2. Results and Discussion
2.2 Establish community needs and required service level
Once it has been established whether or not there is a demand for development, it is important to determine the community development needs that must be established. Autocratic approaches to the delivery of services can no longer be accepted (Louw 2003). International and local experience indicate that projects aimed at improving services to low income communities must focus on what the community want and are willing to pay for (Wall 2000). Although the government authority is a very important stakeholder it can no longer dictate to a community what it perceives to be the community's needs. In addition, research findings provided by Dreyer (1998) reveals that the successful water delivery proj ects are those situated in areas where there is a dire need for water. Those projects that are aimed at improving communities who felt that their basic need for water had already been satisfied, and were demanding a higher service level than was feasible (interpreted as a tap in their own yard), withdrew their support for the project the moment they knew their expectations were not going to be met (Dreyer 1998). Dreyer's findings also reveal that the collapse of water projects did not necessarily happen overnight and for any particular reason, but rather as a result of other problems which manifested themselves during the development and implementation stage and which the water committee were unable or unwilling to resolve, mainly due to a lack of enthusiasm.
Although it has been established that the project was demand driven, it is important to assess whether or not the community's needs and the level of service that the community could maintain, were established during the planning and design stage of the project. The community made post-project accusations that their needs were not adequately met (Msunduzi Municipality 2003g). Ideally, an in-situ upgrade should aim to deliver services in order of need on the part of residents, from those most needed to those least needed.
In 1992 the NPA identified the need to upgrade certain services in Newtown. The project included the subdivision and layout of over 500 sites, the township establishment process, bulk services arrangements, the installation of services, including a water supply, sanitation system, electricity, township roads, the top structure and tenure registration. However, during the planning and design stage of the project extensive consultation took place between the developer,the provincial authority and the community to identify the community's needs and to consider the level of services that could be sustained.
According to a survey carried out in 1994, "virtually no household claimed to be on a waiting list for a site nor were members of any household seeking alternative accommodation due to overcrowding. There is virtually no evidence of more than one family living on a site in all three of the communities" (Msunduzi Municipality 2003f: 14).The application to the KwaZulu-Natal Regional Housing Board (made in June 1994 by the NPA) refers to the development initiative as servicing existing and undeveloped areas within Newtown for the provision of sites
"desperately needed to relieve the grossly overcramped and overpopulated existing situation,,6 (Msunduzi Municipality 2003h). The socio-economic survey carried out in November 1994 found the following infrastructural needs:
Table 2: Infrastructural needs of residents in Newtown (Msunduzi Municipality 2003f:
25).
Water/install more taps 73 Clinic 8
Improve/tar roads 73 Community hall 8
Schools 24 Recreational facilities 8
Improve transport services 21 Improved services 4
Creches 20 Churches 4
Electricity 19 Shops 1
Jobs 13 Telephones
Formal houses 12 Other 8
Sewerage system 11
Percentages add up to more than 100%. This is due to the fact that each respondent was requested to list his or her three most importantneeds.
6This applicationwas submitted by the NPA to the KwaZulu-Natal Regional Housing Board. The project formed part of the RKDP initiative. The NPA Community ServicesBranch was to act as developer. The KwaZulu-Natal Regional Housing Board approved this project on 14 September 1994. This approval was only for Phase I which was approximately 400 sites.
11
This survey identified the two key needs as being 'a better water supply' and 'improvements to the roads', which were both totally inadequate. These two services were clearly the highest priority, by some margin. In fact, 73% of respondents claimed this to be one of their three most important needs, whereas only 12% listed formal housing. However, the only way that NHC funding could be sourced was if there was a housing project that formed the basis of the in-situ upgrade.
The developers were faced with three significant obstacles. The firs~ was that Newtown is a particularly poor community (Fourie 2003 Appendix Apers.comm.). The 1994 survey showed that nearly half the population was seeking employment with only 39% of males and 22% of females employed full-time. Sixty seven percent of residents in the 18 - 30 year cohort were seeking employment (Msunduzi Municipality 2003f). The per capita income, which was calculated by dividing the total household income by the number of resident household members, was R170. If it is considered that the average per capita subsistence level in the Durban area at the time was R160, it is evident that most people only had an income to maintain their health and provide the basic necessities of life. These figures suggest that there was clearly not enough additional income to pay for any services that required a monthly fee. The low per capita income, coupled with the high levels of unemployment imply low levels of affordability with respect to housing and particularly with regard to the level of service that can be sustainably maintained. A household survey carried out by Mvula Trust in April 2000 did reveal however, that all respondents were willing to pay for a better service. The majority of respondents were willing to pay between R6 and R20 per month, with 74% of respondents saying that they would like to pay for such a service at a local pay point rather than the TLC office (UWP 2000). Unfortunately, this survey was carried out after the implementation of 10w- pressure system had begun. Although an improved system may not have been possible, the developer (and Msunduzi TLC) missed the opportunity to explore this option further and possibly avoid the later rejection of the water system.
The second obstacle was that the Newtown community is situated some distance from the city with the result that there are no sewer mains anywhere near by and would be far too costly to bring to Newtown (Crabtree 2003 Appendix A pers.comm.).Furthermore, there is no short-term plan for sewer mains to be constructed in the area (Msunduzi Municipality IDP 2002). Without
a sewer mains to discharge excess greywater, there was no real chance of each stand getting its own standpipe/so Furthermore, the soils, which are clay-rich and badly drained in most parts of the development, are not conducive to soakaways, especially not large quantities of greywater (Msunduzi Municipality 2003a). Added to this is the fact that with VIPs being the preferred sanitation option, excess greywater would create serious problems by raising the already shallow water table, shortening the lifespan of VIPs and increasing the potential for pollution.
The third problem was funding. The only source of funding during the planning and design stages for both the first and second initiatives was PHDB7 funding (Hoole & Roos 2003 Appendix A pers.comm. and Fourie 2003 Appendix A pers.comm). Once the Msunduzi Municipality took over the development project from the NPA, it insisted that at least 50% of the PHDB subsidy be used for top structures, even though improved housing had not been identified as a priority (Msunduzi Municipality 2003c).
From a sustainability point of view it made little planning sense to deliver a costly waterbome system and full water pressure to Newtown when fully serviced land had been made available by the NPA close to the city. However, as poorly located as the Newtown community is in terms of factors such as distance from employment opportunities, poor soils, particularly steep slopes, no services etc. forced removal or even attempts to encourage people to move were not options. This is especially so when consideration is given to the fact that both development initiatives took place during a period in South Africa's history where political sensitivity was at a peak.
Although it is recognised that there was an urgent need to provide a more secure and reliable source of water and sanitation service to Newtown, by the time the second development initiative got underway the community's basic water needs had already been met in the form of temporary standpipes as well as the daily delivery of water by truck to those areas which were unable to receive water. Once the community's basic water and sanitation need had been met, the next 'want' was for a higher level of service and not a similar level of service, but merely delivered in a different way. Bharath (engineer from the Water Division of the Msunduzi Municipality), Sithole (Newtown resident and member of the Development Committee) and
7The PHDP is a statutory body and approves various types of housing development throughout the country
13
Crabtree 2003 (Appendix Apers.comm.) all agree that the trickle-feed system did not meet that 'want' for a higher level of service.