South Africa's progress in implementing the eThekwini Commitments; Failure to deliver a country progress report for UNICEF's Sanitation and Hygiene in Africa at a Glance : briefing by Department of Human Settlements

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson noted that sanitation had previously been a responsibility of the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, but, after 2009, had been transferred to the Department of Human Settlements. The Department had to take its responsibility seriously and the Committee's oversight would extend to ensuring that commitments made by South Africa on sanitation would be honoured.  The purpose of the present meeting was to ensure that a country report on the eThekwini Commitments was submitted to the African Ministers' Council on Water (AMCOW).

The Chairperson warned the Department of Human Settlements that this country progress report was supposed to reach AMCOW by 19 August 2011, but first must be seen by the Portfolio Committee.

Moreover, the Department must explain to the Committee why this report was not already submitted. The President could not be happy to hear that South Africa had disappointed expectations and failed to submit a most necessary report.

South Africa’s progress on implementing the eThekwini Commitments
Mr Neville Chainee, Deputy Director General and Chief Operations Officer, Department of Human Settlements, briefed Members. He focussed on the essential elements of a 'voluminous' presentation document. He drew Members' attention to the narrative document. The Department's intention was basically to provide an overview of the progress report made towards the eThekwini Commitments since the AfricaSan+5 Conference in 2008 – the 2nd Conference on Sanitation and Hygiene held in Durban - to elaborate on some of the challenges experienced by the Department, particularly in regard to reporting, and also some of the steps that the Department wanted to take to bring a degree of certainty to the reporting on commitments made.

The First AfricaSan Conference held in 2002 was aimed specifically at formulating a Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for sanitation. That MDG was to reduce by half the number of people without access to basic sanitation and hygiene by 2015.

The Second AfricaSan (AfricaSan+5) held in Durban in 2008 was the climax of a continent–wide process to assess progress, challenges and lessons towards achieving the MDGs for sanitation. There the various African countries, including South Africa, made a number of commitments towards the MDGs.

The next slide covered the eThekwini Commitments and the AMCOW Declaration (slide 5). In particular this covered the concrete implementation plans, funding and monitoring of progress on sanitation. As development activists, Members and the Department appreciated that sanitation was one of the crucial foundational bases of human dignity; 'Water is life: sanitation is dignity'.

Following eThekweni, Government had developed a South African Action Plan. The National Sanitation Task Team (NSTT) was established under the then Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. The South African Sanitation and Hygiene Action Plan, which was later submitted to the AMCOW, was attached as Annexure A of the narrative document. (Slide 6).

Progress on the South African Action Plan from 2008 to date was indicated (slide 7). The National Sanitation Programme Unit was now under the Department of Human Settlements and was responsible to coordinate, provide support and guide the implementation of sanitation at all levels. This unit was principally responsible for the management of the National Sanitation Task Team and to prepare the necessary progress reports and evaluate and oversee the national hygiene and sanitation programme. A South African Implementation Plan based on the South African Sanitation and Hygiene Action Plan was developed. (See Annexure B.) Although the National Sanitation Programme Unit had not reported progress to AMCOW due to the poor reporting by role players, a lot had been achieved towards the implementation of the South African Sanitation and Hygiene Action Plan. The progress report had been attached as Annexure C.

Mr Chainee described progress made in the implementation of the eThekwini Commitments from 2008 to date in detail (Slide 8). The table gave an indication of the substantial issues that related to sanitation. In particular there had been a reduction in the number of households without access to sanitation services. The backlog was reduced from five million to 2.7 million households by 2010. Much of the achievement was through the dedicated effort in particular of the sanitation programme. In February 2005 there were 252 254 formal households which still depended on a pre-1994 bucket sanitation system. That backlog had been reduced to 7 996 by July 2009. The remaining households were those faced with 'construction bulk' but there had been substantial progress since then.

The Accelerated Community Infrastructure Programme (ACIP) was established in 2009 to address the slow delivery of water services–both water and sanitation–by the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 12 423 households were serviced with sanitation.

During 2010/11 financial year 42,130 households were reached with Health and Hygiene education.  5 497 households were served through the Rural Household Infrastructure Programme and 27 485 people were reached through the Health and Hygiene Strategy which had been rolled out to all Water Services Authorities. The advocacy strategy and the Free Basic Sanitation Strategy targeted at indigent households had been rolled out to Water Services Authorities from 2010 to date.

Mr Chainee pointed out that, as a consequence of AfricaSan, there was the inception of the rural household infrastructure programme. Such was an example of the active responses by Government. This was a big issue that needed to be highlighted. ‘The response of this Government has not been lax.'  Politically the eThekwini Commitments were followed up with substantial financial and administrative responses.

In relation to schools and clinics 345 were provided with water infrastructure and 371 served with sanitation in 2008.  Figures were also given for 2009/10 (slide 8).

Slides 9-26 dealt with progress in job creation and skills development training provided following the eThekwini Commitments. Comparisons were made by province regarding women, men, youth, and disabled persons who benefited.  In particular, Mr Chainee mentioned that a total of 140 906 persons benefited by way of job creation in 2008/09 (slide 10). Details were given of job creation through the National Youth Service Training Programme (slide 22).

Slides 27-35 indicated progress, against various challenges, made in the implementation of the eThekwini Commitments from 2008 to date on sanitation collaborate structures, development of national master plans, regional bulk programme, Sanitation Policy review, rolling out of the Health and Hygiene Strategy, new guidelines, new publications, commission of or support for research and innovation, piloting of alternative approaches and technologies, piloting  demand-led programmes, integration of Sanitation Awareness with Public Health and HIV/AIDS Programmes, Annual Sanitation and Hygiene Week Programmes, implementation of International Year of Sanitation (IYS) activities, and special days to reinforce the IYS messages. 

Challenges included Ineffective collaboration at all governmental levels, non- alignment of sector plans, policies and strategies, dilapidating infrastructure and poor operations and maintenance, Incompatible reporting system, sustainability of the current approved technologies, non-prioritization  of sanitation programmes implementing public awareness and education programmes, and inadequate Health and Hygiene promotion and user education (slides 27-35).  (Please see also the two additional sheets that were handed out: Department of Human Settlements. Progress on implementing eThekwini Commitments 2008 to date [Progress in respect of the South African Local Government Association (SALGA)].

Mr Chainee pointed out that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) had advanced the issues in its mandate to advise and support municipalities. The Department had raised its view that SALGA had a representative voice, especially in the Ministers and Members of Executive Councils (MinMECs) and in the implementation forums. This responsibility illustrated the centrality of the municipalities particularly as water service authorities. Municipalities had, as a result of the municipal indaba, committed themselves to advance the delivery of water and sanitation. Following AfriSan there had been a municipal indaba, which had placed the responsibility on all parties. The Department had highlighted to the Minister the sanitation delivery challenges. The Department, together with SALGA, was reviewing the white paper on basic household sanitation. Free basic sanitation was approved by Cabinet in 2009. The Department highlighted this as one of the key critical issues post AfrSan. The free basic sanitation was piloted in 17 municipalities in 2010 and in a further 23 municipalities in 2011. The Department, together with the provinces, SALGA, and the Department of Water Affairs, developed water support coordinated provincial sector plans for water and sanitation.

Mr Chainee highlighted incompatible reporting systems together with the sustainability of current approved technologies. New guidelines for these technologies had been issued, for example, package plant guidelines, the manual for electronic water quality management, and the new publications that had been developed and disseminated. The Department would make these publications available to the Committee.
Of importance in relation to the sustainability of current approved technologies was the establishment of the Sanitation Technology Centre with the collaboration of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Water Research Commission.  This was a fundamental issue. There was a substantial amount of capacity and expertise that had been developed and utilised but under-reported. Following today's discussion, the Department would have to revise its report and highlight some of the more important strategic and technological issues, for example, the establishment of the Sanitation Technology Centre.

Mr Chainee indicated further challenges on the eThekwini Commitments: 
•The effectiveness of the NSTT was affected by the movement of Sanitation Unit to the Department of Human Settlements.
•The ineffectiveness of the structure affected the reporting of the actions as per South African Sanitation and Hygiene Action Plan.
•Lack of adequate skills levels within the sector for planning and implementation of household sanitation.
•Slow rate of sanitation service delivery, particularly to rural households
•Understanding and management of growth in household numbers requiring subsidized infrastructure
•Ensuring adequate operation and maintenance of the sanitation facilities
•Increase in the costs of service delivery to schools without basic services
•Strengthening support to farm schools
•Ensuring adequate operation and maintenance of the facilities in schools and clinics
(Slide 36)

As to plans to bring South African reporting back on track, the process had started to revive the NSTT (slide 37).

Eco-sanitation: its effective utilisation and beneficiation to communities
Ecological sanitation or EcoSan-a relatively new concept related to using human urine and faeces as soil fertiliser to grow vegetables and thus close the sanitation loop -was explained, with diagrams and photographs (slides 39-46). Two pilot projects, in Kimberly and Buffalo City municipalities implemented by a Community Based Organisation (CBO) and Department of Science and Technology respectively had been unsuccessful. Reasons were given. The Water Research Commission was undertaking a research study to fully understand potential health hazards. EThekwini municipality treated sludge from a pit emptying project to make fertiliser that was used by the Parks department. (slides 42-43).

Why South Africa did not deliver a report for UNICEF's Sanitation and Hygiene in Africa at a Glance
As to why South Africa had not presented a country progress report, Mr Chainee informed Members that the Director-General (DG) had requested that the Department prepare a report for submission to the Portfolio Committee and to the DG on the reasons for that failure. The Department was now in the process of preparing that report. (For further details, in particular, the effectiveness of the NSTT, please see briefing document, paragraph 3.)

Discussion
Members were confused by the lack of slide and page numbers, but the Chairperson confirmed that all material to which Mr Chainee referred was present. However, a correctly numbered document was to be supplied by the Department.

With reference to collaborative structures, the Chairperson asked Mr Chainee to give praise, not to the Department, but to the Portfolio Committee, because the Department had failed to collaborate sufficiently, and it was the Committee that had emphasised the necessity for such collaboration.

Mr Chainee recollected a proverb: 'Success has many parents: failure is an orphan'.

Members laughed.

Mr Chainee confirmed that the Department had taken note of the Committee's recommendations. At a local government level, not all district municipalities had dedicated sanitation collaboration structures. The Department had taken it up with the Department of Cooperative Governance (DoCG) [within the Ministry of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA)] as part of the implementation forums. The Department had stressed that sanitation must be discussed together with water. You could not exclude one or the other; they were interdependent. There had been discussion on the transfer of functions to the Department of Human Settlements, with which transfer there had been challenges, to ensure that the National Sanitation Task Team (NSTT) was not only revived but became more effective, particularly in regard to sanitation. The DoCG and SALGA were to deal more closely with political involvement in municipalities, particularly around the strategic issues.

The eThekwini commitments were led by the national Government, but provincially and municipally dependent. It was not a question of 'shall' but that provinces and municipalities 'must' undertake those commitments.

The Chairperson asked about ecological sanitation.

Mr Chainee replied that it was a concept related to human waste. It was a relatively new concept.  The applicability, durability, sustainability, and ability to be scaled-up, of ecological solutions had to be worked out for developing countries. The Minister had asked the Department to examine the scalability of ecological solutions. It had to be asked if, in a developed country, one could see a greater use of waterless sanitation. At the moment there was no sustainable, up-scalable sanitation programme other than water-based sanitation. A number of international and United Nations (UN) agencies promoted eco-sanitation, but it was difficult for South Africa to replicate it sustainably. However, South Africa had two such projects in Kimberley and Buffalo City. These were implemented by community-based organisations together with the Department of Science and Technology. It was also important to engage with the CSIR as it was Government-funded. However, these projects were not successful. Among the reasons were that people were not used to handling human faeces, superstitions and cultural beliefs. Vegetables grown on ground fertilised with human excreta were still not acceptable. Composting was not widely used. The Water Research Commission was undertaking a study on the potential health hazards of using human faeces as fertiliser for growing vegetables. The Department was willing to cooperate with other departments as it did not have agricultural experience. 

There was also the eco-sanitation project at eThekwini, in which the sludge from cess-pits was treated to make fertiliser for use by the parks department.

There was no reluctance on the part of the Department to pilot such projects, but one had to ensure that the people affected were not made guinea-pigs, because there were major consequences for the health and dignity of communities.

The Chairperson said that it was crucial not only to reflect South Africa's stance but the challenges of empowering the community.

Mr A Steyn (DA) noted that Members had been given a good deal of information on what had happened since the eThekwini Declaration in 2008. However, this raised even more questions on why South Africa was unable to present a report on what it had done. The reasons given – in particular the shift from the then Department of Water Affairs to the Department of Human Settlements and the resulting inefficiency – were unacceptable. This Report should never have 'fallen through the cracks'.

When the function was moved from one department to another, the chief director concerned moved along with it. There was thus no reason why nothing was done. Members, when they did receive that report, would need to interrogate it thoroughly. It was as if somebody had tried to sabotage the whole thing, rather than inefficiency.  

The lack of slide or page numbers was regrettable. With reference to the fourth page of the presentation and the last sentence thereof, it had to be asked against what sort of backlog had those targets been reached.

Mr Steyn asked also about the jobs created. The number fluctuated quite drastically from 2008/09 to 2010/11, but one would have expected it to increase as the programme picked up momentum. Three provinces had a figure of zero in 2010/11. Did this mean that nothing was reported or that nothing was done? As far as he was concerned, this meant that nothing was done.

Questions had also to be asked about the word 'reportedly', often repeated in respect of the job creation programme. Were the jobs not verified? If so, how?

Mr Steyn also asked about the development of the national master plans. He noted that the Department of Water Affairs was coordinating the provincial plans for water and sanitation. He hoped that there would be some synergy and effective collaboration. Perhaps the Department of Human Settlements needed to examine the provincial plans on sanitation. However, he acknowledged that it was hard to divorce the two.

Mention was made of the development of a South African sanitation policy. When was it started and what was its status? Could stakeholders give input?

Assessment of the feasibility of current solutions was very important. Mr Steyn was glad to see that the Department was assessing current solutions, but Members needed to know if any were to be discontinued. The Department's information was not quite complete.

Mr Steyn asked about the Sanitation Technology Centre. What was its mandate?

Mr Steyn asked about the project that had been piloted in the Eastern Cape. When was it piloted? Members needed to know exactly what was done and where, also on what was working and what was not working. 

Mr Steyn asked for more information on the Global Hand-washing Day and other special days. The first time he had become aware of this was at the Conference. More publicity was needed.

Mr Steyn asked for more details of the urine diversion toilets in eThekwini. He had seen an article praising the project, but Mr Chainee had implied that it did not work. Such a project should be promoted across the country in rural areas especially where there was a lack of water. He quoted from the article. These toilets were better than conventional latrines.

Ms M Borman (ANC) endorsed Mr Steyn, whom, she said, had spoken for all Members. The Department had given a mass of information but it needed to be quantified to enable the Committee to measure the Department's progress.  Had there been an audit of municipalities? Was there work on municipalities that lacked a sanitation programme? The DoCG had done such an audit on a large scale. So the Department could surely utilise that information and bring it to this Committee.

Ms Borman spoke from experience of oversight visits. She had witnessed flush toilets that did not work for want of water.

Regarding the dilapidated infrastructure and maintenance, there would have to be a better education of the people, since users of flush toilets could not, in many cases, afford toilet paper, and were causing blockages by using, for example, newspaper or anything that was available.

Ms Borman questioned the drop in the number of jobs created from 140 000 in 2008/09 to 30 000 in 2010/11.

The Department had mentioned, under bulk infrastructure, that the capacity building tools had been developed for councillors. She asked for more information.

That letter explaining why the Department had not been able to complete the Report, should have been submitted at this meeting. There was no reason why it should be long drawn out thing.

Ms Borman asked if there was an ecological solutions model that had been put into practice in another country. She noted the Department's caution, but, for a long time people had been making compost, from vegetable matter, if not from faeces, so, whilst for a section of the community it might be a new concept, it needed to be examined thoroughly. She acknowledged the Department's concern at the long life of bacteria in human faeces, but what research had been done?

Mr K Sithole (IFP) congratulated the Department on its figures, if they were the right figures, in particular the reduction of the backlog from five million to 2.7 million. 

Mr Sithole asked the Department to check on job creation progress to date. There was nothing in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and North West. Why not?

Mr Sithole asked why there was no skills development in Free State, and apparently none in Mpumalanga. There was no accredited training in North West.  Also for North West there was an apparent lack of figures on women, men and youth.

Mr Sithole asked about the free basic sanitation strategy. How many municipalities had submitted annual implementation plans?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) said that high schools in deep rural areas still lacked sanitation. She differed with Mr Chainee in his assessment of the situation. There was still a huge backlog.

Ms Dlakude did not understand the Department's statement about people reached with health and hygiene.

Ms Dlakude thought that the Department's statement that 'through the collaboration of enhancing sanitation delivery South Africa has met the MDGs on water and sanitation' was a mere pipe dream. We were far from reaching this goal.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) asked how South Africa compared with other countries at the same level of development.

Mr Mdakane had thought that we were on our way to meet the MDGs, but, from the Department's briefing, it was apparent that it would still take considerable time to achieve them.

Mr Mdakane said that there were many schools in rural areas without sanitation. He agreed with the Department that one could not separate the provision of water and sanitation. Better coordination was needed. There was need for better education to deal with these matters in communities. 

Mr Mdakane had just learned that it was necessary to take an evidence-based approach. On many occasions what one saw on the ground was not what was on the table. He gave the example of an oversight visit to Mpumalanga. The Committee had been led to believe that 500 toilets had been built in a certain place, but only one was to be seen. This was a big problem, since Members of Parliament (MPs) came to  doubt the administration's credibility. He commended the evidence-based approach to verify information; it was the best way of doing things. Members must see things for themselves and have tangible evidence.

Mr Mdakane felt that in 2011, four years before 2015, it seemed that we had done very well, but the challenges reported contradicted the reported achievements. We were still far behind.

Mr Mdakane appealed for coordination with the Department of Basic Education, especially on international days. Like Mr Steyn, he had not been aware of Global Hand-washing Day.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked which districts did not have sanitation collaboration structures. 

Ms Mashishi asked the Department to identify the 17 municipalities that had been piloted in 2010 and the 23 that had been piloted in 2011.

A Member commented on the persistence of the bucket system of sanitation.

A Member (at the end) asked about the relationship between the Department of Human Settlements and sanitation and water. If the Department of Human Settlements and Water Affairs did not talk to each other there would be major problems. He asked about the figures for eThekwini Commitments on skills development.

The Chairperson found it very embarrassing and unacceptable to receive a report that stated that there was nothing being done in uplifting the lives of people with disabilities. The numbers given were either zero or minimal figures. Moreover, she shared Mr Mdakane concern at the Department's credibility. 

The Chairperson had raised the matter of sanitation in schools with the Department about sanitation in schools but had never received a response. She had written a letter about a constituency issue raised by Ms   Dlakude but had not received any reply from the Department.

The Chairperson gave an example of toilets that were such a disgrace that members of the community preferred to use open defecation because of the condition of those toilets built at great expense.

As Mr Mdakane had said, the Department could not raise its head high and say that it had delivered on commitments. She gave the example of a house in which there was no door or wall between the occupant's bed and the toilet – this was undignified. She also gave examples of houses with toilets but without drainage for them. She asked the Department if it could be proud of itself. Moreover, she was addressing Government as a whole, in saying that the effectiveness of this programme was a challenge, and that the excuse that there had been a delay in transfer of functions to the Department was inexcusable. Officials still remained in their jobs. The issue of water not being separated from sanitation was an argument that had to stop. It was being raised unnecessarily. The Department must do the work that it had been given and collaborate in planning at a national level with those stakeholders with whom it shared the function of sanitation. The  Department was the lead department in this regard and its duty was to ensure that the allocation of resources was efficient. The Department must collaborate with the DoCG, moreover, on the national strategy. A comprehensive communications strategy must be developed.

The Chairperson vented her anger at the Department and alleged that it was not taking its work seriously enough. The President would have to take action, if the Department did not correct itself quickly and implement these critical policies, such as the national policy on hand-washing. As things stood 'We are going nowhere!' 

The Chairperson demanded that the Department remove from its country progress report the statement that  South Africa had met the MDG goals. There were still uncovered toilets. She demanded a national consolidated report from the Department on the status of sanitation. What were the research units doing, if there remained such conditions the Committee had found in the communities?

The Chairperson pleaded with, then instructed the Department to take a lead on sanitation. 'The President has spoken.'

Mr Chainee replied that the Department would provide detailed figures on job creation and the type of jobs created.

Mr Chainee replied that the Department would address the question about the backlog in providing sanitation to schools. If the Department did not deal with the schools and clinics backlog, it would not lay the foundation of providing sanitation. One of the objectives of this programme was to eradicate that sanitation backlog.  The focus on the rural families included schools. Money was available, and there was no reason for not achieving success.

Mr Chainee replied that as part of the Outcome 8 delivery agreement signed by the Minister and the Outcome 9 delivery agreement signed by Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs the Department set up a joint task team on human settlements and basic services. This was chaired jointly by the Director-General of Human Settlements and the Director-General 'of CoGTA' [Department of Cooperative Governance (DoCG)]. Other departments taking part included Sports and Recreation, Energy, Water Affairs, and Transport.  Thus planning was in progress. Also the Department had held a joint technical MinMEC.

Therefore there was a very good, sound relationship between the Departments of Human Settlements and Water Affairs. Also the Department took sanitation very seriously, but emphasised inter-dependencies. Water Affairs dealt with bulk and link while Human Settlements dealt with household provision. 'There is an excellent working relationship.' Moreover, there was a policy and directive, and the Department dealt with them.  Individual issues were not entertained.

There was a  white paper on the South African sanitation policy. This paper was being reviewed. There was indeed a sanitation policy, supplemented by the Water Services Act. 

The one big issue around sanitation was the understanding of how the policy was being articulated. It was  necessary to define the national, provincial, and local and municipal roles, in particular around water service authorities. There was a collective state responsibility and the Department of Human Settlements led that closely as the point of reference.

The Department had taken initiatives on the Global Hand-washing and Hygiene Days, and had given thought to how it communicated and marketed those days. Health and hygiene were crucial primary activities in the entire sanitation value chain, which started from community awareness. The same applied to the World Toilet Day. However, Mr Chainee acknowledged that the Department might do more.

The issue of urine diversion was used in eThekwini in relation to grey water. It did not translate into food production. It was important to separate eco-sanitation from the grey areas. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and the Water Research Commission (WRC) were state-led organisations from which the Department sought advice on technological issues.  This was part of the collaboration that would be done with them.

The Department needed to encourage sound ecological solutions. Many developing countries were facing similar problems.  In India, sanitation had become such an issue, that the majority of women found that they could use sanitation facilities  between 01h00 to 05h00, because that was the only time at which they cold obtain some sense of privacy. South Africa was not much better but its backlogs were less and it could eradicate them with the correct political and administrative will.

It was necessary to differentiate between the inherited formal sanitation backlog of 1994, in which there were  residential areas formally proclaimed but which had a bucket system of sanitation that had to be eradicated, and the informal settlements or slums, in which there was also a sanitation backlog. 2.3 million informal households required formal sanitation. The other component of the 2.7 million related to backyard shacks. In no way was the Department claiming that it had met the MDGs. It had not eradicated the sanitation backlog. 2.7 million households still lacked sanitation. This was not something of which the Department could be proud.

The Department of Water Affairs, in cooperation with the Department of Human Settlements, was dealing with dilapidated infrastructure issues such as sewage treatment plants. This was also part of the cooperation with the DoCG, which was undertaking certain Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funding to improve the bulk and link infrastructure related to water and sanitation. 

Mr Chainee acknowledged that the Department of Settlements moved ahead of the bulk and link infrastructure provision. Thus houses were built but remained unconnected to the sanitation system. This was not optimal and was poor planning.

Through the Department of Human Settlements basic services task team, the Department hoped to achieve better provision of sanitation to schools and resolve issues of coordination with the Department of Basic Education.  

Mr Chainee could not agree more with the benefits of the evidence-based approach. The Department's credibility was at stake, more so politically. The Department hoped that its programme management unit would create credibility in reporting.

The Department had indicated that it would take a tough stance on the monitoring of standards in the sanitation programme. 

The Department would provide the details of the 17 municipalities that had been piloted in 2010 and the 23 that had been piloted in 2011.

The Department had just about been able to eliminate the formal backlog, but it was increasingly asked to respond to the slum sanitation backlog. Ethekwini had produced some interim solutions.

Mr Chainee agreed with the Chairperson that the figures on persons with disabilities were unacceptable and there was need to improve.

Mr Chainee replied that the transfer of the function in no way impacted on performance, or should not have impacted on performance, and the Department was not using this as an excuse. The Department 'enforced' skills.  In no way was the Department of the view that the sanitation programme should not be the Department's responsibility. The Department was implementing political directives. Relations with the Department of Water Affairs had improved considerably over the past three or four months.

As to the allocation of joint resources and planning, there was allowance for the backlogs in water and sanitation; and it allowed for municipalities to fix sewer plants. There was no reason for anyone to blame the national Department, the Portfolio Committee, or the Minister for saying that they had not been provided with the necessary funding and resources to do their work. 

Mr Chainee undertook that the Department would report back to the Committee, as it had requested, on the national consolidated report on sanitation. It would clear up the discrepancies that existed in the report.

Mr Chainee emphasised that sanitation was an important component, indeed the cornerstone, of the Human Settlements mandate. The Department of Water Affairs would confirm this.  The problems in Somalia and Sudan were largely about water. South Africa had much better resources, but owed it to its communities to do better.

The Chairperson asked if the 2.7 million backlog included those toilets that the Department had reportedly built but which people, for whatever reason, did not use, in preference for open defecation. These issues needed to be brought forward, together with solutions. The Department needed to come clean on the matter. 

Ms Borman agreed. The Department had commented that it had 'almost' eliminated the formal backlog from pre-1994 as regards eliminating the bucket system. However, this still did not give Members an idea of the size of the problem. She felt that the presentation did not reflect the size of the problem. What we had left was one million. Qualification could enable the Committee and the Department better to understand the problem. 

Ms Dlakude asked why, given that there were resources and budget, there had been no implementation of sanitation in schools. Maybe there were those who thought that the Committee would not follow-up.

Mr Steyn observed that departments, whether they delivered documents a day in advance or, as they seemed to prefer, on the day of the meeting, gave Members an information overload. Members appeared to accept all that they were told, and everyone expected a slap on the back for work well done. On the other hand, the Department of Human Settlements had come to know that, whether documents were supplied in advance or on the morning of the presentation, the Committee would interrogate its figures, Members would apply their minds, and would ask questions intensively.

Members laughed.

Mr Steyn asked the Department's staff members to put themselves in the position of MPs when preparing documents and ask themselves if they were fully convinced by what they were writing and not resort to thumb sucking. If they did that first it would save embarrassment.

The Department had basic minimum norms and standards, but after 17 years one still found that these were not applied. Some provinces and municipalities did, however, exceed the standards. On every oversight visit there were officials from the Department, and provincial and municipal officials who accompanied Members saw what Members saw but did not report their observations to the Department.

The presentation had mentioned an action plan which specified clearly the time lines, responsibilities, and what commitments had been made. This had been submitted to the Ministers' Council in 2008. He asked for this action plan to be included in the report that Members expected to receive, together with all the excuses. 

Mr Steyn pointed out that the Department now had the resources and finances. Surely the same pace of completion could be achieved as with the football stadia for the 2010 World Cup. There was need for better planning so that one thing led to another.

The Chairperson asked the Department if it believed it could accelerate the roll-out of sanitation to ensure that at least a half or a quarter of the 2.7 million could receive adequate sanitation. She noted that the Department was using only two service providers. 'Do you really believe that you are serious?' Was it aware that from 2010/11 it was required to provide water along with sanitation in rural areas where needed? Did the Department have enough capacity?

Ms Mandisa Mangqalaza, Director: Sanitation, Department of Human Settlements, added to what Mr Chainee had said about the special days. Members of Parliament, including the Chairperson, had attended such celebrations. The Department was using the media. The Global Hand-washing Day on had been promoted on SAfm and other radio stations, and also on SABC2 television. She referred to World Toilet Day. She hinted that more could be done If the Committee voted the Department more funds.

The Chairperson assured Ms Mangqalaza that she was protected.

Mr Chainee replied that the Department had a set of norms and standards in respect of the housing code and this included specifications for the erection of toilet structures. The water services authority concerned was also required to apply this set of standards. He emphasised, however, that even if one lacked those norms and standards, as some of the municipalities had claimed, a technical official with the requisite qualifications and experience must be able to know what was right and acceptable, and what was consistent with human rights. The norms and standards were very clear as to size, and were consistent with what human rights organisations required. 

As to capacity, sanitation was a big issue. If not resolved in the next couple of years, there would be a crisis in health and hygiene as well as with the sustainability of water resources, into which there was the danger of seepage. It was an interlinked issue and there was no choice but to resolve it. The backlog would have to be included as part of the rectification programme.

The Department of Basic Education had the basic infrastructure grant for the current financial year and was responsible for it. That grant was specifically for the backlog in school infrastructure, including water and sanitation. Mr Chainee would take up the matter through the office of the Chairperson.

Ms Dlakude told Mr Chainee that rural people never listened to SAfm. They listened to community radio stations. It was a waste of time to use SAfm to reach them, and SAfm listeners hardly needed that lesson.

The Chairperson said that a comprehensive communications strategy would assist the Department in reaching the rural areas.

Mr Steyn knew that there were minimum norms and standards, but many municipalities did not apply even these minimum standards. The Department must do something about it. Sleeping with one's bed next to the toilet without a wall or doorway in between did not reflect adherence to the minimum standards. He referred to the issue on payment of money and monitoring raised in a meeting the previous day.

The Chairperson required time frames. The Committee would refer, in its oversight report, to the issues discussed in today's meeting.

The Committee would discuss the country progress report on 19 and 20 August 2011 in a workshop in Parliament. This workshop would be attended by representatives from all the provinces. [Dates, times and venue to be confirmed.]

Mr Chainee said that the Department had been invited.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had produced its own report – a report that was supposed to be submitted to the presiding officers two days previously. However, the Chairperson had requested permission for sufficient time to interact with the Department in order to obtain the required information for inclusion in this report. This report was very important, because the workshop was required to produce a country progress report for the MDG summit to be held in September. If the Committee did not raise these issues, they would never be addressed, so the Department must not feel embarrassed. The Committee raised them to ensure that they were rectified.     

Mr A Figlan (DA) commented on a visit, at the launch of Sanitation Week, at which he and two other Members had witnessed the Minister opening one toilet, but that was the first and the last toilet that Members saw that day. The Eastern Cape should not be worried about water, if tanks were used.

Mr Figlan also asked about toilets unconnected to the sewerage system since 2001. He complained of contractors known for shoddy work who had been engaged for rectification in order to do favours to friends.

The Chairperson said that these things made Members angry.

The Chairperson thanked Members, the Department, and other guests, and adjourned the meeting.