IMPROVING WATER AND SANITATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES

By

While the provision of domestic water and sanitation services is the constitutional responsibility of municipalities, the state of these municipalities cannot be separated from our collective experience of deteriorating municipal water and sanitation services. We must then ask ourselves why we are experiencing this and how we can get out of our current predicament.

This is important, as the 2018 National Water and Sanitation Master Plan (NWSMP) suggests that we are headed towards a water shortage by 2030, should we not implement the NWSMP (and we have not really implemented it).

The 2019 to 2024 Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) provides us with the targets that we are supposed to be one year away from meeting – but, in reality, we are not as close as we need to be. These MTSF targets can be summarised as:

• all water services authorities (WSAs) having acceptable Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment scores (acceptable risk ratings)

• 90% access to sanitation and hygiene

• 95% reliability of water services

• 100% of wastewater treatment works being functional.

Water Services Collaborative Programme

While it is easiest to point fingers and lament our current challenges, SALGA has developed a Water Services Collaborative Programme to assist municipalities to play their part in moving us towards sustainable and reliable municipal water and sanitation services for all.

The programme is developed in the context of the SALGA mandate, which is to: transform local government to enable it to fulfil its developmental mandate through:

• lobbying, advocacy and protecting the interests of local government at relevant structures and platforms

• being an employer body representing all municipal members and, by agreement, associate members

• building the capacity of the municipality as an institution as well as leadership and technical capacity of both councillors and officials

• support and advise municipalities on a range of issues to assist the effective execution of their mandate

Overview of the six functional areas of the SALGA water services collaborative programme FUNCTIONALITY AREA ASSESSMENT NODE

Infrastructure planning

Infrastructure delivery

Infrastructure operations and maintenance

Financial health

Technical capacity

Transversal functionality

• Water and sanitation service planning

• Water resource management

• Water conservation and demand management

• Water access levels

• Sanitation access levels

• MIG expenditure

• Drinking water safety

• Wastewater/environmental compliance

• Infrastructure asset management

• Operations and maintenance of assets

• Financial asset management

• Revenue collection

• Financial management

• Management skill level

• Staff skill level

• Technical staff capacity

• Information management

• Organisational performance

• Monitoring water service quality

• Customer care

• build the profile and image of local government within South Africa, as well as outside the country

• serve as the custodian of local government intelligence and the knowledge hub for the sector.

Doing things differently: systems thinking approach

Considering where we are and how poorly we have performed in water and sanitation, it is reasonable to be sceptical of our odds of improving the status quo. The question to ask then becomes: what will we be doing differently this time around?

The answer is that we want to take a systems thinking approach that reflects an understanding of the environment in which we operate.

1.Understanding a municipality as: council + administration + community

For far too long, we have treated municipalities as one or the other of the three and have thus failed to design appropriate support and intervention mechanisms to improve local government holistically. The current SALGA programme emphasises the importance of councillors. Therefore, we (DWS, CoGTA, MISA and SALGA) have developed the 2021-2026 Five Year Councillor Development Strategy. This approach recognises that our previous approach of giving councillors a one-day induction (shot in the arm) and hoping for the best in the remainder of their term is neither developmental nor progressive. If we accept that professionals and officials need Continued Professional Development (CDP) to ensure they are always able to do their work, why would we not assume the same of councillors? To some degree, one could even argue that officials (across the three spheres of government) have tried to actively sideline councillors on matters that are ‘too technical’ for them, but we are quick to blame the same councillors for a ‘lack of support’ when our endeavours fail.

2. Understanding the three spheres

Section 40 of the Constitution states: ‘Government is constituted as national, provincial and local spheres which are distinctive, interdependent and interrelated.’ It is important to consider these sections in conjunction with sections 154 and 139 of our Constitution (obligations to support and intervene respectively). The ‘juniorisation’ and vilification of local government has not helped us. It is perhaps easiest to make this point through three pointed, rhetorical questions: a. When municipality X has been performing poorly for the last 15 years, why is it that we keep blaming only the municipality (council and officials) and not those who are constitutionally charged with supporting and intervening? Surely, they have failed more than the municipality itself? b. When the annual Auditor General findings are reported, we are correctly outraged at the performance of some municipalities because we (correctly) understand the correlation between governance, financial management and the audit outcomes. Where is the same outrage when the audit outcomes of provincial and national government are published? Many provincial and national departments have repeatedly performed poorly, with no accountability from any part of the ‘system’. Why is this? c. We are all equally thrilled with the return of the Blue and Green Drops (eagerly awaiting the return of the No Drop) and we are collectively disappointed with the performance of some (if not many) WSAs. But where was that same level of moral outrage (towards those responsible for driving the programmes) when these programmes were on ‘unapproved leave’ between 2015 and 2021?

The one-directional nature of accountability, where criticism is exclusively reserved for municipalities, may be appealing, but it shows a deep misunderstanding of our constitutional design. The current collaborative programme focuses on accountability based on our mutual and differentiated responsibilities. We have no hope of building real accountability, when it only applies to some and not others. On this note, we may also want to reflect on the extent to which we respect the role and agency of communities; do we see communities as just helpless victims in a system where only the administration and executive authorities have power? Again, we must ask ourselves do we really understand our constitutional design?

3. Systematic and holistic

Finally, the programme is systematic and holistic in its understanding of what constitutes effective water and sanitation services management, applying the DWS-developed framework shown in the accompanying table. For too long we have tried a siloed and reductionist approach, and it is perhaps time that we embrace the complexity in providing the simple necessity of municipal water and sanitation services in a democratic dispensation.

Operating Range Flow - 10m³/hr up to 2500m³/hr Head - 4m up to 120m

Applications - General liquid pumping - Power plants - Bulk Water - Steel mills - Refineries - Chemical plants - Cooling and heating systems