Sanitation issues: Department of Performance Monitoring & Evaluation briefing, Housing Development Agency draft regulations tabled by Department of Human Settlements

Meeting report

Chairperson’s introductory remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) would brief the Committee on sanitation issues, following a report of the South African Human Rights Commission. Sanitation was a prime focus area of this Committee, since rural sanitation services had recently been transferred to fall under the responsibility the Department of Human Settlements (DHS), which many welcomed. This Committee was committed to performing proper oversight, as seen by its reports, which would hold the DHS fully accountable. However, the Committee was concerned and disappointed that the matter of sanitation and the transfer to DHS had not been receiving the necessary attention, with stakeholders not giving it the necessary support during the transfer, so there was room for discussion and improvement on the matter, and for proper implementation of the directive as a matter of urgency. 

Sanitation issues: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) briefing
Mr Ahmed Vawda, Deputy Director General, Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, noted that the 2011 report by the South African Human Rights Commission had highlighted lack of dignified sanitation services in the form of enclosed toilets. To improve this situation, the DPME had joint initiatives with the Department of Water Affairs (DWA), the Department of Human Settlements (DHS), the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCoG) and the National Treasury (NT). The scope of the presentation was informed by the requirements of the SAHRC, and was based upon information received from people on the ground.

There were several problematic areas in sanitation as outlined in the problem statement presented. These included insufficient attention being given to social and health issues, negative environmental impacts, inadequate governance programmes, fragmentation of institutional roles, inappropriate technology choices, poor attention to effective operations and maintenance, and inadequate financial and human resources. The definition of sanitation services, and the minimum basic facility was outlined (see attached presentation). The sanitation needs in the country included a combination of addressing the service delivery backlogs, refurbishments backlogs, extension backlogs, operation and maintenance backlogs and upgrade needs, as expressed by information provided from the Water Services National Information System (WSNIS), Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) , DWA and reports on ad-hoc surveys and audits.

Mr Vawda explained that the process for data derived from methodology for the quality of sanitation analysis and the DWA Reference Framework Planning data set. After outlining the national demographic profile, Mr Vawda presented the national household sanitation status. Approximately 11% of households still had to be provided with sanitation services, and these households had never had a government supported sanitation intervention. Additionally, at least 26% of households within formal areas had sanitation services that did not meet the required standards, due to the deterioration of infrastructure caused by a lack of technical capacity to ensure effective operation, timely maintenance, refurbishment and upgrading, pit emptying services and insufficient water resources. The sanitation priority areas in the country were defined as areas where less than 50% of the population was still without adequate sanitation. All the provinces in the country, except the Western Cape and Gauteng, were considered as sanitation priority areas.

The overall Water Services Authority (WSA) report was based on municipal self-assessments, in which 16 variables were reported. 11% of the WSA’s indicated they were operating in a satisfactory manner, 42% A’s indicated they were at risk, 38% were at high risk and 9% indicated that they were at in crisis.

Mr Vawda said that the main problem was founded on municipal technical and financial capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain infrastructure. There was a general shortage of staff with technical skills across municipalities. Many municipalities failed to adopt effective asset management processes, and sanitation infrastructure had deteriorated considerably over time, as evidenced by the 35% of households whose infrastructure required upgrading, extension or refurbishment.

There were also risks around effective management of wastewater treatment works, and these were once again based on municipal self-assessments of water services in which various critical variables were assessed. The proper functioning of the wastewater treatment works was critical for the provision of access to basic sanitation services in urban areas. There was often inadequate budget for maintaining and operating wastewater treatment works. The high levels of vulnerability indicated that a need for a drastic re-orientation of the approach to the management of waterborne sewage and waste water treatment.

Mr Vawda then outlined the funding requirements to meet minimum sanitation service delivery. Key funding sources included the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG), equitable share, municipal revenue, conditional grants and other grants from departments such as the Bulk Infrastructure Grant from the DWA and the Rural Household Infrastructure Grant from the DHS. An estimated R13.5 billion was needed to meet the current backlog. A further R31 billion was needed to upgrade the existing infrastructure to full operational capacity. The current (MIG) allocations for both water and sanitation amounted to only R6.4 billion, of which 50% should be allocated to sanitation. However, in practice, the allocation of the equitable share to operation and maintenance varied widely across municipalities, and because the grant was unconditional, it ended up largely being used for maintenance.

However, Mr Vawda stated that if one assumed that the reversal of the backlogs could be achieved with R50 billion, it was possible, by putting most of the direct conditional grants of R90.8 billion to water and sanitation, to reverse them over the next three years.

Mr Vawda finally set out the key findings of the DPME on sanitation. DPME had concluded that there had been progress in providing basic sanitation over the past decade, as the numbers of households that had lacked any formal services had been reduced from 4.75 million households to 2.41 million households. This progress must also be seen against the fact that the total numbers of households during this period increased from 11.9 million to 13.4 million. Quality and functional sanitation services were available to 64% of households. 11% of the households, or 1.4 million in number, in formal and informal settlements had never had any government sanitation interventions. 26% of the households had been provided with some form of sanitation service, but these needed refurbishment, upgrading, extension or effective maintenance.

Mr Vawda again summarised the key factors affecting delivery of sanitation services as fragmentation of responsibilities for sanitation at national, provincial and local levels, lack of technical capacity in local governments, exacerbated by high staff turnover, and little focus on training and retention. Provincial and national government offered ineffective support to municipalities, and the latter also lacked good financial planning and put too little of their budgets to maintenance, sometimes used funding inappropriately and failed to manage their revenue.

DPME made five recommendations to improve the quality of sanitation provision. A single national unit should be established in the Department of Water Affairs, with sufficient support to plan, regulate and monitor sanitation services. Legislative amendments were needed to resolve issues of oversight, planning, financial allocations and accountability. Support programmes to municipalities needed to be improved and coordinated. Municipal staff skills had to be upgraded, and, in the interim, a municipal infrastructure support agency was needed at national and provincial levels. Support had to be given, through a service delivery management structure, to those municipalities with the worst problems.

Finally, Mr Vawda noted that government had a target to achieve universal access to a functional and adequate basic sanitation service by 2014, and these recommendations were being presented to the Executive.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the issues raised in the presentation had been observed by the Committee during oversight visits. DPME should therefore also consider Parliament’s report on sanitation issues. She reminded Members that this Committee was prioritising accountability and responsibility of officials for sanitation, and she noted that this was a collective issue, and the executive had to boost its own involvement. She was critical of careless actions, such as putting waterborne toilets in areas where there was no water, and the poor maintenance and lack of proper commitment by officials.

The Chairperson said that the committee felt “betrayed” by the recommendation of the DPME that the sanitation function should be taken back to the DWA. The DWA had been very unfair to the DHS. The Committee had expected that, after the announcement of the transfer, DWA should have transferred information immediately to DHS, and a smooth transition should have happened, similar to other departments where functions were taken over. However, that had not happened, and government and the entire service delivery process were held to ransom by the DWA officials. She noted that in other countries, the sanitation function did not reside in departments dealing with water.

She noted that the Committee had already done some oversight of spending of the MIG and the USDG in municipalities, and municipalities were told that they had to allocate a certain percentage of funding for human settlements infrastructure. During a joint meeting held in August 2012 with the Appropriations Committee, the Fiscal and Financial Commission had expressed the opinion that sanitation was better placed with the DHS.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) agreed that urgent attention had to be given to sanitation concerns. He appreciated the presentation, which presented the realities on the ground. He hoped that the figures presented by the Ministerial Sanitation Task Team would be consistent, and a plan of action was needed to address the dire situation. He agreed that it was not appropriate for sanitation to lie with DWA, because houses could not be built without toilets, quite apart from the fact that the Presidential Proclamation had already transferred this function.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said that all the resources for the sanitation delivery were still with the DWA, which was an anomaly. He asked whether DHS or DWA was responsible for planning.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) noted that in the Northern Natal, there was a huge dam available, so water should not be a problem. She agreed that it was unacceptable for DWA to hold government to ransom, and as long as this function remained with DWA, DHS could only partially complete its work of building houses, which was not practical. The building of open toilets occurred under the DWA, and it could not be allowed to continue damaging the image of the government. She questioned what other methods could be used for toilets, even where there was no water.

Ms Sosibo also referred to the financial figures and asked if the R50 billion should be provided over a number of years, or in one lump sum.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) agreed that sanitation was best placed in DHS, as housing and sanitation moved hand in hand. If sanitation was left with the DWA, it would concentrate on areas where there was water while neglecting the rural areas. She commented that it was not only sanitation that used water, and DWA should, when expressing concerns, also be focusing on industrial use of water. She also suggested that the Department of Education be requested to develop a curriculum that could respond to the current skills needs.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked why there was non-compliance with the proclamation to move sanitation from DWA to DHS, and why DPME suggested that sanitation be moved back to the DWA.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) said that there were political considerations to sanitation matters, and she also questioned why the DPME, an entity within the Presidency, was expressing opposition to the Presidential proclamation. She questioned why it was so difficult for sanitation matters to be transferred to DHS, pointing out that DHS could not settle people in places without toilets. The Committee needed to investigate DWA’s attitude further.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) agreed that proper sanitation provided dignity.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) said that the research which had been done should inform new legislation on the sanitation issue.

The Chairperson highlighted the problem of lack of integrated and collaborative planning. There were delivery agreements, but nothing was being implemented. The DHS had employed Cuban professionals, but they were not properly used by the provinces, leading to the Minister of Human Settlements being asked to state what they were doing and where they were located. The recommendation to revert to sanitation being under the DWA was simply unacceptable.

Mr Vawda replied that the he was impressed with the performance and strong responsibility shown by this Committee. It was not the responsibility of the DPME to monitor this Committee, nor to report to it on performance around sanitation, so he could not answer questions on the shift of functions, and DHS was best placed to answer those questions. If a legislative responsibility was shifted, then this should have been brought before the Committee. He stressed that the SAHRC report was an objective statement of what was happening in the sector, and what was needed to comply with constitutional obligations. He noted that the DPME’s recommendation was made in an objective way, and this was what the DPME had told the SAHRC. It was up to this Committee to resolve the political difficulties, and the critical issue was to find out why the transfer of functions had not been legislated. If there was no policy framework, then DWA and the DHS had to look at the legislative framework and resolve it.

Mr Vawda noted, in answer to the questions around the cost, that this was based on a simple calculation that R50 billion was needed to fix the overall problem, but that R13 billion was needed to fix the immediate problem. He suggested that the R50 billion could be made available over a number of years

Mr Vawda said that he could not answer the questions around open toilets, as the court ruling on this complex issue was that open toilets were not acceptable. He agreed that housing and human settlements were inextricably linked to sanitation, but there was a valid argument on the other side hat the operation and maintenance of sanitation services was not necessarily the core business of the DHS, so that the Committee could not hold it responsible for lack of performance in this area, such as sanitation issues in big industrial areas.

Draft Housing Development Agency Regulations: Department of Human Settlements briefing
Mr Khwezi Ngwenya, Legal Advisor, DHS, tabled the draft Housing Development Agency Regulations that had been developed in terms of the Housing Development Agency Act of 2008 (the Act). He noted that the Act came into operation on 30 September 2008. The Act had established the Housing Development Agency (HDA), had provided for its functions and powers; and for matters connected to the HDA. The primary function of the HDA was to identify, acquire, hold, develop and release state, privately and communally-owned land, for residential and community development.

Mr Ngwenya reminded the Committee that section 32(1) of the Act empowered the Minister of Human Settlements, after consultation with the HDA and Parliament, to make regulations on a number of issues. These included the procedure around the meetings to be held by the board, decisions at meetings, convening and notice of meetings (including telephone or video conference), quorums, adjournments, presiding officers, minutes and resolutions and execution of document and procedures of the Board. The Minister, in terms of section 32(2) was also empowered to make regulations on any matter that the HDA Act required, or permitted to be prescribed.

DHS had followed the consultation process when drafting the regulations, having consulted the HDA as required by section 32(1). The draft regulations were published in the Government Gazette 34651 for comments. Two comments were received. DHS must also consult with Parliament before the regulations were promulgated.

Mr Ngwenya finally presented the 14 draft regulations and asked the Committee for its comment.

Discussion
Mr Mokgalapa asked why the content of the regulations, as spelt out in Section 32, was not included in the principal Act.

Mr Neville Chainee, Chief Operations Officer, DHS, said that this was the first part of the regulations. The second part was still work in progress. There were procedures in place for the day to day running of the HDA.

The Chairperson noted some tension between DHS and Parliament. The HDA had been in operation since 2009, in other words for four years. She asked if the fact that regulations were only now being presented implied that for the past four years the DHS had not observed any hindrances to the operation of the Act. She noted that these regulations essentially dealt with corporate governance matters. It was of concern to her that the HDA was not known in the field, and was waiting for the provinces to invite its work. She asked what was happening in regard to the core duties, and the content and substance of its work. She wanted to know if there was smooth service delivery. She believed that because the regulations dealt only with selective issues, this would cause  tensions between the Committee and the Minister.

Mr Ngwenya replied that the legal advisors were mindful of the fact that two sets of regulations could be developed under Section 32. The current draft dealt with issues of corporate governance, and he agreed that this was not the core function of the entity. Section 7(3) set out the functions of the Agency.

The Chairperson said that the regulations should deal with the implementation of the whole Act.

Mr Chainee said that it was important that the developmental mandate of the HDA was met. The DHS needed to consult with the HAD, to produce a complete evaluation and review of the HDA’s performance within the human settlements sector, and to find out what issues were hampering it. That developmental review would then enable DHS to deal with further performance issues, and it would revert to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the DHS and the HDA would be allowed two months to deal with the review, and report back to the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.