Rural Infrastructure Programme & Innovative Housing Technologies: Department of Human Settlements briefing
Meeting Summary
The Department of Human Settlements briefed Members on innovative housing technologies. These had not been well-accepted by beneficiaries. People felt that these structures were inferior to other Government-provided structures. Beneficiaries tended to believe that they were devalued by the state and were given an inferior product. There were also problems with structural damages due to excessive rainfall. The Department admitted that a major challenge with using alternative technologies was that they exceeded the cost of the normal housing subsidy available. Also, because most of the materials were made and standardisation was decided overseas, the Department saw a problem with maintenance in the future. In addition to this, building inspection was lacking as the country’s current inspectors were not equipped to do thorough inspections due to a lack of training.
Members said that in order for alternative building to be accepted in communities as a non-inferior product, more access should be given to middle class communities. They were concerned about the lack of certification as this was crucial to ensure quality processes. They also thought that this project would not contribute sufficiently to local job creation as overseas companies were being used.
The Department then presented the progress made with regards to the Rural Household Infrastructure Programme. The Department was tasked with the issue of sanitation. It outlined the progress made in each province where implementation took place. It highlighted some of the challenges faced in those provinces as many municipalities were unhappy with the service provider, namely the Independent Development Trust.
Municipalities were unhappy because these providers were using contracted labour, whereas they were convinced that local labourers were to be used to install toilets. Due to unforeseen circumstances such as rain hampering progress, it was expected that only 75% of the target amount of toilets would be installed by the end of the financial year 2011.
Members were disappointed that the progress on sanitation was so slow. They were concerned that service delivery was lacking and requested that the Department step in to resolve these issues. They wanted to know what the process of tender for these service providers entailed, and how it was possible for a provider with such little experience to be awarded the tender. Members were also disappointed that only 75% of the target would be reached, and felt that a recovery plan was needed to anticipate unforeseen events such as weather conditions and unsatisfactory service providers.
Meeting report
Ms Zoleka Sokopo, Chief Director, Department of Human Settlements, presented to the Committee on Alternative Building Technologies. She explained the background to this concept, as well as how the provinces accepted this new innovation.
Ms Sokopo said that in the past 15 years, the provincial uptake of alternative building technologies remained slow and sporadic despite initiatives designed to explore various technologies. Between 1994 and 2010 about 2.8 million housing units were delivered for low-income earners, and only 17 000 of these were constructed using alternative building technologies (ABT) which amounted to 0.6%. The problem was the extent to which ABTs could provide solutions in increasing delivery of sustainable human settlements particularly housing.
The Department conducted research to find out what the problem with implementation was. In 2003 the Department conducted a study on the extent to which ABT were used in low-income housing projects and the socio-economic impact of these technologies on beneficiaries. In 2008 the research focused primarily on officials and it made an inquiry on the reasons why there were limited implementations of ABTs. The study conducted in 2010 updated and re-analysed data collected for the study completed in 2008.
Ms Sokopo explained the research more thoroughly. Main questions on research focused on how the Department implemented ABTs in Government assisted housing programmes and the challenges thereof. It was found that the policy space and building regulations did not prohibit the use of ABTs in Government housing development projects. There were a variety of technologies in the market but mostly these had limited production capacity. Although provinces had trialled or engaged with different technologies, this had not resulted in large-scale housing development projects.
Ms Sokopo highlighted that provinces seemed to be open and welcoming to innovators of ABT, but the fact that they had to stay within the subsidy quantum precluded them from procuring ABT because of the higher cost. Generally, the utilisation of ABTs in Government housing projects was found to be inadequate as only
Acceptance of technology by the community was difficult. Most community members believed that houses built with ABT was of inferior quality. Beneficiaries tended to believe that they were devalued by the state and were therefore given an inferior product. An understanding that houses built with ABT could not be extended also emerged.
Ms Sokopo said that the Department had many stumbling blocks with regards to certification. A lack of understanding emerged regarding certification of alternative building system, for example non-compliance with Agrément Certificate. Innovators had difficulty meeting the high standards of quality assurance processes required by the National House Builders Registration Council (NHBRC). High cost of technologies was opposed to conventional costs. It was often more expensive than the conventional technology. Initial building was costly in addition to high levels of maintenance. It was found that the cost of ABT often exceeded the subsidy quantum.
Ms Sokopo then outlined the financial aspects of ABT. She noted that there was an inability to access loans and some contractors demanded payment upfront. Structural problems were also found with the building structures, as cracks and water penetration surfaced. Some beneficiaries in the
As a result of the findings from studies conducted, an indaba on alternative building technology was held. The purpose of the indaba was to discuss the extent to which alternative building technologies could provide solutions in increasing delivery of sustainable human settlements. They provided a platform for providers to showcase their innovative and alternative building technology products and systems. About 508 delegates from various sectors attended the indaba and academics and practitioners submitted their papers as well. 80 exhibitions took place with 160 company representatives being present. Certificates were awarded for the best exhibitor in each category, which were the energy, structures and sanitation categories.
Issues discussed at the indaba were related to policy implementation, the lack of capacity to deliver at a large scale and quality management. Affordability was another issue discussed as well as financing alternative technologies. Some recommendations to these issues was that the Department should have considered using procurement processes as a lever to upscale the use of alternative building technology, for example, tenders must be inclusive of alternative building technology.
Other policy recommendations was that the Department should have established partnerships with professional bodies to assist in ensuring quality and durable structures and to develop capacity in construction project management. Mobilised institutions such as Agrément, NHBRC, and Institute for Architects and others should have supported local authorities in the implementation of ABT.
Discussion
Mr A Steyn (DA) generally agreed with the presentation. He said that it was not always the case that alternative measures needed to be more expensive. He was surprised that contractors did not have certificates to do this type of work and said that the Department needed to make sure that all contractors had these certificates. He said that in order for these products not to be perceived as inferior, they had to be introduced to the middle and upper middle classes as well.
Ms M Borman (ANC) said that this project was not focused on job creation in her opinion because companies from overseas were implementing it and providing the materials needed. This was not conducive to job creation in
Ms Sokopo agreed that that a local factory was needed but highlighted that the problem was that overseas companies were only willing to set up their franchises here in
Ms M Njobe (COPE) said that research should also be used to improve indigenous building structures in villages such as mud houses. She suggested that these alternative technologies be used to improve the quality of indigenous building materials.
Ms Sokopo said that indigenous technologies were also being looked at. An additive to mud bricks was available to make the bricks more durable. However, consumer education was lacking in this matter. The Department was planning on working on this issue.
Rural Household Infrastructure Programme: presentation
Ms Tamie Mpotulo, Chief Director, Department of Human Settlements, presented the progress of the implementation of the Rural Household Infrastructure Programme (RHIP) and its sanitation component to the Committee. She began by explaining that the current Government had recognised the vital need of provision of basic services to the remote rural areas. Since 2007 the Government had identified rural development as one of the country’s major priorities. Rural development had been incorporated in Government outcomes which needed to be prioritised by the various ministries.
Ms Mpotulo said that in response to the prioritization of rural development by Government, National Treasury established the Rural Household Infrastructure Grant over the 2010 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period. This Grant was gazetted as Schedule 7 and was administered, managed, and implemented by the National Department of Human Settlements (NDHS) for the provision of on-site sanitation and water facilities, where necessary, to rural communities. A total of R1.2billion was allocated over the 2010 MTEF.
Strategic goals were set out and these were to have facilitated hands-on involvement of the beneficiaries into the implementation of the programme benefiting them, so as to instil a culture of ownership towards sustainable communities. The Department encouraged the use of Community Based Organisations (CBOs), non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Public Entities to ensure the communities were trained on how to sustain and maintain the infrastructure beyond implementation. This sought to alleviate poverty by implementing programmes through labour intensive methods.
Ms Mpotulo then spoke about the procurement of service providers. She explained that through an open tender process, the Department had secured the services of two Service Providers (SPs), namely the Mvula Trust and the Independent Development Trust (IDT). In the first financial year, 52% of the allocation had been awarded to the IDT and 36% of the allocation was awarded to the Mvula Trust. The remaining 12% was set aside for project management.
Ms Mpotulo presented a graph depicting the progress made per province. Overall, there were a total of 26 municipalities that benefited. Of a target number of 12 043 toilets, as at 09 February 2011 a total of 4 657 pits were constructed, with 1 203 of these sanitation facilities completed. She explained that it did not take long for toilets to be erected once the pit had been constructed. It usually took just a few hours. She noted that rain in some provinces had affected progress, and this was one of the reasons why the Department would not be able to reach 100% of the target set out.
Many municipalities experienced problems in implementing the sanitation programme and the reasons therefore varied. The municipalities were dissatisfied with one SP, namely the IDT. The IDT wanted to use its own contractors to dig pits and that was challenged by local contractors and labourers. There was also a challenge of hard rock conditions so much so that in one municipality, there had been given an alternative village where sanitation pits would be constructed. In some municipalities, construction started late due to tender processes and some contractors that had no capacity to perform the functions.
Overall challenges were that five benefiting municipalities were rejecting the appointment of IDT as a service provider as per approved Government procurement procedures. Ms Mpotulo said that the municipalities requested that the Department should have made a decision about this issue. The municipalities insisted that local contractors and labourers should have been used. The programme commenced very late in October 2010 as opposed to the beginning of April 2010 therefore there was a lack in service delivery. Another challenge was that during the months of December 2010 and January 2011 many projects were severely affected by excessive rainfall and flooding which hampered construction on site in the beneficiary municipalities. Hard rock conditions also impeded penetration as well as the inaccessibility of some households in the rural areas.
Ms Mpotulo highlighted that if no recovery plan was put in place immediately, there was a possibility of under expenditure during the 2010/2011 financial year. Also there was a possibility that only 75% of the delivery target may be met within the 2010/2011 financial year. Some interventions were that where benefiting municipalities were resisting the nationally appointed SPs, the Department would enter into funding agreements with the relevant Water Services Authority to implement the programme with the hands-on support provided by the Department.
In cases where an appointed SP had declared that it had no experience in the implementation and delivery of rural sanitation, the Department would consider reviewing the scope of work in the coming financial years. Where hard rock conditions existed, contractors would be requested to use machinery. There was also a need to increase job creation by making use of local labourers, as set out in the tender request.
Ms Mpotulo then went on to respond to issues raised by the Portfolio Committee during a presentation held on 11 August 2010. With regards to the registration of the RHIP as an Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP), she said that NDHS had engaged with Public Works and decided that for the project to qualify as an EPWP it had to undergo a process whereby policy changes had to be considered. The issue of office accommodation was also questioned in the August 2010 meeting, and she said that the Public Works Department had advertised tenders to procure offices over a period of five years. Temporary offices in critical provinces such as
With regards to the budget for provision of sanitation and water to schools, a decision was taken to centralize the school infrastructure budget to the Department of Basic Education (DBE). R8.2billion had been allocated to this effect. The DBE had indicated that it would need the support of the Chief Directorate of National Sanitation in implementing the water and sanitation in needy schools.
Ms Mpotulo addressed the issue of budgeting for sanitation programmes. She said that water and sanitation were inter-dependant, and that the separation of water and sanitation programmes had resulted in the duplication of functions having caused a huge strain on the budget. There was no way that the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) could perform its water service support to municipalities without referring to provision of sanitation, as both water and sanitation were governed by the Water Services Act of 1997.
Ms Mpotulo highlighted that the same sanitation function performed by DWA was also performed by the unit transferred to NDHS and this impacted hugely on the budget. Critical technical engineering skills which dealt with some aspects of sanitation were with DWA, and, even if NDHS would have procured technical skills for sanitation, there was a huge cut in the sanitation budget.
Discussion
Ms Borman wanted to know whether the issues on motor vehicles were resolved.
Ms Mpotulo said that the Department was currently working on procuring new motor vehicles as the current fleet was unsafe and unreliable. A request was sent to the Director-General to sort out this issue as soon as possible.
Mr Steyn said that it appeared the rural household infrastructure development seemed to be an extension of the Public Works Department. He wanted to know whether the sanitation for schools was being addressed by the Department of Basic Education or the Department of Water Affairs. He thought that also of time was being wasted as the programme was not being centralised therefore having created problems in skills transfer from one department to another.
Mr Thabang Zulu, Director General, National Department of Human Settlements, said that the Department had allocated R8.2billion to the DBE, but the implementation of the school sanitation programme would ultimately be the responsibility of the DBE itself, with the assistance of the DWA. The DWA would have assisted the DBE with the technical skills component.
Mr R Bhoola (MF) asked whether the Department had found office space to lease on a permanent basis. He commented that policy directives were imperative. He said that the constant challenges faced by the Department caused a state of confusion. He noted that the sanitation in schools had to be dealt with as soon as possible as it was non-conducive to learning if children do not have such facilities.
Ms Mpotulo said that the Department currently had temporary office space which it was leasing, but the procurement of permanent office space was underway as tenders had already been advertised for permanent office space.
Ms Njobe said that the duplication of functions by the different departments caused a strain on the budget. She wanted more clarity on which department was responsible for which function.
Mr Zulu explained that the issue of duplication of functions was being addressed. He said that with the transfer of functions from DWA to the Department of Human Settlements, policy issues were not transferred along with these functions. He admitted that there was some confusion, but said that the necessary changes would be reflected in the revised mandate.
Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that temporary offices were critical in each province where there was a need. He wanted to know how much money was spent to accommodate officials in hotels which they used for temporary office space. He wanted to know the advertising for office space was finalised and whether a tender was awarded.
Ms Mpotulo said that hotels were only used for a period of three months and she unfortunately did not have the exact amount that was spent during this time. The advertising for office space was finalised and a tender would have been awarded by the end of the financial year.
Mr M Mdakane (ANC) said that the coordination between departments was going to be difficult. He said that implementation was too scattered as every department had its own staff component. He thought that the Department was spending wastefully and wanted to know whether sanitation could be managed by one department.
Mr Zulu said that the issue of sanitation could not be managed by one department only, as it needed all possible technical skills and policies for the purpose of implementation. It was a multi-faceted approach that required all expertise and experience in order for these programmes to be successful and sustainable.
The Chairperson noted that there was some resistance to who needed to take responsibility on the issue of sanitation. She said that since the programme now fell under the mandate of the Department of Human Settlements, the Department needed to drive the programme. She said that as the Committee, Members would be continuing oversight on a regular and more stringent basis. She suggested that in order to move progress forward, the Department needed to establish a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
Mr Zulu said that a
Mr Steyn wanted to know whether the only criteria to awarding tenders to service providers were a proposal. He wanted to know whether previous performance was also considered before the Department awarded tenders. He commented that the procurement system was not up to standard.
Mr Zulu noted that the proposals submitted by SPs were not the only criteria to awarding tenders. The Department also looked at past experience and expertise, but ultimately it was the proposal with the lowest asking amount that received the tender. A new tender system was being developed to address this issue.
Mr Mdakane said that it was important that communities be mobilised so that funds went to and stayed within communities. He wanted to know how many jobs would be created. He thought that job creation was important and said that it must have been tangible. He suggested that females be included to work in the project. In order for this to happen, cooperatives should have been used more often.
Ms Mpotulo responded that job creation was currently monitored by the Department. It was being recorded on a daily basis and there was a report for these statistics as SPs were being constantly monitored. She said it was important that local people were trained in skills development, which would also help in maintenance.
Ms Borman commented that she was disappointed in the percentage of 75% predicted completion by the end of the financial year.
Ms Mpotulo agreed that 75% was not acceptable. She said that the issue with IDT needed to be resolved where municipalities refused to use its services.
Mr Mdakane asked if the R80 payment for digging a pit remained in the communities and how service providers came up with that amount.
Ms Mpotulo said that the R80 payment per pit was calculated based on the R7 500 unit cost per toilet broken down into small unit prices. She added that labourers were also benefiting in being paid for assembling the pre-cast structure.
Ms D Dlakude (ANC) noted that since some areas had hard rock conditions, machinery would have to be used which would result in labour being more expensive.
Ms Mpotulo agreed that this was the case but using machines was the only solution to this problem although it meant that output would be affected by the usage of more funds for this component.
Mr J Matshoba (ANC) said that the IDT was the failure in the entire process. The NHBRC should also have been doing regular supervision. He thought that cooperatives in villages should have been used as the villagers were making their own bricks, resulting in less resources needed.
Ms A Mashishi (ANC) said that there was a breakdown in communication because the proposal was that local cooperatives would be used and this was also stated in the tender advertisement. Yet, IDT had not complied with this requirement and the Department should have planned to address this issue.
The Chairperson said that IDT and its credibility were not good. She said that National Treasury had been complaining about SPs who were being appointed without the skills and capacity. She said that the skills shortage in the department could be addressed by on-site training, as was the case in the Department of Labour.
Mr Zulu said that there were currently delays of six months in the Department. The sanitation programme was run differently at DWA and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). They had a different mandates and processes; therefore the current programme was delayed.
The Chairperson requested that the next meeting to be held should have the Minister of Human Settlements present. She requested that the Director General, Mr Zulu, tend to her request and ask the Minister to attend. She said that there were pressing issues at hand which needed to be resolved before the end of the financial year.
Mr Zulu noted her request and said that he would inform the Minister.
The meeting was adjourned.
Documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.