REPORT OF
THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY ON OVERSIGHT TO FREE
STATE PROVINCE 24-26 JUNE 2007 DATED 07 NOVEMBER 2007:
The Portfolio Committee having undertaken an oversight visit to Free State
Province from 24 June 26 June 2007 reports
as follows:
1. Introduction
and Background
The Committee, as mandated by the Constitution and Rules of Parliament,
undertook an oversight visit to the Free State Province from the 24-26 June
2007. The aim of the oversight was to
determine the manner in which the Bucket sanitation eradication is being
realised by the Free State Provincial as per targets set by the President in
his the State of the nation address in 2004. The bucket sanitation should be
eradicated in December 2007, in line with the implementation of the targets as
per the millennium Development Goal of halving poverty by 2015.
2. Delegation
Hon.
Ms C September, (ANC) Chairperson, Hon. Ms M Maine, (ANC), Hon. Mr J Arendse,
(ANC), Hon. Mr. BG Mosala (ANC), Hon. Mr K Moonsamy, (ANC), Hon. Ms TE
Lishivha, (ANC), Hon. Ms M Manana, (ANC), Hon. Ms D van de Walt, (DA), Hon. Mr
H Cupido, (ACDP), Hon. Mr M Sibuyana, (IFP), Hon. Mr P Ditshetelo, (UCDP), Hon.
Ms S Sigcua (UDM)
3. Overview
of
The
The Province has since January 2007 established a Provincial Monitoring and
Co-coordinating team led by the Member of the Executive Council for Local Government
and Housing, MEC Mafereka, for the two sector departments of the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry and Local Government and Housing. The team meets
every Monday to verify, report and take instructions on what are the key issues
needing attention. Six or seven municipalities have been prioritized by the
team.
Irrespective of the allocated funds to all the affected municipalities the
Province still has an alleged total shortfall amounting to R350 million to
properly address the bucket sanitation eradication backlog that need to be
eradicated Provincially. Listed, in figure 21 below, are the
statistics per Municipality.
Figure 1: List of Municipalities in
|
Municipalities |
Backlog
at July 2006 |
Progress
1st quarter (Apr06-Jun06) |
Progress
2nd quarter (July06-Sep06) |
Progress
3rd quarter (Oct06-Dec06) |
Progress
4th quarter (Jan07-Mar07 |
BACKLOG APRIL 07 |
Bucket
sanitation removed May 07 |
BACKLOG
MAY 07 |
% of backlog outstanding from July
2006 |
|
Setsoto |
15000 |
0 |
350 |
150 |
1100 |
12200 |
0 |
12200 |
81% |
|
Nketoane |
9450 |
330 |
300 |
90 |
0 |
8147 |
0 |
8563 |
91% |
|
Dihlabeng |
4483 |
234 |
1170 |
100 |
1220 |
3669 |
0 |
3669 |
82% |
|
Letsemeng |
1869 |
0 |
120 |
180 |
1050 |
1301 |
0 |
1301 |
70% |
|
Mangaung |
9500 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6936 |
0 |
6936 |
73% |
|
Mantsopa |
5618 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
683 |
4935 |
0 |
4935 |
88% |
|
Matjhabeng |
11230 |
1156 |
0 |
100 |
2851 |
8279 |
0 |
8279 |
74% |
|
Mohokare |
1831 |
0 |
294 |
0 |
0 |
2074 |
0 |
2074 |
113% |
|
Naledi |
479 |
0 |
293 |
15 |
755 |
233 |
0 |
233 |
49% |
|
Moqhaka |
3209 |
2580 |
290 |
60 |
0 |
1200 |
0 |
1200 |
37% |
|
Metsimaholo |
156 |
2067 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
156 |
0 |
156 |
100% |
|
Mafube |
1316 |
52 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
818 |
0 |
818 |
62% |
|
Masilonyana |
7290 |
200 |
100 |
60 |
1262 |
6012 |
0 |
6012 |
82% |
|
Nala |
9026 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8138 |
0 |
8138 |
90% |
|
Tswelopele |
3627 |
0 |
80 |
0 |
145 |
3402 |
0 |
3402 |
94% |
|
Tokologo |
3718 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
800 |
2918 |
0 |
2918 |
78% |
|
Kopanong |
3244 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
275 |
1197 |
658 |
539 |
17% |
|
Phumelela |
2721 |
0 |
110 |
338 |
1838 |
435 |
0 |
435 |
16% |
|
Mal a
phofung |
300 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
260 |
0 |
260 |
87% |
|
Ngwathe |
8075 |
2212 |
2601 |
27 |
0 |
7779 |
0 |
7779 |
96% |
|
FS total |
102142 |
8831 |
5768 |
1120 |
11979 |
80589 |
658 |
79847 |
78% |
Municipalities have been categorised in the
Category B Municipalities are classified as having medium to high backlogs
(less than 5000). These Municipalities are: Nala-, Mangaung-, Dihlhabeng-,
Mohokare-, Tswelopele-, Tokologo- and
Category C Municipalities are classified as having relatively small number of
buckets sanitation toilets constituting the backlog in the Municipalities. The
Municipalities that are classified as category C Municipalities are: Moqhaka-,
Letsimeng-, Naledi Mafube-, Phumelela-, and
Figure 2: Type of support offered per category
of municipalities
|
CATEGORY |
List
of Municipalities |
TYPE
OF SUPPORT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The challenges that the
·
Approximately
80 000 bucket sanitation toilets should be eradicated in five to six months to
meet the deadline.
·
High
cost of technology to be implemented and delays experienced due to the
insistence by the affected communities for full waterborne sanitation
technology system implementation.
·
Municipal
Infrastructure Grant funding shortages are experienced in the affected
Municipalities.
·
Delays
experienced by contractors in the registration and procurement processes for
the projects currently underway.
·
Poor
quality of materials used and performance from contracted service providers.
·
Contract
administration is challenging, since supervision cannot be maintained all the
time.
The Strategy embarked on by the Office of the MEC for
Local Government and Housing, MEC Mafereka and Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry in the Province for bucket sanitation eradication is:
·
Facilitate Provincial support for
bucket sanitation eradication.
·
Provide hands-on technical support
to priority Municipalities.
·
Co-operate and co-ordinate with
national partner departments, such as the Department of Housing and Department
of Water Affairs and Forestry.
·
Sector-wide communication on bucket
sanitation eradication.
4. Site visits
4.1
The initial plan for the Municipality was to implement full waterborne sanitation. This
decision was thereafter changed to low-flush sanitation technology. The current
allocation (R60 million) has never been adequate given the backlog of 10 793
buckets sanitation toilets as at April 2007.
The intervention plan currently
implemented utilises alternative sanitation options in areas where
infrastructure for full waterborne sanitation is not available. This
municipality is a priority municipality for meeting December 2007 deadline, and
is thus closely monitored by the Provincial Task Team.
4.1.2 Findings
The design of the structure inspected is not user friendly for disabled,
elderly, women or children.
4.2
All funds available
from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant for 2007/08 have been allocated for
bucket sanitation eradication in the Municipality. Implementation of
alternative sanitation technology is in place. The municipality has agreed to
accept a loan from the Development Bank of
Procurement has been completed and contractors were appointed in Clocolan for
3,052 bucket sanitation
and in Marquard for the 2,328 buckets sanitation that must be eradicated.
Councillors informed the Committee that the community had indicated that full water-borne
sanitation is what should be implemented.
4.2.2 Findings
The Waste Water Treatment Plant in
4.3. Matjhabeng
Municipaliaty
The backlog as at July
2006 totaled 11230 bucket sanitation toilets. Currently, the bucket sanitation
eradication backlog is 8279. There are sixteen active projects, twenty seven
active contracts and seven sewer network contracts to be awarded. The Municipal
Infrastructure Grant allocation to Matjhabeng for 2007/08 is R151,6 million.
R75 million of the allocated budget is for bucket sanitation eradication
programme.
Challenges experienced are the capacity of appointed consultants and
contractors and the availability of construction materials. Several steps were
taken by the municipality to support the contractors and consultants. For
example, the Municipality has introduced a seven day payment cycle, in order to
improve the contractors cash-flow. The municipality has also reduced
performance guarantees required by the contractors and retention monies required
for purchasing toilet structures. The municipality has signed cessions with
suppliers in order to assist emerging contractors obtaining materials.
Innovative reporting has also been introduced, for example proof of payment for
each project submitted is in an electronic format.
4.3.2 Findings
In Kutloanong, a suburb in Matjhabeng, the roll-out of the sewerage system and
the building of the stands is done independently. This means that structures
are built on stands, but are not connected to the sewerage system. This creates
a problem because though the structure is in place, the community is still
using bucket sanitation. It was also found that the houses built on the stands
visited had running water, which raised the question of why was there no co-ordinated
approach with the Department of Housing to ensure that the toilets are built as
part of an integrated housing development.
4.4.
There is a shortfall of R29,5 million to eradicate the total backlog of 6012
bucket sanitation toilets in
4.4.2 Findings
The soil conditions in this municipality is rocky. Rock blasting has been used
to break through the sediment. The method used was communicated as safe for
usage in the communities that the services are being rolled out to. However the
committee expresses concern about the safety of the method used. This is
slowing down the roll out of the bucket sanitation eradication programme.
5. OBSERVATIONS
5.1
Progress made to date:
In order to ensure that the target of the bucket sanitation eradication occurs
by December 2007, that a coherent strategy to ensure proceed in earnest, delays
are tackled immediately and provide Provincial and National Leadership meet the
deadline, a Provincial Monitoring and coordinating team consisting of all three
levels of government was formed. The Province has set itself a target for
completion of October 2007. This will give the province two months in order to
address any challenges experienced and ensure 100% compliance by December 2007.
It appears that the classification of municipalities is incorrect. The
classification of Category A, B and C municipalities is problematic. Some of
the municipalities have been classified incorrectly (as per the provincially
set categorisations). For example Nala and
Problems encountered included that the companies that were awarded tenders to
implement on behalf of Provincial Government sometimes did not have the
expertise or sufficient capital to implement sanitation technology in the short
period of time. This is one of the challenges the task team has addressed with
innovative practices.
The roll-out of the services is complicated since the communities in which
implementation is taking place, have indicated that full water-borne sanitation
technology is preferred to the dry sanitation technology alternatives. The
sewage system to be implemented is challenged by rocky soil conditions in which
sewerage pipes are to be laid which would cause delays in achieving the target
to be achieved.
6. Conclusion
The Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry have noted the manner in
which the Provincial Department of Provincial and Local Government, the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and all the Municipalities in the Free
State have organised themselves to work towards meeting the targets set to
eradicate the bucket sanitation in the formal areas in their respective areas
of jurisdiction. Despite Challenges experienced with sufficient finances,
skilling contractors and the soil conditions in certain areas, they were
resolute that the target in December will be met.
The Portfolio Committee would want that the target set in 2008 on water backlogs
and two years thereafter set for sanitation as a whole, not be ignored whilst
eradicating the bucket sanitation in the formal areas in 2007. The Committee
equally notes the request for more funding in order to address the backlogs and
as such as part of its oversight responsibilities will monitor the budget
allocations towards eradicating the backlogs on services and realise the
Millennium Development goals in this instance.
Recommendations
It is against the above that the Committee recommends the following:
·
The Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry should provide the Portfolio Committee with information on funding
allocation towards the eradication of backlogs on water and sanitation.
·
The Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry should provide the Portfolio Committee with information on the process
that the Department follows to impress on all municipalities to ensure that
they implement policies as per the Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) and the Water
Services Act (No. 108 of 1997). This
specifically relates to types sanitation services provided to communities to
ensure sustainability, improvement of the dignity of women, the disabled and
children.
·
The Portfolio Committee requests the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Minister of Provincial and Local
Government together with their provincial counterparts, to have more improved
structures such as the Provincial Monitoring and Co-ordinating teams to effect
the implementation of the targets set on basic services.
·
The Portfolio Committee requests the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry to send regular statistics on progress
made in achieving the eradication of the bucket sanitation by December 2007.
·
The Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry as the sector leader should guide municipalities on sanitation
technologies available.
·
The Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry should provide clarity to the Committee on the funding challenges that
most municipalities raised that suggest that they do not own sufficient funds
to eradicate the backlogs.
·
Both the Department of Water Affairs
and Forestry and of Provincial and Local Government through their respective
Ministers should revisit the decisions taken by the
·
An integrated human settlement
programme on rolling out services should be implemented by the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry, of Provincial and Local Government and of Housing
so that they avoid building houses without water and sanitation.
·
A continuous empowerment programme
should be realised jointly with the Department of Labour, Trade and Industry
and led by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to ensure that small
business are capacitated to enable them to participate in the roll out of basic
services.
·
The communities in the
Reports to
be considered