Review of the Quality of Sanitation Services in South Africa

1. Review of the Quality of Sanitation Services in South Africa It should never be forgotten that “Sanitation is Dignity” and dignity is a basic human right. (Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy, 2009) Presentation to the SAHRC in March 2012 as updated

2. Outline of Presentation • Background to the study • Introduction • Problem statement • Defining sanitation services • Understanding sanitation needs • Focus of the study • Scope of the study • Methodology • Status of sanitation services in South Africa • Why haven’t we achieved success • Key factors hampering the attainment of functional and quality sanitation services for all • Key Recommendations

3. Background • 2011 SAHRC Report: lack of dignified sanitation services in the form of un-enclosed toilets (Western Cape, and the Free State) • Conclusion: sub-standard services violate the right to human dignity, privacy and clean environment • Recommendation: Ministry: PME prepare a report for SAHRC on the quality of sanitation services delivered by local government across the country. • DPME joint initiative: • DWA: Implementing Agent and project manager • DHS (National Sanitation Programme): Strategic partner and project oversight and support • DCoG: Strategic partner and project oversight and support • NT: Strategic partner and project oversight and support

4. Introduction: World Health Organisation: • Improved sanitation reduces diarrhoea death rates by a third • Improved school sanitation encourages children, particularly girls, to stay in school. • Improved sanitation has significant economic benefits – every $1 invested in improved sanitation translates into a return of $9. • In Africa, 115 people die every hour from diseases linked to poor sanitation, poor hygiene and contaminated water. • Hygiene education and promotion of hand washing are simple, cost-effective measures that can reduce diarrhoea cases by up to 45% • Therefore investments in sanitation that provide a comprehensive service (infrastructure, effective O&M and appropriate health education) has significant benefits in terms of community well-being, reduced health care costs and improved productivity.

5. Introduction continued …. South Africa: • The sanitation MDG (to halve the proportion of people without a basic service in 2002) was achieved in 2008 • Sanitation backlog has been reduced from 52% in 1994 to 21% in 2010 but reversal since in terms of adequacy. That is the goal of achieving universal access to sanitation by 2014 seems to be at risk (currently delivering to < 300,000 households per annum). • The status of bulk sanitation infrastructure is deteriorating due to a lack of adequate operation & maintenance, refurbishment and upgrading (Green Drop scores average 45% nationally) • Municipalities spent approximately 30% of their 2011/2012 capital budget from National Treasury as at 31 December 2011 – often other projects prioritised over sanitation. • There has been an on-going growth of informal settlements which, despite the construction of housing units for the poor, continue to grow (In 2009 there were more than 2500 informal settlements comprising 1.2 m HHs).

6. Problem Statement TT It should never be forgotten that “Sanitation is Dignity” and dignity is a basic human right. Department of Water Affairs; Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy; 2009 • From the outset sanitation service delivery in South Africa has faced several challenges: • Inadequate attention to social & health issues • Negative environmental impacts • Inadequate governance of programmes • Institutional fragmentation of roles • Inappropriate technology choice • Poor attention to effective operation & maintenance • Inadequate financial and human resources 2003: Funding of sanitation moved from DWAF to DPLG resulting in reduced control of project implementation and significantly less monitoring of projects 2005: National Sanitation Sustainability Audit finding – 28% toilets constructed through government service delivery programme could fail in short – to medium-term 2009: National Sanitation Programme moved from DWA to DHS with resultant increase in fragmentation of the sanitation function (DWA still manages the information systems and is responsible for regulation, but places significantly less importance on sanitation, while DHS capacity in the sanitation sector is limited in its focus.

7. Defining sanitation services: (Strategic Framework for Water Services, 2003) Basic sanitation facility: The infrastructure necessary to provide asanitation facility which is safe, reliable, private, protected from the weather and ventilated, keeps smells to the minimum, is easy to keep clean, minimises the risk of the spread of sanitation-related diseases by facilitating the appropriate control of disease carrying flies and pests, and enables safe and appropriate treatment and/or removal of human waste and wastewater in an environmentally sound manner. Minimum basic On-site sanitation (e.g. VIP) for rural areas Facility: Waterborne sanitation in urban areas where many businesses are located and where residential densities are high A basic sanitation service entails: The provision of a sanitation facility (that is appropriate to the settlement conditions)which iseasily accessible to a household, the sustainable operation and maintenanceof the facility, including the safe removal of human waste and waste water from the premises where this is appropriate and necessary, and the communication of good sanitation, hygiene and related practices (to users).

8. Understanding sanitation needs The sanitation need in South Africa may be defined as a combination of: service delivery backlogs (people never served); refurbishment backlogs (deteriorated infrastructure); extension backlogs (to provide service in same community to new households) upgrade needs (to meet minimum standards) O&M backlogs (infrastructure adequate if properly operated and maintained) Various sources of backlog type information are available, including: Water Services National Information System (WSNIS) based on STATS SA census data with annual adjustments for calculated service delivery and population growth STATS SA data based on census and the General Household Survey data from 2002 to 2010 (useful as it also records household perceptions and problems encountered with services at household level). DWA Water Services Reference Framework Planning data set (updated Dec 2011) determined through first principles from satellite data linked to reported water service infrastructure status gleaned through on the ground surveys. Note that the need is based on dwelling numbers which is useful for planning purposes as it enumerates the delivery needs and priorities. Reports of ad-hoc surveys and audits A combination of these sources have been used for this report

9. Focus areas of the study • The extent to which quality and functional sanitation services are available • The quality and condition of existing infrastructure • Requirements to ensure an adequate level of service • The ability of municipal technical and financial capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain infrastructure. • Adequacy of technical support currently provided by national and provincial government. • The efficacy and adequacy of current grant allocations and municipal own budget allocations for basic service delivery.

10. Scope of the study • A findings report to be submitted to the SAHRC addressing: • Fully populated and geo-referenced country wide community level classification of quality (adequacy and functionality) of sanitation services experienced by citizens using the SFW criteria • An assessment of the quality and condition of existing sanitation infrastructure (inclusive of waste water treatment works) • Identification of the settlements where the quality of sanitation service levels does not meet the above criteria whilst also quantifying the types of investments and costs to bring sanitation service levels to acceptable levels • Key challenges hampering the attainment of adequate sanitation service levels in identified hotspots

11. Methodology of quality of sanitation analysis DWA WS Reference Framework Planning data set THE DATA PROCESS (Compiled for 68,000 communities) i. The 2011 Spatial Data Analysis ii Overlay of ESKOM Dwelling Information • Obtained 2010 SPOT 5 Satellite images • OverlayDWA 2010 RF Settlements GIS dataset • Evaluated data to identify possible new or expansion developments Obtained 2008 ESKOM dwelling points GIS dataset. Overlay on baseline information for spatial update. ESKOM Dwelling Points DWA 2010 RF Settlements polygon iii. Updating Spatial Polygon and calculating new Population and households Information Utilize water services infrastructure information and local area knowledge to calculate new water services water and sanitation need classification figures iv. Utilizing image backdrop and ESKOM points to identify rural scattered farm dwellings and incorporating into Geodatabase . All settlements were evaluated and updated according to their current water services needs. New DWA 2011 RF Settlements polygon v. Development of new Sanitation Services Levels Definitions and Categories

12. Sanitation Need Classification used in DWA WS Reference Framework Planning data sets – 68,000 communities

13. Demographic Profile (National Perspective) • The current population of 50.5 million (2011) can be split into more than 68 000 settlements, of which: • ~21.2 million people (or 42% of the population) live in large metropolitan areas • ~9.1 million people (or 18% of the population) live in medium-sized cities and towns • ~4.5 million people (or 9% of the population) live in small towns in rural areas • ~15.5 million people (or 31% of population) live in small rural villages and scattered settlements

14. Sanitation Status (household) National perspective • Approximately 11% of households (Formal – no services and Informal – no services) still have to be provided with sanitation services (these households have never had a government supported sanitation intervention); • Additionally at least 26% (rounded) of households within formal areas disturbingly have sanitation services which do not meet the standards due to the deterioration of infrastructure caused by a lack of technical capacity to ensure effective operation, timely maintenance, refurbishment and/or upgrading, pit emptying services and/or insufficient water resources.

15. Sanitation Status (household) National perspective

16. WSRF Sanitation Need – national perspective Sanitation need in terms of % of population in need • Priority areas are where > 50% of population are still without adequate sanitation: • i.e. All provinces except W.Cape and Gauteng

17. WSRF Sanitation Need – national perspective Sanitation need in terms of priority and type of backlog/need 0 1 2 3 4 All categories Adequate, O&M needs and water supply need

18. Overall Water Services Authority vulnerability • The overall water services vulnerability is based on a municipal self assessment in which 16 variables were reported: • 11% of WSAs indicate they are operating in a satisfactory manner • 42% of WSAs indicated they are at risk • 38% of WSAs indicated they are at high risk • 9% of WSAs indicated they are at a crisis status

19. Ability of municipal technical and financial capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain infrastructure • There is a general shortage of staff with technical skills across municipalities. This has implications for: • Adoption of effective asset management processes has been lacking in many municipalities with sanitation infrastructure deteriorating considerably over time. This is evidenced by the 35% of households affected by sanitation infrastructure reportedly requiring upgrading, extension or refurbishment. • The low ability to accelerate sanitation service delivery • The lack of monitoring and intervention where service quality is poor.

20. Status of Wastewater Treatment Works Risk rating and condition of WWTWs in South Africa Average green drop rating per province • Total = 826 municipal works • 317 WWTWs require urgent attention • 143 WWTWs have a high risk of failure • 20% of WWTWs are running over their design capacity • 90% of WWTWs are non-compliant on more than 3 effluent determinants

21. Vulnerability of the Effective Management of Wastewater Treatment Works Proper functioning WWTWs are critical for the provision of access to basic sanitation services in urban areas Very high High Moderate Low • The cost of maintaining and operating WWTWs is often not fully budgeted • The high levels of vulnerability indicates a need for a drastic re-orientation of the approach to the management of waterborne sewage and waste water treatment. • Vulnerability is based on municipal strategic self assessments of water services in which critical variables were assessed

22. 0 1 2 3 NATIONAL Funding Requirements to meet Minimum Sanitation Service Delivery Cost to Bulk Dependant Households Eradicate Priorities Description December 2011 (RM) Y/N Adequate: Formal 7,946,368 0 N Adequate: Informal Settlements 584,378 4,198 N Adequate: Shared Services 275,078 1,372 N No Services 1,055,031 8,798 N No Services: Informal 324,433 4,866 N Infrastructure Needs 2,735,486 14,584 N Infrastructure & O&M 3,079,224 10,269 Y Infrastructure, O&M & Resource Needs 3,246,908 5,736 Y O&M Needs 343,738 392 N 4 Water Resource Needs 167,684 91 Y

23. Funding Requirements to meet Minimum Sanitation Service Delivery • Implications of funding requirements: • To meet the currently unserved requires an estimated allocation of R13.5bn • To upgrade existing infrastructure to full operational capacity requires an estimated financial allocation of R31bn. • Current MIG allocations for both water and sanitation amount to R6.4bn (2011/12) – of which 50% may be assumed to be allocated to sanitation • The allocation of the equitable share to operation and maintenance varies widely across municipalities, and being an unconditional grant, inadequate funds are generally allocated for maintenance • Municipalities often re-allocate funding to other projects after the sanitation or water project has been approved. Hence the actual delivery may vary significantly from what is planned. Key funding Sources The Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) This is a funding arrangement for municipalities which combines all existing capital grants for municipal infrastructure into one consolidated grant. (R6.4bn for water services) Equitable Share This is the allocation of revenue to the provincial and local spheres of government as stipulated by Section 214 of the South African Constitution (R 34.1bn) Municipal Revenue These include funds from the municipality’s tax base or revenue e.g. funds collected for Municipal services; property taxes, subsidies and various consumer tariffs levied, etc. (note that municipal consumer debt = R75.5bn) Conditional Grants National Treasury also allocates Conditional Grants to local governments as well as provincial sector departments to be used for infrastructure provision. (R27.5bn) Other Grants: These include grants from other departments (R13.8bn) such as: Bulk Infrastructure Grant (DWA) Rural Household Infrastructure Grant (DHS)

24. Total direct conditional grants over MTEF: R90.8 billion Requirement: R50 billion Makes you think!!! What if …… Over next 3 years most funding goes to water & sanitation – backlog can be wiped out

25. Key findings • There has been progress in providing basic sanitation in the past decade – those with no formal services have been reduced from 4,75m households to 2.41m households (during this period the number of households has increased from 11.9m to 13.4m) • Quality and functional sanitation services are available to 64% of households • 11% of households (1.4 million in formal and informal settlements)have never had any government sanitation intervention • 26 % of households have been provided with some form of sanitation service, but these need refurbishment, upgrading, extension or effective maintenance

26. Why haven’t we achieved success • Key factors affecting sanitation service provision include: • Fragmentation of responsibilities for sanitation at national, provincial and local levels • Lack of technical capacity at local government level • High turn-over of staff (lack of focus on training and retention of staff) • Ineffective support programmes to municipalities (e.g. from provincial and national government) • Lack of adequate financial planning including inadequate budget allocations for maintenance by municipalities (e.g. from equitable share) • Inappropriate use of allocated funds (e.g. funds channelled to roads at end of financial year to facilitate quick expenditure) • Weak revenue management – rising debt

27. Conclusions • Planning – poor planning, master plans, capital and finance plans, ownership • Capacity – technical and management - translating into poor programme and project management • Funding – use and ability to spend (implement) – unders-pending on O&M • Institutional fragmentation – roles and responsibilities; regulatory & M&E activities minimal and diffuse • Performance monitoring framework and KPIs are currently primarily for the Green Drop assessments. MIG has a reporting system, but is primarily populated with financial information from the municipalities. However various other frameworks and KPIs have been used in the past: DWAF sanitation M&E system; CSIR spot check; National sanitation sustainability audits

28. Conclusions Community participation, consultation and communication practices • The policies related to the involvement of communities in decision making are well founded in a number of policy documents including those for water supply and sanitation. • The practical application of the policies is not always in line with the policies, particularly when municipalities are hard-pressed to deliver Principle to pay alignment with recent court rulings • The court rulings do not contradict the basic requirement that users are required to pay for the services received • The court rulings emphasize the need to provide a service that is fully aligned to national norms and standards • The free basic service policies sets the conditions for provision of free services to the poor and indigent

29. Availability of quality and functional sanitation services Requirements to ensure an adequate level of service • Key requirements to improve the quality of sanitation provision: • The establishment of a single national sanitation unit within DWA with sufficient support to plan, regulate and monitor sanitation service provision • Legislative amendments to resolve issues of oversight, planning, financial allocations and accountability • Improved and coordinated support programmes to municipalities • Upgrading of municipal staff skills (and/or the interim establishment of a municipal infrastructure support agency (national or 9 provincial)) • Support on all basic services in municipalities where backlogs are most acute through service delivery management structures

30. Moving forward… • Given that government has set itself the target of achieving universal access to at least a functional and adequate basic sanitation service by 2014, the issues from this project will be presented to the Executive for discussion and action including resolving the problems with current institutional arrangements. • Sense that key focus should be on households which are ‘un-served’ or ‘underserved’ and where access has not met performance norms and standards.

31. KeyalebogaKe a leboha Ke a lebogaNgiyabongaNdiyabulelaNgiyathokozaNgiyabongaInkomuNdikhoulivhuha Thank you Dankie Go to http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/dpme.asp for PME documentsincluding narrative guide to outcomes approach, outcomes documents and delivery agreement guide

32. Basic services: Sanitation • More than 340 000 households have gained access to at least a basic level of sanitation services between 2009 and 2011 • Access increased from 77% in 2009 to 82% in 2010 • However, rate of delivery is insufficient to reach target of 100% by 2014