Outsourcing “bucket technologies” in Cape Town’s informal settlements

1. Outsourcing “bucket technologies” in Cape Town’s informal settlements Presentation given at Municipal Meeting in preparation for the Cape Town Local Dialogues Held at Plattekloof Reservoir, Plattekloof 24 August 2009 Prepared by Karen Goldberg with research input from Senza Kula, Mpumelelo Mhlalisi, Nombuyiselo Ngali, and Zikhona Ngesi

2. Overview Background Objective Methodology Basic definitions A few key facts Key message and Evidence to back this up Conclusions Recommendations

3. 1. Background Water Dialogues • international initiative , based on national review process • brings together range of views and constituencies • Question: does the private sector has a role in water supply and sanitation? • Selected case studies, essential component. Cape Town Case Study (2008 – 2009) • Emerged from research commissioned by MSP coordinated by Queens University in Canada (2005 and 2007). • Utility services: compliance with OHS Act (Act 85 of 1993)

10. 1. MSP Research

15. 2. Objective To understand whether and how the choice to outsource sanitation service delivery in its informal settlements affects the quality of service delivery (including user satisfaction, and the financial and resource management) within the City of Cape Town.

16. 3. Methodology Period: April 2008 – June 2009 April – June 2008: Initial interviews with MSP researchers Scoping report August 2008: design research methodology Chose 4 types of “bucket toilets” (portable sanitation technologies) 5 sites August 2008 – January 2009: Literature review Interviews (Key officials; SPs; Community leaders; Households (16/community)) 3 reports completed April – June 2009: 4th and final report completed

17. Bucket technologies at the communities researched

18. 4. Some definitions: • Basic sanitation facility • Basic sanitation service • Basic sanitation • Absolute sanitation backlog • Basic sanitation backlog • Bucket system: official definition • Bucket system: case study definition

19. 4.1 Basic Sanitation Facility: The infrastructure necessary to provide a sanitation service which is safe, reliable, private, protected from the weather, 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.” (SFWS, 2003).

20. 4.2 Basic Sanitation Service: The provision of a basic sanitation facility which is easily accessible to a household, the sustainable operation of the facility, including the safe removal of human waste and wastewater from the premises where this is appropriate and necessary, and the communication of good sanitation, hygiene and related practices (SFWS, 2003).

21. 4.3 Basic sanitation: • The provision of a shared toilet (at a ratio of not more than 5 families per toilet) which is safe, reliable, environmentally sound, easy to keep clean, provides privacy and protection against the weather, well ventilated, keeps smells to a minimum and prevents the entry and exit of flies and other disease-carrying pests; and • the provision of appropriate health and hygiene education. (COCT, 2008)

22. 4.4 Other definitions:

23. 5. A few key facts Total CT population: 850,000 hh Population in informal settlements/ backyard dwellers: 270,000 – 400,000hh (up to 2million people) Total population, informal settlements: 130,000 hh (640,000 people) Annual influx: 48,000 people (7700 hh). 230 – 250 informal settlements. 140 IS’s serviced with “bucket technologies”.

24. 6. Key message OUTSOURCING IS NOT THE MAIN PROBLEM IN TERMS OF QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERY MAIN ISSUES: Lack of regulation Informal Settlements not priority Lack of effective strategic planning Fractured institutional arrangements Contravening human rights/ key legislation Not meeting national/ international obligations All the while, painting a rosier picture than the reality on the ground

25. 6.1 Outsourcing vs internal service delivery Findings: • No big difference between municipal and outsourced servicing of black buckets in terms of quality of service delivery.

26. 6.1 Outsourcing vs internal service delivery cont... Findings: • Quality of services differs between technology types. • Some technologies are acceptable (e.g. porta potties and chemical toilets – in principle) • Bucket and container toilets completely unacceptable.

27. 6.1 Outsourcing vs internal service delivery cont... Findings: For the municipality, outsourcing  less administration, community liaison; No internal capacity; No labour issues; Cheaper*** For communities and workers, outsourcing  • Reduced municipality access and accountability • Contract workers: worse working conditions (pay, depot, showers, leave, vaccinations, benefits etc); no labour protection from Unions. • City using cheapest technology the most (container toilets)  • unacceptable technology , providing unacceptable quality of service.

28. 6.1 Outsourcing vs internal service delivery cont... Findings: Outsourcing Cheaper?

29. 6.2 Lack of regulation: historical Findings: 2003 – 2008, container toilet contractors operated without contracts. Historic contracts very basic. CT relied mostly on self regulation from SPs.

30. 6.2 Lack of regulation : current Findings • Contracts much more comprehensive, but are not being enforced. • Informal Settlements Section: meant to oversee contracts • have not followed up and are overlooking irregularities • more concerned with financial mismanagement than quality of services. • “contracts are just guidelines that cannot be enforced”??? • Aware of sub-standard service delivery of some contractors but not doing anything about it. • Taking no responsibility for sub-contractors. • Only form of “regulation”: reporting mechanisms  highly problematic when performance is linked to personal scorecards.

31. 6.3 Lack of effective strategic planning cont... Findings: • Dates back to 1997 Informal settlements assumed to be temporary. • Emergency sanitation rolled out ad hoc. • Haphazard implementation of sanitation technologies still remains. • E.g. some technologies (e.g. Chemical toilets) meant to be temp, but remain for years . • When new technologies introduced, CT may choose to pilot them. • Only recent strategic planning: Directorate for Services Integration.=> Master Plan, but not followed by WSP for Informal settlements (IS Section – Water and Sanitation Directorate). • Not interrogating data, so how can one come up with a strategic plan? • Has financial implications: • E.g. City currently supplying 13,250 hh with chemical toilets at a cost of R31million/year (more than half of the operational budget) .

32. 6.4 Informal settlements are not a priority • Approximately 230 – 250 informal settlements. • 140 IS serviced with “bucket technologies”. • Of estimated 130,000 households in IS, 33% do not have access to any kind of toilet. • At least 90,000 hh (450,000people) (70%) IS population = no basic sanitation • IS section did not ask for the capital budget it needed for 2009/2010 financial year to keep abreast of backlog eradication (asked for additional R10million capital budget, when R12.6million is required). • CT = 2500 Water and Sanitation staff members. • IS Section (and Housing) = 64 staff dedicated to bucket sanitation in IS. => Only 2.6% Water services workforce . • Water and sanitation revenue (2006/2007) ≈ R3billion (R3,000million). • R56million  sanitation for IS Section for 2007/2008 (R6million cap. costs, R50million operational costs.) => Only 1.9% water revenue = > IS sanitation service delivery.

33. 6.4 Informal settlements are not a priority cont... Communication and consultation • No real participatory consultation/ decision making with community members • Decisions made by : • the municipality • jointly discussed between the municipality and community leaders of the area. • At best, communities informed of decisions already made at committee meetings • At worst receive the sanitation options without any prior communication at all. • Overall, community members are very poorly informed on almost all aspects of sanitation service delivery.

34. 6.5 Fractured institutional arrangements • Constant restructuring and frequent political changes – great personal insecurity and gathering inertia and resentment. • Currently, four main directorates involved in sanitation in IS (Water Services (Utility Services), Service Delivery Integration, Housing, Health). Especially Water Services (i.e. IS Section and SDI) do not get on very well. • “City dominated by ‘personalities’”. BOTTOM LINE • Flux and insecurity => affects all aspects of CTs functioning. • The real work is not getting done.

35. 6.6 Contravening human rights/ key legislation • South African Bill of Rights: “everyone has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being” • In the context of sanitation = universal access of a basic sanitation facilityand basic sanitation service. • Some of the technologies in use absolutely unacceptable (black buckets, container toilets) • Black buckets and container toilets contravening basic human rights (communities and workers) • Smells • Flies • Diseases • Safety • Privacy • In contravention of key legislation (e.g. OHS Act) Reminder – Definition of basic sanitation: The provision of a shared toilet (at a ratio of not more than 5 families per toilet) which is safe, reliable, environmentally sound, easy to keep clean, provides privacy and protection against the weather, well ventilated, keeps smells to a minimum and prevents the entry and exit of flies and other disease-carrying pests.

36. 6.7 Not meeting national/ international obligations Reminder – definition basic sanitation facility: “The infrastructure necessary to provide a sanitation service which is safe, reliable, private, protected from the weather, 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.” (SFWS, 2003). • SA aims to provide all people in South Africa with “access to a functioning basic sanitation facility” by 2010 (national policy and inter-national commitments) Dates been pushed back to 2014/2015. • Official figures under-estimate backlogs in basic sanitation because of inaccurate use of the term “basic sanitation” • Bucket toilets and container toilets: completely unacceptableBUTcontainer toilets preferred technology by IS Section (2000 in 1998  7500 in 2008) • Selective use of “bucket toilet”: • Information generated through reporting mechanisms – feeds into national policy docs and official reports, without any form of auditing.

37. 7. Conclusions OUTSOURCING IS NOT THE MAIN PROBLEM IN TERMS OF QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERY MAIN ISSUES: Lack of regulation Informal Settlements not priority Lack of effective strategic planning Fractured institutional arrangements Contravening human rights/ key legislation Not meeting national/ international obligations All the while, painting a rosier picture than the reality on the ground

38. 8. Recommendations • Need to redefine definition of bucket toilet • Need to eliminate indiscriminate use of term “basic sanitation”. • Roll out appropriate technologies • Training of municipal staff (e.g. Definititions, terminology). • Independent regulator (?) • Functionality to have higher weighting in tender process. • Data – need to be properly interrogated • Effective M&E must be in place • If CT is not able to provide sufficient oversight, it should not be outsourcing.

39. THANK YOU