REPORT ON THE NEDLAC ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON IMPEDIMENTS TO INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY- 25 MAY 2000

1.    INTRODUCTION

This is a record of a Nedlac roundtable discussion aimed at extending dialogue between the Nedlac constituencies and other parties interested in social and economic development. R. Howard, general secretary of Satawu, chaired the meeting.

2.   PRESENTATIONS

Presentations at the roundtable discussion were aimed at providing different perspectives on the challenges facing infrastructure delivery. This is an abbreviated note on these inputs.

2.1. K. Gostner of Nedlac gave an overview of some of Nedlac's research findings on infrastructure delivery. An electronic version of the presentation is available from karl@nedlac.org.za

2.2. K. Gordhan, city manager of Johannesburg provided the following input:

Johannesburg had inherited:

• A legacy of fragmented services.
• Backlogs in the provision of services and no systematic plan to address those backlogs.
• Limited experience in community delivery programmes.
• A lack of a customer care culture.

All these factors adversely impacted on the quantity and quality of service delivery. It was the intention of the city to address these challenges over the next 5 years. Using the example of the delivery of water services, he explained that the city aimed to meet these challenges by:

(a) Establishing a water company. Briefly, this would address some of the issues related to accountability as well as capital expenditure. Further, it would enable the city to build skills in this area as the management company would be contracted to build domestic managerial capacity. This would enable the city to improve service delivery by establishing clear lines of accountability, but also by increasing revenue available for addressing backlogs.

(b) By implementing a step tariff. The step tariff would mean that the council would be able to provide a minimum service level of 6 kilolitres of free water to all households.

 

2.3. G. Moloi, chief director inthe Department of Provincial Affairs and Local Government provided the following inputfocussing on challenges facing infrastructure delivery. An electronic copy of the paperthat she presented at the discussion is available from karl@nedlac.org.za.

The lack of skills and capacityat local government constrained effective service delivery. The skills / capacityconstraints had 4 dimensions:

(a) Local government officials' ability to monitor and implement all service delivery requirements was stretched. This also impacted on inter-governmental co-ordination as officials' time was constrained.

(b) Local councillors did not have sufficient understanding of the processes of infrastructure delivery. This constrained their ability to have vigorous oversight of the process.

(c) Contractors did not always have the required skills or infrastructure that was required to effectively deliver services.

(d) Communities had not always developed structures that enabled them to articulate and represent their needs to government.

These capacity constraintshighlighted the need for resources to be allocated to improve both technical and politicalcapacity. In other words, both an understanding of processes allied to infrastructure andthe ability to articulate needs for and failings of delivery are essential in improvinginfrastructure delivery.

Co-ordination between nationaldepartments and other spheres of government remains a challenge. In particular, theintegration of projects is critical to ensuring more effective delivery. Currently,delivery was not sufficiently integrated. This resulted in sub-optimal outcomes.

2.4 E. Hassan, public sectorresearcher from the National Labour and Economic Development Institute noted that thepreceding inputs had covered much of what he had wanted to say. Accordingly he focussedhis input on a few key areas that had been identified in Naledi's research.

Housing delivery had taken placein a manner that undermined the long- term social and economic contributions of governmentexpenditure. New housing was:

(a) Located on the peripheries of townships and so enforced existing spatial development patterns.

(b) Experiencing high-level defect rates.

(c) Not integrated into other projects such as the construction of clinics or schools. This undermined the development of viable communities.

These problems were largelybecause the subsidy amount is insufficient to create quality houses in suitable locations.Integration of projects was a major concern, as fragmented delivery meant that, forinstance, housing was not embedded within an environment of other economic infrastructure.The result was that the aggregate economic benefit of infrastructure delivery wasundermined as households spent larger sums on travelling to labour markets, schools andother institutions that facilitate social and economic activity.

3. DISCUSSION

A substantial part of the discussion focussed on the difficulties in ensuring integration of delivery. Further, it was noted that infrastructure delivery had substantial economic benefits. A lack of integration undermined the development of economic and social efficiencies and so limited the aggregate impact of government expenditure.

The discussion identified 8common themes that needed addressing in order for infrastructure delivery to improve.

3.1. Integration / Co-ordination

3.2. Effects of decentralisation to local government

The decentralisation of service delivery to local government posed serious challenges for capacity in that sphere of government. The capacity needs identified by G. Moloi above were confirmed by those working in the field.

3.3. Community partnerships

Forging partnerships between government and communities was noted as essential to ensuring that :

(a) Delivery met communities' immediate needs.

(b) Projects agreed were sustainable given levels of income in communities.

However, a lack of capacity in poorer communities as well as low levels of organisation

limited community participation. To effectively build such partnerships, it was necessary to strengthen communities' abilities to organise and articulate interests.

Participants noted that Nedlac had concluded agreements on community participation in local economic development and that these needed to be followed up to assess their impact on service delivery processes.

3.5. Voice regulation

Voice regulation, that is the expression of interests, was raised in different forms during the discussion. It was noted that existing institutional arrangements did not facilitate effective expression of interests. Some institutions are too broad; others only 'hear certain voices'. This translated into delivery difficulties as communities, local government or government departments were not always able to articulate requirements in a fashion that changed the nature of delivery to those structures.

A central challenge in improving infrastructure delivery is increasing the ability of different structures to allow multiple 'voices', especially those of the poor, to be heard.

3.6. Rural development

The delivery of infrastructure to rural communities was identified as an ongoing need. The possibility of effective transfer of land to poor communities was raised as one option for reducing the long-term cost of infrastructure and service delivery.

3.7. What can be learnt from Johannesburg?

The discussion noted that many of the problems and solutions tried in Johannesburg were worthy of closer examination to assess their applicability to other environments. This was particularly the case in respect of the relationship between national and local government. However, it was noted that Johannesburg constituted something of a unique case in this regard because of its relative power.

3.8. Legislation / Regulation

The discussion noted that local government faced an array of regulations that limited effective service delivery. Participants highlighted tender regulations and processes as slowing and reducing the efficacy of delivery. It was noted that vigilance should be exercised to ensure that the interaction of various pieces of legislation and regulation does not impede infrastructure delivery.

3.9. Type of social service delivery

The type of service delivery most appropriate to alleviating poverty was discussed. The possibility of a basic income transfer to households was raised as one form of addressing poverty. Participants noted that if this transfer took the form of vouchers for services, this would facilitate the sustainability of infrastructure.

It was noted that at local government level the type of fee structure that was adopted was important in determining the level and quality of service that could be provided to poor communities. Participants noted that the councils that had attempted to implement these mechanisms should be closely monitored for relevance to national policy development as well as for other local governments.

4.    WAY FORWARD

The issues raised in the roundtable discussion and in the Nedlac research would be processed by a task team of the Development Chamber. The task team would further discussions on addressing impediments to infrastructure delivery.