2012 Municipal Services Strategic Assessment (MuSSA) for Northern Cape Province
HOW TO PRIORITISE WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO ENABLE SUSTAINABLE, EFFECTIVE IMPROVEMENT OF WATER SERVICES DELIVERY
Prepared by Water Services: Planning and Information: Business Intelligence Team March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC SELF-ASSESSMENT (MUSSA): SURVEY OF WATER SERVICES BUSINESS HEALTH...... 1
OBJECTIVES OF MUSSA...... 1 MUSSA IDENTIFIES AND PRIORITIZES AREAS OF VULNERABILITY...... 2 MUSSA COMPLETION ...... 2 VULNERABILITY INDEX...... 3 SPIDER DIAGRAM ...... 3 POLICY MAKING & PRIORITY ACTION PLANS ...... 3 MUSSA 2011/2012 SURVEY RESULTS FOR NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE ...... 4
SURVEY PARTICIPATION...... 4 DATA QUALITY CHECKS ...... 1 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 4 AREAS OF HIGHEST VULNERABILITY ...... 5 RESULTS PER WATER SERVICES AUTHORITY (WSA)...... 14 MUSSA COMPARED TO DWA BLUE DROP / GREEN DROP ASSESSMENT FINDINGS...... 16 MUSSA MUNICIPAL VULNERABILITY RANKING OF NORTHERN CAPE MUNICIPALITIES ...... 19 CONCLUSIONS...... 24 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 26 APPENDIX A: SPIDER DIAGRAM OUTPUTS PER WSA ...... 28 DIKGATLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 28 EMTHANJENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 28 GAMAGARA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 29 GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 29 HANTAM LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 30 JOE MOROLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 30 KAI GARIB LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 31 KAMIESBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 31 KAREEBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 32 KAROO HOOGLAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 32 KGATELOPELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 33 KHAI-MA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 33 KHARA HAIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 34 KHEIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 34 MAGARENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 35 MIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 35 NAMA KHOI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 36 PHOKWANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 36
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report ii
RENOSTERBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 37 RICHTERSVELD LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 37 SIYANCUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 38 SIYATHEMBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 38 SOL PLAATJE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ...... 39 THEMBELIHLE LOCAL MUNICIPAITY...... 39 TSANTSABANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 40 UBUNTU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 40 UMSOBOMVU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY...... 41
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Table 1: Questionnaire Returns ...... 4 Table 2: Most Vulnerable WSAs per Category ...... 14 Table 3: Comparison of MuSSA and DWA Blue Drop Assessments (as at January 2013)...... 16 Table 4: Comparison of MuSSA and DWA Green Drop Assessments (as at January 2013) ...... 17 Table 5: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index: Northern Cape WSAs ...... 20
Figure 1: Example of MuSSA “Spider-Diagram” output indicating vulnerability...... 3 Figure 2: MuSSA Summarised Provincial Findings: Northern Cape Province ...... 4 Figure 3: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index: Northern Cape WSAs ...... 22 Figure 4: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index Map: Northern Cape WSAs ...... 23 Figure 5: "Plan-Do-Check-Act" Framework ...... 26 Figure 6: Spider diagram for Dikgatlong Local Municipality ...... 28 Figure 7: Spider diagram for Emthanjeni Local Municipality ...... 28 Figure 8: Spider diagram for Gamagara Local Municipality ...... 29 Figure 9: Spider diagram for Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality ...... 29 Figure 10: Spider diagram for Hantam Local Municipality ...... 30 Figure 11: Spider diagram for Joe Morolong Local Municipality ...... 30 Figure 12: Spider diagram for Kai Garib Local Municipality ...... 31 Figure 13: Spider diagram for Kamiesberg Local Municipality...... 31 Figure 14: Spider diagram for Kareeberg Local Municipality ...... 32 Figure 15: Spider diagram for Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality ...... 32 Figure 16: Spider diagram for Kgatelopele Local Municipality ...... 33 Figure 17: Spider diagram for Khai-Ma Local Municipality...... 33 Figure 18: Spider diagram for Khara Hais Local Municipality ...... 34 Figure 19: Spider diagram for Kheis Local Municipality...... 34 Figure 20: Spider diagram for Magareng Local Municipality...... 35 Figure 21: Spider diagram for Mier Local Municipality...... 35 Figure 22: Spider diagram for Nama Khoi Local Municipality ...... 36 Figure 23: Spider diagram for Phokwane Local Municipality ...... 36 Figure 24: Spider diagram for Renosterberg Local Municipality ...... 37 Figure 25: Spider diagram for Richtersveld Local Municipality ...... 37 Figure 26: Spider diagram for Siyancuma Local Municipality ...... 38 Figure 27: Spider diagram for Siyathemba Local Municipality ...... 38 Figure 28: Spider diagram for Sol Plaatje Local Municipality...... 39 Figure 29: Spider diagram for Thembelihle Local Municipality...... 39 Figure 30: Spider diagram for Tsantsabane Local Municipality ...... 40 Figure 31: Spider diagram for Ubuntu Local Municipality ...... 40 Figure 32: Spider diagram for Umsobomvu Local Municipality...... 41
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BDS Blue Drop System CRM Customer Care Management DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa DCoG Department of Cooperative Governance DM District Municipality DWA Department of Water Affairs GDS Green Drop System IAM Infrastructure Asset Management IWA International Water Association LGTAS Local Government Turnaround Strategy LG Local Government LM Local Municipality MISA Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency MPAP Municipal Priority Action Plan MuSSA Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment NRW Non-Revenue Water PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act RPMS Regulatory Performance Measurement System SALGA South African Local Government Association WCDM Water Conservation and Demand Management WQM Water Quality Management WRM Water Resource Management WSA Water Services Authority WSDP Water Services Development Plan WSP Water Service Provider WSSA Water Solutions Southern Africa WTW Water Treatment Works WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report v
DOCUMENT CONTROL
PEP PEP : Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment Title of Document Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of Water Services in Northern Cape: Results of 2012 Survey PEP Leader Shawn Moorgas Team Members Shawn Moorgas, Grant Mackintosh, Philip de Souza, Unathi Jack, Thabisa Manxodidi, Mzi Ramba Supported By Romy De Jager and Peter Skotnicky Authors of Document Shawn Moorgas, Grant Mackintosh, Philip de Souza Report Status Final Draft Version 1.6 Date March 2013 Issued to Allestair Wensley Keywords Business Intelligence Support, Water Services Authorities
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 1
Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment (MuSSA): Survey of Water Services Business Health
Since its inception in 2006 the Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment has progressively been refined in support of sector trends and requirements.
Overseen by the Department of Water Affairs the MuSSA conveys an overall business health of municipal water business and serves as a key source of information around municipal performance. The MuSSA also identifies key municipal vulnerabilities that are strategically important to DWA, the Department of Cooperative Government (DCoG), National Treasury, the planning Commission/Office of the Presidency, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and the municipalities themselves. The MuSSA team continues to engage (1) DWA directorates and their associated programmes (e.g. Water Services Development Plan, Water Services Regulation), and (2) other sector departments and their associated programmes (e.g. LGTAS, MISA) to minimize duplication and ensure alignment.
Through the tracking of current and likely future performance, the key areas of vulnerability identified, allow municipalities to effectively plan and direct appropriate resources that will also enable DWA and the sector to provide more effective support.
More importantly as the MuSSA is forward-looking, these proactive measures will in turn contribute to the alleviation of the key areas of vulnerability and support achieving effective municipal service delivery by 2014.
Objectives of MuSSA
Facilitate the creation of a common language between technical and non-technical officials, and elected officials Supports inter-departmental collaboration with respect to the Local Government (LG)Turn Around Strategy and subsequent deployment of the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) by the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCoG) Guides LG development through flagging & tracking Key Vulnerabilities Benchmarks LG status against local, regional & national levels Informs policy-makers on key aspects of Water Services Business Health Informs National Regulatory Needs Informs National Planning Monitors Sector Performance
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 2
MuSSA Identifies and Prioritizes Areas of Vulnerability
Complements DWA regulatory processes (e.g. Blue Drop, Green Drop, Regulatory Performance Measurement System (RPMS) and other planning and strategic processes (e.g. Water Services Development Planning (WSDP), Non-Revenue Water (NRW), etc.) Identifies critical areas requiring support Supports the development of local, regional and national strategies Facilitates timeous actions Allows benchmarking of municipalities against other municipalities Able to track changes in Business Health vulnerabilities over time.
The MuSSA asks senior municipal managers 5 clear and relatively simple “essence” questions per 16 key business health attributes. The MuSSA provides strategic flags, as opposed to intricate technical detail which is captured elsewhere and by other processes.
MuSSA completion
The MuSSA is able to be completed on-line via an electronic, web based, Municipal Tool. The tool enables the user to: Answer the essence questions Save and exit at any stage Generate a spider diagram output after all questions are completed Keep a history of each subsequent save / completion of questionnaire Make electronic data available for easy query and analysis by sector Access on-line technical support if required
Key Business Health Attributes 16 key Business Health Attributes were identified in consultation with domain specialists and stakeholders: 1. Water Services Development Planning 9. Infrastructure Asset Management 2. Management Skill Level 10. Operation and Maintenance of Assets 3. Staff Skill Levels 11. Financial Management 4. Technical Staff Capacity 12. Revenue Collection 5. Water Resource Management 13.Information Management 6. Water Conservation and Demand Management 14.Organisational Performance 7. Drinking Water Safety and Blue Drop Status 15. Water Service Quality 8. Wastewater/Environmental Safety 16. Customer Care
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 3
Vulnerability Index
In order to rank municipalities, without losing the detail of service area / business attribute vulnerability, a Vulnerability Index has been developed. The vulnerability per service area is weighted so that both the number and actual score of service area are factored into the municipal ranking.
The MuSSA Vulnerability Index is used to prioritize support to Water Service Authorities (WSAs).
Spider Diagram
The Spider Diagram effectively indicates the vulnerability levels across the 16 key service areas.
Figure 1: Example of MuSSA “Spider-Diagram” output indicating vulnerability
Policy Making & Priority Action Plans
The Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment (MuSSA) is an extremely useful tool for policy makers, that:
Identifies which key areas of service have the highest vulnerability per municipality/region/nationally. Identifies which WSAs/municipalities/regions have the highest vulnerability. Identifies commonalities across provinces (regions). Provides input into a Municipal Priority Action Plan (MPAP) to redress water service vulnerabilities.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 4
MuSSA 2011/2012 Survey Results for Northern Cape Province
The following outputs relate to the MuSSA Survey Results for Northern Cape Province, conducted in 2011/2012.
Survey Participation
Table 1: Questionnaire Returns Total of WSAs Actual Returns Actual % Returns Northern Cape 27 27 100%
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 1
Data Quality Checks
The table below indicates the municipal officials that were consulted with in order to obtain completion of the MuSSA. In certain WSAs the project team engaged with numerous officials, including the financial officials. In other WSAs only a senior official was engaged with, who solicited responses from other responsible officials for the completion of the MuSSA. In addition, some commentary was provided by the project team to ensure appropriate data quality.
Code Description Management Technical Financial Comments
Mr D Jacobs NC084 ! Kheis Municipality - Mr J Blom - Mr P Izaks Mr Izaaks is from Infrastructure NC083 //Khara Hais Municipality - Mr G Izaaks - Development
NC092 Dikgatlong Municipality Mr H Robenson - - -
NC073 Emthanjeni Municipality Mr F Taljaard - - -
NC453 Ga- Segonyana Municipality - - Ms M Semana -
NC452 Gamagara Municipality Mr K Ositang - - -
NC065 Hantam Municipality Mr R van Wyk - - -
Mr M Bolleurs Mr Bolleurs is from the NC451 Joe Morolong Municipality - Mr G Malola - PMU(Project Management Unit) Mr F Meyer
NC082 Kai! Garib Municipality Mr M Clarke - - -
NC064 Kamiesberg Municipality - Mr F Links - -
NC074 Kareeberg Municipality - Mr A van Schalkwyk - -
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 2
Code Description Management Technical Financial Comments
Ms C Viljoen PA of Technical NC066 Karoo Hoogland Municipality - Mr F Luther - Service Manager assisted with coordination and submission.
NC086 Kgatelopele Municipality - Mr G von Mollendorf - -
NC093 Khai-Ma Municipality Mr E Vries - Mr Pieter van der Merwe -
NC081 Magareng Municipality - Mr L Mokoena - -
NC062 Mier Municipality - Mr E Mouton - -
NC094 Nama Khoi Municipality - Mr D Fortuin - -
NC075 Phokwane Municipality - Mr L Jange - - Mr H Du Plessis from IMESA Renosterberg NC061 - Ms N Novoyizana - assisted in the completion of the Municipality MuSSA.
NC067 Richtersveld Municipality - Mr H Cloete - -
NC078 Siyancuma Municipality - Mr G Beukes - -
NC077 Siyathemba Municipality - Mr J Badenhorst - -
NC091 Sol Plaatje Municipality Mr L Snyders - Ms Z Mahloko -
NC076 Thembelihle Municipality - Mr E Painting - -
NC085 Tsantsabane Municipality Mr J Majiedt - - -
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 3
Code Description Management Technical Financial Comments
NC071 Ubuntu Municipality Mr M Kivedo - - -
NC072 Umsobomvu Municipality Mr T Mosonpha - Mr D T Visagie -
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 4
Survey Results
The following business health is noted, with areas of highest vulnerability indicated:
Northern Cape Summary
Water Services Planning
Management Skill Level (Technical)
Staff Skill Levels (Technical)
Technical Staff Capacity (Numbers)
Water Resource Management (WRM)
Water Conservation & Demand Management (WCDM)
Drinking Water Safety & Blue Drop Status
Wastewater/Environmental Safety & Green Drop Status
Infrastructure Asset Management (IAM)
Operation & Maintenance of Assets
Financial Management
Revenue Collection
Information Management
Organisational Performance Monitoring
Water Service Quality
Customer Care (CRM)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Low Vulnerability (100-75%) Moderate Vulnerability (75-60%) High Vulnerability (60-50%) Very High Vulnerability (50-0%) No data
Key Very High Vulnerability
Figure 2: MuSSA Summarised Provincial Findings: Northern Cape Province
Figure 2 shows the Top 3 highest vulnerabilities for Northern Cape include:
Staff Skill Levels (Technical) Management Skill Level (Technical) Wastewater/Environmental Safety and Green Drop Status
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 5
Areas of Highest Vulnerability
Staff Skill Levels (Technical)
3.1 WTWs are operated by staff with the correct skills/qualifications and experience (as per Regulation 2834) - NC
15% 4% 19% 4%
15% 11%
33%
Yes, All (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. > 50%) < 50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know Not applicable
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
15% of WSAs have no staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience to operate WTWs, while a further 33% have <50% staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience.
3.2 WWTWs are operated by staff with the correct skills/qualifications and experience (as per Regulation 2834) - NC
7% 4% 4% 15% 11%
22%
37%
Yes, All (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. > 50%) < 50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know Not applicable No data
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
11% of WSAs have no staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience to operate WWTWs, while a further 37% of WSAs have <50% of staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 6
3.3 Water system plumbers, mechanics and electricians have the correct skills/qualifications and experience -NC
4% 11% 22% 15%
22% 26%
Yes, All (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. > 50%) < 50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
22% of WSAs have no staff with the required water system plumbing, mechanical and electrical skills/qualifications and experience.
3.4 Sewage system plumbers, mechanics and electricians have the correct skills/qualifications and experience - NC
4% 11% 22% 15%
19%
30%
Yes, All (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. > 50%) < 50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
22% of WSAs have no staff with the required sewage system plumbing, mechanical and electrical skills/qualifications and experience.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 7
3.5 Staff regularly attend appropriate water services skills development/training (including safety) (e.g. ESETA courses) - NC
4% 4% 4% 15%
26%
48%
Quarterly (or more frequent) skills development/training Bi-annual skills development/training Annual skills development/training Less frequent skills development/training (i.e. > 1 year) No skills development/training Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
63% have the circumstance where staff attend skills development/training less frequently than once per year.
Overall Vulnerability Indication:
Staff Skill Levels (Technical)
11% 15%
56% 18%
Low Vulnerability (100-75%) Moderate Vulnerability (75-60%) High Vulnerability (60-50%) Very High Vulnerability (50-0%)
Key Observation:
56% of WSAs were identified as being Very Highly Vulnerable.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 8
Management Skill Level (Technical)
2.1 Key posts within your (council approved) technical management organisational organogram are filled (e.g. Technical Director, Water Services Manager, Superintendent of Water Works)- NC
4% 15% 22%
7%
19% 33%
Yes, all filled (i.e. 100%) Most filled (i.e. >75%) Some filled (i.e. > 50%) < 50% filled None filled (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
15% have no key posts filled within their technical management organisation organogram.
2.2 You have sufficient technical management staff (appropriate number of staff - e.g. at least 5 posts per 100,000 persons served)- NC
4% 7% 15%
26%
22%
26%
Yes, 100% as per organogram Mostly agree (i.e. >75% as per organogram) Agree somewhat (i.e. > 50% as per organogram) < 50% as per organogram None (i.e. 0% as per organogram) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
15% have no technical management staff (i.e. 0% as per organogram).
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 9
2.3 Technical management staff have the correct skills/qualifications and experience (e.g. PrEng, PrTech, CPM)? - NC
4% 4% 15% 30%
22%
26%
Yes, All (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. > 50%) < 50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
56% of WSAs have <50% of technical management staff with the correct skills/qualifications.
2.4 Managers regularly attend appropriate water services skills development/training - NC
4% 4% 11%
30%
26%
26%
Quarterly (or more frequent) skills development/training Bi-annual skills development/training Annual skills development/training Less frequent skills development/training (i.e. > 1 year) No skills development/training Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
56% of WSAs have less frequent than annual skills/development training for managers.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 10
2.5 Key technical managers have signed Performance Agreements?- NC
19% 22%
4%
7%
37% 11%
Yes, all (i.e. 100%) Most (i.e. >75%) Some (i.e. >50%) <50% None (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
37% of WSAs have the circumstance where no key technical managers have signed Performance Agreements.
Overall Vulnerability Indication:
Management Skill Level (Technical)
4% 26%
55% 15%
Low Vulnerability (100-75%) Moderate Vulnerability (75-60%) High Vulnerability (60-50%) Very High Vulnerability (50-0%)
Key Observation:
55% of WSAs were identified as being Very Highly Vulnerable.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 11
Wastewater/Environmental Safety and Green Drop Status
8.1 Please indicate the average Green Drop score for your WSA - NC
7% 7%
22% 33%
30%
>90% (Excellent) 75% - 90% (Good) 50% - 75% (Average) 33% - 50% (Needs Attention) <33% (Needs Urgent Attention) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
33% have acknowledged that their Green Drop Score is very low and requires urgent attention.
8.2 ALL your wastewater works, monitoring programmes, sample points, laboratories and users are registered on the GDS - NC
19%
48%
19%
15%
Yes, strongly agree (i.e. 100% registered) Mostly agree (i.e. >75% registered) Agree somewhat (i.e. >50% registered) < 50% registered None registered (i.e. 0%)
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
19% have not registered any required aspects on the Green Drop System.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 12
8.3 Council have been aware of all wastewater and environmental safety related issues (e.g. pollution incidents, Green Drop deficiencies) and issues have been actioned (where applicable) - NC 4% 22%
37%
22%
7% 7%
Yes, strongly agree (i.e. all (100%) tabled) Mostly agree (i.e. >75% tabled) Agree somewhat (i.e. >50% tabled) < 50% tabled Issues noted but none tabled (i.e. 0%) Not applicable (no issues requiring council resolution exist)
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
37% indicate that none of the wastewater issues noted has been tabled to council for action.
8.4 Sufficient funds have been made available to address all identified wastewater and environmental safety related issues - NC
4%
33% 30%
15% 19%
Yes, strongly agree (i.e. 100% of required funds) Mostly agree (i.e. >75% of required funds) Agree somewhat (i.e. >50% of required funds) < 50% of required funds Issues noted but no funds (i.e. 0%)
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
33% indicate that no funds have been made available to address identified wastewater issues.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 13
8.5 Required corrective actions/remedial measures to address all identified wastewater and environmental safety related issues have been successfully implemented - NC 4% 7%
30% 19%
15%
26%
Yes, strongly agree (i.e. 100% implemented) Mostly agree (i.e. >75% implemented) Agree somewhat (i.e. >50% implemented) < 50% implemented Issues noted but none implemented (i.e. 0%) Don't know
Key Observations for Actioning by WSAs:
30% indicate that no corrective actions/remedial measures have been implemented to address identified wastewater issues.
Overall Vulnerability Indication:
Wastewater/Environmental Safety & Green Drop Status
15%
15%
55% 15%
Low Vulnerability (100-75%) Moderate Vulnerability (75-60%) High Vulnerability (60-50%) Very High Vulnerability (50-0%)
Key Observation:
55% of WSAs were identified as being Very Highly Vulnerable.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 14
Results Per Water Services Authority (WSA)
Specific Vulnerabilities per WSA can be readily identified in Table 3 below: (Please note this is an A3 layout page)
Table 2: Most Vulnerable WSAs per Category 6. Water 5. Water Conservation & 7. Drinking 8. Wastewater / 9. Infrastructure 14. 1. Water 2. Management 3. Staff Skill 4. Technical Resource Demand Water Safety & Environmental Asset 10. Operation & Organisational Services Skill Level Levels Staff Capacity Management Management Blue Drop Safety & Green Management Maintenance of 11. Financial 12. Revenue 13. Information Performance 15. Water 16. Customer WSA Planning (Technical) (Technical) (Numbers) (WRM) (WCDM) Status Drop Status (IAM) Assets Management Collection Management Monitoring Service Quality Care (CRM)
Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High High Very High Very High High ! Kheis Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
//Khara Hais Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability
Dikgatlong Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High High Very High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Emthanjeni Very High Low Low Moderate Very High High Moderate Low Moderate Low High Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Ga- Segonyana Very High Moderate Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Very High Very High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Gamagara Very High High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Low Very High Very High Low Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Hantam Very High Very High Very High High Very High Moderate Low Very High Very High Low Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Kai! Garib Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate Low High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability High Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Kamiesberg Very High Moderate High High Moderate Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Low Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Kareeberg Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Low High Very High Moderate Low High Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Karoo Hoogland High Moderate Low Very High Very High Moderate Very High High Very High High Moderate Low Moderate Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Kgatelopele Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Moderate Very High Moderate Low Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Khai-Ma Very High Very High Very High High Moderate Moderate Very High Very High Very High Very High High Very High Moderate Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Magareng Moderate High Moderate Moderate Very High High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Very High Very High Moderate Moderate Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability
Very High Very High Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High High Very High Mier Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Joe Morolong Moderate Very High High Low Very High Very High Very High High Moderate Very High Moderate Very High Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Nama Khoi Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate High Moderate Very High Low Low Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 15
6. Water 5. Water Conservation & 7. Drinking 8. Wastewater / 9. Infrastructure 14. 1. Water 2. Management 3. Staff Skill 4. Technical Resource Demand Water Safety & Environmental Asset 10. Operation & Organisational Services Skill Level Levels Staff Capacity Management Management Blue Drop Safety & Green Management Maintenance of 11. Financial 12. Revenue 13. Information Performance 15. Water 16. Customer WSA Planning (Technical) (Technical) (Numbers) (WRM) (WCDM) Status Drop Status (IAM) Assets Management Collection Management Monitoring Service Quality Care (CRM)
Phokwane Moderate Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High High Very High Very High High Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Renosterberg Moderate Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Richtersveld Moderate High Very High Very High Moderate Moderate Moderate Very High Moderate Very High Low Very High Moderate Moderate High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability
Siyancuma High Very High Very High Moderate Moderate Very High Very High Moderate Very High Moderate High Very High Moderate Very High Municipality High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Siyathemba Moderate Very High Very High High Very High Moderate Very High High High Very High Low Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Sol Plaatje Very High Very High Very High High Moderate Very High Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Thembelihle Very High Moderate High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Moderate Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Tsantsabane Very High Very High Moderate Very High Very High High Moderate Very High Very High Very High Moderate Very High Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Ubuntu Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability High Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability
Umsobomvu Very High Moderate Moderate Very High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Municipality Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability High Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Low Vulnerability (100-75%) 0 0% 1 4% 3 11% 5 19% 7 26% 4 15% 5 19% 4 15% 7 26% 5 19% 8 30% 5 19% 11 41% 3 11% 14 52% 5 19%
Moderate Vulnerability (75- 60%) 7 26% 7 26% 4 15% 4 15% 6 22% 5 19% 8 30% 4 15% 5 19% 7 26% 7 26% 3 11% 6 22% 11 41% 7 26% 10 37%
High Vulnerability (60-50%) 6 22% 4 15% 5 19% 5 19% 4 15% 8 30% 5 19% 4 15% 3 11% 3 11% 3 11% 5 19% 3 11% 3 11% 4 15% 4 15%
Very High Vulnerability (50- 0%) 14 52% 15 56% 15 56% 13 48% 10 37% 10 37% 9 33% 15 56% 12 44% 12 44% 9 33% 14 52% 7 26% 10 37% 2 7% 8 30%
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 16
MuSSA Compared to DWA Blue Drop / Green Drop Assessment Findings
According to the latest (2012) Blue Drop Report the 27 WSAs make up a total of 143 systems which were assessed. 1 (or <1%) of these systems achieved Blue Drop Status.
Table 3: Comparison of MuSSA and DWA Blue Drop Assessments (as at January 2013) MuSSA Blue Drop Score WSA 7. Drinking Water Safety (2012) & Blue Drop Status 1 !Kheis Local Municipality 60% 50.33% (0/6)
2 //Khara Hais Local Municipality 50% 71.70% (0/8)
3 Dikgatlong Local Municipality 50% 55.32% (0/3)
4 Emthanjeni Local Municipality 60% 63.18% (0/3)
5 Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality 60% 72.27% (0/4)
6 Gamagara Local Municipality 40% 40.00% (0/4)
7 Hantam Local Municipality 70% 81.64% (0/6)
8 Kai !Garib 90% 68.99% (0/13)
9 Kamiesberg Local Municipality 60% 35.63% (0/15)
10 Kareeberg Local Municipality 35% 39.35% (0/3)
11 Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality 65% 39.96% (0/3) 90% 12 Kgatelopele Local Municipality 66.03% ( 1/3)
13 Khai Ma Local Municipality 35% 53.11% (0/5)
14 Magareng Local Municipality 50% 72.66% (0/1)
15 Mier Local Municipality 25% 25.03% (0/9)
16 Joe Morolong Local Municipality 15% 33.42% (0/15)
17 Nama Khoi Local Municipality 55% 63.47% (0/14)
18 Phokwane Local Municipality 45% 60.16% (0/3)
19 Renosterberg Local Municipality 25% 17.60% (0/2)
20 Richtersveld Local Municipality 60% 36.77% (0/5)
21 Siyancuma Local Municipality 15% 19.66% (0/4)
22 Siyathemba Local Municipality 75% 62.40% (0/3)
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 17
MuSSA Blue Drop Score WSA 7. Drinking Water Safety (2012) & Blue Drop Status 23 Sol Plaatje Local Municipality 75% 72.10% (0/2)
24 Thembelihle Local Municipality 40% 72.82% (0/2)
25 Tsantsabane Local Municipality 50% 66.18% (0/5)
26 Ubuntu Local Municipality 90% 72.63% (0/3)
27 Umsobomvu Local Municipality 65% 15.76% (0/3)
NOTE: Where a score of >75% is scored for Blue Drop and/or MuSSA, and the corresponding MuSSA and/or Blue Drop is <50%, the result is highlighted in blue. All WSAs highlighted are to be targeted for discussion by the DWA regional office in order to obtain a more in depth understanding of the situation. The following describes the Blue Drop Scoring as indicated above.
WSA 2012 Blue Drop Score Blue Drop Status Achieved
Blue Drop Score 83.31% ( 2/6) (2012) Total Number of Systems
Systems Achieving Blue Drop Status
According to the latest (2011) Green Drop Report the 25 WSAs make up a total of 155 systems which were assessed. 19 (i.e. 12%) of these systems achieved Green Drop Status.
Table 4: Comparison of MuSSA and DWA Green Drop Assessments (as at January 2013) MuSSA 8. Wastewater / Green Drop WSA Environmental Safety Score (2011) & Green Drop Status 1 !Kheis Local Municipality 5% 8.00% (0/1)
2 //Khara Hais Local Municipality 65% 35.80% (0/2)
3 Dikgatlong Local Municipality 85% 15.50% (0/3)
4 Emthanjeni Local Municipality 45% 21.00% (0/3)
5 Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality 40% 65.80% (0/2)
6 Gamagara Local Municipality 50% 10.50% (0/4)
7 Hantam Local Municipality 55% 15.40% (0/5)
8 Kai !Garib Local Municipality 75% 22.10% (0/3)
9 Kamiesberg Local Municipality 45% 5.40% (0/2)
10 Kareeberg Local Municipality 10% 27.70% (0/3)
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 18
MuSSA 8. Wastewater / Green Drop WSA Environmental Safety Score (2011) & Green Drop Status 11 Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality 15% 11.90% (0/3)
12 Kgatelopele Local Municipality 80% 41.90% (0/2)
13 Khai Ma Local Municipality 0% 14.20% (0/1)
14 Magareng Local Municipality 45% 30.30% (0/1)
15 Mier Local Municipality 0% 4.50% (0/1)
16 Joe Morolong Local Municipality 30% 49.20% (0/2)
17 Nama Khoi Local Municipality 75% 37.20% (0/11)
18 Phokwane Local Municipality 35% 53.40% (0/3)
19 Renosterberg Local Municipality 15% 28.40% (0/3)
20 Richtersveld Local Municipality 10% 27.60% (0/1)
21 Siyancuma Local Municipality 5% 3.80% (0/2)
22 Siyathemba Local Municipality 50% 18.00% (0/3)
23 Sol Plaatje Local Municipality 65% 76.00% (0/3)
24 Thembelihle Local Municipality 45% 55.70% (0/2)
25 Tsantsabane Local Municipality 70% 24.40% (0/2)
26 Ubuntu Local Municipality 55% 24.00% (0/3)
27 Umsobomvu Local Municipality 60% 6.50% (0/3)
NOTE: Where a score of >75% is scored for Green Drop and/or MuSSA, and the corresponding MuSSA and/or Green Drop score is <50%, the result is highlighted in green. All WSAs highlighted are to be targeted for discussion by the DWA regional office in order to obtain a more in depth understanding of the situation. The following describes the Green Drop Scoring as indicated above.
WSA 2011 Green Drop Score Green Drop Status Achieved Green Drop Score 90.60% ( 9/27) (2011) Total Number of Systems
Systems Achieving Green Drop Status
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 19
The above analysis indicates a good comparison between the MuSSAs (a qualitative assessment) and the Blue Drop/Green Drop results (quantitative assessments). Where both MuSSA results indicate “no/low vulnerability” and the Blue Drop/Green Drop results indicate “high risk”: o The WSA has begun to implement corrective actions to resolve issues/shortcomings identified through the Blue Drop/Green Drop process. Where the Blue Drop/Green Drop results indicate “low/no risk” and the MuSSA results indicate “high vulnerability”: o The WSA sees itself as vulnerable even though they currently meet Blue Drop/Green Drop requirements, and has indicated that service delivery may not be sustainable in the near future.
MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Ranking of Northern Cape Municipalities
The municipal vulnerability ranking index is a very useful aid where WSAs are able to compare how well they are performing their water services function in relation to other municipalities; for example the 24 priority DMs. All the DMs in this category have similar challenges; some are performing well while others are not. The vulnerability ranking sees Ubuntu Municipality (NC071) doing well while !Kheis Municipality (NC084) is the most vulnerable. These WSAs are similar in nature to big corporations having large asset registers managing substantial resources which are geographically spread over a large area which brings its own challenges, however, the positive is that some of the WSA’s are able to delivery acceptable water services despite the difficulties confronted by the many obstacles they have to overcome. Feedback received from these vulnerability rankings can assist the DWA to share the successes of those doing well and render targeted support to those who are not.
DWA is presently rolling out a support programme under the Municipal Priority Action Plan (MPAP) and has targeted some of the 24 Priority DMs across the spectrum from high to low risk business vulnerabilities to partner in this process. This is a very structured approach to reduce the business risk vulnerability of the WSAs where progress to improvement will be monitored through planned periodic updates of the MuSSA. This will then generate a new municipal vulnerability table/spider diagram which will be correlated with the corrective actions taken against the previous table/spider diagram, these trends will be unpacked and the implications thereof reported back to the WSA for further action.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 20
Table 5: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index: Northern Cape WSAs MuSSA Vulnerability MPAP WSA Index (VI) (2012) Rollout 1 !Kheis Municipality 0.97 2 Mier Municipality 0.94 3 Thembelihle Municipality 0.93 4 Renosterberg Municipality 0.91 5 Phokwane Municipality 0.91 6 Khai-Ma Municipality 0.87 7 Joe Morolong Municipality 0.87 8 Ga- Segonyana Municipality 0.86 9 Siyancuma Municipality 0.86 10 Kareeberg Municipality 0.86 11 Gamagara Municipality 0.85 12 Magareng Municipality 0.85 13 Kamiesberg Municipality 0.82 14 Richtersveld Municipality 0.79 15 Tsantsabane Municipality 0.78 16 Karoo Hoogland Municipality 0.77 17 Siyathemba Municipality 0.73 18 Sol Plaatje Municipality 0.72 19 Hantam Municipality 0.69 20 Umsobomvu Municipality 0.69
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 21
MuSSA Vulnerability MPAP WSA Index (VI) (2012) Rollout 21 Dikgatlong Municipality 0.67 22 Kgatelopele Municipality 0.66 23 Kai! Garib Municipality 0.63 24 Nama Khoi Municipality 0.62 25 //Khara Hais Municipality 0.56 26 Emthanjeni Municipality 0.53 27 Ubuntu Municipality 0.24
> 0.75 – Red Very High Vulnerability > 0.5 – Orange > 0.25 – Yellow High Vulnerability < 0.25 – Green
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 22
Very High Vulnerability
High Vulnerability
Moderate Vulnerability
Low Vulnerability
Figure 3: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index: Northern Cape WSAs
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 23
Figure 4: MuSSA Municipal Vulnerability Index Map: Northern Cape WSAs
Very High Vulnerability High Vulnerability Moderate Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Very High Vulnerability High Vulnerability
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 24
Conclusions
The 2011/2012 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment (MuSSA) survey was successfully conducted in Northern Cape, which comprised of 27 Water Services Authorities (WSAs) (i.e. there was 100% participation).
The most critical vulnerabilities for the Northern Cape are:
1. Staff Skill Levels (Technical) 2. Management Skill Level (Technical) 3. Wastewater/Environmental Safety and Green Drop Status
Furthermore:
An assessment of the Staff Skill Levels (Technical) MuSSA category indicated that with regards to water, 15% of WSAs have no staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience to operate WTWs, while a further 33% have <50% staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience. 22% of WSAs have no staff with the required water system plumbing, mechanical and electrical skills/qualifications and experience. With regards to wastewater, 11% of WSAs have no staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience to operate WWTWs, while a further 37% of WSAs have <50% of staff with the required skills/qualifications and experience. 22% of WSAs have no staff with the required sewage system plumbing, mechanical and electrical skills/qualifications and experience. 63% have the circumstance where staff attend skills development/training less frequently than once per year.
An assessment of the Management Skill Level (Technical) MuSSA category indicated that 15% have no key posts filled within their technical management organisation organogram. 15% have no technical management staff (i.e. 0% as per organogram) and 56% of WSAs have less frequent than annual skills/development training for managers. Consequently, 56% of WSAs have <50% of technical management staff with the correct skills/qualifications. 37% of WSAs have the circumstance where no key technical managers have signed Performance Agreements.
An assessment of the Wastewater/Environmental Safety and Green Drop Status MuSSA category indicated that 33% of WSAs are in a critical state with an additional 30% of WSAs having very poor performance requiring targeted intervention. 19% of WSAs still have not registered any of their wastewater works and related programmes onto the GDS and 37% of WSAs indicated that none of the wastewater issues have been tabled to council for action. This has resulted in limited/no funds been made available and limited/no corrective actions/remedial measures implemented to addressed identified issues of concern.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 25
A comparison of the MuSSA with outcomes of the 2012 Blue Water Services Audits found no conflict.
A comparison of the MuSSAs with the outcomes of the 2011 Green Drop Assessments found four conflicts where the MuSSA results indicate “no/low vulnerability” while the Green Drop results indicate “high risk” (i.e. Dikgatlong Local Municipality, Kai !Garib Local Municipality, Kgatelopele Local Municipality and Nama Khoi Local Municipality). In this instance, the WSAs appear to have begun to implement corrective actions to resolve issues/shortcomings identified through the Green Drop process.
Using the provided information, the following municipal vulnerability ranking was derived:
16 WSAs were identified as being Very Highly Vulnerable namely: !Kheis Municipality, Mier Municipality, Thembelihle Municipality, Renosterberg Municipality, Phokwane Municipality, Khai-Ma Municipality, Joe Morolong Municipality, Ga- Segonyana Municipality, Siyancuma Municipality, Kareeberg Municipality, Gamagara Municipality, Magareng Municipality, Kamiesberg Municipality, Richtersveld Municipality, Tsantsabane Municipality and Karoo Hoogland Municipality.
10 WSAs were identified as Highly Vulnerable namely: Siyathemba Municipality, Sol Plaatje Municipality, Hantam Municipality, Umsobomvu Municipality, Dikgatlong Municipality, Kgatelopele Municipality, Kai! Garib Municipality, Nama Khoi Municipality, //Khara Hais Municipality and Emthanjeni Municipality.
0 WSAs were identified as Moderately Vulnerable.
1 WSA was identified as having Low Vulnerability namely: Ubuntu Municipality.
The overall results indicate that serious water services vulnerability occurs within the Northern Cape, and there is a need engage with the identified WSAs to discuss and develop remedial action plans to rectify this situation.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 26
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
the 27 WSAs of the Northern Cape review the outcomes of the MuSSA and together with DWA National Regional Office identify a practical way forward, with agreed actions, that can be implemented to mitigate the identified vulnerabilities.
that “a start-to-finish management approach” be adopted (e.g. “Plan-Do-Check-Act” (PDCA) framework).
Figure 5: "Plan-Do-Check-Act" Framework
that a Municipal Priority Action Planning (MPAP) process be adopted in all 27 WSAs, which follows the PDCA framework, and which is currently being piloted and rolled- out at 8 of the WSAs within KZN Province (refer to Table 5) (The MPAP process is also supported by DWA National, DWA KZN and SALGA and links to the DWA Master Planning approach and Water Services Development Plans). The MPAP will focus on the following four phases:
Phase I – Analyze the current situation via the MuSSA, by the WSA and Regional DWA and decide where the WSA wants to be. Phase II – Determine the approaches on how the get there. Phase III – Set Actions to achieve these targets. Phase IV – Monitor, Evaluate and Communicate progress (including updating the MuSSA), to both the WSA and DWA regional office.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 27
that since the MuSSA and MPAP support the Master Planning and WSDP Process the WSAs should ensure that both MuSSA and MPAP are completed and supported by Council, and subsequently included within their WSDP. In so doing will ensure that the WSDP (which forms of the IDP) will include an appropriate allocation of resources to systematically address the prioritized vulnerabilities, which will lead to an improvement of the overall water services business health of the WSA.
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 28
Appendix A: Spider diagram outputs per WSA
DIKGATLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Red
Figure 6: Spider diagram for Dikgatlong Local Municipality
EMTHANJENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 7: Spider diagram for Emthanjeni Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 29
GAMAGARA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 8: Spider diagram for Gamagara Local Municipality
GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 9: Spider diagram for Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 30
HANTAM LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 10: Spider diagram for Hantam Local Municipality
JOE MOROLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 11: Spider diagram for Joe Morolong Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 31
KAI GARIB LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 12: Spider diagram for Kai Garib Local Municipality
KAMIESBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 13: Spider diagram for Kamiesberg Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 32
KAREEBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 14: Spider diagram for Kareeberg Local Municipality
KAROO HOOGLAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 15: Spider diagram for Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 33
KGATELOPELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 16: Spider diagram for Kgatelopele Local Municipality
KHAI-MA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 17: Spider diagram for Khai-Ma Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 34
KHARA HAIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 18: Spider diagram for Khara Hais Local Municipality
KHEIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Red
Figure 19: Spider diagram for Kheis Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 35
MAGARENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 20: Spider diagram for Magareng Local Municipality
MIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 21: Spider diagram for Mier Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 36
NAMA KHOI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 22: Spider diagram for Nama Khoi Local Municipality
PHOKWANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 23: Spider diagram for Phokwane Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 37
RENOSTERBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 24: Spider diagram for Renosterberg Local Municipality
RICHTERSVELD LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 25: Spider diagram for Richtersveld Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 38
SIYANCUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 26: Spider diagram for Siyancuma Local Municipality
SIYATHEMBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 27: Spider diagram for Siyathemba Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 39
SOL PLAATJE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 28: Spider diagram for Sol Plaatje Local Municipality
THEMBELIHLE LOCAL MUNICIPAITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Green
Figure 29: Spider diagram for Thembelihle Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 40
TSANTSABANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Red
Figure 30: Spider diagram for Tsantsabane Local Municipality
UBUNTU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Amber
Figure 31: Spider diagram for Ubuntu Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013 Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment of WSAs in Northern Cape Final Draft Report 41
UMSOBOMVU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Assessed MuSSA Confidence Level: Red
Figure 32: Spider diagram for Umsobomvu Local Municipality
MuSSA 2012 NC Draft Report March 2013.docx March 2013