1. The Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry held a hearing on the implementation of the free basic water policy on 4 June 2003. During the Committee’s hearings on Budget Vote 34, various challenges in relation to the free basic water policy were highlighted. The Committee therefore decided to have a special hearing on the implementation of the free basic water policy.

1. The following organisations made oral submissions before the Committee: South African Civil Society Water Caucus (SACSWC), South African Local Government Association (SALGA), South African Association of Water Utilities (SAAWU), Water Research Commission (WRC), National Treasury, Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF).
2. The hearing format consisted of presentations by the above-mentioned parties, and a discussion of issues raised during the presentations.

1. The South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) establishes the principle of human dignity for all the citizens of the country. To give effect to this principle, the Constitution provides for various socio-economic rights, including the right to access to sufficient food and water. In addition, the Constitution requires from the State to take reasonable legislative and other steps to give effect to these rights.
2. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry announced in February 2001 that Cabinet has approved a policy to provide a basic supply of water free of charge to poor households.
3. In order to facilitate the implementation of the free basic water policy, the basic level of water supply has been determined as 6 000 litres per household per month. This level is based on the World Health Organization standard of 25 litres per person per day, which amounts to about 6 000 litres per month for a household of 8 people. However, the 6 000 litres only serves as a guide and local authorities still have some discretion over the amount to be allocated as the basic level of water supply.
4. In establishing the policy, government acknowledged that the provision of a free basic water supply could not occur if a household does not have access to a basic supply of water. The continued extension of adequate water supply infrastructure to unserviced households is therefore considered an integral aspect of the free basic water policy. In this regard, government has committed itself to an infrastructure development programme to also provide unserviced households with a water supply by 2008/09.

1. The SACSWC fully supports the free basic water policy, but believes the policy in its present format does not provide for people’s basic water needs to ensure their health and wellbeing.
2. According to the Caucus, the present policy has two fundamental flaws:

• The allocation of 6 000 litres of water per household per month does not satisfy basic water requirements.
• The policy is based on an allocation of free basic water per household, instead of an allocation per capita.

1. The free basic water policy is based on an incorrect assumption that low-income households use less water due to their low-income status. The policy’s allocation of 6 000 litres therefore fails to account for the basic water requirements of households. The consumptions patterns of households are influenced by a number of significant factors:

• Household size.
• Number of dependants.
• Illness status of household members, as health care demands (e.g. of HIV/AIDS patients) increase water use.
• The use of flush toilets, which need about 9 litres per flush.
• Different consumption patterns between weekdays and weekends, with an increased water use over weekends.
• Rural/urban location of households.
• Water needs for productive use, e.g. to ensure food security.

1. As the free basic water policy does not satisfy basic water requirements, low-income households face significant access and affordability constraints. Their use of non-subsidised water above the 6 000 litres allocation is costly, and they may face punitive measures for their inability to pay for the water consumed. In some instances, municipalities do not provide the free basic water allocation if households are in arrears with service payments.
2. The allocation of free basic water per household ignores the proportionally large number of low-income households with more than 8 members, especially if households are billed for their backyard shack rental residents. The use of the household as a unit for the allocation of the 6 000 litres also means that wealthier, small member households benefit inequitably from the policy.
3. The per capita allocation of free basic water can be done through adding an additional record to a household’s water bill, so that the number of people per household is recorded.

Recommendations

4. The free basic water policy should be fundamentally reworked. This should be done through the following actions:

• A national evaluation of the free basic water policy should be implemented. The evaluation process should allow for a scrutiny of municipal statistics on the implementation of the policy, and community experiences of the policy must be elicited.
• The basic water requirements for health, well-being and satisfying productive, sustainable livelihoods should be scientifically calculated and socially assessed.
• The amended policy should incorporate all factors affecting consumption.
• The allocation of free basic water per capita instead of per household should be considered.
• Access to water should take into account the following factors:

• Household demographics and household water usages.
• Income and service expenditure statuses.
• Willingness and ability to pay.
• Tariff structures.

1. Tariff structures should consist of the following blocks:

• First block – an amended free basic water allocation based on basic water requirements.
• Second block – a lifeline (i.e. an affordable) tariff for 20-25 kilolitres.
• Steep rising block tariffs based on a conservation incentive in order to reduce over consumption.

1. The following financing options for the amended free basic water policy should be considered:

• Increased internal cross-subsidies within municipalities that have sufficient surpluses. In this regard, the tariff blocks for water consumption by businesses should be reviewed.
• Internal cross-subsidies within the water sector should be mobilised. Significant potential funding is available from water consumption charges on commercial farming activities, electricity generation (Eskom), mining and industrial activities, and other non-municipal water users. This funding should be made available to municipalities that do not have large water consumers within their boundaries.
• Equitable share grants to municipalities should be substantially increased. A portion of the equitable share should be used to boost the operating/maintenance revenues for the municipal water sector in areas where internal cross-subsidisation is not high enough. Other national funds should be used for capital investments in water/sanitation, as well as other services that municipalities struggle to maintain, e.g. township infrastructure.

1. While the majority of municipalities are providing free basic water, about 50 local authorities in predominantly rural areas have been unable to implement the policy to communities in their areas that already have access to a piped water supply.
2. The finalisation of the allocation of powers and functions to municipalities favours the implementation of the free basic water policy. The extension of free basic water to those communities that do not yet benefit from this policy are affected by the following two external factors:

• The lack of capital funding to extend the water infrastructure to unserviced communities. However, the increase in the equitable share as from 1 July 2003 may assist in providing necessary funding for such projects.
• The finalisation of the transfer of DWAF water schemes to municipalities.

1. In addition to the above-mentioned external factors, the approximately 50 municipalities who must still realise the implementation of the policy are faced by the following challenges:

• A lack of institutional capacity.
• An inadequate base from which to subsidise the provision of water to the poor.

1. Through the sound working relationship between SALGA, DWAF, DPLG and National Treasury a policy for the transfer of water schemes to municipalities was developed. The policy provides for the necessary financial support to municipalities. The transfer of the DWAF schemes should gain momentum from 1 July 2003, with the funding provided through the Division of Revenue Act, No. 7 of 2003 (DORA) mechanism.
2. Support for municipalities in implementing the free basic water policy is available through the Masibambane programme and the Provincial Support Units, which were established as part of the work of the National Free Basic Water Task Team. The Provincial Support Units are now established in all provinces, although the Limpopo unit was problematic to operationalise due to difficulties with a service provider. Due to the functionality of the Provincial Support Units, a number of municipalities have indicated their intention to introduce the free basic water policy from 1 July 2003.

6. The activities of the National Free Basic Water Task Team have highlighted the following issues that require urgent attention:

• The accuracy of the statistics that are used to measure progress with implementation is questionable, as the basis for defining poor households varies from institution to institution. It should be clarified whether the definition of a poor household is based on household income or expenditure. Because of this lack of clarity, the number of families that benefit from the free basic water policy in some areas exceeds the official number of poor families. It was also found that the DWAF rural schemes that still have to be transferred to municipalities are excluded from the current statistics, leading to under reporting of the position in those areas. The Task Team has agreed to use the statistics from DPLG until the release of the latest census data.
• It is necessary to develop a free basic sanitation policy in consultation with stakeholders. SALGA is a member of a team established by DWAF to draft a policy document. The policy needs to focus on the sanitation requirements of dense and less dense settlements instead of urban and rural communities, which are difficult to define. The policy process also needs to focus on the funding requirements for the implementation of a free basic sanitation policy, which would place a considerable burden on municipalities.

1. SAAWU represents public sector water service providers in South Africa. It is an association not for gain and represents 18 water boards and 5 other public sector institutions involved in water services provision.
2. SAAWU fully supports the principle of free basic water as an initiative to improve the quality of life of South Africans, specifically the indigent and rural poor. SAAWU also supports the principal of municipal authorities being the most appropriate institutions to implement the free basic water policy, supported wherever possible by other spheres of government.
3. Water utilities can contribute in various ways towards the implementation of the free basic water policy:

• They have expertise that can be mobilised to support municipal authorities in the implementation of free basic water, e.g. in the areas of water loss management, technical and financial management, water demand management, customer management and credit control, and operation and maintenance of services.
• Water utilities can be used as a regional/sub-regional vehicle for cross subsidisation in some areas because they operate over provincial and municipal political boundaries.
• In cases where they act as water service providers to municipal authorities, water utilities can implement and manage the free basic water for the municipal authority.
• Water utilities can provide financial, technical and management expertise for low (basic) level water schemes in rural areas, i.e. boreholes, hand pumps, flow limiting technology, etc.
• They can act as implementing agents for new infrastructure provision.

1. SAAWU accepts that the "authority function" for water services delivery would be carried out by the appropriately delegated municipal entity that is proclaimed as the Water Service Authority (WSA) for an area. It therefore means that water boards and other water utilities that are members of SAAWU are water service providers to WSAs.
2. In practice, water utilities are supplying water services directly to consumers because municipalities lack the capacity and resources to undertake this function. In most cases, these services are not paid for and water utilities rely on subsidies from DWAF to cover the costs of delivering the free basic water and basic water services.
3. Municipalities currently owe water utilities more than R200 million for water services rendered that have not been paid for. In many cases, these municipalities with a large rural base are unable to get full cost recovery for services provided to consumers.
4. According to Section 8 of the DORA a national or provincial organ of state may only provide funds for a municipal service directly to the relevant municipality. It would therefore mean that the subsidies currently paid by DWAF to water utilities for water services provided to communities will, in future, be paid to the local municipal authority. The re-direction of such subsidies to the relevant municipal authority could have a significant impact on the provision of water services in that:

• The continued viability of service delivery where this is provided by water utilities will be subject to the receipt of the requisite subsidy from the relevant municipality.
• Current experiences with the allocation of a portion of the equitable share to fund water services do not support optimism in this regard and the financial viability of some water utilities will be severely impacted.

1. The capacity and willingness of municipalities to enter into formal agreements with water utilities for the provision of water services is a significant constraint to effective implementation of DORA. SAAWU and SALGA are currently developing a model Water Service Provision contract and guidelines for contracts between water utilities and municipalities, which may assist to resolve some of the immediate contractual problems.
2. In reality water is not free and someone has to pay for the 6 000 litres of free basic water supplied to consumers. In municipal areas where there is no healthy mix of high volume urban users to low level rural users, cross subsidisation of free basic water via the consumer tariff is not viable. Most parts of rural South Africa fall into this category. In these areas, the only source of revenue to cover the costs of free basic water is the equitable share.
3. In areas where it is viable to implement cross subsidisation, it is important that the consumer tariff remains reasonable. If not, its negative impacts will cause industrial, commercial and domestic users to consider other alternatives.
4. SAAWU believes the following challenges exist with the use of the equitable share allocation to municipal authorities to fund free basic water:

• The equitable share is an unconditional allocation to municipal authorities, and the use of funds is therefore largely discretionary.
• The discretionary use of the equitable share does not guarantee that sufficient funding is made available by municipalities to cover free basic water implementation costs to the rural/urban poor.
• Administrative capacity is not always sufficient at municipal level.
• Equitable share allocations are insufficient to meet all service needs.
• Municipalities do not always use a portion of the equitable share to pay water service providers for services rendered.

1. SAAWU has identified the following current challenges to the implementation of the free basic water policy:

• Municipal demarcation has not significantly improved the economic viability of all municipal areas (especially rural district municipalities). Many municipalities have also applied for a review of their boundaries.
• The equitable share and other resources are used to supply free basic water to those who are already benefitting from the receipt of services at the expense of the unserved.
• The process of allocation of funding to capital projects is unwieldy.
• Many municipalities lack the capacity/resources to implement free basic water effectively.
• Unauthorised/illegal connections continue to destroy the viability of schemes and undermine free basic water provision in many areas. It is critical that all consumers pay for all services received that exceed the free basic water limit of 6 000 litres per household per month.
• Full cost recovery for water services in most rural and some urban environments is not taking place. The challenge now is to ensure that sufficient revenue is available through cross subsidies via the tariff or the allocation of the equitable share to enable municipal authorities/water service providers to recover the full costs of water service provision.

1. There is an urgent need to put in place a practical and rational phasing process or mechanism that will enable a viable and sustainable transition to the situation where national and provincial subsidies for water service are directed through municipalities.
2. Universal metering and full cost recovery above 6 000 litres is critical for municipal financial viability, ongoing free basic water implementation and the viability of the entire water sector. This requires significant additional capital investment.

1. The WRC submission dealt with the findings from recent research on cost recovery approaches for water services, and the effects of the new municipal demarcation and the introduction of the free basic water policy on these approaches.
2. Success with cost recovery at municipal level varies widely, with the percentage of household consumers paying regularly ranging from near 100 to near zero. The combination of basic service levels and poor consumers is usually a recipe for failed cost recovery.
3. Interventions available to decision-makers have large effects on payment rates, with the difference between pursuing "best" and "worst" practices generally between 30 and 40 percent. The most important intervention for improving of cost recovery is using service restriction to penalise non-payment, preferably within 90 days. Other practices – such as Masakhane campaigns, progressive tariffs, and offering convenient payment facilities – improve cost recovery, but their effects are more modest.
4. Changes in the institutional and policy environment – including municipal demarcation and free basic water – have forced South African municipalities to revise their approaches to cost recovery substantially:

• Municipal demarcation has reduced the number of primary local and metropolitan authorities from more than 800 to less than 300. It therefore created larger units characterised by much greater internal social and institutional heterogeneity than their predecessors.
• The free basic water policy obliges municipalities to find alternative ways to finance basic water service provision.
• The challenge for municipal officials is not only to integrate and administer the disparate cost recovery arrangements they have inherited, but also to generate revenues to cover the costs of providing basic services free.

1. Prior cost recovery initiatives geared towards the lower end of the market are increasingly overshadowed by the implementation of the free basic water policy. For example, the use of prepayment water meters now focuses on monitoring consumption under the free basic water policy, rather than securing payment for basic services.
2. Within new municipalities, the cost of free basic water must be offset by payments collected for services consumed above the free basic level. The effective implementation of penalties against non-indigent consumers who fail to pay progressive, volume-related tariffs therefore takes on increasing importance. As punitive sanctions become increasingly necessary, they also become more expensive to implement.

Recommendations

3. The abolition of flat rate billing is advised.
4. There is a limit to how much cost recovery can be improved by increasing the per litre charge to consumers, as increasing the charges results in a greater proportion of water being "lost" in distribution. The focus for effective cost recovery should thus shift to ensuring that all consumers who use more than the free basic provision are billed for what they consume.

1. National Treasury’s priorities for 2003/04 includes a review of the formula used to calculate the equitable share. The amount of the equitable share to be distributed via the formula during 2003/04 amounts to R5,9 billion. For 2003/04 a separate window was created under the equitable share for funding free basic services, i.e. water, sanitation and refuse removal. In addition to the R4,1 billion under the equitable share for the Basic Services (S) grant, an amount of R822 million is granted specifically for free basic services.
2. It is estimated that 76% of municipalities provide the first 6 000 litres of water free, although in some instances provision levels vary widely between 1 200 to 12 000 litres. The free basic services policy is constrained by the fact that it does not extend to sanitation beyond basic levels of on-site sanitation (e.g. VIP toilets), and by the poor information on how free basic services are provided in rural areas.
3. The following aspects in DORA will facilitate the more effective implementation of free basic service provision:

• Section 5(7)(ii) requires from municipalities to submit information on the nature and extent of basic services (including free basic services) to National Treasury, provincial treasury and the provincial local government department not later than 30 June 2003.
• Section 5(7)(iii) requires from municipalities to submit information about actual revenue and spending on water, electricity, refuse removal, municipal infrastructure and free basic services to National Treasury, DPLG and the provincial local government department not later than 10 days after the end of each quarter.
• Section 8 requires that:

• An organ of state in the national and provincial sphere may only provide funds for a municipal service to the relevant municipality directly.
• Public entities and municipalities must enter into service delivery agreements by 30 June 2003.
• Public entities must report on a monthly basis on the amount spent on received funds from municipalities.

1. The policy objectives for the transfer of water schemes to municipalities require that the sustainability and current service levels of schemes should be ensured. For this purpose, a Water Services Operating Subsidy (via augmentation to the Water Trading Account) will be provided for the operation, maintenance and related staff costs of the water services works to be transferred. This subsidy will be available to water service authorities from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006, but the actual period during which the grant is received will depend on the effective date of the transfer.
2. The Water Services Operating Subsidy is treated as a grant in kind whilst DWAF or a water board fulfils the role of water service provider in order to cover the services provision costs until a transfer is effective. Once a transfer is effective, the operating subsidy is converted into a conditional grant (direct transfer) to cover operational and maintenance costs as well as staff costs. The operations component of the grant is a fixed term grant, which for a period of three years covers 100% of the operation and maintenance costs.
3. Budget allocations for 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 have been increased with R60 million, R90 million and R120 million respectively to provide for the refurbishment of water schemes prior to transfers.
4. Cross subsidisation of water schemes may occur if it is impossible to recover costs and maintain the schemes in cases where:

• A water services works is designed for levels of service that are not affordable to the consumers.
• Most or all water provided by the water services works qualifies as free basic water.

1. If the water services authority is unable to cross-subsidise the water services works after phasing out of the conditional grant, arrangements need to be made to provide support through an ongoing conditional grant. The conditions of this grant will include measures to improve cost recovery linked to performance targets.

H. Submission by Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG)

2. Government is committed to ensuring the delivery of at least a basic level of municipal services to all households. In terms of the Constitution, each sphere of government has a duty to ensure that the free basic service policy is implemented and sustained:

• National government – responsible for ensuring fiscal equalisation of resources.
• Provincial government – monitor and provide support to municipalities in implementing free basic services.
• Local government – service delivery and implementation role.

1. Local government is specifically entrusted to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner. The success of the new municipal system will be judged on the ability of municipalities to accelerate service delivery to the poor.
2. The three components necessary to ensure successful implementation of free basic water are infrastructure, capacity and resources (funding). Substantial increases were made to infrastructure grant funding and the equitable share over the last few years to assist municipalities in the provision of basic services.
3. The following transfers to local government assist with the funding of free basic services: infrastructure grants, capacity-building grants and the equitable share. In addition, municipalities can use cross-subsidisation and private sector funding to fund basic services.
4. Sections 214 and 227 of the Constitution stipulate that local government is entitled to an equitable share of nationally raised revenue in order to provide basic services and perform other functions. The equitable share formula is poverty targeted and consists of 6 components. Two components in the equitable share can be used by municipalities to fund free basic water and other basic services, namely the S-Grant and the Free Basic Services Grant.
5. The S-Grant is the largest component of the equitable share allocation to local government. The total S-Grant allocation for the 2003/04 financial year amounts to about R4 billion, of which R974 million is earmarked for basic water.
6. The Free Basic Services Grant is a new component of the equitable share grant, which is introduced from 1 July 2003 to accelerate the provision of free basic services. The total Free Basic Services Grant for the 2003/04 financial year amounts to R822 million, of which R192 million is earmarked for free basic water. These grant allocations will only be made to municipalities authorised to perform these functions, and not to municipal providers. The Free Basic Service Grant allocation is also subject to quarterly reporting in terms of DORA.
7. In terms of Section 5(6) of DORA, National Treasury can – after consultation with relevant national government departments – instruct that an instalment of the equitable share be delayed or withheld on the grounds of a municipality's serious or persistent material breach of uniform treasury norms and standards. These uniform treasury norms and standards include non-reporting on the use of the equitable share on a quarterly basis.
8. As the equitable share allocation is poverty targeted, it is important to use uniform data to determine the number of poor households. This will ensure equity in allocations between municipalities. As Statistics South Africa is the only formal repository for census data, the 1996 census data is presently used. However, 2001 census data to be used for the 2004/05 financial year.
9. Municipalities are responsible for the actual targeting of poor households. In developing a targeting method/indigent policy, municipalities must take account of national norms and standards, consider the availability and affordability of data and communicate with communities.
10. It is important that the implementation of free basic services/free basic water should take place within a spirit of co-operative governance. However, a uniform approach is not possible as local conditions are diverse. For this reason, the level of success in implementing free basic water in the short-term varies.
11. As not all municipalities in all areas were successful in implementing free basic water from 1 July 2001, a more phased approach is required. Substantial funds were made available to assist municipalities with implementation of free basic services/free basic water. Structures to support the implementation of free basic services/free basic water on provincial and national level will be strengthened, and municipalities that are struggling with implementation will be prioritised.

I. Submission by Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF)

12. The National Free Basic Water and Sanitation Task Team was established in December 2000. It is chaired by SALGA, while DWAF is responsible for the co-ordination and secretariat. The Task Team consists of SALGA, DPLG, National Treasury, Department of Minerals and Energy, DWAF, Mvula Trust, SAAWU and the Development Bank of South Africa. The Task Team is committed to ensuring that free basic water and sanitation policies and strategies are developed in a consultative manner.
13. Provincial Support Units were established in July 2001 to:

• Provide proactive technical and financial planning assistance in developing sustainable local free basic water strategies.
• Monitor implementation of free basic water by using technical and financial indicators.
• Act as a communication conduit for new free basic water related policies/strategies.

1. Further policy/strategy developments to give effect to the free basic water policy include:

• The National Free Basic Water and Sanitation Task Team developed and disseminated a rural strategy in 2002.
• Disconnections and cut-offs are considered in the White Paper review.
• The need for a coherent and coordinated policy/strategy on basic services to farm dwellers is presently addressed at national level through interaction with various other departments.
• Guidelines are also being developed on different scenarios to provide free basic water to multiple dwellings/flats.

1. The free basic sanitation policy is to be finalised by December 2003. A consultative process is adopted that will involve national stakeholders in June 2003, while provincial stakeholders will be engaged in August/September 2003. Deliverables of the process will be policy and implementation guidelines and tools. The local government support process for the implementation of the policy will be rolled out in 2004.
2. DWAF’s role with regard to free basic water and sanitation is on the following levels:

• Policy/strategy development.
• Communication (through the Provincial Support Units).
• Support to local government (through coordination and alignment with DPLG).
• Monitor implementation, including the monitoring of usage of the equitable share and ensuring alignment with National Treasury and DPLG’s monitoring mechanisms.

1. The Department’s submission dealt with a number of issues that were raised during earlier sessions of the hearings:

• Free basic water data: 7-8 million people that are served by DWAF water schemes are not captured under the free basic water data. In addition, the Department would appreciate support from SALGA to obtain data from municipalities.
• Indigence policy: although most municipalities use the indigence policy, more work is required around the application of the policy in relation to the supply of free basic water.
• Disconnection policy: the Department is currently considering public comment on this matter.
• Rate of implementation: the Department’s policy provides for the progressive implementation of free basic water by municipalities.
• Cost recovery: The recovery of costs should focus on ensuring payment by those who can afford to pay. Means should be found to ensure that high volume users pay, and the WRC research findings would therefore be useful.

1. There are still a number of challenges with the implementation of the free basic water policy:

• The implementation of the free basic water policy by municipalities who have not yet done so.
• The effective use of the equitable share allocation.
• In its capacity as water services regulator, DWAF should ensure that municipalities comply with legislation and regulations.
• To ensure an appropriate approach with regard to water cut-offs.
• The implementation of guidelines for the provision of free basic water to multiple dwellings/flats.
• Cost recovery and an approach on the use of more than the free basic water allocation by households who are unable to pay for their use.

The discussion on the submissions about the free basic water policy highlighted various issues and concerns.

1. There has been significant progress with the implementation of the free basic water policy, with 76% of municipalities providing free basic water. Its implementation by municipalities who still have difficulty with the introduction of free basic water in their areas should be ensured.
2. The delivery of free basic water to unserved and poor households remains a major challenge.
3. Although the use of more than the free basic water allocation without paying is a matter of concern, people are still legally entitled to receive the free water. Alternatives to blanket cut-offs should therefore be used to ensure that people would at least receive the free water.
4. High levels of unaccounted-for water are a major cause for concern. It is the result of illegal connections, losses caused by the poor condition of infrastructure (due to inadequate maintenance), and due to water not being metered and billed.
5. A more effective use of the equitable share is necessary, as municipalities do not utilise these allocations to prioritise water supply. Relevant roleplayers should promote the more effective use of the equitable share by municipalities to supply free basic water.
6. The need exists for improved communication, as people do not understand the principles of water delivery and the implementation of the free basic water policy. Such communication must take place within the context of cooperative governance.
7. Consideration should be given to the more effective application of the indigence policy in relation to the supply of free basic water.
8. The availability of reliable data to plan for the provision of free basic water is a matter of concern.
9. The reporting requirements of DORA will promote the more effective implementation of free basic services.

Contact Trust minutes of the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry hearing on DORA and free basic water, 4 June 2003. Information obtained from Contact Trust website: http://www.contacttrust.org.za

Department of Provincial and Local Government. Free basic water and division of revenue. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry, 4 June 2003.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Free basic water: DORA 2003 and free basic services. (Document submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry free basic water hearing on 4 June 2003).

National Treasury. Presentation – Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry, 4 June 2003.

Parliamentary Monitoring Group minutes of the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry free basic water hearing, 4 June 2003. Information obtained from Parliamentary Monitoring Group website: http://www.pmg.org.za

South African Association of Water Utilities. Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee of Water Affairs and Forestry on the impacts of the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) and free basic water (FBW) on water utilities, 4 June 2003.

South African Civil Society Water Caucus. Accessing the utility of Free Basic Water? (Document submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry free basic water hearing on 4 June 2003).

South African Local Government Association. SALGA presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry concerning DORA and free basic water, 4 June 2003.

Water Research Commission. Recent research findings on effective cost recovery before and after municipal demarcation and the introduction of the free basic water policy. (Document submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry free basic water hearing on 4 June 2003).