Poverty and short-sighted planning are hindering effective and permanent service delivery to rural communities, writes Charlene Smith
In the rush to deliver, government departments are ignoring the fact that many rural communities are unable to pay for the services provided, which is leading to the collapse of projects around the country.
Poverty and planning that focus on delivery but fail in sustainability are hindering effective and permanent service delivery.
In the health sector, impressive figures in the building of clinics fail to take into account that many new clinics are unopened, unstaffed and lack basic medical supplies. The government now talks of telemedicine, but it ignores the fact that many clinics lack electricity, telephones, adequate medical supplies or sufficiently trained staff.
Since 1994, the Department of Communications has rolled out 1,25-million fixed telephone lines and 2,5-million cellular connections. Telkom reports that three out of four lines are disconnected each month because people in rural areas cannot afford to pay their bills.
Minister of Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting Jay Naidoo says “we are allowing those lines to still receive calls, because each call made generates revenue. We are increasing call centres to communities that are battling to pay.
“Rural poverty does not mean people do not have the capacity to pay. When we allowed the two cellular operators into Transkei, they found it was the busiest area in the country with most calls being made between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. They were being used for business purposes.”
Over the past five years, the government has had the most success with provision of water to rural communities. In 1994 it was estimated that 12-million South Africans lacked access to clean water and 21-million were without adequate sanitation. Since then, potable water has been delivered to three million people.
But Edward Breslin, the health manager of Mvula Trust – the largest NGO in the water sector, which works with the government – told delegates at a water conference in the Eastern Cape last week that there was “growing unease” about the sustainability of water and sanitation projects.
Recently, Mvula Trust (in conjunction with Australian Development Aid) and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry visited projects around the country – 21 departmental projects and 56 Mvula projects. Breslin says it was found that “training and capacity building for community management has been token and ineffective”.
He said one water project had problems such as uncontrolled use, “lack of pressure” and the inability of the community to pay tariffs. The solution proposed by the engineers was to increase the size of the water works, with no regard for the cost increases this “solution” may have on households who “cannot even pay the existing tariff”.
Breslin says: “Emphasis has been placed on adherence to guidelines rather than on what is practical and affordable to communities. Community involvement in designing the scheme or choosing the technology has been non- existent in the vast majority of cases.
“In a recent case, in an isolated, impoverished area of the country, letters from community members and NGOs operating in the area state that the scheme could never be sustained and that alternative systems should be considered. The written response from the department was clear – spend the money on the proposed scheme now or the project will lose its funding.
“A system was implemented that the engineers themselves concede is completely unworkable without massive government subsidies for decades … the scheme now purifies all water, regardless of its proposed use, at a cost that is beyond the economic capacity of the area.”
This example is not unique. “Evaluations consistently show that systems are over- designed and unaffordable. Few role-players have tried to find creative ways to reduce costs on projects,” says Breslin.
Nor are communities made aware of cost implications until bills arrive that they cannot afford to pay, he adds.
In one village, “beautiful [sample] toilets” were built, “but they are unused … because the cost [of each is] in excess of R1 800”.
In another community with high unemployment, flush toilets and yard connections were installed at a cost for services of more than R90 a month – a third of the income of most households. Not only is the community unable to afford this, but there is not enough water to sustain the project.
Despite this, the Department of Housing has begun a project to build a further 100 houses in the village with yard connections and flush toilets. “They seem oblivious to the problems faced by community members,” says Breslin.
In Shemula, pre-paid meters were installed but the community was too poor to afford even this.
“Only 323 of over 7 500 households actually draw water from the pre-paid system … The vast majority of residents now go back to the river for their water,” notes Breslin.
At a project in the Northern Province, people have never paid for water but claim “if you just give me a yard connection, then I will pay”.
Breslin says some projects fail because planners think it will be easier to claim fees from individuals and proceed with yard connections, only to find payment is not forthcoming.
By contrast, he says, in areas such as Sekhukhuneland, women have organised water delivery around pumps. They pay for the service and subsidise poorer members. These communal initiatives to find ways to pay may hold the clue to later viability.
Another issue is the often high water contamination at project sites because of a failure to teach communities the importance of keeping facilities and the areas around them clean.
Payment backlogs are mounting, but the Ministry of Water Affairs and Forestry has been saying water supply is too cheap in South Africa and costs will have to be raised substantially.
Breslin says the government has two choices: “To continue to support schemes that are unaffordable [which means] subsidies will have to be provided until incomes rise in rural communities. These subsidies must be budgeted for openly and not transferred to other ministries like constitutional development.
“[Or] the government must accept that guidelines have to be modified – it is better to have a working scheme that does not meet current department of water affairs guidelines than high-tech schemes that collapse once external support is withdrawn.”
Breslin suggests, too, that transferring expensive, barely functioning schemes to local governments with low rates of payment for the service will be disastrous and the department must resolve these problems before passing on these “white elephants” to local authorities.
Michael O’Sullivan, chief researcher at the Human Sciences Research Council, said more people were satisfied with service delivery, according to their polls, than dissatisfied. The sectors with the highest levels of dissatisfaction were housing and “perceptions of services offered at local police stations”.
However, unhappiness with housing related more to “increases in interest rates making housing unaffordable” – thus blame lay with banks and not the ministry.
The council’s research also shows that urban dwellers are happier with service delivery than those living in rural areas. In part, he said, this was because election promises in 1994 led to “unrealistically high expectations”.