Collaborative solutions to address vandalism and theft of water infrastructure in South Africa: public hearings with stakeholders

Meeting report

Chairperson’s introductory comments

The Chairperson said the public hearings had initially been scheduled to cover two days but the business would be concluded today. This was also because of the number of submissions -- he had expected that with this critical matter, there would have been an over-subscription of submissions. He hoped and trusted that over time this matter would be taken seriously. Maintenance and upkeep was central to the delivery of services to the citizenry. Theft and vandalism had become urgent and public good was adversely affected and as a result, the economy and society were directly affected. Young and old in clinics and hospitals were negatively affected, schools and the old aged suffered. Factories were impacted and this left a telling-story in the short, medium and long term. The buyers of unscrupulous goods needed to be told enough was enough.

Business as usual could not go on, and no one was being taken to task. It might be time the judicial system was looked at to review the penalties meted out to criminals. More stringent penalties were needed to teach the perpetrators a lesson never to buy stolen goods. He believed this was direct economic sabotage, and must be treated as such. As responsible citizens South Africans had a role to play in protecting and advancing SA’s democracy. They could not just watch wrong things happening. He was conscious of the fact that the police were doing a good job and that organised business was up in arms in defending the economy. The “rotten apples” who continued to buy stolen goods needed to be rooted out. Although there was legislation in the form of the Second Hand Goods Act, the penalties were not strict enough. People used generators as an alternative when the electricity was out, but there was no such alternative for water.

He had heard of the Right2Know organisation wanting information on national key points but he questioned what this information was needed for, if not for exposing these key points to risk – was this how far democracy stretched? It was bordering on “demo-crazy.” He would have expected the Pubic Protector to go out of her way to defend and protect the public from the scourge of the theft and vandalism of water infrastructure. This matter was not just limited to the Department, water boards, police or an exclusive domain of public enterprises – everyone was expected to be the eyes and ears in defence and protection of the infrastructure of this young democracy. At the end of the day, service delivery was compromised.      

Apologies

The Chairperson said the programme for the day coincided with the Ministers’ Breakfast, so the Minister and Deputy Minister were not available due to this. There was also an apology from the Public Enterprise Ministry. Other Members, largely also Members of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Arts and Culture, were away on oversight visits outside of Cape Town.

SALGA: “An Emergency Challenge”

Mr Sizwe Ramaremela, Councillor, South African Local Government Association (SALGA), provided some introductory comments, noting this was a very important topic. Municipalities were confronted with these issues day in and day out and millions was spent on trying to replace the vandalised or stolen infrastructure. Cables were being stolen and people were not getting services. Everyone needed to work together to face the challenges confronting them.

Mr William Moraka, Director: Water and Sanitation, SALGA, said the submission would cover theft and vandalism, looking at the value of infrastructure, where such vandalism took place, root causes, the types of infrastructure vandalised and stolen, the implications and suggested ways forward. The presentation would then discuss the water plan which addressed ageing infrastructure and creating synergies for energy and water institutions.

Water and sanitation were inter-connected through an infrastructure value chain – if anything went wrong in the value chain, the whole system would be affected. This was likened to a car -- when a tyre burst, one could not drive. It was important to acknowledge the interconnectedness of the system. The replacement value of water and sanitation infrastructure stood at R44 billion as of 2011. Essentially each and every component had value, and this was big money given the potential for the infrastructure to be vandalised or stolen.

From a municipal perspective, vandalism and theft happened throughout the country. In rural areas, because the infrastructure was in close proximity, the chances of vandalism were high. In an urban context, the crime was more organised as an ordinary citizen could not access the infrastructure easily. Although there was this distinction, vandalism and theft happened across all municipalities.

Mr Moraka provided some root causes of the problem. According to SALGA’s observations, these included the inability of politicians to deliver on promises, which gave rise to protests, the fact there was a market for goods like cables and valves, and related to this were business opportunities, such as water carting -- vandalised infrastructure was good for some businesses. It was also found that people vandalised infrastructure to get improved services for sanitation, providing status, privacy and dignity. Some of the forms of theft and vandalism included illegal connections, in response to frustration at the level of services. There was also the theft of parts and infrastructure, which amounted to criminality, and the damaging of infrastructure which amounted to vandalism.

Mr Moraka highlighted that it was important to build a risk profile into the planning cycle. Some initiatives which municipalities could institute to eliminate theft and vandalism included collaborating with law enforcement agencies, installing CCTVs, concrete manholes which could not be stolen, the delegation of powers to municipal law enforcement agencies, robust community engagement, naming and shaming, working with scrap metal buyers, and conducting research and measurement of theft and vandalism. 

Acoustic Deterrent

Mr Steve Bunker, Director: Acoustic Deterrent Systems (ADS), said ADS was a SA distributor of non-lethal defence technologies, including long range-acoustic devices, high-power green laser systems and peak beam illumination systems. Customers of ADS in SA included SAPS (crowd control), Eskom (Koeberg Nuclear Power Station), the SA Navy (maritime anti-piracy) and Nautical SA, which was a Cape Town-based ship builder. Internationally, ADS had customers in Angola (Cabinda Gulf Oil Company), and an Italian navy ship.

Turning to the challenge of the economic impact of vandalism and theft, the estimated cost to the SA economy of copper cable theft alone was R5 billion per annum arising from direct losses (cables and equipment), cost of repair/replacement and massive indirect/consequential losses. The primary targets were electricity generation and supply, water assets and infrastructure, terrestrial and cellular telecommunications and rail transportation systems. As a result, strategic national resources were under attack.

This was rarely an opportunistic crime, as critical infrastructure was mostly in remote locations and there were no passers-by. It was usually syndicated crime, which was well-planned and highly targeted. The present inability to detect and respond meant the “attackers” had time on their side. Energy and water were critical to sustain the economy and effective methods must be found to combat vandalism and the theft of water and energy assets. If attempts failed, all would be lost - there would no electricity or water, and there would be more poverty, ill health and disease, more crime and more death and no economy.

The question was how the government could win back control. One possible approach was to establish 24/7 on-site armed security, but the disadvantages outweighed the advantages owing to the cost of supplying essential on-site domestic facilities in remote locations, and the “human factor” of error, fear and collusion. Because this was poverty-driven syndicated crime, it was questionable if an armed presence would deter attacks, or whether guards were willing to kill or be killed. Theft would continue and violence would escalate.

ADS was an effective technology-based approach which provided for threat detection at a distance, an automated immediate response, non-lethal deterrence if necessary, real-time event notification, remote verification of threats, and on-site and remote activation/deactivation.  Additional considerations included central monitoring, command and control and site-specific physical barriers, such as high security fencing. ADS complied with operational and legal constraints, integrating with existing security infrastructure where it was already installed and working. The system recognised and respected nearby facilities such as residences, commercial premises, farms, small holdings, roads and road-users. The idea was to issue clear warnings to determine intent before defensive measures were enforced. The acoustic shield detected and communicated at a distance, preventing site intrusion, using sound as a deterrent. It was useful to consider the shield as a living/breathing entity with a right to defend itself with an automated response by default. Deactivation required threat removal or authorised manual intervention. 

Mr Bunker explained the goal was to prevent the intrusion, not to blast the intruders with ear-piercing sound. A series of velar warnings would be given (in multiple languages). The warnings escalated in severity and volume the closer the intruders got to the site perimeter. There would also be “babble,” to disrupt lines of communication. Maximum non-lethal deterrence was the last resort. Intruders would know they had been detected and the element of surprise would be lost. The intruders would not be able to communicate with each other and must retreat to avoid physical discomfort and pain.

Some other considerations were that this was a case of “one size fits all,” and ADS would depend on the nature and size of the asset to be protected. Each site possessed its own unique requirements in terms of terrain and other physical constraints. Consideration was also given to the proximity to other third party sites, national roads, farms and dwellings, livestock and wildlife. There would be signage on site and at the entry to access roads to state: “site protected by Acoustic Shield,” with an emergency contact number. 

For best collaboration, ADS could engage with the government in various ways in designing, supplying, installing, commissioning, testing and maintaining systems at a number of sites. Independent command and control systems could be added to monitor threats and events with call-out instructions. Second tier responses could also be added with people on site. This was a major undertaking, to which ADS and its partners were fully committed. 

Discussion

The Chairperson thought discussion on the second presentation was a bit tricky, given the risk of engaging in detailed security matters. He pointed out that one submission had displayed the problem (SALGA), while ADS had presented a solution.

Ms J Maluleke (ANC) said that people had trackers in their cars, but hijackers knew where the tracker was located because of inside jobs – could the same situation happen with ADS? A system like this could work for three or four years before criminals hacked into the system. She asked how SALGA identified the vulnerabilities highlighted in the presentation.

Mr Moraka said the vulnerabilities were a self-assessment tool, to be used by municipalities to look at the significance of particular risks. There was collaboration on the part of the Department and SALGA, and there was an action plan to address the vulnerabilities. Going forward, it was envisioned that theft and vandalism be included in these vulnerabilities, through infrastructure asset management. A more thorough explanation of the plan to deal with these vulnerabilities could be provided at a future engagement with the Committee. 

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) asked what action was being taken by municipalities to discourage communities from engaging in illegal connections.

Mr Ramaremela said it needed to be acknowledged that SA was a water scarce country and illegal water connections resulted in water not reaching entire communities. SALGA encouraged people to approach the municipalities, and they needed to accept metering. There were community awareness campaigns to encourage communities to expose illegal connectors. The matter had been raised with the Department. In some cases, farmers were also illegally directing water without the necessary licences. One of the solutions was to start metering the people who had illegal connections.

Mr Mpontshane said he found this an interesting phenomenon. He in fact came from such a community. The community knew about the problem, and he thought SALGA could take the problem up further. He himself could be an illegal connection culprit.      

Mr Ramaremela replied that SALGA would have to investigate the matter further. If the illegal connections were such that they affected supply to the entire community, the municipality would have no choice but to disconnect the illegal connection so that other community members received a connection. If the illegal connection did not affect the community, the municipality might decide to meter the property so that the individual paid for water, as opposed to those individuals who had to fetch water.

Mr Moraka said the action taken was from an infrastructural point of view, where municipalities were purchasing plastic taps instead of the wanted copper taps, which were stolen for money.

Ms Z Balindlela (DA) applauded SALGA for the development of a plan and asked if the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had been informed about it. She had never seen an open discussion of security issues, as provided in the presentation by ADS, and she had learnt a lot. She asked if the company had gone through SA vetting laws.

Mr Moraka said the plan was based on the national water resource strategy, with an action plan advanced with municipalities. There were also provincial road shows organised by the Department and SALGA to highlight the action plan developed. The plan would be implemented in the next municipal budget cycle.

The Chairperson assumed the company would have been vetted, given the amount of security establishments it was already working in. He thought the discussion should be kept at more of a policy level – anything else belonged to a closed session. He asked if theft was a punishable crime, seeing as SAPS was present. It sounded like a rhetorical question, but the Second Hand Goods Act spoke of a maximum penalty of 12 months for any transgressor. Had there been experience of any convictions? The line between security and policy was very thin in engaging with the ADS presentation. It should be remembered that the objective was to catch the culprits and ensure there was no theft and vandalism. Discussing the details of this would be virtually counterproductive. The culprits could have their own listening devices in the meeting to counter strategies. The bottom line was, issues of security were not discussed in public.

Mr Bunker said the loud noise of ADS would need to comply with regulations relating to loud noise. The system was not intended to create permanent damage – it was a deterrent, using loud noise to the extent that people would not want to be around the noise. The submission was intended to open the Committee’s eyes to other possibilities. He was no expert on water matters, but he imagined the infrastructure would be in rural areas where security could be an issue, and ADS was a system which worked and all components were proven technologically. He knew that there would be regulatory matters to attend to.

The Chairperson asked SAPS present if infrastructure theft was a punishable crime – were there any convictions and what was the percentage/rate of convictions?

Major-General Charles Johnson, SAPS, said theft was a punishable offence in SA – it was defined as taking another person’s property without that person’s consent for one’s own self or own use and this was punishable. While there were successes, they were very few in relation to cable and copper theft. The challenges included proving ownership of the copper recovered, because much of the copper cable was not identifiable, or had been restructured in such a way that it was unidentifiable. The Second Hand Goods Act had been amended and there had been a provision which made it illegal to be in the possession of copper or non-ferrous metal which had been restructured or changed, and to buy such items was also an offence. The challenge was that it was very difficult to prove a person in possession of restructured cable was the person who had changed the cable in the first place. He was convinced that with a few changes to the current Act and by proper policing of the Act, the proliferation of non-ferrous metal theft might be stemmed. The maximum sentence in the current Act was 15 years’ imprisonment – there was a current case in the Roodepoort courts, where a dealer had been arrested for buying large amounts of copper. This was regarded as a test case for specifically targeting dealers in terms of the amended Act. There was a process in place for the SAPS legal team and the Secretariat to look at further suggested amendments to the Act.

Mr L Basson (DA) asked SAPS if copper was declared a precious metal, would this resolve the problem, as it would mean one would need a permit to own copper?

The Chairperson added such an issue would not only reside with SAPS, but also with the Departments of Mineral Resources and Justice. There had to be a lead department in such an equation. What happened when the copper was received by a scrap metal company?  

Major-General Johnson replied that in order for copper to be declared a precious metal, there would need to be collaboration between various departments, but it might be a solution. The idea of compelling payment to the seller through the electronic banking system would be of great assistance – currently all that was required of the seller was an ID document and address (although no proof thereof). When SAPS arrived at that address, it sometimes did not exist. If the payment went through the banking system, this would deter the ordinary thief from burning the cable for the copper. The criminal would either not have a banking account or SAPS could trace the criminal, and this in itself would be a deterrent. It was important to enforce payment through the banking system. The scrap dealer would compress the metal into blocks, which was then legally sold through the system for export. The copper was exported mainly to China and India.

The Chairperson said open answers could not be given to some of the questions because of the nature of the issue, as mentioned earlier.

Mr Basson asked about the extent of scrap metal and copper leaving SA’s borders illegally. This, like rhino horn, was becoming a problem and showed there must be a demand.

Major-General Johnson said that to his knowledge, there was no information on copper or non-ferrous metals leaving the borders illegally, but it might be a possibility. He informed Members of the Inter-Ministerial task team led by Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Andries Nel, to specifically look at measures to deal with this phenomenon and the implementation of strategies to curb it.

The Chairperson said this was one way of dealing with the matter. A lot had gone into this task team, and a few recommendations had since been tabled at Cabinet level.

Sasol Presentation

Ms Masego Seane, Policy Advisor: Sasol, presented an overview of the company as it is seen today. She revealed that Sasol is operating in 37 countries across the world, comprising a combination of exploration, development, production, marketing and sales operations. This integrated energy and chemical company had 64 years’ experience in coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids technology. It is the largest producer of synthetic fuels in the world. Sasol is mentioned as having a strong intellectual property portfolio consisting of 490 registered patent families. Its capital spend in South is around R19.8 billion. Over the last five years, R95 billion has been spent in South Africa. 33 000 people are in the employ of the company. R800m is planned to be invested in community infrastructure. The company is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and New York Stork Exchange.

Due to its technology that allows it to reach new frontiers, Sasol has over the last 64 years delivered real value through beneficiation. For instance, in 1950 Sasol was formed to commercialise coal-to-liquids technology in South Africa. Then 1980 saw the completion of the Sasol Two and Three Synfuels and Chemicals complex in Secunda. The first international gas-to-liquid plant, Oryx, started production in Qatar in 2007. Five years later, the Sasolburg Gas Engine Power Plant online was started. Then in 2014, it opened the Mozambique Central Termica de Ressano Garcia (CTRG) gas engine power plant.

Mr Johan Thyse, Vice President on Group Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs: Sasol, informed the Committee about the approach of the company to water management. He indicated that a very high assurance of water supply is required and that water footprints vary in size and significance, and water impacts on the ecosystem have to be responsibly managed.

The Water Stewardship Programme had been introduced to focus attention on water challenges. Key areas were around transparency, direct operations, watershed/supply chain, community engagement, collective action, and public policy. Sasol continued to invest in water technology solutions in order to secure water access and manage facility water risks. Mine water desalination had started in Secunda. The water supply pipeline runs from the Vaal River to Secunda. The other focus was on water recovery growth and the anaerobic membrane reactor pilot.

The water requirements of Sasol in South Africa were to a large extent met by the integrated Vaal River system. In order to respond to long term water security risks, Sasol had pioneered a beyond fence-line water conservation partnership. Sasol was dependent on a reliable supply from the Vaal River system and its operations accounted for 4% of the Vaal River system demand.

Sasol had a wide portfolio of water-related projects and initiatives which included:

• in-house water research and technology development;
• an MOU with the Water Research Commission;
• Strategic Water Partners Network (membership and active participation);
• undertaking annual reporting and disclosure;
• corporate social investment programmes (for example, the school water programme);
• partnership with the South African Irrigation Institute on farmer training to improve irrigation effectiveness; and
• Boloka Metsi, the water conservation partnership between Sasol, the Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) and Emfuleni Municipality.

The water conservation partnership between Sasol, GiZ and Emfuleni Municipality had saved water valued at R37 million -- equivalent to 8% of the projected demand for the targeted project area. 106 000 houses and 94 schools had been visited. The project had replaced 9 500 taps and 242 000 washers, and created about 100 local employment opportunities. An extensive water conservation educational and awareness campaign had been held in the community. The project had been funded through the R10 million seed funding provided by GiZ and Sasol, and a further R16 million was provided by the Emfuleni Municipality to augment the seed funding.

(Tables and graphs were shown to illustrate the water footprint of Sasol; the working of the Vaal River System; Sasol exposure to risk of water deficit; and actual vs projected demand around the Sebokeng and Evaton area)

Mr Thyse concluded that beyond fence-line water conservation partnerships could save water in meaningful amounts. The initiative to combat vandalism and theft of infrastructure could use the successes of water conservation partnerships as a platform to build collaborative partnerships with communities, give momentum to awareness campaigns to highlight the need to protect water, and incentivise the participation of private enterprise by providing formal recognition of efforts which could help upscale and replicate similar partnerships.

COSATU Presentation

Mr Matthew Parks, Parliamentary Officer: COSATU, said the initiative taken by the Committee was a necessary intervention to capacitate government to ensure a guarantee of the right to water, and was a first step towards addressing challenges around access to water.

In his presentation, he touched on the underlying causes of vandalism and theft of water infrastructure. He attributed this to apartheid and colonial neglect. After 1994, there had been insufficient investment in infrastructure, and the privatisation of water services had worsened the situation. The 35% unemployment rate and economic growth were also playing a role. This had resulted in a growing sense of alienation between communities and government and different age groups. Such alienation had contributed to the lack of public ownership of infrastructure and government plans.

As a solution to these challenges, he advocated the design of an integrated water plan that would look at upgrading and maintaining infrastructure and instill in communities a culture of ownership of government infrastructure. The plan should also call for an end to water privatisation and propose an increase in the allocation of subsidised water to the poor and an increase in water tariffs for affluent and high users.

The plan should address gaps between government, public representatives and communities and should focus on resolving service delivery backlogs. It should also provide adequate security provisions and capacitate the South African Police Service in its role of fighting crime around the destruction of water infrastructure because, at present, it does not seem to have the capacity to deal with the problem. The reason could be that it has set its eyes on serious crime and sees this as petty crime.

He suggested there should be the creation of decent permanent work, not temporary cheap labour, with systems in place to deal with corruption, wasteful and under-expenditure. Massive water tariff hikes should be avoided, and a new culture of respect for the law and public ownership should be inculcated. A discussion and national plan were badly needed and welcome so as to address these challenges.

Discussion

The Chairperson wanted clarity on the model Sasol wanted to pursue in saving water losses, and if it would involve public-private participation. He further asked if metering in communities by Sasol would be part of its corporate social investment programme.

Mr Thyse said there was something in the model for everybody. It had to be executed with municipalities. This meant the affected municipalities had to ring-fence some of the money for these initiatives. This was what had been done with the Emfuleni Municipality.

Concerning metering, he elaborated that MOUs had been drafted for quality maintenance of infrastructure so as to ensure quality living for the people. It was a four-year programme that was done jointly with provincial departments to address the needs of communities. Sasol always provided money for infrastructure upgrades, which were mostly related to water.

Mr L Basson (DA) enquired if Sasol bought water and purified it itself.

Mr Thyse replied in the affirmative and made it clear that Sasol used raw water, which was restricted on site before it was used. A lot of water was used to make and recycle water, especially for coal making. All recycled water was used.

Mr Parks, providing a blanket response to some of the raised issues, stated that COSATU supported engagement in the National Water Plan. However, it was opposed to the privatisation of water because the issue of water was a constitutional right, so you could not make a profit out of it. COSATU was opposed to water metering as it made life difficult for families in townships. That was why it supported the idea of water subsidisation for the townships and poor communities.

Mr Basson commented that though cable theft was a major issue, it was important that stakeholders prioritised the problem of water losses. Stakeholders should start looking at water privatisation and let Water Boards take the portfolio of water administration from the municipalities, to make sure the issue of water losses was addressed.

The Chairperson remarked that from what he had heard from the presentations, it was difficult for companies to talk about water security in public. It was understandable, because it was an internal strategy that could not be shared with the public.

Mr Anil Singh, Deputy Director-General (Regulation and Compliance): Department of Water and Sanitation, commended the Committee for holding such an engagement with stakeholders on water issues like theft and vandalism. From these inputs, it had become clear to the Department that cable and copper theft was something that needed serious attention. On the issue of tariffs, the Department would have to discuss this with the SA Local Government Association (SALGA) and municipalities, and come up with an integrated water plan. Lastly, he applauded Sasol for its efforts on fixing water losses, and suggested that this was an issue that SALGA and municipalities should take up because it involved a loss of clean water, not dirty water.

Mr Sizwe Ramaremela, Councillor: SALGA, told the Committee that municipalities did not have sufficient funds to address the challenges around the vandalism and theft of water infrastructure and ageing water infrastructure. That was why he was appealing to the Committee to help advocate the release of sufficient funds.

The meeting was adjourned.