State of Water in Cities Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities SACN Programme: Water Management Document Type: SACN Report Document Status: Final Date: March 2015          th Joburg Metro Building, 16 floor, 158 Loveday Street, Braamfontein 2017 Tel: +27 (0)11-407-6471 | Fax: +27 (0)11-403-5230 | email: [add any other logos here] Executive Summary The South African Cities Network (SACN) has included water management on its agenda as one of its focus areas under the Strategic Objective – Dealing with City Vulnerabilities of the 2016 Business Plan – owing to the growing threat of freshwater scarcity largely as a consequence of increasing demand, pollution, unsustainable use and climate change. To facilitate the reporting on water and its management by the SACN, this research project was commissioned and awarded to WR Nyabeze and Associates (WRNA). The main objective for this research was to conduct an assessment of the current state and quality of water infrastructure within cities as well as the condition of the freshwater resources (rivers and wetlands). This would facilitate the determination of infrastructural and human capacity needs and allow for implementation of adequate resource monitoring protocols. SACN would then be well placed to provide assistance to these cities to improve their alignment with the national imperatives of good water management to achieve food and energy security, ecosystems conservation and reduction of risks from water scarcity (climate change). This document contributes to addressing the above objective through: i) Determining indicators that adequately describe/determine the current state and quality of water infrastructure within the cities. ii) Presenting the indicators populated with available data iii) Analyzing the indicator data to facilitate the assessment of the cities alignment with the national imperatives of good water management. The research used as an assessment tool the impact pathway framework assessment tool to identify the important indicators for sustainable water resources management at city level. The assessment tool was applied on the following topics:  Topic 1: Resource availability at city level in relation to its use  Topic 2: Fitness for use of water (water quality)  Topic 3: Condition of freshwater resources (ecosystems) and impacts on people and infrastructure  Topic 4: Condition of water infrastructure and management in the cities  Topic 5: Responses to climate change impacts  Topic 6: Revenue management, pricing and budgeting for water supply services, including water loss management. For each of the above topics, indicators were determined through an extensive literature review which brought the total number of indicators tracked for this research to a set of 142 indicators. The number of indicators relevant for each topic is as follows: Number of indicators per topic number Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) 18 14 4 20 13 13 SACN (2008) 10 5 7 11 5 2 DESKTOP RESEARCH 44 38 28 86 31 16 State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page i [add any other logos here] This research relied on readily available data to populate the various key performance indicators (KPIs). As shown in the table below, based on the impact pathway complete coverage can be achieved with the KPIs identified on this study i.e. the “DESKTOP RESEARCH”. Lack of multi-year data meant that trends over a number of years could not be analysed. Using a threshold of 30% coverage, the current status for topics 1, 2, 5 and 6 could be described with some confidence with the indicators from the SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) study. The potential added benefit of partially completed data from this study to all topics is quite significant. The lack of data for topic 3 remains is a serious cause for concern. Number of indicators per topic number Source Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 Multi-year 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Partially complete 18 (41%) 14(37%) 4(14%) 20(23%) 13(42%) 13(81%) SALGA/WRC MBI Total 18 (41%) 14(37%) 4(14%) 20(23%) 13(42%) 13(81%) Multi-year 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Partially complete 13 (30%) 11 (29%) 4 (14%) 11(13%) 6(19%) 2 (13%) No data 30 (68%) 26(68%) 24(86%) 75 (87%) 25(81%) 14(87%) DESKTOP RESEARCH Total 44 (100%) 38 (100%) 28 (100%) 86(100%) 31(100%) 16(100%) One of the aims of SACN is to encourage the exchange of information, experience and best practices on urban development and city management. To this end indicators where certain SACN cities performed well are shown in the table below . SACN Member City No Measure Indicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A Water and waste water infrastructure A Investment in water infrastructure A A Capital investment per person 1 CAPEX A A Water supply infrastructure reaching citizens A A A A Metered connections A Capital requirements A Access to water and sanitation services 2 OPEX A A A Per capita expenditure on OPEX 3 Technical capacity A A Technical capacity Ecosystem services and Freshwater Ecosystem A A Priority Areas Managing pollution from anthropogenic activities A A A etc. Monitoring, forecasting A A A Fish Support Areas 4 and early warning A A A A Wetland clusters A A A Threatened or near threatened fish species A Weather stations A A A A Access to flush toilets 5 Waste treatment A A Use of ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines A A A Drinking water quality 7 Enforcement of regulations A A Consumer debt State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page ii [add any other logos here] SACN Member City No Measure Indicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A A A A A Variance on budget A A A Current replacement value Carrying value for water and wastewater A A infrastructure 10 Asset management A A A Completion of water supply management audits Completion of waste water asset management A audits A A Infrastructure asset management health checks A Operation and maintenance Completion of bulk water infrastructure data 12 Information/data A A A Information management and availability 21 Sales volumes for water A A A Income from the sale of water 25 Metering and billing A A Customer care health check A A A Water losses to lower than 30% A A A Progressive improvement A A A Most to benefit from tackling non-revenue water A A Revenue water Revenue per capita per day and per household per A 26 Non-revenue water monthly Cost of providing water services vs revenue from A services Cost of service vs revenue to keep cost to A consumers low A A A Current ratio A A Level of salaries vs operational costs Total 12 19 12 8 8 12 5 4 6 1=Johannesburg, 2=Cape Town, 3=eThekwini, 4=Tshwane, 5=Ekurhuleni, 6=Nelson Man dela Bay, 7=Mangaung, 8=B uffalo City, 9=Msunduzi Those SACN member cities whose water management practices have achieved recognition were identified. Lessons from these cities may benefit other members of SACN . The specific achievements are as follows: 1. Resource availability at city level in relation to its fitness for use was understood the include the water resource types available to the cities, level of capital expenditure on the infrastructure necessary to abstract, treat and convey the water to the ultimate user, level of operating expenditure, the availability of the technical capacity to support the infrastructure in adequate working condition and the management of the relevant assets. Analysis revealed the existing water and wastewater infrastructure in Cape Town is more adequate and the city has relatively lower new infrastructural needs. Along with Nelson Mandela Metro, it also has the highest proportion of households with piped water inside dwellings (as reported in 2010) and along with eThekwini, Mangaung and Msunduzi, leads with respect to percentage number of metered connections. In addition, Cape Town along with eThekwini, Tshwane, Ekurhuleni, and Nelson Mandela Bay demonstrate the best performance with respect to budgeting for spending on asset management. With respect to technical capacity, the 2014 State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page iii [add any other logos here] Stockholm Industry Water Award winner - eThekwini Municipality – and Buffalo City edge out the City of Cape Town. 2. It was observed that generally, operating expenditure for the SACN member cities was closely correlated with the population size within each city. However, the data on capital spending revealed that Nelson Mandela Bay Metro incurs the most capital expense per person followed by eThekwini and may be a consequence of rapid urbanization and/or huge backlogs that may be getting addressed. It may also be a manifestation of wasteful expenditure unfortunately. 3. With respect to the condition of freshwater resources and likely impacts on people and infrastructure, the existing wastewater collection and treatment capacity at the larger SACN metros are relatively fine and the risks to human health relatively lower owing to the larger metros’ comparative ability to attract and keep the technical skill essential for delivery of adequately treated water to the final consumer and treat wastewater to an adequate level such that its release into the environment has a lower impact on the freshwater resources. This may be that these metros are economic hubs populated by consumers that are better able to demand and pay for high services levels and support these Cities’ revenue streams. This has implications for control of outbreaks and spread of water borne epidemics. 4. The Cities of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay performed better than the other SACN member cities on information management aspects and as such can be expected to be best placed to assess the water resources challenges they face and anticipate those yet to manifest themselves. Indeed, the City of Cape Town, from the data obtained, while able to impose a relatively low tariff for water services, has along with the Cities of Tshwane and Nelson Mandela Bay consistently kept the percentage of water losses below 30%. This makes the City of Cape Town the SACN member city whose water services income is least impacted by non-revenue water losses. 5. In terms of revenue Management, pricing and budgeting for water supply services, the City of Cape Town was considered the best performer. With the highest proportion of persons with piped water inside dwelling and with among the best metered reticulation system, it is perhaps not so surprising that Cape Town closely followed by the City of Tshwane are among the cities that manage the water losses better and subsequently get paid for most of the water supplied. What distinguishes the City of Cape Town, however, is that its unit water consumption (per person and per household) figures are not as high as the corresponding figures for the City of Tshwane which has the highest unit consumption for both measures of all the SACN Cities. Moreover when the income contribution per person per year and per household per year respectively are considered, it is observed to have unit income figures that are less than 50% of what the City of Johannesburg derives for both the individual and the household. This supports the earlier conclusion that the tariffs for water services in City of Cape Town are significantly lower than tariffs imposed by the other cities. On this basis one can say the City of Cape Town has struck the best balance between ensuring their cost of service delivery are covered by the revenue generated and keeping the cost to consumers as low as possible. State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page iv [add any other logos here] 6. The research also found the following information gaps that can impact on the ability to make reliable assessments on the water resources at City level and the sustainability of the existing management.  Data for all the indicators identified was not readily available particularly for the smaller metros that are only beginning to raise the level of performance of their information management systems. While the gaps vary from city to city for the different topics looked at above, it was observed for all cities that there is a lack of adequate monitoring for the indicators for the “Fitness for Use” at city level. The available data was derived from a nationwide project – the NFEPA - conducted at a spatial scale of sub-Water Management Area (WMA) level. This may not be sufficient for city level assessments.  Even when available, the reliability of the audited finance figures as contained in financial reports was brought into question by the adjustments noted in some financial reports that carried different figures for the same item.  The likely climate change scenarios for the region paint a grim picture which the cities would be well advised to be already planning to address. However, the research team did not find much evidence at city level that this was being prioritized through the development of specific detailed action plans. This suggests the threats posed by climate change impacts may not currently be regarded a priority compared to the other challenges the cities management may be facing. 7. Finally, it was suggested that to manage water resources sustainably and to support social and economic development of the country, managers of water resources and infrastructure need to get adequately acquainted with an number of issues that can be broadly grouped into the following four categories:- i) Intimate knowledge about their ultimate customer, the consumer of their product namely water and the user of the ecosystem; ii) An appreciation of the different water resource types that are available and, iii) An appreciation of the existing and any emerging threats to reliability of delivery of this product to the consumer. iv) Building the necessary capacity (technical and financial) to address the challenges. State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page v [add any other logos here] CONTENTS Executive Summary i 1 Background 1 2 Descriptors of Good Water Management at City Level (indicators) 4 3 Data Sources and Level of Information Available 7 4 State of Water Resource and its Management in Cities 11 4.1 Topic 1: Resource availability at city level in relation to its use 13 4.1.1 CAPEX 16 4.1.2 OPEX 21 4.1.3 Technical capacity 22 4.1.4 Waste treatment 24 4.1.5 Enforcement of regulations 26 4.1.6 Asset management 28 4.2 Topic 2: Fitness for use of water 33 4.2.1 Monitoring and early warning 34 4.3 Topic 3: Condition of freshwater resources and impacts on people and infrastructure 45 4.3.1 Waste treatment 45 4.3.2 Enforcement of regulations 45 4.4 Topic 4: Condition of water infrastructure and management in the cities 46 4.4.1 Information/data 47 4.4.2 Planning and implementation 48 4.4.3 Water sales 49 4.5 Topic 5: Responses to climate change impacts 51 4.5.1 Monitoring, forecasting and early warning 52 4.6 Topic 6: Revenue management, pricing and budgeting for water supply services, including water loss management 58 4.6.1 Metering and billing 58 4.6.2 Non-revenue water 59 4.6.3 Cost recovery and investment strategy 61 4.6.4 Budgeting 62 4.6.5 Pricing of services 63 State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page vi [add any other logos here] 4.7 General observations 65 4.7.1 What is the relative performance of the SACN cities from the situation assessment? 65 4.7.2 What are the critical information gaps? 66 4.7.3 What opportunities exist to improve current practice? 67 4.7.4 What indicators can Cities adopt to facilitate the identification of good practices? 70 5 Water Management in SCAN member Cities: City Perspectives 72 5.1 SACN Cities City Perspectives 72 5.1.1 City of Johannesburg 72 5.1.2 eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 74 5.1.3 City of Tshwane 75 5.1.4 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 76 5.1.5 Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality 77 5.1.6 Mangaung Municipality 78 5.1.7 Buffalo City Municipality 79 5.1.8 Msunduzi Municipality 80 5.2 Case Studies: Successful Water Management. 80 5.2.1 City of Cape Town 80 5.2.2 eThekwini Municipality 80 5.2.3 City of Ekhuruleni 81 5.3 Lessons SACN cities may have to offer 81 6 Key Role-Players in Water Management at City Level 84 7 Way Forward 87 References 88 APPENDIX A: INDICATORS FROM THE SALGA/WRC BENCHMARKING PROJECT 90 APPENDIX B: INDICATORS IN STATE OF CITIES REPORTING: GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE AND TOOLKIT (SACN, 2008) 92 APPENDIX C: COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF INDICATORS 93 APPENDIX D: GRAPHS FOR SELECTED INDICATORS State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page vii [add any other logos here] LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Summary of repeated causes derived from the impact pathway analysis framework ................................... 2 Table 2-1: Indicators for selected measures .................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2-2: Indicators per topic ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2-3: Coverage of indicators for each topic ............................................................................................................ 5 Table 3-1: Status of available indicators for selected causes ......................................................................................... 8 Table 3-2: Summary of status of information on KPs for repeated causes and topics ................................................... 9 Table 3-3: Status of indicators for per topic (as number of indicators) ......................................................................... 10 Table 4-1: Status of indicators for resource availability at city level and its use. .......................................................... 15 Table 4-2: Status of indicators for fitness for use of water ............................................................................................ 34 Table 4-3: Status of indicators for condition of freshwater resources and impacts ....................................................... 45 Table 4-4: Bulk water infrastructure management in the cities ..................................................................................... 46 Table 4-5: Status of indicators for condition of water infrastructure management in the cities ..................................... 46 Table 4-6: Status of indicators for responses to climate change impacts ..................................................................... 51 Table 4-7: Number of weather stations per SACN city ................................................................................................. 56 Table 4-8: Status of indicators for revenue management, pricing and budgeting for water supply services, including water loss management .................................................................................................................................. 58 Table 4-9: Measures and indictors without data ........................................................................................................... 65 Table 4-10: Msunduzi Municipality- 2010/11 Annual Report ........................................................................................ 67 Table 4-11: Msunduzi Municipality- 2011/12 Annual Report ........................................................................................ 67 Table 5-1: What can SACN member cities learn from each other? .............................................................................. 83 State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page viii [add any other logos here] LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 - Population (Statistics South Africa, 2012) .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 4.2 - Population growth rate ((Statistics South Africa, 2002 and 2012)) .................................................... 11 Figure 4.3 – High water yield areas in South Africa (Source: SAEO, 2012) .......................................................... 13 Figure 4.4 – High Groundwater Recharge areas (Source: SAEO, 2012) ................................................................ 14 Figure 4.5 – Mean Annual Rainfall ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4.6 – Expenditure on water services (AFS) .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4.7 – Capital Investment in water infrastructure (Rand) - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................. 17 Figure 4.8 – Capital Investment in water infrastructure (Rand/person/year) - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ............ 17 Figure 4.9 – Capital Investment in water and wastewater infrastructure (Rand) - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ...... 18 Figure 4.10 – Capital Investment in water and wastewater (Rand/person/year) - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ....... 18 Figure 4.11 – Number of people with access to water - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................................ 18 Figure 4.12 – Access to water % - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.13 – Households with piped water inside dwelling .................................................................................. 19 Figure 4.14 – Number of households per connection - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................................. 20 Figure 4.15 – Percentage number of metered connections - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ........................................ 20 Figure 4.16 – Operating Expenditure (Rands) - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ............................................................. 21 Figure 4.17 – Green Drop –KPA 1: Process control, maintenance and management skill, waste water ............ 22 Figure 4.18 – Blue Drop – KPA 2: Process control, maintenance and management skill, water supply ............ 23 Figure 4.19 – Technical Management Skill Level Health Check – SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................ 23 Figure 4.20 – Technical Staff Skill Level Health Check – SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) .............................................. 24 Figure 4.21 – Technical Staff Numbers Health Check – SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ................................................ 24 Figure 4.22 – Access to sanitation - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ............................................................................... 25 Figure 4.23 – Drinking Water Quality Health Check - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) .................................................... 25 Figure 4.24 – Number of people with access to Sanitation- SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ......................................... 26 Figure 4.25 – Consumer debt – water services ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 4.26 – Consumer debt – waste water services............................................................................................. 27 Figure 4.27 – Consumer debt – refuse collection .................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4.28 – Spending on asset management vs budget ...................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.29 – Current replacement cost ................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.30 – Carrying value of water network ........................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4.31 – Carrying value of waste water network ............................................................................................. 30 Figure 4.32 – Depreciated capital cost ..................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4.33 – Blue Drop – Water supply asset management audits ...................................................................... 31 Figure 4.34 – Green Drop – Water supply asset management audits .................................................................... 32 Figure 4.35 – Infrastructure Asset Management Health Check - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) .................................. 32 Figure 4.36 – Operations and Maintenance of Assets Health Check - SALGA/WRC MBI (2014) ......................... 33 Figure 4:37 – Surface Water Quality trends for Chlorides and Sulphates (2006 to 2008), Total Dissolved Solids and Nitrates (2005 – 2010). – Adapted from the 2012 South Africa Environment Outlook ............ 35 Figure 4:38 - Density of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas ............................................................................. 36 Figure 4:39 - City of Cape Town Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas ............................................................... 38 Figure 4:40 - City of Johannesburg, City of Tshwane and Ekurhuleni Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas .. 39 State of Water in Cities: Analysis of water resource and its management in Cities Page ix