Delivering services free is not the best way to achieve sustainable access. Derek Hazelton discusses the requirements for universal access to water
In its local government elections manifesto the African National Congress promises to provide all with a free basic amount of water, electricity and other municipal services.
Those who use more than the basic amount will pay for the extra they use.
By contrast the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution emphasises everyones’ right to sufficient food and water, and social assistance to the poor, within the constraints of available resources. If the right to water and other services is to be realised, the service must first be made available and then managed effectively.
At present the South African government is spending a maximum of 0,5% of the national budget to broaden the availability of basic water supply services, as opposed to the minimum 3% of the national budget regarded as an international norm.
At the current rate of progress it will take 20 to 25 years before a basic Reconstruction and Development Programme level of service is available to all. A 1997 report by the Financial and Fiscal Commission, concerning public expenditure on basic social services, recommended additional spending on water and sanitation as well as on an integrated nutrition programme targeted at women and children.
The report also draws the important links between water supplies, sanitation and health and hygiene education.
The current cholera outbreak in KwaZulu- Natal is a stark reminder of the need for interdisciplinary cooperation. Notwithstanding this urgent call for accelerated capital expenditure, South Africa can be proud of bringing water to an additional 5,6-million rural South Africans since 1994.
Sadly, the same cannot be said with respect to the way in which many schemes are being managed. Without effective management the constitutional right to sufficient water cannot be attained and much of the money spent on new infrastructure will be wasted. Good management in the rural and poorer areas of South Africa will depend on local government appointing community institutions as water service providers and the two institutions sharing responsibilities through a negotiated contractual agreement. In general, local government should facilitate communities being given as much responsibility as they can assimilate, but no community should be left on its own without continued auditing, mentorship and support. In the medium term private-sector change- management NGOs and consultants should be appointed, where necessary, as capacity- building agents to both local government and community institutions.
Community-level control should be seen as the preferred option in rural and poor areas and not be dependent on local government’s lack of capacity.
In the richer areas, local government, which lacks the necessary expertise to act as a water services provider, can also appoint private-sector advisors to help it build its capacity. However, long-term private-sector concessions should be seen for what they are: the abdication of responsibility.
Planning the above style of management starts with feasibility studies. Why has the government ignored its intention to put the community first, and to make the community the client as outlined in the 1994 White Paper on Water and Sanitation? The current practice of having a single project steering committee for large projects, which is disbanded as soon as construction is complete, is a recipe for non-sustainability.
International wisdom indicates that delivering water free as a means of realising access is not a good idea since: l It results in the rich and influential receiving more by way of subsidy than the poor; and
l It leads to people being treated as the objects of aid rather than as partners in development.
By contrast, paying for water encourages a relationship of accountability between the water service provider and its customers. As a result, water schemes where communities pay the operating and maintenance costs are the ones which provide the most reliable service. However, imaginative alternatives to delivering water free must be implemented. More than 50% of all households outside the metropolitan areas of South Africa, which make up 79% of the total population, have an income of less than R800 a month. There is an urgent need to alleviate the consequences of the continuing deepening of poverty (while simultaneously planning for a reduction of that poverty rather than just its alleviation).
As far back as 1997 Jeremy Baskin, then of the Department of Labour, writing in his personal capacity in the Mail & Guardian of January 24 to 30, proposed paying every adult South African, say, R150 a month from the national treasury. Versions of the proposal have been discussed from time to time by the National Education and Development Labour Council, the ANC and others.
However, isn’t it time this bold proposal is given serious and urgent consideration by the government, while strengthening it through including children’s allowances, rather than weakening it with a means test.
If this were implemented, all citizens would have access to basic services once they are made available and, most important, it would help the poor to decide their own priorities and to hold local government accountable to them for both economic development and services delivery. This alternative does not do away with the Section 214 Constitutional requirement that an equitable share of nationally raised revenue be allocated to local government. For example, in the case of water supplies up to 80% of the cost of delivery is fixed. This means that for poor municipalities where the average usage per customer is low the average cost of delivery per kilolitre tends to be high.
In addition, these do not have the opportunity to cross-subsidise low-usage customers. Thus, without an equitable share based, for example, on the concept of the gap between a district municipality’s objective expenditure needs and revenue- raising capacity, the lifeline tariffs charged to customers in most poor and rural communities will be significantly higher than the lifeline tariffs charged by the metropolitan and other relatively rich municipalities.
Tariffs of R4 to R10 a kilolitre in poor areas result in extremely low water usage. As a result of the low water usage, schemes in these areas are not sustainable and health benefits are not being achieved. This two-pronged approach, of funding both customers and poor municipalities, is not asking the government to allocate social development expenditure twice but is recommending that the total payout be shared in a manner that achieves the greatest gains.
Such gains include helping local government and its customers in poor areas to work together in a participative manner. There are no shorts cuts to equitable development but let us get on the right road, and, in the meantime, alleviate the suffering of the approximately 3,8-million South African households with an income of less than R800 a month.