Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa By Lina Taing University of Cape Town Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Department of Political Studies Supervisors: Vinothan Naidoo & Robert Cameron December 2015 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town One of the things we’re often struggling with in the water and sanitation section is that we’d love for there to be a magic bullet. We’d love for there to be a magic solution. And certainly companies and NGOs call me all the time, saying we found the thing, and I’d love to believe that can happen. But the fact is, that’s not the way it works. It’s a big, complicated sector. The needs are enormous. The challenges are huge… we’ve got to think less about what is the magic bullet and what is the best technology, and more about how to come up with a tailor-made solution that suits the capacity of the people we’re trying to help. Clarissa Brocklehurst, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Chief of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene from 2007-2011, on technology-driven rationales in the sanitation sector (Frontline, 2014) Sanitation is not simply a technical problem; it’s a social problem with emotional overtones. It actually talks to political economy. How do you manage between poor residents, black political leaders and old white managers? You better get all those groups in—otherwise it won’t work. Mike Muller (2015: 285), the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s Director-General from 1997 to 2005, on improving sanitation services in South Africa i Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa Declaration Declaration I, Lina Taing, prepared this original work to satisfy the PhD requirements of the University of Cape Town. I hereby declare that the work on which this thesis is based is my own (except where acknowledgements indicate otherwise) and that neither the whole work nor any part of it has been, is being or is to be submitted for another degree at this or any other university. I authorise the University to reproduce for the purpose of research either the whole or any portion of the contents in any manner whatsoever. To note, the material I present in this thesis is drawn from two studies funded by the Water Research Commission (WRC) on the challenges of providing services to informal settlements in South Africa. The reports emanating from the research contracts were: TIPS for sewering informal settlements: Technology, Institutions, People and Services (Taing, Armitage, et al., 2013); and Free basic sanitation in informal settlements: An ethnography of so-called communal toilet use and maintenance (Taing et al., 2014). This thesis builds upon the findings and arguments put forward in these research reports. I was the primary author of the reports, which I jointly authored. I present in this thesis empirical data that was previously featured in the WRC publications, though I have revised the descriptions and analysis of said data in this text to avoid plagiarism. Where necessary, I cite data gathered by my co-researchers and acknowledge their work in the References section. I use a modified version of Harvard conventions for referencing. Signature: Date: 7 December 2015 ii Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa Abstract Abstract From 1994 to 2008, South Africa’s national government disseminated numerous policies, laws, regulations and strategies to support its objective of providing basic sanitation access to the urban poor by 2014. The state has yet to attain this objective—ostensibly due to poor municipal execution of national policy. This thesis challenges this assessment, as it overlooks how non-municipal actors have shaped implementation and ignores possible weaknesses in policy. After assessing the delivery of sanitation services in Cape Town informal settlements, I found that disputes among municipal implementers, policy beneficiaries and social advocates about broadly framed policy, as well as policy gaps in servicing informal settlements, contributed to the City’s failure to achieve national objectives. The local actors’ differences and policy gaps necessitated the re-formulation of sanitation policy and programmes in Cape Town according to conflicting rationalities that accommodated the ‘lived’ and ‘practical’ realities of servicing informal settlements. In light of these circumstances, this thesis argues that there is a disproportionate focus on turning national policy into practise—for this viewpoint misses how policy oftentimes is re-formulated according to local actors’ perspectives and experiences. Understanding the complex interplay between policy rationales and implementation realities can contribute to more constructive means of effectively providing sanitation services for South African informal settlements. Keywords: Implementation; right to basic sanitation; urban sanitation; informal settlements iii Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa Acknowledgements & dedication Acknowledgements & dedication I am grateful to: Rotary International and the Water Research Commission, for funding my research. My former ‘co-workers’ at the City of Cape Town; the many informal settlement residents I interviewed; and my research assistant in BM Section, for offering perceptive observations about municipal sanitation delivery. Mike Muller and Helgard Muller, for imparting key reflections about policymaking. Liza Cirolia; Luqmaan Cornelius; Pieter Crous; Densil Faure; Divine Fuh; Luzuko Gangatele; Johan Gerber; Lawrence Grootboom; John Harrison; Nashietah Leukes; Wafeeq Manuels; Kwame Mfodwo; Nolufefe Mondliwa; Lesego Molefi; Llast Mudondo; Jaco Muller; Kathy Nguyen; Samuel Norvixoxo; Philip Owira; Sophia Pan; Leon Poleman; David Schaub-Jones; Gavin Silber; and Susie Trinh, for your insight, support and camaraderie. The University of Cape Town’s Urban Water Management Research Unit. I am especially indebted to Neil Armitage, for his leadership and guidance; Robert Cameron, for his interest and aid; Mugsy Spiegel, for his patience and tutelage; Kirsty Carden, for her advice and friendship; and Lloyd Fisher-Jeffes, for creating a Word template that made formatting a piece of cake, as well as being an amazing peer during our respective PhD journeys. And a special thank you to: Vinothan Naidoo, for your supervision and encouragement. It is amazing how five years of seemingly disparate data suddenly made sense under your guidance! Wesley Matthee, for keeping me sane and fed. My parents Ken and Lisa; siblings Khay and Diana; and Uncle Kimmy and Aunt Judy, for providing emotional (and some occasional financial) support to keep me afloat throughout my studies. I dedicate this work to my eldest brother. Your premature passing has left an indelible impact on my life. iv Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa Table of contents Table of contents Declaration ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements & dedication iv Table of contents v List of figures ix List of tables xv Glossary & acronym list xvi 1. Introduction: Human rights, municipal wrongs? 1 1.1 Study purpose 8 1.2 Thesis outline 10 2. Study framework: Implementation studies 11 2.1 The policy stages 14 2.1.1 Policy formulation 14 2.1.2 Policy implementation 14 2.1.3 Policy evaluation 15 2.2 Implementation studies 15 2.2.1 First generation (1970s–1980s) 16 2.2.2 Second generation (1980s) 17 2.2.3 Third generation (Late 1980s–present) 20 2.2.4 Key limitations 21 2.2.5 Key assumptions 22 2.3 Implementation variables framework 24 2.3.1 Mazmanian & Sabatier’s framework 25 2.3.2 Framework critique & modifications 30 2.4 Summary 35 3. Study design & methods 37 3.1 Ethnographic case study approach 37 3.2 Case study selection 41 3.3 Mixed research methods 44 3.3.1 Document & literature review 44 3.3.2 Participant observation 45 3.3.3 Interviews 46 3.3.4 Site visits 47 3.3.5 Photography 47 3.3.6 Toilet survey 47 3.3.7 Cell phone survey 47 3.4 Ethical & personal considerations 48 3.4.1 Informed consent 49 3.4.2 Participants’ anonymity & trust 50 3.4.3 Personal safety 51 3.5 Summary 51 v Implementing sanitation for informal settlements: Conflicting rationalities in South Africa Table of contents 4. Policy review: Past wrongs, present problems 52 4.1 Colonial & apartheid policies (1875–1993) 52 4.2 Reconstruction & Development Programme (1994) 58 4.3 Water Supply & Sanitation Policy White Paper (1994) 60 4.3.1 Demand driven development & right to services 60 4.3.2 Integrated governance 61 4.3.3 Cross-subsidised basic services for the poor 62 4.3.4 Urban township services 64 4.4 Constitution (1996) 65 4.5 Water Services Act (1997) 68 4.6 Municipal Systems Act (2000) 70 4.7 Free Basic Services Policy (2001) 73 4.8 Norms & standards regulations (2001-2002) 78 4.8.1 Regulations relating to compulsory national standards (2001) 79 4.8.2 Norms & standards in respect of tariffs for water services (2001) 79 4.8.3 Regulatory guidelines (2002) 80 4.9 Basic Household Sanitation White Paper