Transcript Water governance and service delivery: The creation and

Ilembe Water and Sanitation Service Delivery:
Case Study Report
A presentation of findings of research
conducted for Water Dialogues-SA
Water Dialogues research team
Ilembe Local Dialogue
6 February 2009
1
Presentation outline
Purpose of the research
The context of the study and the
methodology employed
The findings
Community workshops
Institutional study
Some issues for consideration
2
Purpose of the research
Core purpose
Examine the lessons generated from the
experience of a mature private sector WSP
concession arrangement with regard to
institutional options
The study must cover:
An examination of both the IDM internal WSP
and the Siza WSP
3
Locating the Ilembe District area
 Ilembe district is composed of 4 local municipalities: Mandeni (formerly
eNdondakusuka), Maphumulo, KwaDukuza and Ndwedwe.
 It extends over an area of approximately 1455km2
(Source: http://www.ilembe.gov.za)
4
Methodology
 The core methods used were:
 Participatory workshops in 4 IDM communities selected through
consultation with Councilors
 2 in the Siza concession area (Etete, Nkobongo)
 2 in IDM serviced areas (Lindelani, Sundumbili (Mandeni))
 An analysis of documentation available including academic
studies;
 Interviews with key government department, municipal and Siza
Water informants
 Notes:
 The research was carried out over a six month period by two
different teams resulting in some methodological shortcomings.
 The research teams were assisted greatly by the willingness of
stakeholders to give of their time in support of the research.
 The bulk of the research was conducted in late 2007 and early
2008.
5
Background information: the people
 Population is estimated at 576 934 (projected form 2001
census)
 Settlement density is much higher around the urban
nodes of Stanger and Mandeni/Isithebe/Sundumbili and
along the coastal strip forming a core focus of this study.
 79% of the population is classified as rural, with 21% as
urban. Official census documentation reflects that ninety
six percent of the population is from a previously
disadvantaged background.
 The district includes areas historically under the
governance framework of the KwaZulu administration
(much of Ndwedwe and Maphumulo) which received little
in the way of infrastructure and services, including roads,
water, sanitation, as well as health and education.
6
Background information: the institutions
 The Borough of Dolphin Coast (BODC) was created in the post 1994 interim
phase of local government. It had responsibility for water and sanitation
services.
 The BODC, in terms of the 1997 Water Services Act, initiated a process to
place its water and sanitation services in the hands of a private concession
arrangement in the late 1990s.
 In January 1999 the BODC entered into a contract with the Siza Water
Company on a 30 year concession arrangement:
 All municipal water and sanitation assets were transferred to Siza’s control for 30
years in exchange for a concession fee and scope for the concession company to
earn a profit within an agreed, and regularly reviewed, tariff and performance
agreements.
 In 2000 the BODC functions were incorporated under the KwaDukuza
Municipality which fell under the newly formed Ilembe District Municipality.
 Subsequent to the Ilembe DM being granted WSA status, the management of
all WSP arrangements – including that of the concession – were transferred
to the District structure.
 After following a section 78 process the IDM chose to use an internal service
option for the bulk of its service areas, excluding the SWC concession area to
which it was contractually bound to an external WSP arrangement.
7
Background information: water and sanitation services
 Note: there are many different figures in the public domain some which
suggest backlog figures are slightly higher than the DWAF figures
provided below.
 Ilembe water backlog: 28.19 percent of the population do not have RDP
standard water supply (Source DWAF April 2008 WS NIS
www.dwaf.gov.za) – up from over 50% on 2006/06
 Ilembe sanitation backlog: 34.38 percent of the population do not have
RDP standard sanitation supply (Source DWAF April 2008 WS NIS
www.dwaf.gov.za) – up from over 60% in 2006/07
 Backlogs are primarily a factor in rural areas of Ilembe where they are
closer to the 50% level as these 2005 figures suggest (below).
Table 3. Water Backlogs and Income in Ilembe by local municipality, 2006/07
Municipality
Name
HH with RDP
water service
levels(%)
RDP Water
backlog (%)
within
municipality
RDP water
backlog as % of
district total
Percentage of
population earning
less than R 12 000
p.a.
KwaDukuza
78.39%
21.61%
15.52%
64%
Mandeni
64.90%
35.10%
17.50%
69%
Ndwedwe
29.94%
70.06%
33.27%
78%
Maphumulo
11.58%
88.42%
33.72%
86%
(Source: Municipal Demarcation Board, 2006)
8
Findings: Community workshops I
 General – all four communities
 Poor service provider consultation, participation and communication
(on nature of service, interruptions, policy etc)
 Unresponsive/confusing complaints channels
 Lack of meaningful and affordable service alternatives
 High levels of service interruptions and slow response times
 Community specific
 Etete & Nkobongo
 High costs of replacement prepayment cards/tokens
 Hazards from poorly maintained VIPs (Etete)
 Cost of higher service levels (connections and water cost)
 Lindelani
 Lack of access to standpipes
 Poor maintenance of pipes and taps – lengthy delays in repairs
 Sundumbili (Mandeni)
 Decline in quality of service – too many interruptions
 Informal settlement is not services
 No regular/accurate billing – concern that will be lumped with
outstanding bills in future
9
Findings: Community workshops II
 Sundumbili
 When are they going to make the statement easily understandable?
 How do they figure out the amounts that people are supposed to pay – where are they
getting the information?
 Who are the meter readers (if any)?
 Why are statements received after three months?
 Why is Ilembe Municipality not responding on time when there is a problem?
 Etete
 When are we getting proper water, i.e. in-yard taps for those who used to have them, and
proper standpipes?
 When is Siza Water going to help with the cleaning of toilets without asking for so much
money?
 Nkobongo
 When are we getting water connection inside our houses for everyone?
 When is the Municipality solving their issues with Siza Water?
 Lindelani
 Why is there no notification or warning if there will be no water on certain days or weeks or
months?
 Why are we treated differently from other communities? What is the difference between
Lindelani and Shakaville in terms of water delivery?
 Why do we receive water accounts when we do not have water in our houses?
10
Findings: Institutional Study (1)

Note: The comparisons that are presented below should be understood as reflecting very
different circumstances between the concession area and the rest of the IDM area:
 IDM is characterised by a dispersed settlement pattern over a large area which many topographical
obstacles and covers many communities previously excluded from all service delivery. Almost one
in two households are poor.
 Siza Water operates in a much smaller area with shared topographical features and largely
urbanised settlements in which there existed a substantial infrastructure backbone. The bulk of
households earn an income above the poverty level.

Some selected IDM-Siza service indicators:
 Water backlogs (RDP standard)


IDM: 28-36%
Siza: 0%
 Sanitation (RDP standard)


IDM: 34-50%
Siza: 0%
 Free Basic Water


IDM: Free for all standpipe, borehole
Siza: 6kl for all Service Level 1 users
 Water loss


IDM: 35.3% (2006)
Siza: 10% (2006)
 Payment rates


IDM (KwaDukuza): 75% of those billed
Siza: 98%
 Oustanding debts


IDM: over 100% of revnue
Siza: Less than 5%
 Complaints


IDM: No figures
Siza: 7.6 complaints per 1000 users annually – only 1% of these responded to in more than 2 days
11
Findings: Institutional Study (2)
 In technical performance terms the Siza Water Concession
matches or outperforms the IDM WSP across most categories of
indicators used in the study (Water quality, progress against back
logs, water loss, customer interaction, revenue recovery etc)
 However, a direct comparison is problematic where the entities operate
at such different scales and in such different circumstances!
 The governance of the concession arrangements and the IDMs own
WSP delivery systems appear to be compromised by:
 A lack of a sense of buy-in to the concession by IDM;
 Inadequate resourcing and development of the role of the IDM WSA;
 Financing systems and political choices generating neglect of
maintenance and core system upgrades;
 Poor systems of communication and accountability.
 Both parties (SWC and IDM) seem to have done little in the way of
exploring forms of more innovative partnership and learning that
were deemed to have been important elements of national policy
shifts to encourage various PPP forms.
12
Lessons on institutional arrangements
 Role of WSAs
 Capacity needs to be enhanced
 Must also emphasise accountability to citizens
 WSAs should encourage greater collaboration/learning between WSPs
 Regulation of the sector
 Role of DWAF and DPLG etc has been more developmental than one
geared to effective regulation of performance
 Voice of users (and aspirant users) needs to be heard more in this process
 The role of WSAs is not clear in effective regulation
 Institutional arrangements with the private sector
 Require particular dedicated support to municipalities to enable them to
oversee these
 Independent monitoring should be considered – assess both contractor and
contracted party obligations AND user experiences
 Scope for greater contract adjustment or more flexibility in contract period to
be considered (costs not only to be borne by municipality)
 Policy frameworks need attention
 Commitments must be made on progressing households from basic service
13
to a better level of service
In addition to responding to the study findings the local
dialogue (today) must also address the questions raised by
the communities ….
Findings: Community workshops II
 Sundumbili
 When are they going to make the statement easily understandable?
 How do they figure out the amounts that people are supposed to pay – where are they
getting the information?
 Who are the meter readers (if any)?
 Why are statements received after three months?
 Why is Ilembe Municipality not responding on time when there is a problem?
 Etete
 When are we getting proper water, i.e. in-yard taps for those who used to have them, and
proper standpipes?
 When is Siza Water going to help with the cleaning of toilets without asking for so much
money?
 Nkobongo
 When are we getting water connection inside our houses for everyone?
 When is the Municipality solving their issues with Siza Water?
 Lindelani
 Why is there no notification or warning if there will be no water on certain days or weeks or
months?
 Why are we treated differently from other communities? What is the difference between
Lindelani and Shakaville in terms of water delivery?
 Why do we receive water accounts when we do not have water in our houses?
14