[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l SA "Water miracle" questioned/LS
This is a bit old, sorry for the delay in sending it...
>From: eyenews <eyenews@iafrica.com>
>
>
>>A. Sustainability of SA's 'water miracle' questioned
>>B. African Eye News Service
>>C. May 9, 1999
>>D. By Peter Wellman
>>E. NELSPRUIT – The government is reviewing its water delivery programme
>>following shock reports that its delivery of drinking water to over three
>>million rural people may be nothing more than a pipe dream with more than
>>half of recipients no longer getting clean or even regular water.
>>Independent studies by non-government organisations indicate that water
>>minister, Kader Asmal’s rural delivery schemes are in serious disarray
>>because of fatal flaws in the way government implemented the projects and
>>because rural communities refuse to pay for water.
>>The reports don’t just come from critics, with department officials
>>conceding at a departmental conference in East London in March that the
>>country’s approach to water delivery had to be radically reviewed.
>>Estimates for the failure of projects range from between 50% and 90%, with
>>residents in some multi-million rand schemes reduced to fetching water from
>>rivers again just months after the launch of water reticulation networks.
>>Experts such as Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) sanitation and
>>water policy analyst, Barry Jackson, are quick to stress that the collapse
>>is not entirely the government’s fault, with recipient communities guilty
>of rampant vandalism and water piracy.
>>In one such community, Sinthumule residents in the Northern Province have
>>crippled a R48-million presidential lead project by destroying water metres
>>and breaching water pipes while making illegal connections in 18 separate
>>villages.
>>Communities in Stinkwater and Luphisi in Mpumalanga and a string of other
>>villages across the country are also refusing to pay even minimum fees for
>>the water, fatally undermining the financial sustainability of the entire
>>water delivery programme.
>>No firm figures are available yet but initial data released at the East
>>London conference indicate that government’s cost recovery on its
>>R2,2-billion water delivery programme is as low as 4%.
>>"The 50% figure for failures is quite feasible. The message we are getting
>>from both the department and other operators is that the high rate of
>>failure is cause for alarm and has prompted a serious rethink," said
>>Jackson.
>>Jackson is not alone in his misgivings. Alternative Information for
>>Development Centre (AIDC) co-ordinator, George Dor, insists that up to 90%
>>of projects have suffered interruptions or complete failure.
>>"The department has opted for projects that are way too expensive for poor
>>rural communities where people simply can’t afford to pay for water. There
>>is an emphasis on delivery and not enough on sustainability. There is broad
>>agreement within the government that there are problems but the minister
>has to be seen to be delivering politically," said Dor.
>>"So, when a borehole engine blows, it’s a disaster and people who can’t
>>afford to pay for water certainly can’t afford to fix the engine, so the
>>whole scheme stops working."
>>"Communities often don’t understand that they have to maintain the water
>>projects themselves because officials rely on top-down communication and
>>fail to consult widely enough with recipients."
>>He adds that projects are often crippled by inappropriate design and poor
>>quality materials, with many villages rejecting the schemes as too costly.
>>"Some schemes fail simply because water pumps run out of diesel and no-one
>>buys more supplies. As a result, people are reduced to collecting water
>from
>>unprotected sources such as rivers all over again," he explains.
>>While everyone agrees that there are serious problems, most other experts
>in the sector believe that the failure rate is closer to 50%.
>>"We are in contact with water officials all the time and are convinced from
>>what they tell us that 50% or more of water schemes are not working
>>properly … because of poor management and poor maintenance," says SA
>>Municipal Worker’s Union spokeswoman, Anna Weekes.
>>"That means that at least 1,5-million people are not getting regular
>>supplies of clean water."
>>Health manager of South Africa’s largest water NGO, Mvula Trust, Ned
>>Breslin, is even more circumspect.
>>"I’ve heard the figures but don’t believe that anyone can prove it. There
>>are serious problems but they happen in all countries when a lot of water
>>supply systems are put in place," he said.
>>"Unexpected problems always occur, and you have to go back and do a bit of
>>tweaking."
>>Breslin added that Mvula helped identify the major failings in both
>>government and NGO schemes after conducting a comprehensive review of 21
>>government and 56 Mvula water projects right across the country.
>>The study, which targeted particularly problematic schemes, found that the
>>low rate of cost recovery on government’s massive capital outlays meant that
>>many schemes are not financially viable. It recommended that the main
>thrust now should be to make sure schemes are sustainable.
>>Weak management and maintenance of schemes as a result of inadequate
>>training also inevitably led to equipment breakdowns and contamination of
>>water supplies, creating hostility in communities who felt they had been
>>misled.
>>One departmental official said on Friday that: "cost recovery is so low
>that >we have sleepless nights about it".
>>Deputy director general of water affairs, Dr Eugene Mokeyane, conceded that
>>widespread problems plagued the department’s estimated 1300 water projects
>>but stressed: "many of these projects breakdown because communities damage
>>metres". Water affairs director-general, Mike Muller, is even blunter.
>>"Where schemes are not delivering water because communities have decided
>not to pay for diesel for pumps, this is their decision. We believe that, on
>>reflection, they will reconsider," said Muller.
>>"Supply interruptions may [actually] be an essential part of establishing
>>working arrangements and do not necessarily mean that a project has
>failed."
>>He added that communities also often rejected water delivery because of
>>perceptions that it was not much better than their traditional water
>sources and did not therefore warrant payment.
>>"The culture of non-payment aggravates this. Many people are still not
>>properly informed or are misinformed on what their rights and
>>responsibilities are and what the true costs of different solutions are,"
>>said Muller.
>>"These issues are extensively workshopped in most of our projects but this
>>is no guarantee that the often unpalatable information we present will be
>>accepted."
>>Muller stressed that the studies all concentrated on the country's less
>>successful schemes that were being run by communities without acknowledging
>>the vast number of very successful water projects handed over to regional
>>water boards and local governments.
>>He added that some of the country’s largest schemes, such as the Moutse/
>>KwaNdebele scheme which supplies water to nearly a million people,
>>experienced problems before communities at the end of the line often suffer
>>shortages caused by uncontrolled consumption in communities closer to the
>>source of water.
>>"The supply is highly satisfactory for communities close to the source to
>>the detriment of those further away," he said.
>>Minister Asmal was unavailable for comment. - African Eye News Service
>>
>>-0-
>>
>>A. Study pin-points weaknesses in celebrated water delivery programme
>>B. African Eye News Service
>>C. May 9, 1999
>>D. By Peter Wellman
>>E. NELSPRUIT - LEAKY pipes, shoddy workmanship and ignorance are among the
>>biggest enemies facing South Africa’s ambitious drive to supply clean
>>drinking water to its 12-million rural inhabitants.
>>Government has impressed even its critics by bringing water to over
>>3-million people in five short years but the speed of delivery has in
>itself
>>created fundamental flaws in the multi-million water schemes.
>>A comprehensive 25 000 word study by South Africa’s largest water NGO,
>Mvula
>>Trust, and Australian Development Aid found earlier this year that
>>inappropriate technology, shoddy maintenance and poor management by
>>untrained communities was leading to the failure of many projects.
>>The study targeted 21 government and 56 Mvula water schemes that were
>>particularly problematic.
>>Grootdrink, in the Northern Cape for example, is a small community of just
>>2020 people. But its new multi-million rand water scheme is already under
>>strain because the system was not designed properly, the new pipes leak and
>>residents are unable to afford the new R55 flat rate for water and other
>>services.
>>Many residents who got water on the old system are now without water, while
>>even those who do get water complain that it is contaminated because water
>>collection points that are not kept clean.
>>The new purification plant is itself not well managed and it does not
>>provide clean water.
>>At Izingolweni, 35km from Port Shepstone on the KwaZulu-Natal south coast,
>>another multi-million rand water project operating on pre-paid meters is
>>under threat with residents preferring to use rivers in the area for water.
>>Only R323 of the project’s 7583 families have signed up with the scheme
>>following widespread criticisim that there is virtually no project
>>management and no systematic fault-finding for leaks and other problems.
>>Residents also complain that roles and responsibilities for the project are
>>not defined and understood, and the people feel communication with them has
>>been poor. There is no poverty relief.
>>People have also begun bypassing the meters and are making illegal
>>connections to draw off water.
>>A water project at Sandile in the Eastern Cape is even worse off. There is
>>no water supply to many parts of the community because the main pipeline is
>>broken and water is spilling from it. The water that manages to get through
>>is contaminated.
>>There is no project management and no tariff collection.
>>At Tjakastad near Badplaas in Mpumalanga, residents insist that they are
>>worse off with their new water scheme because the former KaNgwane bantustan
>>supplied water right into resident’s yards while the new system only allows
>>for communal taps up to 500m away from houses.
>>While water purification is excellent under the new scheme, there is no
>>management of the reticulation network except for emergency repairs and
>>water wastage is high.
>>There are also increasing numbers of illegal connections as residents start
>>taking the law into their own hands. - African Eye News Service
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
and Editor, World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::