MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY: IMPROVING QUALITY AND QUANTITY: 6 December 2012 Infrastructure Dialogue: DBSA

Transcription

1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY: IMPROVING QUALITY AND QUANTITY: The case of Sanitation Services in South Africa 6 December 2012 Infrastructure Dialogue: DBSA

2 Overview of the Presentation Background to the report on which the presentation is based Problem statement Understanding sanitation needs Status of sanitation in South Africa National perspective Provincial Perspective Waste Water Treatment Works Funding Requirements to meet Minimum Sanitation Service Delivery Why haven t we achieved success Conclusions: Squaring the Circle

3 Background 2011 SAHRC Report: lack of dignified sanitation services in the form of unenclosed 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 3

4 Problem Statement: Why is good sanitation important? 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 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&Mand appropriate health education) has significant benefits in terms of community well-being, reduced health care costs and improved productivity. What we have achieved Sanitation backlog has been reduced from 52% in 1994 to 21% in The sanitation MDG (to halve the proportion of people without a basic service in 2002) was achieved in 2008 HOWEVER AS THE STUDY SHOWS WE ARE AT RISK OF REVERSING THESE GAINS The challenges we face However, the goal of achieving universal access to sanitation by 2014 may be difficult to achieve (currently delivering to < 300,000 households per annum). The status of bulk sanitation infrastructure is deteriorating due to a lack of adequate maintenance, refurbishment and upgrading (Green Drop scores average 45% nationally) There has been an on-going growth of informal settlements which, despite the construction of housing units for the poor, continue to grow. 4

5 Understanding of 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&Mbacklogs (infrastructure adequate if properly operated and maintained)

6 Sanitation Status (household) National perspective % Sanitation Needs: Formal (HH 2011) % Sanitation Needs: Informal (HH 2011) 1,055,031 9% Adequate 2,735,486 22% 7,946,368 65% Water Resources Needs O&M Needs 324,433 36% 584,378 64% Adequate No Services 343,738 Infrastructure 3% Needs 167,684 1% No Services Approximately 11% of (1.4 million) 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% of (3.2 million) 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. 6

7 Sanitation Status (household) Provincial perspective Province Formal Informal Adequate Water Resources Needs O&MNeeds Infrastructure Needs No Services Adequate No Services Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng KwaZulu-Natal Limpopo Mpumalanga North West Northern Cape Western Cape South Africa

8 Status of Wastewater Treatment Works National Total = 826 municipal works 317 WWTWs require urgent attention 143 WWTWs have a high risk of failure 20% of WWTWs are running over their Risk rating and condition of WWTWs in South Africa 90% of WWTWs are non-compliant on more than 3 effluent determinants 8

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

10 Key findings Sanitation service delivery faces 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 The goal of achieving universal access to sanitation by 2014 may be difficult to achieve at current rate of delivery. The status of bulk sanitation infrastructure is deteriorating due to a lack of adequate maintenance, refurbishment and upgrading (Green Drop scores average 45% nationally) There has been an on-going growth of informal settlements, despite the construction of housing units for the poor 10

11 Why haven t we achieved success Fragmentation of responsibilities for sanitation at national, provincial and local levels 2003 Funding of sanitation moved from DWAFto DPLGresulting in reduced control of project implementation and significantly less monitoring of projects 2009: National Sanitation Programme moved from DWAto DHSwith resultant increase in fragmentation of the sanitation function (DWAstill manages the information systems and is responsible for regulation, but places significantly less importance on sanitation, while DHScapacity in the sanitation sector is limited in its focus. Lack of institutional coordination and alignment Lack of regulatory compliance monitoring Unclear performance standards Lack of technical capacity at local government level Poor planning (e.g. new sewer networks connected without increasing capacity of bulk infrastructure) 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) 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) Low levels of revenue collection 11

12 Twin challenges Accelerating access pace is too slow to meet 2014 target Approximately 11% (or 1.4 million) 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); Sustaining access collapsing services for those with access Additionally at least 26% (or 3.2 million) of households within formal areas disturbingly have sanitation services which do not meet the standards due to the deterioration of infrastructure that is we are going backwards. 12

13 Pace of delivery 100.0% Access to sanitation 95.0% 90.0% access 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% Access Linear (Ideal) 65.0% 60.0% More than 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 2011 However, rate of delivery is insufficient to reach target of 100% by

14 The story across sectors Uneven technical capacity to plan, implement & operate and maintain; Abuse, mismanagement and or poor contract management Funding flows project-based; trade-offs Lack of data on build programme for municipal services (including location and state of existing infrastructure) Weak coordination across and within sectors 14

15 Squaring the circle New and innovative implementation coordination structures that bring the key role players per sector together (service delivery management structures) These structures should prepare a pipeline of costed projects to address the householdlevel facility backlogs as well as capital and maintenance backlogs per municipality within a clear timeframe and coordinate the necessary funding to implement the projects. In particular they must do the following in each municipality: 1. Confirm the backlogs and the infrastructure projects required to address the backlogs. 2. What will be the cost of the projects? What projects are already funded and ready to be implemented and what is the shortfall? 3. How can additional funding be leveraged? Municipalities will be receiving R90 billion over the next three years if R70 billion of this is directed towards water and sanitation we can virtually wipe out the backlog, but that would mean less for refuse, electricity and roads. 4. Draw up an implementation plan for the delivery of the projects and 5. Establish a focused information and programme management and monitoring system to track implementation. 15

16 Ke ya leboga Ke a leboha Ke a leboga Ngiyabonga Ndiyabulela Ngiyathokoza Ngiyabonga Inkomu Ndi khou livhuha Thank you Dankie Go to for PME documents including narrative guide to outcomes approach, outcomes documents and delivery agreement guide