Service Delivery : Focus on Dipaleseng Local Municipality : Mpumalanga Commonwealth

The supply or lack of services impacts on people's quality of life, and so the Constitution of South Africa and other strategy documents emphasise the provision of services to all South African citizens irrespective of colour or creed. The services are vast and the responsibility for provision is divided between national, provincial and local authorities. This paper focuses on the delivery of services whose responsibility and accountability lies with the local municipalities, including: water; electricity; sanitation and refuse removal. The paper also explores the background to the recent unrest in the country with a focus on Dipaleseng Municipality, looking at its socio-economic situation, and challenges which include poverty, economic stability and provision of basic services. Sources of data include the South African media, journal articles, relevant documents, websites and databases.


Background
South Africa has recently experienced protests and unrest due to dissatisfaction with service delivery.
Chief amongst the triggers of the unrest is lack of services including housing, sanitation, clean water, and electricity etc.
Figure 1 shows the locations of protests from 2007-2010, and Figure 2 the concerns of protestors (Jain, H. 2010: 31).As can be seen from Figure 2, amongst concerns that triggered the protests, housing is the top followed by water and electricity, sanitation etc.

CJLG November 2013 186
Source: Jain (2010) p30 Housing is primarily the responsibility of the provincial department, but since people have direct contact with local authorities they tend to direct grievances about the backlog in housing at municipalities.For this reason housing and conditions in the informal settlements will also be briefly examined.

Dipaleseng Municipality
Dipaleseng Municipality is located in Mpumalanga Province and falls under Gert Sibande District Municipality.It covers an area of about 2619.4 km² and has a population of 37,880 (Stats SA, 2007).
The head office is situated in Balfour, one of the larger towns in the area.Other small towns include Dasville, Greylingstad, Grootvlei, Val and Willemsdal (Figure 3).Close to these towns are settlements, both urban and rural, but the municipality itself is largely rural.The townships and rural settlements include Siyathemba in Balfour, Nthorwane, Ekanini etc.

Socio-economic characteristics
The socio-economic conditions of each municipality can be measured, by poverty rate, unemployment, and gross geographic product (GGP 59 ). Figure 4 below shows the decline in the poverty rate from 69.31% in 2001 to 60.93% in 2004 60 , which could be attributed to government 59 The Gross Geographic Product (GGP) is a measure used in South Africa to assess the total and sectorial economic activity on an annual basis within municipalities 60 "Poverty income is defined as the minimum income needed to sustain a household and varies according to the size of the household.For example, the monthly poverty income in 2009 for a household of four.... was R2, 440 and R3,396 for a

CJLG November 2013 188
spending on expanded public works programmes (EPWP), and other nationally and provincially driven programmes aimed at poverty reduction.Monitoring poverty levels shows the slow decline in poverty rate from 60.93% in 2004to 59.75% in 2006(Poverty Database, HSRC, 2006).

Figure 4: Dipaleseng -Poverty rate 2001-2006
To explore the reasons attributed to the rise/decline of poverty it is important to understand the economy of the municipality, and key economic sectors.Mpumalanga as a whole is known for production of maize, sunflower, groundnuts, citrus fruits etc. Dipaleseng contributes 3.48 % to Mpumalanga's agricultural income.In 2001 agriculture, community services and trade were the top three sectors, with agriculture contributing 21% to the municipality's total GDP (Figure 5).
In addition crop production, livestock, dairy farming and commercial logging are also prevalent in the whole of Mpumalanga; Dipaleseng also plays a role in this sub-sector hence the existence of the biggest abattoir (Karan Beef) that employs largely Dipaleseng residents.
Dipaleseng experienced a severe decline in agricultural income between 2001-2004.Even today it has failed to recover fully.From 2004-06 some improvement was seen which can be attributed to LED programme, although the economy did not reach the 2001 mark (Figure 6).The total GGP (all sectors combined) however shows a positive change within the same period (Figure 7).This positive change may be attributed to the growth in the secondary sectors e.g.  Ward 1 = 3% Ward 4 = 3% Ward 2 = 2.5% Ward 5 = 1.5% Ward 3 = 1.5% Ward 6 = 2% Failure to meet the demand for basic services results in unhealthy, unsafe and hazardous habitats which leads to diseases, disasters etc.The services may either be lacking, inadequate or of a lower standard.That is why it is crucial to understand the level/standard at which the services are provided (Figure 8)

Housing
Housing is not the responsibility of the municipality but that of the provincial Department of Human Settlements, but is also considered in this paper as it was also part of local grievances.Some 43% of the households in Dipaleseng are informal (backyard and free standing shacks).This shows an increase of 9% from the 2001 census data which recorded 34% households living in shacks.43% is a huge percentage.Figure 9 shows the varying backlog between rural and urban areas.Among the complaints that the people vented was the lack of water and its poor quality.According to the municipality there is only one purification plant that is situated in Fortuna.Dipaleseng relies on it but the engineers had long warned that it was fast nearing its capacity (Dipaleseng IDP, 2008/09).
In 2001 only 38.7% had access to a flush toilet connected to sewer.The 2007 data from the Community Survey shows that 68.1% have flush toilet.This is a remarkable improvement from 29.4%.In an attempt to even do better the municipality has provided new townships with long-drop toilets, meeting an intermediate standard in an effort to eradicate the bucket system of sewage disposal (a basic or level 1 standard).About 4.3% households were still using the bucket system in

Protests in Dipaleseng
In 2009 a wave of protest swept the country; there was concern that service delivery demonstrations would degenerate into xenophobia, but there was a history of opposition to xenophobia in Siyathemba, Balfour's township.The Sowetan reported: The community submitted a memorandum to the Dipaleseng Municipality on 8 July 2009.
Most demands concerned basic issues such as a request for a police station, a mini-hospital and high-mass lights.Topping the list were calls for a skills training centre and policies governing job recruitment in the area.
These reflect the fact that while the protest was backed by the community, leadership was provided by the township's youth.It is this generation that suffers most from unemployment and lack of housing.Moreover, many of the older leaders are now politicians and tenderseekers.
The council failed to respond to the July 8 memorandum, hence the 19 July meeting [was called and] voted for a stay away.Some activists suspect that police violence was aimed at intimidating them.It had the reverse effect.People fought back and the stay-away lasted four days (Sowetan 2009).
The police fired rubber bullets and teargas as people left the meeting, and protestors set fire to two buildings and shops were looted (Sowetan, 2009).Clearly feelings were running high on both sides.
In analysing the community demands of 8 July (Appendix 1), it is important to assess:  how they fit into the services provided by the municipality  are communities aware of who does what between the spheres of government?
 are they using appropriate channels to voice their dissatisfaction and, if not, how can this be remedied?
 is violent protest justified?
In the community's memorandum of 8 July 2009, half of the demands fell out of the jurisdiction of the municipality.Communities often see municipalities as their channel to reach provincial and national government, which makes the municipality the target of misdirected anger and frustrations by the citizens.This could be addressed through public participation methods (i.e.ward committee meetings, imbizos etc) to explain the following:  different roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government  rights and responsibilities of the citizens  channels for redress  the municipality's achievements with regard to the IDPs and other development initiatives.
The municipality has improved in a number of areas as outlined above but has to increase the pace of service-improvement to communities that need them most.To prevent similar protests in the future the municipalities need to strengthen its communication with the residents.It has to inform them of its achievements and also delays/bottlenecks regarding the provision of services.

CJLG November 2013 194
While the need for communities to voice their dissatisfaction with services is justified as it forms part of the democracy the South Africans voted for, the violence coupled with the protests harms interests on both sides.

Way to the future for Dipaleseng
After the protests a high profile delegation which included President Zuma visited the communities and a task team was appointed to look into the grievances outlined in the memorandum.By February 2010, more protests occurred as citizens, particularly the youth, saw government as being unresponsive to their grievances as nothing visible was happening in terms the concerns raised in July 2009.
In May 2011 the Acting Minister of CoGTA, Mr Nathi Mthethwa, received the report back from the task team.In his response to the report he stated: In

Questions
Various questions remain unanswered as a result of the protest.Does this mean that protesting is the language that government understands most?Do communities need to protest before service delivery is speeded up?What about the non-protesting communities elsewhere?Are they going to be denied their right to basic services?Does protesting and non-protesting mean dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the services?
One solution which has been successful in communicating people's needs is the Citizen Report Card which is a tool to strengthen public-government communication (Zama 2012).The CRC is can be used across all levels of government to provide feedback from citizens regarding:  Availability, reliability and quality of services Feedback is then disseminated through various media where after dialogues between citizens and departments for services are conducted.The end product is a social compact which is the contract between citizens (recipients of services) and government (service provider).Depending on the agreement between citizens and the municipality CRC can be repeated every 2-5 years.This will enhance the public officials' performance and improved efficient, effective and quality service delivery.

Figure 1 :Figure
Figure 1: Location of protests in relation to housing services provision

Figure 9 :
Figure 9: Status Quo for housing


2007 compared to 19.1% in 2001.In rural areas each household is responsible for sanitation so many CJLG November 2013 192 use pit latrines or having no facility.According to the IDP 2008/09 four major sanitation projects were prioritized.These were:  Sewer reticulation and maintenance in Siyathemba to benefit Wards 2 & 4 Completion of sewer pump station in Nthorwane to benefit Ward 6 Completion of sewer reticulation in Balfour to benefit Ward 3 According to Statistics SA Community Survey, 16.5% households had no toilets in 2007 but recently only 3.6% households are reported to have no access to any form of sanitation.Figure 10 shows current access to toilets by type between key areas.

Figure 10 :
Figure 10: Sanitation type by nodal towns Access to and satisfaction with services  Responsiveness of service provider  Willingness to pay  Hidden costs ( corruption & support system), and  Quality of life line with the local Government Turn Around Strategy (LGTAS) that the Cabinet adopted in December 2009 as well as the Municipal Turnaround Strategies (MTAS) developed per municipality, the lives of the people of Dipaleseng are fast getting turned around for the better!The reality of a better life gets closer with every coordinated effort between government and local communities.(Acting Minister, CoGTA May 2011) Create a culture of long term sustainable vision to ensure that the growth and development programs established under the MoU uphold the principle of sustainable development.Currently the mine is supporting at least eight local enterprises: a laundry, cleaning, gardening, waste collection, construction, catering, sunflower farming and an employee shuttle service;  Provide an avenue for coordination of economic development initiatives to enhance the activities of the Dipaleseng Development Programme, implemented in partnership with the Municipality.The program was established to integrate the mine employees' housing needs into the municipality's current housing and economic development initiatives; and  Strengthen cooperative and government/private sector relations.Great Basin Gold has already provided capacity building to the Dipaleseng Local Municipality by seconding a Project Manager to establish a project management unit and assist the municipality to access infrastructure funding.
 Providing financial and non-financial assistance to potential investors and local small and medium enterprises, specifically supporting Great Basin Gold's endeavour to provide business support to local existing and emerging enterprises 