Transcript Slide 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
Overview
1. Background
2. Objective
3. Methodology
4. Basic definitions
5. A few key facts
6. Key message and
Evidence to back this up
7. Conclusions
8. Recommendations
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)
1. MSP Research
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.
3. Methodology
Bucket system: official
definition
Traditionally a 20 – 25litre
black bucket distributed to
households and historically
serviced by municipal
workers.
Bucket technologies:
case study definition
Portable sanitation
technologies that are either
perceived by communities
and/or officials as a type of
bucket, or are referenced as
such in official literature, and
where human excrement is
removed transported by
vehicle to the WWTP.
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
Bucket technologies at the
communities researched
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
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).
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).
4.3 Basic sanitation:
a.
b.
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)
4.4 Other definitions:
Absolute
Individuals/ households who do not receive any type of
sanitation backlog toilet facility
Basic sanitation
backlog
Individuals/ households who do not receive basic sanitation
levels.
Bucket system:
official definition
Traditionally a 20 – 25litre black bucket distributed to
households and historically serviced by municipal workers
Bucket
technologies:
case study
definition
Portable sanitation technologies that are either perceived
by communities and/or officials as a type of bucket, or are
referenced as such in official literature, and where human
excrement is removed transported by vehicle to the WWTP.
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”.
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
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.
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.
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.
6.1 Outsourcing vs internal service delivery cont...
Findings:
Outsourcing  Cheaper?
Black buckets
Operational
costs (pppa)
private
municipal
R384
R175.10***
chemical
toilets
container
toilets
portapotties
R460.90
R76.80
R230.40
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.
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.
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) .
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.
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.
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.
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 facility and
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
Reminder – Definition of basic sanitation:
– Flies
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
– Diseases
clean, provides privacy and protection against the weather, well
– Safety
ventilated, keeps smells to a minimum and prevents the entry and
exit of flies and other disease-carrying pests.
– Privacy
•
In contravention of key legislation (e.g. OHS Act)
6.7 Not meeting national/ international obligations
• SA aims to provide all people in South Africa
with “access to a functioning basic sanitation
facility” by 2010 (national policy and international 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”
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).
• Bucket toilets and container toilets:
completely unacceptable
BUT
container 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.
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
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.
THANK YOU