Social Protests and Water Service Delivery in South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social Protests and Water Service Delivery in South Africa _.., ___IYBNIIIMA W'IIAOirlf9oo- []-- WATER llESEAACM CC.Mf$$1011f Social Protests and Water Service Delivery in South Africa Report to the WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION by BARBARA TAPELA Assisted by Bukiwe Ntwana and Darlington Sibanda Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) University of the Western Cape WRC Report No. TT 631/15 ISBN 978-1-4312-0672-8 May 2015 Obtainable from: Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 Gezina, 0031 [email protected] or download from www.wrc.org.za The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled Social Protests and Water Service Delivery in South Africa (WRC Report No. K5/2133) DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. © Water Research Commission ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 2004, South Africa has been hit by high volumes of social protests. Protestors claim that they protest over lack of ‘service delivery’ and water is one of the elements of service delivery. In 2012 the frequency, geographical spread and violence of service delivery-related social protests in post-apartheid South Africa reached unprecedented levels. Water service delivery issues rose in prominence among various reasons cited for protests. While this ascendance is remarkable, grievances over water services are not new. Water service delivery issues have been (and still are) a part of a range of conflated grievances that masquerade under the general rubric of ‘service delivery’ issues and underpin many rallying calls for social protest action. Although such conflation reflects the inter-relatedness of social services, it also masks the precise nature of the specific water service delivery issues in question. While protests highlight the prevalence of water services delivery issues in diverse and dynamic local contexts, the crafting of protest narratives and repertoires and the journalistic reporting of most protest events has often obscured the finer details of perceived grievance issues and how these transform into protest action. It appears as if media articles on service delivery protests focus on protests that journalists find to be newsworthy. The most common limitation, however, is that complex permutations of multi-level eruptions, which occur at grass-root level, are often overlooked. These are commonly social protests which are non- violent, in which only a few people participate, and which often include plot and neighbourhood level negotiations and contestations over water and other basic services. The reductionist approaches commonly adopted by analyses that rely on journalistic media therefore give a sense of coherence about protest phenomena but often fall short of providing nuanced understandings, which are critical to effective institutional interventions. The growing visibility of water ‘service delivery’ issues has thus not yielded clear understandings of the political, economic, social, institutional, historical and cultural environment within which social protests tend to occur, the exact nature of grievances over water service delivery and how grievance issues develop into violent protest action. This research report presents an outline of research findings on the pathways by which grievances over water services delivery conflate with other factors and develop into violent protest action. The report is based on a survey of the numerous social protests that journalistic and social media reported in the years from 2004 to 2014 and PLAAS researchers identified, catalogued and analysed. One challenge was that it is not easy to identify water service delivery issues among the various grievances catalogued in pre-2012 data because until then, narratives and reports tended to use the umbrella term ‘service iii delivery’. To resolve the problem, researchers took the term “service delivery” to indicate ‘possible existence’ of water service delivery issues and, for each reported case, verification was made through cross-referencing with data from other secondary sources, such as municipal records on the Water Services National Information System (WSNIS), research reports, anecdotal evidence, related journalistic and social media articles. Other proxy terms included ‘housing’ and ‘sanitation’. Research findings suggest that four proximate conditions are requisite to the development of water services delivery-related protests (Figure 1). These are 1) Socio-economic contexts characterized by poverty, unemployment, inequality and unhappiness about perceived relative deprivation and/or marginalization; 2) Presence of grievance issues about water services delivery, whether or not these conflate with other issues; 3) Disjuncture (including communication breakdown) primarily between municipal authorities at local levels and water users at plot and neighbourhood levels; 4) Interplay between all the foregoing and other key drivers for protest mobilisation, organization and growth. Socio- Grievances and economic dissatisfaction Context Active Disjunctures organization, between mobilization water users and and authorities dissemination Figure 1 Proximate Conditions for Social Protests associated with Water Services delivery Social Protest Contexts Research findings show that the majority of social protests associated with water service delivery tend to occur in low and middle income working-class urban and peri-urban neighbourhoods that are characterized by: • Poverty, unemployment, inequality and unhappiness about perceived relative deprivation and/or marginalization; • Dissatisfaction with water services delivery and the delivery of related social services (e.g. sanitation, housing, electricity, refuse removal and roads); iv • Disjuncture (including communication breakdown) primarily between municipal authorities at local levels and water users at plot and neighbourhood levels; • Negative perceptions about governance in general and municipal governance in particular; and • Municipal capacity constraints in dealing with longstanding backlogs for access to water and related social services (e.g. sanitation, housing, electricity, refuse removal, roads and storm water drains), particularly amid rapid urbanization and a changing demographic profile of citizenship expectations and aspirations. Although violent protests have tended to characteristically occur in urban areas, this is changing, however, as the trend towards rural people’s protests increases. The growing locus of violent rural protests includes commercial farming areas and their service centres (such as De Doorns, Worcester and Robertson in the Western Cape), mining areas and their residential compounds (such as Marikana, Luka Village and Mothotlong in the North West) and neighbouring villages, as well as large and sprawling traditional rural community settlements (such as Umlazi in KwaZulu-Natal). The recent spread of violent protests across the artificial urban-rural divide appears to be transported through both media broadcasts and people’s straddled livelihoods, whereby migrant workers returning from urban industrial and commercial centres carry with them the social capital of strategies to enhance the efficacy of engagements with rural local authorities largely perceived to be acquiescent or unconcerned. Civil society has yet to make a significant stamp on the magnitude of rural social protests, while the media has yet to develop robust mechanisms for picking up news about these protests. Rural protests – particularly those that are more peaceable than violent – therefore remain relegated to the ‘silent backdrops’ of South African society. Water Services Delivery Issues A number of water service delivery issues were identified among protest grievances. Among others, these included: • Problems relating to water supply, even when infrastructure is situated within 200 metres from the household; • Poor quality of water from existing supply infrastructure; • Old and deteriorated water reticulation networks; • Poor operation and maintenance of infrastructure; • High tariffs (and sometimes too low); • Intermittent water supplies; • Lack of monitoring of service delivery by private contractors; v • Perceived and alleged corruption in the awarding of private contracts; • Water restrictions and disconnections after installation of supplies; • Difficulties in access at night due to threats to personal safety and security; and • Comparison with more affluent neighborhoods, which creates feelings of relative deprivation. However, findings clearly showed that grievance issues, such as above, on their own were not the main cause of protests. Indeed, residents of many low and middle income working class neighbourhoods with relatively high backlogs in water services delivery did not engage in protest action. The question arose therefore what could be driving social protests associated with water service delivery in some but not other contexts? Key Drivers of Social Protests Six key drivers of violent social protests were identified. These included: • Rapid urbanization and a changing demographic profile of citizenship expectations and aspirations; • Agrarian transformations, which manifest as degrarianisation, transition from subsistence to commercially-oriented economies and a changing demographic profile of rural labour;