The Hunger Games III: Round 2 Team Limitations (and Conclusion)💨

Ding ding ding...in Round 2 we have Team Limitations; will they live up to the hype or get crushed!

Introduction:

Hopefully from the previous post you have an understanding of the successes of Windhoek. To start off this post I wanted to highlight something very important to reaching a fair conclusion for this topic, having done a plethora of reading surrounding this topic it has become very clear that there are wide ranging opinions about the success of MAR in Windhoek. It has become apparent there seems to be quite a distinct disconnect between the narrative of articles from Western media and those that have been written by authors/academics local to Namibia.

For reference, Western articles such as from the Guardian paint the picture of "crops are failing and livestock is dying" and "Namibia's worst for 30 years". To make a comparison, a lot of
local articles are relatively outdated so I took it upon myself to actually email Dr Ricky Murray (the author of a lot of the MAR literature) myself, he did actually reply so I thought I would include this exchange (Figure 1) to highlight the reality of this disparity:

  

Figure 1: Dr Ricky Murray's reply to my email asking about Windhoek.

Challenges and Limitations:

1. Financial Barriers

The largest burden ensuring Windhoek's water security is the financial backing required for it to be successful. Supposedly an "urgent investment of $1.58bn is needed from the state to secure Windhoek’s water supply", this is over 10% of the entire of Namibia's GDP, which under an economic lens is extremely unrealistic to happen. This number appears to be massively inflated however, Murray's journal claims "The City of Windhoek has already spent over US$8.4 million on the scheme, and is looking to fund an additional US$ 9.6 million of the required US$52.4 million – the balance they will have to source externally." This doesn't take away from the picture that there is still a significant financial barrier for Windhoek to overcome to continue the MAR success.

2. Maintaining Water Quality

It is all good having a successful MAR system that provides enough water but if the water isn't of good enough quality and the population don't want to drink/use it for food due to e.g. E-coli contamination it you could argue the scheme wasn't a success. There is evidence to suggest that water quality has improved however "water quality in Namibia is still lacking in rural areas", also highlighted in Figure 2.

                                     Figure 2: Windhoek's Water Crisis Video

Conclusion:

Linking back to the big picture of food; the MAR programme is clearly a ground-breaking project that has established a good standard for sustainable water management and hence has improved food security as a result. However, given the technological and socioeconomic difficulties involved, its replication in other arid environments needs to be done carefully. 

MAR's encouraging performance acts as a reminder that large projects like this need for careful, continuous review and adjustment. It is evident that the MAR plan is a complex interaction of creativity, environmental care, and community engagement rather than just a technical fix.