Sanitation Master Draft Plan; International agreements: Department of Human Settlements briefing

Meeting report

Department of Human Settlements (DHS) presentation
The Director General of the Department of Human Settlements, Mr Thabane Zulu, said that the process of engagement for the Water and Sanitation Master Plan had started. The presentation was going to focus on the areas which needed to be developed as the Master Plan was implemented. The DHS wanted the process to be a joint exercise with the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). This was because there were many aspects including the legislation which necessitated cooperation with DWA.

Mr Phillip Chauke, Chief Director: Sanitation in the DHS, spoke about the scope of the project. He noted that access to effective sanitation in South Africa was limited and was not keeping pace with the rapid rate of urbanization and industrial growth in cities. Less than 20% of citizens were currently served by a public sewer with the vast majority reliant on various forms of on-site sanitation of variable quality and effectiveness.

The ultimate aim of the Master Plan was to strengthen institutional capacity in order to: attain an Open Defecation Free (ODF) status; promote sustainable hygiene behavior for people’s health improvement; and institutionalize Village Development Committees (VDC) to back up sanitation movement at strategic and operational levels.

Mr Chauke said that the guiding principles of the Sanitation Master Plan included: ODF as the bottom line of all sanitation interventions; universal access to sanitation in water supply and sanitation project areas; informed technological choices for household toilets; leadership of the local bodies in sanitation sector activities; the VDC and municipality as the minimum basic unit of sanitation program intervention; locally managed financial support mechanism; mandatory provisions of sanitation facilities in all institutions; mandatory provision of toilets in new buildings; and the focusing on hand washing with soap and other basic behavior.

The four pillars and action steps for hygiene and sanitation promotion were: institutional building, planning and programming, ODF campaigning and post-ODF campaigning.

The first objective of the Master Plan was to define realistic design criteria for an integrated sanitation system with special regard to institutional strengths and weaknesses, community preferences as well as environmental considerations. The second objective was to identify areas where on site sanitation proved to be an economic and appropriate solution. The third objective was to develop alternate solutions for on-site sanitation systems or a centralized water-borne sewer system.

The project was going to serve a population of 50 million people and the project area was going to be the national territory of South Africa. The sewer system connection rate at the time of the study was 20%. The water and sanitation value chain comprised of (1) potable water supply, (2) drinking water treatment, (3) waste water disposal, (4) waste water treatment and (5) waste water reuse. The scope of the plan for each of these was outlined.

With regards to the funding and estimated costs, Mr Chauke said that the sanitation requirement was based on a 30-year timeline considering the demography, population spread, growth trends, urbanization and fast growing cities. The fiscus was going to fund most infrastructure programmes, estimated at approximately R1 trillion. The Committee was told that for every R1 spent on water, R2 was required for sanitation. With regards to the project timeline, the process commenced in October 2012 and the timelines were going to be negotiated.

Mr Zulu said that the exercise was a comprehensive one and the DHS was in the process of getting the necessary resources and a dedicated team which was going to help it expedite the process.

Discussion
Ms G Borman (ANC) said that the DHS was trying to develop a long term plan but there was the need to come up with a concrete plan which was going to handle the sanitation crisis which was being experienced. How was the DHS planning to link the plan to the delivery on the ground when there was a lot of under spending in the department and it was becoming increasingly more difficult to monitor sanitation delivery? What had been done by consultants when about R91 million had been spent by the DHS on them? What had the DHS done about the cooperation with Avantu after their presentation to the Committee on possible sanitation solutions?

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that there was a huge sanitation delivery backlog in the country but there was under spending by the DHS, and that was unacceptable. As per the presentation, did it mean that for South Africa to deal with the issue of sanitation, it had to wait for 30 years? The Master Plan ought to be broken down into tangible periodical achievable targets. What steps were being taken to alleviate the sanitation crisis? Had the DHS explored any alternative technologies?

Mr R Bhoola (MF) asked whether the strategies of the Master Plan were aligned to the report of the National Planning Commission. What impact did migration have on the DHS planning?

Ms M Njobe (COPE) said that she understood that the presented Master Plan was just a framework. The guiding principles were acceptable but the challenges were very huge with regards to the backlog, capacity, commitment and the level of public awareness. Was the educational system able to produce the kind of capacity which was required? Was there any cooperation with the Department of Higher Education in this regard?

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked who was going to be responsible for the VDCs? Was it the municipalities or the DHS? What was the plan in areas of poor water supply?

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) asked if there was any plan to use safe rain water in the Master Plan.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked where the DHS was in relation to cooperation with other departments. What was the difference between the VDCs and the ward committees and who was going to monitor the VDCs?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) asked why the sanitation function had not been completely transferred from the DWA to the DHS even after a pronouncement by the President.

The Chairperson said that the Members accepted the Master Plan but their concern was that the DHS had to present current measures to handle the current crisis while the Master Plan dealt with the long term. It was also important for the DHS to assume its position as the anchor and leading department in terms of sanitation. The Committee had been waiting for even a draft of legislation to empower the DHS to effectively assume its duties as the leader in providing sanitation. The Committee was ready to assist the DHS in delivering on sanitation. The Committee was working very hard but the DHS was not forthcoming.

Mr Zulu replied that the Master Plan which was presented was just the beginning of a process and it was just a framework. He was aware of the sanitation challenges in terms of implementation protocols and the responsibility of the DHS. The plan was meant to deal with a number of institutional issues. The legislation in terms of sanitation was still with the DWA so a joint approach was a ‘must’ and the DHS was leading the process together with DWA even though it may not be seen to be vocal enough in public. The Master Plan was critical and was going to address a number of issues which were current challenges. The DHS had put a separate team within the department which was going to deal with the legal and legislation aspects of sanitation delivery. It was important for the DHS to get dedicated resources as it did not have sufficient internal capacity and it was also important to continue measuring the ongoing sanitation programmes. The DHS was going to set up an action plan which going to reflect all the deliverables in the Master Plan.

Ms Borman asked what the time frame was for the action plan.

Mr Zulu replied that the framework was quite comprehensive and once it was accepted, a team of officials was going to set to work on it and they were going to give the timeline. A time frame had not been set as yet. The DHS was however aware of the urgency of the matter. The framework touched various departments and was cross-cutting.

Mr Matshoba asked if the team which was working on the legal issues were consultants or staff of the DHS.

Mr Zulu replied that for any consulting arrangement which the DHS entered into, there was also an internal team. There was going to be a team from within the DHS but because of the technical nature of the task, there were going to be consultants. The DHS also ensured the transfer of skills when it assigned consultants.

The Chairperson said that the Committee and the DHS were going to have another meeting to discuss the issue of the use of consultants as it was a very expensive exercise which was costing the DHS a lot of money. It was not proper for the DHS to be adding more consultants to those they already had. The action plan was important but it had to operate in two dimensions with regards to both short term and long term planning.

Mr Zulu suggested that the measuring of current operations should continue and the DHS would continue to engage with the Committee on the short and long term plans of action.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the funding model had not been presented and it was important for the Committee to know what the funding model was.

Mr Zulu said that the DHS had institutional arrangements in that regard and it was in negotiation with the DWA although they had not been concluded.

Ms Borman asked what had been done about the pilot project with Avantu.

Mr Chauke replied that the DHS had called Avantu and had gone into some of the projects which were in a crisis state in the Eastern Cape and Free State and they had drawn up a report as to what needed to be done in those areas. The team was continuing with the other provinces so that a comprehensive approach could be taken. The DHS would consolidate the report and submit it to the Director General and the Minister. Approval was then going to be given for a process of acquisition of assistance.
 
International Relations commitments of the Department of Human Settlements
Mr William Jiyana, Chief Director: Inter-Governmental Relations, spoke about the rationale for international relations commitments, the approach used by the DHS, its strategic intent and provided an overview of existing international commitments.

Mr Jiyana said the DHS international programme had a dual function. It served the interest of the DHS in achieving its mandate of creating sustainable human settlements and served the interest of the country through international advocacy and technical assistance. In this context, the South African foreign policy priorities included the consolidation of the African agenda, the strengthening of South-South cooperation, the strengthening of North-South cooperation, participating in the global system of governance and strengthening the country’s political and economic relations.

The DHS had a focused international programme that directly supported human settlements and maximized the benefits of the department from international best practices and knowledge exchange. The DHS also empowered the functional units and the sector to identify areas where the DHS could drive more practical benefits. The DHS was also strengthening its foot print on the African continent.

Overview of International Commitments
▪ With Angola, the DHS had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on cooperation in the field of Human Settlements which was signed in 2009.
▪ The DHS had a contract on implementation of the China-assisted 170 dwelling unit economical housing project in Thaba Chweu which was signed in 2010.
▪ In 2007, the DHS signed an agreement on Employment of Cuban Technical Advisors by relevant SA provincial departments of housing.
▪ With Denmark, the DHS had an agreement for the mainstreaming of energy efficiency in the low income housing sector in SA. This was signed in 2005.
▪ With the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DHS had cooperation in the field of human settlements signed in 2006. This cooperation had expired.
▪ The DHS had an arrangement with the Netherlands on cooperation in the field of social rental housing which was extended in 2010.
▪ India – Brazil – South Africa (IBSA) had a MOU on cooperation in the field of human settlements. This was signed in 2008.
▪ Young Build International (YBI) was a social compact entered into with and between the DHS, YBI and the National Youth Development Agency.
▪ The Cities Alliance was established in 1999 as a coalition of cities and their development partners to primarily address two strategic areas through technical assistance grants. South Africa became a member in 2006.
▪ SA was a member of the African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development (AMCHUD) bureau and paid annual contributions to enable effective implementation of the AMCHUD programme.
▪ SA was also a member of the United Nations Programme for Human Settlements (UNHABITAT) and it participated in its governing council and the World Urban Forum.

Discussion
The Acting Chairperson, Ms J Sosibo, said Members and the Committee researchers were not given enough time to go through the documents. At a later stage, the Committee would invite the DHS for further engagement as the questions of the day were just going to be clarity seeking questions.

Ms Borman asked what had happened since 2006 when the agreement with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) expired. When these agreements were signed, did the DHS comply with the requirements which SA had as a country?

Mr Jiyana replied that sometimes the DHS did not have any influence on international agreements. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation and SA diplomatic missions had agreements which referenced human settlements and it was then brought to the DHS for implementation. These agreements were then taken and unpacked in line with SA policy. The agreement with the DRC had challenges which were taking the DHS out of its policy framework and mandate. It was currently being resuscitated.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the problem with many of the international agreements was that Parliament was just a rubber stamp although the agreements were legally binding and affected the domestic laws of the country. It was important for Members to find out the implications of the agreements and MOUs signed before they could properly engage with the department. In pure business terms and in terms of value for money, what did the DHS get out of the international agreements?

Ms Dlakude asked for a list of the villages where the Youth projects were rolled out. The focus of many of the international agreements was on the urban areas, what was the DHS doing about shifting the focus to informal settlements, rural areas and previously disadvantaged areas?

Mr Jiyana replied that the youth project was to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit within youth. The impact was felt extensively in Limpopo and Mpumalanga. The DHS was going to come back to the Committee with a much more detailed report. With regards to informal settlements, SA was considered to be in the top 29 countries doing a good job with informal settlements upgrading. That was why SA was invited by the UNHABITAT. However, there was the need to improve and step up the upgrading of informal settlements and the consideration of rural and previously disadvantaged areas.

The Chairperson said that what was also of importance was the creation of new cities.

Ms Njobe said that it was important for the DHS to bear in mind that its local architecture and styles were good and there was no need to entirely embrace all foreign styles and methods of building. International agreements were necessary but it was very important to keep South African styles and approaches. What was the contribution of these agreements towards the achievement of local strategies and indicators? Did the international agreements enhance skills transfer especially after the agreements were over?

Mr Jiyana replied that indigenous and local standards and designs were highly protected and consolidated by the DHS. The DHS was conscious of its own policies and standards and was not going to allow external influences to negatively affect local standards.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) asked for the financial implications with regards to the agreements with China. It was important for the Committee to have the content of all the agreements so that there could be better understanding and oversight.

Mr Jiyana replied that the Thaba Chweu project was a difficult project where an agreement was signed and the DHS was only called in to implement. The original approach by the Chinese was not meeting SA policies and standards.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked for the figures of the budget relating to the Cities Alliance. Did South African cities participate in the Cities Alliance and could any benefits be obtained from the alliance by SA cities?

Mr Jiyana replied that the Cities Alliance was focused on urban development and was working closely with the South African Cities Network.

The Chairperson, Ms Dambuza, said that there was no point getting into agreements which were not going to do well. There was the need for follow up and monitoring of the agreements. It was also important for the DHS to inform Parliament before these agreements were negotiated and not be told only at the tail end after the agreements had been negotiated.

Mr Jiyana replied that the DHS had taken the advice that all international agreements needed to be brought before the Committee and Parliament before they were negotiated and signed.

Mr Matshoba asked why the Cuban technicians were not being used.

Mr Jiyana replied that the Cuban technicians came on a temporary basis and there were not enough of them to be spread across the country. They were however doing quite a good job and were being used.

Ms Sosibo asked where the BRICS summit was going to be held and if members of the Committee were going to be invited.

Mr Jiyana replied that the BRICS summit was going to be in eThekweini and Members were going to be invited.

The meeting was adjourned.