030604sawc
-
Upload
krishsreekar -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 030604sawc
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 1/16
Accessing the utilityAccessing the utility
of Free Basic Water?of Free Basic Water?
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 2/16
IntroductionIntroduction
�� Access to the utility of Free BasicAccess to the utility of Free Basic
Water Water �� Experience on the groundExperience on the ground
�� PolicyPolicy
�� RecommendationsRecommendations
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 3/16
Access to FBWAccess to FBW
� FBW policy entitles all people to a free lifelinesupply of 6000 litres/6 kilolitres (kl) of water
per household per month; or 200 litres per
household per day; or 25 litres per 8-member
household (DWAF, 2002)� 26.8 million people have access to FBW (Muller,
2003)
� Access to the µutility¶ of FBW?
± Low-income households consume 2020--25kl per month25kl per monthand are not accessing the utility of FBW, as they
require more water than 6kl to satisfy basic needs.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 4/16
2 fundamental flaws:2 fundamental flaws: ± Basic water requirements
± Per household versus per capita
Basic water requirements (BWRs)Basic water requirements (BWRs)--
� FBW provides 200l per household per day200l per household per day
� 8-member household = 25l/person/day25l/person/day
�� 25l/person/day25l/person/day does not meet BWRs for health andwell being of households (DWAF acknowledges this)
� Why is DWAF providing a minimum that does notmeet health and productive life objectives?
� Short-term goal 25l25l and medium-term goal 5050--60l.60l.Surely 9 years is already medium-term?
� What steps are being implemented to ensure medium-term goal?
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 5/16
� Studies on BWRs not comprehensive
� SAMWU (2002), AIDC (2002) and Gleitch (1996)suggested that the BWRs should be 63l but ignore
children, the aged and HIV/AIDS influences on
consumption.
� Hence research is suggesting the BWR be raisedabove 63l.
� Current consumption patterns stand at 89-111 litres
per person (20-25kl/month- Municipal figures for
low-income urban households).� Urgent that BWRs be ascertained.
�� FBW standard bears no relationship to the basicFBW standard bears no relationship to the basic
water requirements of householdswater requirements of households(AIDC, 2002).
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 6/16
Per capita FBW allocationPer capita FBW allocation� Ignores the fact that proportionally large number of low-
income households with more than 8 members, especially if households are billed for their backyard shack rental
residents (Bond, 2003).
� The bias in the use of the term µhousehold¶ as the unit of
analysis has the implication that the FBW benefits areinequitably captured by wealthy small member households.
� HOW? Per capita FBW allocation: adding additional record
to the bill, so that the number of people per household is
recorded e.g. using I.D. numbers or other confirmation of
household members and checking it annually with a national
data base preventing people from abusing the system (Bond,
2003).
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 7/16
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 8/16
� Many low-income households face significant
access and affordability constraintsaccess and affordability constraints as a resultof a policy purported to increase the accessibility
to water for all South Africans
± Assumption that low-income households
accessing FBW-using more so« ± Pushed into higher 2nd blocks (affordability?)
± Not subsidised
± Face punitive measures for inability to pay.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 9/16
PolicyPolicy
� Inability to pay (over 6kl); brands householdsirresponsible and µabsolute right to access water¶waived and µminimum core right¶ comes intoeffect.
�� µMinimum core right¶µMinimum core right¶ might be acceptable if basic water requirements were met by FBW; butthey are not.
� The FBW policy is in breach of the constitutional
right of households to access adequate andaffordable water to meet basic domestic needsand water required to satisfy productive lifeimperatives.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 10/16
RecommendationsRecommendations
� The FBW policy should be fundamentally fundamentally re-
worked.
� A national FBW evaluationnational FBW evaluation should be
implemented (parallel process to createplatforms whereby community experiences to
FBW elicited and municipal µaccessing utility of
FBW¶ statistics.
� The basic water requirementsbasic water requirements for health, wellbeing and satisfying productive, sustainable
livelihoods should be scientifically calculated
and socially assessed.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 11/16
� The amended policy should incorporateincorporateall factors affecting consumptionall factors affecting consumption
(diverse and integrated approach).(diverse and integrated approach).� Per capita versus per household FBW
allocation
�� Access to water should take intoAccess to water should take intoaccount the following factorsaccount the following factors::
± Household demographics and householdwater usages
± Income and service expenditure statuses ± Willingness and ability to pay
± Tariff structures
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 12/16
�� Tariffs:Tariffs:
± ± 11stst block:block: amended FBW (BWRs);
± ± 22ndnd blockblock lifeline tariff (20-25kl);
± then steep rising block tariff-based on
conservation incentives (the higher the
marginal cost for high consumption, the morecustomers will be aware of the merits of
conservation and the fewer dams will have to
be built (Bond, 2003).
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 13/16
± Ease in which households can convert tolower consumption allocations
�� Outcomes of evaluation, basic water Outcomes of evaluation, basic water requirements and lowrequirements and low--incomeincomeexperiences should be integrated.experiences should be integrated.
�� IMPORTANT:IMPORTANT: caution againstadvocating for a fixed volumetricallocation; rather should advocate for
the integration of all factors necessaryfor a amicable policy changes.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 14/16
33 FinancingFinancing optionsoptions for for FBWFBW
a)a) IncreaseIncrease internalinternal crosscross--subsidiessubsidies mobilisedmobilised
WITHINWITHIN municipalitiesmunicipalities thatthat havehave sufficientsufficientsurplusessurpluses
± specifically through businesses (tariff blocks haveremained unchanged- they should take the
appropriate concave shape).b)b) MobiliseMobilise internalinternal crosscross--subsidiessubsidies WITHINWITHIN thethe
water water sector sector
so that huge potential funding available through
DWAF's charging wealthy white farmers, Eskom,mines/ industry and other (non-municipal) users of water can be made available to municipalities thatdon't have large water consumers within their boundaries.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 15/16
c) Substantially increase equitable sharec) Substantially increase equitable share
grantsgrants through the National Treasury tomunicipalities, given that national to local
grants for operating expenses fell 85% in
real terms during the 1990s (according to
Finance and Fiscal Commission) and the1991 levels have not been reached in spite
of massive 'unfunded mandates' that central
government placed on municipalities after 1994.
8/6/2019 030604sawc
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/030604sawc 16/16
Some of the equitable share should go
to boost the operating/ maintenanceoperating/ maintenancerevenuesrevenues for the municipal water sector in areas where internal cross-subsidisation is not high enough; and
other national funds should go tocapital investmentscapital investments inwater/sanitation, as well as other services that municipalities struggle tomaintain e.g. township infrastructure(Bond, 2003).