Minister of Human Settlement on Sanitation Task Team report; Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) recovery plan update: Departmental briefing

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson said the Committee expected to receive the Ministerial Sanitation Task Team Report from the Minister of Human Settlements, on the status of sanitation. But also the Department would give a briefing on the recovery plan of the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) that was underspent by municipalities, and the Built Environment Performance Plan (BEPP). The Committee discovered municipalities did not understand the purpose of the grant and as a result the plan would need to be reviewed.

The Committee wanted to intensify oversight in order to ensure the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) delivered on its mandate. This was not putting pressure but giving support to the Department. It would boost the performance of the Department in improving the lives of ordinary people. Many departments contested sanitation; the Committee had long awaited the sanitation report. She said she hoped the recommendations in the report would take the country and the work of the Department forward.

Minister of Human Settlements briefing
The Hon. Tokyo Sexwale, Minister of Human Settlements, said that the report was dedicated to young people of Makhaza (Western Cape) and Moqhaka (Free State) who had elevated sanitation into the nation's attention. Sanitation found voluminous resonance in the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This was how sanitation was regarded worldwide. Sanitation was a critical basic need; it was the first line of dignity for any human being.

Those who had access to clean water took sanitation for granted without realising what it meant for someone hiding behind trees to relieve. Privacy when engaged on sanitary matters was the first line of defence for any individual. The report revealed the neglect to which people had been subjected since 1994. At the same time it projected serious attempts to address the problem.

The young people of Moqhaka and Makhaza stood up to voice concerns. Political parties had wanted to take advantage of the situation as to who should shoulder the blame. It rested upon the Department to stop finger pointing and provide dignified service of sanitation to the people. As a signatory to the protocols of the United Nations (UN), South Africa could not disregard sanitation, as it had been an elevated area of intervention.

The Minister said there were significant sanitation backlogs in the country. The Department would present the Task Team's report, whose recommendations clearly spelled out what needed to happen. DHS would also have to report to the UN on what it had done about sanitation. This was a developmental issue that had to remain on the agenda until every South African had access to a decent service.

Sanitation required clean water and many people in the country did not have access to clean water. The Ministerial Sanitation Task Team (MSTT) had found that the bucket system was still prevalent. Blaming apartheid was no longer wisdom; the system was gone, and the task of rebuilding rested with the current administration. Everybody acknowledged the past caused the problems; but it would be irrelevant to point fingers at it now. Action had to be taken by this Government; the apartheid administration was gone. The task was for the current administration to change the situation and provide protection to the people.

It was beyond housing to provide the necessary amenities enjoyed in human settlements for a civilised nation. A number of partners were required to ensure that the Department delivered. Cabinet had elevated sanitation into a national key strategic project. The money appropriated was no guarantee that all challenges could be addressed, as there were other various services that needed attention.

The country needed to ask if since 1994 it had spent the budget appropriately. There was something fundamentally wrong in spending money on arms, instead of the key issues like sanitation and human settlements. The Arms Deal had come back to haunt Government, hence an inquiry was announced by the President. It would be disingenuous to think that the Arms Deal was not linked to the challenges South Africa faced.

The country was mortgaged on things that were important but not critical at the time. Had a fraction of the amount spent on the Arms Deal been spent on housing the backlog would not have been like this today.

He announced that R234 million had been provided for sanitation at a new project called Joe Slovo City in Lephalale, in Limpopo. More than 2 000 units would be built annually until a target of 30 000 units was realised.

If such basic services as sanitation with clean running water were not provided, the protests as seen in Marikana would always play themselves out. Statistics showed that there were about 11 000 service delivery protests in 2011, a number that had already been surpassed by August in the current financial year. These were early warnings of a simmering chaotic situation; South Africa was dealing with the seed of discontent.

Scenes like the shooting of Andries Tatane and the Marikana incident dented the image of South Africa. These incidents would not just go away; something was simmering and action needed to be taken so as to avoid future occurrences of such situations. There were over 2 000 informal dwellings, where services were unacceptably pathetic in the country. Something had to be done to address this. People merely believed leaders because they came and addressed them, but would not take that for too long.

The money was not enough but something had to be done. If Government failed to provide basic things as toilets, people would find it hard to trust. The books bought for their children were dumped in bushes; Government could not even deliver those books despite being printed already. This was spitting in the face of the electorate. He warned officials not to underestimate the electorate, believing that it was illiterate and the problems would go away.

If sanitation was provided people could easily have confidence and trust. People were not asking for education, health, toilets, roads, and transportation now; all they wanted was demonstrable evidence that one was serious about their issues. People were aware of budget constraints, and could wait for 100 years.

There would be choices and decisions that would have to be taken and there would be a need for implementation of such decisions. He said the recommendations of the current report would be implemented, and commissions would be instituted, but commissions were useless. Commitment had to be demonstrated after such reports and commissions. It was important that people were roped in, and be part of projects. He warned against reliance on agencies like the Independent Development Trust (IDT) and the Mvula Trust.

The Minister said that if Government failed to provide sanitation then it was not worth the trust people vested in it. The failure to provide basic services was a symptom of weak leadership, and opened up people for exploitation. Leadership was about the influence not titles, as they meant zilch to services on the ground. There was a need to involve the private sector on sanitation provision.

He said that Ms Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, as the chairperson of the MSTT understood sanitation better. She would ceremonially hand over the report on Tuesday next, and DHS would have to act on it. Ordinary people should feel that the challenge had been acted upon. The full report - although a copy was given to the Committee - was embargoed until it had been presented to Cabinet.

The Minister announced a special request that would accompany the report to have the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigate. Some of the things contained in the report were associated with sloppiness. The R. 25 proclamation empowered the SIU to make investigations and recommend prosecutions - both civil and criminals. Companies involved in shoddy work had been shut, and monies were reclaimed; the SIU investigations would focus on actions to be taken against service providers accused of poor performance.

People had taken advantage of the Government and even thought that it was an ATM that was there to be corrupted. Government tenders were a filthy area that was conducive for corruption. The bottom-line was, companies were stealing from the poor. The SIU would have to focus on the report and decide who would be sued, fined or arrested. There was a history here and it had to be dealt with.

He said sanitation was well located in the national plan that had been released by the National Planning Commission (NPC). Many of the issues raised in the report would find resonance in the national plan. The  Cabinet Legotla last week had made a fundamental decision that the 17 Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIP) - under the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC) - be increased to 18, in order to include toilets.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Development (DRDLD) and the Economic Development Department (EDD) were central to the prioritisation of sanitation. SIP 18, also referred to as the National Water and Sanitation Master Plan, would require more money than the original SIPs.

He said he was happy for the poor that the plan was coming. Five ministries were involved and would announce it officially in November, and it would be coordinated by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). Other departments involved were the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), PICC, DHS and the National Treasury. The plan covered all provinces. That would need a lot of water, and capital injections would run into billions.

Department of Human Settlements (DHS) presentation
Mr Phillip Chauke, Acting Chief Director of Sanitation, DHS, said that, in terms of the MDG Goal 7, Target Ten had given the Department a target to reduce by half the number of people who did not have access to water by 2015. A joint monitoring programme for water and sanitation – the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - had concluded in a March 2012 study that 2.5 billion people in Sub Saharan Africa did not have access to sanitation.

South Africa was ranked among countries that had an improved service. Access to basic sanitation was a constitutional right. The country saw unrest as a result of lack of sanitation in the last two years. Leadership needed to be given to the ailing portfolio, where the MSTT was formed and set in motion. The mandate was to investigate service delivery protests; monitor adherence to norms and standards; and investigate issues relating to corruption.

The MSTT had consulted communities, and visited 85 municipalities. Consultation meetings were held with national, provincial and local governments; non governmental organisations; civil society; and faith based organisations. There was a wide consultation. There were more challenges relating to sanitation in rural areas. Overall, Government delivered 2.5 million sanitation facilities by 2010. Most urban settlements were connected to municipal water grids.

Human Settlements projects delivered most sanitation to households in the past 15 years. Most rural communities had access to portable water assisting with better hygiene practices. Availability of clean water had a bearing on disease that could otherwise be avoided.

It was found that the Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) toilets had a lifespan of five to eight years on which they needed to be emptied. It appeared during the visits to provinces that municipalities did not maintain the VIP toilets and this extended to Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) . The issue was highlighted in the report. There was also an overloaded usage of WWTPs as a result of increased settlements at various municipalities. The increase in urban population had also necessitated the bulk sewer upgrades.

Often, the increased use of infrastructure had led to dysfunction. Insufficient technical capacity was also observed in many municipalities for staff working at sanitation. There were also inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment processes on WWTPs; there was evidence that the positioning and designs of some WWTPs demonstrated the lack of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) prior to commissioning work on the WWTPs.

Poor communication with communities on the Integrated Development Plans (IDP) participation processes that centralised the key services municipalities provided was also cited. There were a number of options available when it came to providing sanitation including the VIP toilet. The Department was considering those, and as per the advice of the MSTT.

DG's remarks
Mr Thabane Zulu, DHS Director-General (DG), said that some of the issues raised in the report had been continually raised by the Minister, around sanitation. He said he appreciated the independence of the observations in the report and they would help with options. There were policy consideration that the Department would take, and they related to service delivery challenges throughout the country.

The continuous mushrooming of informal settlements was a threat to sanitation service that DHS had to provide in urban areas. This was coupled with the aging infrastructure. The Department would have to look into infrastructure and the backlogs for sanitation. Poorly planned and implemented hygienic education programmes were also noted. This was critical because sanitation programmes required comprehensive training in dealing with new technologies. Inadequate training compromised sanitation.

The failure to do proper integration of sanitation plans in various municipal IDPs. Rural areas remained a huge challenge, and the Department worked tirelessly to improve the condition through programmes like the  Rural Housing Infrastructure Grant (RHIG). There was a need to find different ways of dealing with health related risks as water borne diseases and settlements in environmentally sensitive areas. The master plan raised the issue of compliance to norms and standards in implementation of sanitation service delivery. Compliance was critical if DHS wanted to meet its goals.

Mr Zulu said that the report highlighted some of the action required, and it included consulting with relevant departments. Scattered sanitation approaches by concerned departments - Water Affairs (DWA), Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and municipalities - did not help the situation. But also community and cooperatives' involvement in sanitation programmes had to be central.

Local and provincial plans should be developed, costed and integrated into a National Sanitation Master Plan. Budgets of these spheres of governance were not correctly aligned. DHS also had to work with various institutions on sanitation and had recently visited the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Options were identified in this area of delivery.

It was important that budgeting interacted with what was required in norms and standards. Integrated planning and intergovernmental relations were crucial to avoid double funding of the sanitation functions. He emphasised that it was important to recruit relevant personnel with requisite skills. This challenge was raised before in the implementation of RHIG, where there was a limited engineering capacity. Lack of skilled personnel affected delivery; this was an area where one could not afford taking chances, otherwise communities would be compromised.

Availability of land was another challenge that was critical for service provision. The Housing Development Agency (HDA) would assist the Department in the process of identifying land. It was difficult to improve sanitation services in some informal dwellings where there was no land available for properly constituted settlements. Backyard and farm dwellers also would be considered for proper human settlements.

Discussion

The Chairperson commented that the report was comprehensive, and had clarified all there was to clarity. All the issues raised here had been discussed by the Committee and were taken up with the Minister. The report was scientific, and would eliminate the disregard that was there for politicians who were only viewed as seeking votes. She thanked the Department for a frank and honest relationship. There was progress, and yet more action was required.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) said the contents of the report were not different from the findings of the oversight visit undertaken by the Committee. She said that provinces tended to mislead the Committee when it undertook the oversight work, forgetting that sanitation was the Committee's responsibility.

Ms Dlakude commented that the confusion on who had a right to administer sanitation made the work of the Committee difficult. Sanitation should reside within human settlements; DWA should transfer the function of sanitation completely. The view that the function should be with DWA was misplaced, because the significant function within provision of houses was decent sanitation services. She said if transfer of the function, from DWA to DHS, was further delayed that would impact on service delivery.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said the MSTT had done a marvellous work. Sanitation needed to be a central pillar for human settlements. He concurred that a house was not complete to become a home if it did not have basic sanitation. He also asked what actions would be taken to meet the deadlines of 2014 and the MDG objectives for 2015 on eradication of poor sanitation. The race was against time; in South Africa there were still over 1.4 million people who did not have access to decent sanitation.

Mr Mokgalapa said the green drop score of 45% and the rural backlog were concerning. The Committee had come to a point where it needed to task the Minister to engage the Minister of Public Works as that Department owned tracts of state land that lay unused. The state land was needed for housing developments.

Mr Mokgalapa said the Committee welcomed SIP 18 (National Water and Sanitation Master Plan), and hoped that it would lead to better intergovernmental relations. He commented that Members would not want to see a scenario where DHS was stripped of the function of providing sanitation; the function had to remain with Human Settlements. The Department needed to show leadership and ensure that sanitation remained under its belt.

Mr Mokgalapa said the Committee welcomed the SIU's involvement into the matter. He joked that it was so easy to access Government funding because the ATM (Government) did not have a pin code.

Ms M Borman (ANC) agreed with the Minister on priorities, and said South Africa had money, but corruption and mismanagement played that down. The Committee was pleased with the involvement of the SIU and the commitment shown by the Minister. She recommended a presentation delivered to the Committee the previous day, on how best to deal with sanitation. This was an area that did not need consultants; cooperatives were the best, as they would create jobs.

Ms Borman said it was helpful to always quantify matters, especially regarding people needing decent sanitation. Proper consideration had to be given to this.

Ms Borman commented that communication was important. People were unbelievably patient as long as truthful information was communicated to them. Government had to deliver on what it promised the people. She said if there were challenges regarding land, such information had to be communicated to Members so that they could engage other Committees and departments on land availability.

Ms Borman said the Committee had spent two years working around sanitation issues. If other departments thought sanitation belonged elsewhere that would be stupidity. The Committee had already done a tremendous amount of work, and transferring the function now would set progress years back.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) pointed out that the Committee dealt with sanitation without any supporting piece of legislation. All power was still with DWA; hopefully the aspect of legislation could soon be corrected.

Ms Mnisi said that, if people still used the bucket system, Members and officials needed to worry about whether the budget was spent correctly. People had been patient for a long time; it was the right time for the Committee to stand up on their behalf. Sanitation was a critical basic necessity that addressed issues of human dignity.

Ms Mnisi said the land question was becoming more serious, especially in the light of Government's commitment to relocated informal settlements on properly structured areas with quality sanitation. She said   that the indication that 2.5 million was without quality sanitation was a high number and warranted coordination of all the efforts.

The Chairperson said that the Minister should refuse all efforts by other departments to take the function. Awareness was important on situations where Government departments wanted to address issues collectively. The mandate here was that DHS should administer sanitation; the President had transferred this function to DHS. This was a directive that needed to be heeded.

The Committee was unhappy about the confusion surrounding who should take responsibility for sanitation. She said as much as the Committee supported the cluster of five departments, DHS had to lead integration projects. Roles had to be clearly spelled out in those joint departmental committees.

The Chairperson concurred that the Committee was uncomfortable on having a function that was legislated on some other department. The Cabinet had to issue a memo on this. The Committee was ready for the integrated Human Settlements legislation that would accommodate sanitation. If the white paper had been reviewed it should be brought to the Committee.

The Chairperson proposed that the bucket-system needed to be reviewed, with the definition being expanded to include those going to the bush. Sanitation had moving figures, like the housing demand, and there was a need to move faster in order to address backlogs.

The Chairperson said there was a weakness with the grant system especially in that it did not address sanitation in schools. Grant money had to be ring-fenced to deal with schools sanitation. That would have to be monitored by DHS.

Minister responds

The Minister welcomed the comments, and concurred that it was ridiculous to have a department building houses without the function of sanitation. That would be tantamount to reverting back to apartheid. He pleaded with Members to wait until the report was presented to Cabinet.

The Minister said it would be unwise to reverse the President's call to have sanitation administered by DHS. He said the interdepartmental committee existed only to coordinate the work around sanitation but the core functions resided with DHS. The Department recognised the interconnectedness of this function.

The Minister said the Department would act on a number of these things raised. A lot of money was involved in the master plan to be announced. What would emerge out of that would be something that South Africa would be proud of.

Urban Settlements Development Grant presentation

Mr Neville Chainee, Chief Operations Officer (COO), DHS, said the presentation summarised the grant outcomes, and also contained the Built Environment Performance Plan (BEPP). It was not clear when municipalities claimed to have no knowledge of the grant. There were five outcomes for the grant that municipalities could measure themselves on:

Invest in land and infrastructure that promoted efficient built environment;

Invest in infrastructure that accelerated provision of appropriately located serviced land, and provided appropriately located serviced land to support economic d development.

Invest in land that accelerated provision of land with secure tenure, and accommodation for lower income households

Human capital and management capacity required for built environment

Sustainable fiscal and financial management of built environment assets.

Mr Chainee said that when the Department took over the USDG, part of it was under Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) and municipalities did not submit plans. DHS instituted plans submission, and municipalities had to account for the first time. Municipalities had difficulty in understanding the grant, because they now had to account. He said there was a tension that existed as a result of accountability.

There was a substantive consultation undertaken with municipalities before the BEPP and its objectives were introduced. There were reporting requirements that had been instituted as well. The report also summarised the contrasting views of what was happening as reported by the municipalities and DHS. He cited the example of Tshwane Municipality that did not have performance plans for informal settlements upgrades. This was against a claim by the municipality that it delivered.

Mr Chainee said DHS had agreed to two municipalities in Cape Town refurbishing municipal property - all residential stock. The Ekurhuleni Municipality was also doing this. The view of the Department was that refurbishing council property did not address the backlogs. Failure to do maintenance work was not a backlog that could be funded through the USDG. About R400 million on both these municipalities had been used for the purpose of refurbishing council property. Municipalities were using the USDG to plug the gaps that they could not fix; and that was wrong.

At the end of October the Department would come back to agree with the Committee on what socio- economic facilities needed to be funded. If this was not done in settlements then that was unjust.

The Chairperson said that further engagement was necessary, because allocations at other departments needed to be considered. When upgrades were done, other departments needed to be involved as well. The USDG was clearly and strictly for infrastructure; if sanitation was not tackled it would be an issue.

Mr Chainee commented that Ethekwini and Tshwane were using a lot of their own money on infrastructure. He requested the Committee to arrange an in-depth meeting with Buffalo City Manager prior to appearing in a meeting next week. There was a serious breakdown in expenditure in Buffalo City and the community was suffered as a result.

Ms Funani Matlatsi, DHS Chief Financial Officer (CFO), said that the USDG was not made up of only MIG money. The Department had contributed R3.5 billion to make up the total sum of R6.2 billion. DHS had compromised the money for the top structure in order to have the bulk, and human settlements top structures formulated. Whilst the grant grew, DHS could not spend it due to the bulk infrastructure that was outstanding. A recovery plan had been developed and already been presented to the Meeting of Ministers and MECs (MinMEC).

Ms Matlatsi said there was an element of a collapse at the Buffalo City. The municipality spent 40% of the grant, last year. The metro had not used its money, and the 40% was spent on areas that the Department was not particularly happy with. DHS would comeback to the Committee to indicate what it wanted the USDG to be spent on. Whilst it was satisfying to have the grant, it did not perform satisfactorily and in the manner that DHS had foresaw.

Ms Matlatsi said it was important that other departments were engaged to come up with better human settlements. She said that reporting on the USDG was different from reporting on the MIG. Metros had to report wholly on what the money was spent on. Some municipalities indicated they were looking for rollovers from provincial treasuries, as some municipalities had shown that the money had been committed.

Ms Matlatsi said that DHS had agreed that there was a need for a detailed framework that could be used for reporting on projects. A template had been developed and shared with most municipalities and they had to indicate where the projects were, progress and variations. The mistake made was that the USDG was viewed as just for two units within the Department whilst there were six units.

Mr Chainee suggested the framework could avail grant-project information to Members when they undertook visits to constituencies.

Ms Matlatsi said roles for provinces had been outlined. If all the stakeholders were involved, a difference the USDG was making could be seen.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.