to energy in the future (DWAF, 2009a).

Figure 2 presents a simplified interdependency between water and energy in South Africa. The figure shows that water is mostly used for the generation and consumption phase of the energy sector, while energy is utilised in all stages of the water sector. However, due to the coal-based energy sector of South Africa, a great deal of waste water is produced during energy generation, which, in turn, requires energy for its treatment. A WRC (2013) report on a survey conducted in 132 municipalities indicates that the present level of non-revenue water in South Africa is about 37%. This accounts for the amount of treated water ‘lost through leakage, incorrect metering and unauthorised consumption’ (SAPPMA, 2013). Despite the high cost and amount of energy involved in water treatment, measures are not in place to prevent water being lost. Integrated management of both sectors, which include increased renewable energy in the energy mix and employing cost-effective water-conservation methods, is needed. If implemented well, such management options could have a positive impact on the environment, economy and people’s quality of life (Wang, 2009).

Figure 2. Energy–water nexus scenario in South Africa (adapted from Wang, 2009).

3.2 Water footprint in energy production

The water footprint (WF) is accepted widely as an indicator of water use through measuring the volume of freshwater used in the production process, from the source to the end product (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The blue WF indicates the amount of surface and groundwater used, the green WF is the amount of rain water consumed, while the grey WF gives an indication of the extent of water pollution. The amount of green WF used in energy generation is normally negligible (Mekonnen et al., 2015), with the exception of biomass energy.

Energy companies, including Eskom, are becoming more aware of the need to reduce their WF in their production processes. The fact is that current water consumption for producing energy is not sustainable, because of the limited availability of fresh water in South Africa. The amount of surface and groundwater used by the general population for survival and development activities is above the maximum sustainable blue WF. The consumptive water requirement for the current and proposed energy mix in the country, and potential implications for water quantity and quality, are summarised in Table 1. The table shows that renewable energy sources have little to no impact on South Africa’s water resources; though the new coal-fired power station’s dry cooling technologies will have low impacts on water resources, a large amount of energy will be consumed during operation, which means the process is not energy efficient.

Table 1. Current and proposed energy mix with water requirement implications in South Africa.

Energy source (considering technology efficiency)	Water consumption (considering the water consumption during operations only)	Implication for water quantity/quality (taking the quality of the grey water into account)
Conventional wet-cooling power plant	1.35 m^3/MWh (Eskom, 2011b)	High negative impact on water quantity and downstream water quality (Eberhard, 2000; Von Uexkull, 2004 ; McCarthy & Pretorius, 2009)
Coal – using direct dry cooling technologies to generate electricity	0.66 m^3/MWh (Greenpeace, 2011)	Low negative impact on water quantity and downstream water quality. Has high in-plant electricity usage (de Korte, 2010; Wassung, 2010; Eskom, 2013)
Synthetic liquid fuels, coal and gas (methane)	12 m^3/tonne – 4% Vaal River freshwater system (Sasol, 2014)	High negative impact on water quantity and downstream quality
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) to generate electricity	3.1 m^3/MWh (Madhlopa et al., 2013)	Low negative impact on water quantity and high negative impact on groundwater quality (Makananise, 2013)
Nuclear energy for electricity generation (once through cooling method)	0.000055 m^3/MWh (WWF, 2014)	Uses seawater; very little water loss; no impact on freshwater quality or quantity; potential environmental damage is the hot water that is released back into the sea that can harm the aquatic species living in it; radioactive waste (Sparks & Mwakasonda, 2006; Sparks et al., 2014)
Shale gas	5 .9 m^3/MWh (Wilson & VanBriesen, 2012)	High negative impact on water quantity and groundwater quality (Wilson & VanBriesen, 2012; Kharak et al., 2013)
Solar power – CPV Technologies	0.015–0.5 m^3/MWh (Leitner, 2002; Fthenakis & Kim, 2010)	No impact on downstream water quality; very little impact on water quantity (Sparks et al., 2014)
Solar power – Parabolic Trough	0.296 m^3/MWh (Macknick et al., 2011)	No impact on downstream water quality; no impact on water quantity except during construction stage (Fthenakis & Kim, 2010)
Wind power	0.0038 m^3/MWh (Macknick et al., 2011)	No impact on downstream water quality; no impact on water quantity except during construction stage (Gleick, 1994; Edkins et al., 2010)
Hydro power	17 m^3/MWh – lost during evaporation (Gleick, 1994)	No impact on downstream water quality; low impact on water quantity due to evaporation loss (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012)
Biofuel (ethanol)	416 000 m^3 of water to grow sugarcane per annum (De Fraiture et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2010)	Low impact on downstream water quality; high impact on water quantity (De Fraiture et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2010)

3.3 Acid mine drainage a negative side effect of using coal as an energy source

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a major issue in South Africa. It has led to the contamination of ground and surface water resources by significant levels of heavy metals (Bell et al., 2002; DWAF, 2009; Munnik et al., 2010; Eberhard, 2011). Cleaning up this contamination is usually costly, and if it is not done, the contamination can have severe impacts that threaten water security and ecosystem functioning (DWAF, 2009a; Miningmx, 2010; McCarthy & Humphries, 2013). AMD can occur in operating and abandoned mine pits for decades after mine closure. Although AMD formation results from coal, copper and gold mining, the focus of this paper is on coal mining because coal is the major source of energy generation in South Africa. The consequences of AMD go beyond its effects on water quality – it could lead to soil infertility, poison food crops, compromise human health and degrade ecosystems and infrastructure. Although the overlay of coal deposits and water source areas is not up to 1%, in the country it is nevertheless significant in terms of the possibility of AMD pollution (WWF, 2016).

A typical example of AMD contamination of a water resource in South Africa as a result of coal mining is the Olifant River catchment in Mphumalanga, which supplies water to the Kruger National Park and Eskom. After 100 years of coal mining operations, the catchment has become severely degraded, with poor water quality – a very low pH that ranges between 2 and 6 – in areas where coal mining is concentrated (Netshitungulwana et al., 2013). Despite its lower quality, water from the catchment is still considered to be a major source of water for many coal-fired power stations (Munnik et al., 2010; WWF-SA, 2011). However, since most of the operations at these stations require high-quality water, the water has to be treated first, due to its polluted state. This treatment is expensive, and uses further energy as presented in Figure 2; alternatively, water must be transferred from another source (Figure 1).

The same scenario is starting to occur in the Vaal River Catchment in Gauteng province, which needs urgent attention to prevent further degradation (Van Wyk et al., 2010). The Vaal River provides water to about 60% of South Africa’s economy, and 20 million people, which represents approximately 45% of its population (Van Wyk et al., 2010; DWA, 2012). The Department of Water Affairs initiated the Vaal River Eastern Sub-system Augmentation (VRESAP) to supply an estimated 160 million m³ of water from the Vaal Dam to meet the increasing water needs of both Eskom and Sasol (DWAF, 2009b). VRESAP will increase the vulnerability of farmers and local communities who depend on this water for their livelihoods, especially during drought periods.

Further conflict over water is likely to occur in Soutpansberg, in Limpopo province, an area that experiences very little rainfall and where the local residents are mostly game rangers and farmers. Water that is meant for daily living requirements and livelihood of community members is being consumed by coal mining. Residents in this area fear that what happened to the Mpumalanga landscape, where 83% of the coal produced in South Africa is being mined, could be their fate too (Groenewald, 2012).

4 Water–energy interactions based on sustainable development goals targets

A selection of the 2015 SDGs targets, based on the water and energy interaction as proposed by Weitz et al. (2014), was used to determine possible actions that can be undertaken to overcome the challenges encountered in the interlinkage of the two sectors. The selection considered the trade-off between the two sectors in the South African context, and the way the selected targets can ensure a pathway to sustainability. According to a report by the International Council for Science (ICSU, 2017), entitled, “A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation”, a seven-point scale can be used to quantify the synergies and conflicts between the SDGs according to target level interactions. The first three points of the scale were assigned positive scores, based on their positive interactions. This study employed positive interactions between the energy and water sectors using the Weitz et al. (2014) targets selection and ICSU (2017) goal scores. The interactions include: (1) achieving one target in one sector is linked closely to the achievement of one or more targets in the other sector; (2) achieving a target in one sector creates a setting to achieve one or more targets in the other sector; and (3) achieving a target in one sector aids the achievement of one or more targets in the other sector.

4.1 Equitable access to safe, reliable drinking water and energy efficiency

Based on the targets’ interaction, achieving equitable access to safe and reliable drinking water is linked closely to energy efficiency, because any unit of energy that does not need to be supplied corresponds to certain amount of water being saved and reduced thermal or chemical pollution (ICSU, 2017). The use of water-saving products, such as rain and storm-water harvesting, installation of grey-water reticulation systems, and water reuse, would reduce over-abstraction of freshwater from sources. Putting in place a good system that bills end water users according to usage and maintenance of ageing engineered water infrastructure will reduce water wastage (DWAF, 2004). If these systems and other cost-effective methods could be implemented it would improve access to safe water and lead to a reduction in the amount of energy needed for water transfer and abstraction of groundwater.

Findings from a research project conducted by Erskine (1991) indicate that rain-water harvesting ensures a good supply of water and is cost effective in poor rural areas of South Africa. Research conducted by Enninful (2013) and Viljoen (2014) show that rain and storm-water harvesting is feasible in the winter rainfall region of Cape Town and low-income housing areas, and that valuable potable water and financial saving could be achieved in the process. The use of greywater for activities such as irrigation and some domestic use, through the dual greywater reticulation system, also helps to conserve freshwater. However, using greywater from high-density urban areas lacking sewer systems is not recommended, due to the presence of concentrated pollutants that can be hazardous (Carden et al., 2007). These water-saving methods have been done mostly in pilot stages, and need to be rolled out on a bigger scale, especially in rural communities. The social perception of the use of these methods must be changed, from a negative one to a positive one, through education and awareness, so that these measures can be implemented successfully (Ilemobade et al., 2008).

4.2 Water-use efficiency and increasing the share of renewable energy in the energy mix

Achieving an increase in renewable energy in the energy mix will enhance water-use efficiency. In South Africa, the share of renewable energy in the energy mix is very low, with most of the energy being generated with coal. Most of the old coal-fired stations consume a lot of water, which makes them water-use inefficient. The new coal-fired stations consume less water, due to the use of water-efficient technologies in their operation, but the process is energy intensive. Nuclear energy is used as supplementary energy in the energy grid. It is being proposed that this provision is expanded, which will have the advantage of using less water than coal-based energy, but it is still much more than most renewable energy. The downside to this source of energy is the cost related to its development, which is high. It also takes a long time to build a single reactor, the main raw material, uranium, is non-renewable, and the disposal of its radioactive waste is costly: if not done properly it can have a significant impact on the environment (Lilley, 2017). Hence, building new nuclear power plants is costly and risky, and should not be encouraged; instead, more emphasis should be placed on renewable energy (Winkler, 2015).

An increase in renewable energy will lead to a reduction in the proportion of energy produced from coal. Operations of the old coal-fired stations can be reduced, and research conducted into clean energy technologies in the new power stations. This step must be taken in conjunction with the government’s initiative to encourage and support industries to increase their use of renewable energy, since the sector consumes a high percentage of the energy produced in the country.

4.3 Protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems and switching to advanced and cleaner fuel

Switching to advanced and cleaner fuel enables better protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems. Reduction of the pollution of water resources can be achieved by monitoring the release of untreated waste water into the environment. This can be achieved through recycling and reusing wastewater in coal-fired power operations and industries. Wetlands must be restored and AMD addressed, as it has significant negative impacts on freshwater catchment areas. These management measures must be accompanied by an increase in the use of cleaner fossil fuel, for example, using natural gas for energy generation, as it consumes less water than coal-based generation, and conducting advanced research on bio-waste energy. Doing so will help preserve water-related ecosystems and reduce the water footprint associated with energy production.

Measures to achieve the identified SDGs targets should be implemented simultaneously in order for it to be effective. Although most of the targets are being implemented, it is usually done in isolation, without considering the synergistic effects of coordination in a particular affected area. There has to be buy-in into its implementation by all three tiers of government (national, provincial, local) in order for it to be successful.

5 Conclusions

The price of keeping South Africa’s energy supply stable is ‘water’ based on the current energy mix. Water insecurity could have a profoundly negative effect on energy supply, and adverse impacts on human survival, especially for the poor in rural areas. Hence, projections of future energy provision in a water-scarce country such as South Africa should take into account the availability of water. Continuous dependence on coal as the major source of energy supply in South Africa will increase greenhouse gas emissions, and intensify climate change, leading to greater water insecurity. Reliance on coal, the cheapest energy source, as a major source of energy will continue to exert pressure on already stressed water resources. There are substitutes for fossil-fuel-based energy sources, but no substitutes for water.

South Africa is highly vulnerable to the absence of a reliable and adequate energy and water supply, which could increase the level of poverty and inequality in the country. Hence, there is a need to set goals with targets in line with the SDGs to ensure sustainable development into the future. Thinking about water and energy service delivery using a decentralised system and end-point use of household water-treatment options, especially in rural areas, will enhance the synergy between the two sectors. An integrated policy that considers the water–energy mix in line with the concept of integrated resources management, focusing on water and carbon footprints, should be advocated for by government. Doing so will reduce the adverse effects of the trade-off between the water and energy sectors.

Acknowledgment

Frank Sokolic, Centre for Environmental Management, for developing the map that were included in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.