South Africa struggles to meet water and sanitation goals as municipalities fail to maintain infrastructure
South Africa's water and sanitation struggles threaten achievement of sustainable development goals
Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers
The Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation expressed grave concerns regarding South Africa's progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 by the year 2030.
The committee's apprehension primarily stems from the evident weaknesses of water services authorities, coupled with the alarming inability of municipalities to maintain and operate essential water infrastructure.
'The diagnosis has always been clear; what is needed is a focused programme of action to change course and improve the quality of water for South Africans. While the National Water and Sanitation Indaba 2025 has made commendable resolutions, the inability of municipalities to correct course will render the recommendations futile,' said Chairperson of the committee, Leon Basson.
SDG 6 aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
However, the committee highlighted a disturbing trend: the ongoing pollution of river streams, a direct consequence of municipalities failing to adequately operate and maintain their water and sanitation infrastructure.
Such neglect not only endangers public health but also inflates the costs associated with water purification efforts.
Another pressing concern raised by the committee pertains to the downstream effects of this infrastructural mismanagement.
As rivers become increasingly contaminated, the financial burden of cleaning water rises, posing significant challenges to local governments already struggling under financial strain.
While the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) holds the reins regarding policy directives for water management, the committee acknowledges the crucial roles played by sister departments, notably the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta).
Basson urged an immediate and coordinated response.
'It is important that the resolution taken by the water and sanitation indaba for the DWS and COGTA to engage with National Treasury to review water and sanitation conditional grants with a view to addressing the challenge of maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure is urgent and must be implemented without delay," he said.
The committee also underscored the potential for innovative solutions, advocating for water services authorities and providers to build partnerships with the private sector.
Drawing on the support of the Water Partnerships Office could prove beneficial, especially given that current fiscal constraints hinder the government's ability to adequately address infrastructure needs within the water sector.
Moreover, the committee emphasised the necessity of top slicing the equitable share allocated to municipalities to manage the debt owed to water boards effectively. In doing so, they aim to ensure a functional cash flow throughout the water value chain, which is essential for addressing ongoing challenges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Escalating tensions threaten global oil supplies amidst US strikes on Iran
There has been major concern about international oil prices and supply following news breaking on Sunday that the United States had attacked three major nuclear sites in Iran Image: AFP Concerns about international oil prices and global supply chains surged on Sunday following the United States' military strike on three major nuclear sites in Iran. This move, which has escalated ongoing tensions in the Middle East, comes less than two weeks after Iran and Israel reignited hostilities. Analysts on Sunday warned that the fallout from these attacks could have dire implications for the global economy. In a recent televised address, US President Donald Trump described the airstrikes as a "spectacular military success," proclaiming that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities—located in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—have been "completely and totally obliterated." Of biggest concern now is that Iran is mulling the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf controlled by Iran, which is now in the centre of global supply chain as it handles more than 26% of the world's oil trade. According to reports, there are currently close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz. Nigel Green, CEO of financial advisory giant deVere Group, said a conflict that had remained largely contained was now threatening to trigger broad-based repricing across the global economy. Green added that Brent crude had already been climbing steadily in recent weeks, but the decision to target Iranian nuclear facilities has dramatically increased fears of retaliation and disruption. 'Any closure or threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil flows, would send prices sharply higher.' Brent crude oil futures rose 0.7% on Sunday above $77 per barrel, a third consecutive weekly gain as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East escalated. Green said that some analysts now warn that crude could spike toward $130 per barrel, depending on Iran's next move. 'Such a price shock would filter through to global inflation, which remains elevated and/or sticky in many regions. Market participants had been pricing in rate cuts from central banks, including the Federal Reserve, in the second half of the year.' Momentum Investments chief economist, Sanisha Packirisamy, said although South Africa mostly imports its oil from Angola, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (with very little to no direct reliance on Iran), a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz could negatively affect the international price of oil given that between 25% and 30% of global oil supply passes through this Strait. 'As such, higher international oil prices, in the event of a shutdown of the Strait, could result in higher transport prices for South Africans. Moreover, a shutdown of the Strait would trigger a major risk-off event in markets and it is likely that the rand would sell off in that scenario, adding to domestic inflationary pressures,' she said. 'South Africa's oil reserves would likely be insufficient to cover a significant and prolonged supply disruption in the Middle East. In an extreme case, South Africa could ration fuel and prioritise essential sectors to stretch reserves, while securing emergency imports and pivoting to new suppliers.' Professor Irrshad Kaseeram from the University of Zululand's economics department said the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could have significant global economic repercussions; high production costs and increasing inflation, forcing central banks to delay interest rate reductions. 'Thus, any disruptions extending to transit/supply routes involving the Straits of Hormuz, where 20% of global oil supply passes through, are significant,' he said. 'Although Saudi Arabia has a stockpile of oil reserves and sufficient spare capacity to ensure continued supply in the short term, a prolonged war or a continued blockade of the Straits of Hormuz is very likely to push oil prices beyond $100 a barrel.'
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Pityana's calls for increased scrutiny of banking regulator's powers
Sipho Pityana said the judgment is a win not just for me, but for the integrity of our financial system and the rule of law in South Africa. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi/Independent Newspapers BUSINESS leader Sipho Pityana has described the SA Reserve Bank's (Sarb's) Prudential Authority (PA) as a rogue institution that places itself above the law. Pityana recently secured a major victory against the PA when it was found that it had unlawfully blocked his appointment to the Absa board. 'What was the basis for their objection? They never said I was unfit,' Pityana said. 'The Reserve Bank first indicated they had issues with my nomination by suggesting I may not be a 'fit and proper person' — without ever formally asserting that I was implicated in harassment or any misconduct,' Pityana said. 'In fact, in all the court papers, they stated that they never asserted I was unfit or unqualified. They never actually said I wasn't a fit and proper person.' The PA acted without legal justification, relying instead on informal, 'backroom processes' to strong-arm the Absa Board into rejecting Pityana. The PA had firmly defended its legality and conduct amid debates over its role in the appointment of bank executives. Central to its arguments was that it had not acted unlawfully or beyond its powers under the Banks Act. In court filings, the PA stated: 'The Authority always acted lawfully,' affirming that its interactions with banks were in line with regulatory standards. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Regarding the nomination process itself, the PA highlighted its statutory authority to review and potentially object to candidate appointments. It said: 'Section 60(5) of the Banks Act read with Regulation 42(1)(a) of the Regulations and section 60(5)(b) of the Banks Act provide that the notice must reach the Authority at least 30 days before the proposed date of appointment,' and that 'the Authority may object to the proposed appointment by means of a written notice, stating the grounds for objection.' The PA further argued that its oversight included providing early guidance to banks. 'Financial institutions often engage with the Authority in advance of any nomination of directors or senior executives. They seek early guidance regarding any fitness or proprietary concerns,' it said, underlining that these interactions were part of the regulatory process and were intended 'to facilitate compliance with the statutory requirements by banks'. In her judgment, Judge Luleka Flatela underscored that the PA's actions went beyond these prescribed procedures. 'The First Respondent acted unlawfully and in excess of its powers per the Banks Act 94 of 1990 by engaging in an informal process with the Second and Third Respondents in connection with the nomination of the Applicant as Chairperson of the Second and Third Respondents' board of directors, and in particular by notifying the Second and Third Respondents of its objection, alternative intention to object to the Applicant's nomination.' Pityana did not mince words when describing the PA's conduct: 'They knew the process they were following was unlawful. Everything they submitted in court suggested they understood the unlawfulness of their actions but looked for excuses to justify using the informal process.'
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Is R700 million for a national dialogue worth it?
Before the government spends R700 million on a(nother) national dialogue, it is reasonable to ask what the dialogue promises to deliver, is this worth more than R700 million and what are the chances the stated objectives will be achieved, ask the author. Before the government spends R700 million on a(nother) national dialogue, it is reasonable to ask what the dialogue promises to deliver, is this worth more than R700 million and what are the chances the stated objectives will be achieved. Dr Oyama Mabandla, a member of the national dialogue preparatory task team, asks us to give the national dialogue a chance, reminding us that '[t]he national dialogue is an attempt to reinvigorate and fix a dangerously adrift democracy. It will involve the entire populace, instead of the self-selecting and incestuous elites, who have been producing one after another failed plan, while the rest of us have been spectators.' But of course it won't involve the entire populace and the outcome will be a big report that no one reads. How can it be anything other than this? Even if you could speak to everyone. What then? Which ideas do you implement and which do you ignore? No member of the task team can do anything other than talk and although conversations matter, you need executive power to change things and you get executive power through lots of votes. The reason we have elections is that you can't involve the whole populace of 63 million people in any dialogue, no matter how important. So we compromise and although they are very far from perfect, elections are the only way we have to get a sense of what citizens want. South Africans didn't decide to give the ANC 40% of the vote in the last election to teach anyone a lesson, as experts love to tell us. A gogo voted for the DA because she believed they would give her grandchildren the best future and a young, first-time voter put their X next to Juju's face because they believe the EFF will give them the best opportunities, but most didn't even do that. Voting is the only opportunity you have to not get the government all the other idiots deserve. It is only in those few minutes in a cubicle where you can actually get something changed. The national dialogue is not even that. You can say as much as you want in conversations and you will be ignored. This is not personal. It is the very heart of how democracy works. No one vote counts for anything unless millions of others agree with you and then that vote really counts. I have no idea why President Cyril Ramaphosa feels like a(nother) national dialogue will yield anything positive (aside from the events' organisers who will no doubt be skimming their 25%) or why borrowing R700m to fund this will yield more in value than the R700m, plus interest, that will be spent. (We currently borrow around R1 billion per day, so the national dialogue is an extra 17 hours or so of borrowing, which somehow doesn't feel that bad. But it is). It's all about social compacting, we are told. But what is this magical phrase loved by many and understood by few? Does Ramaphosa love social compacting more than Trump loves tariffs? Will the national dialogue make more people less poor or will everyone just be R700mn poorer? Social compacting would pop up in masterplans in the Department of Trade Industry and Competition for example, and mostly seemed to mean that a small number of dominant companies could meet with the government, without minutes or recordings, to determine how the rest of the industry should work. It failed even with the full power of government and the largest companies in the country behind it. South Africans, when you ignore the loudest and emptiest vessels, talk with each other just fine (even if that is mostly to complain about the government). The problem is that South Africans are getting poorer and most citizens don't believe the government, irrespective of which party is in charge, can fix that. That is why so many people don't bother voting. The most important first step to economic transformation is to make it easier for more people not to be poor. The three great social ills in South Africa of poverty, unemployment and inequality, leaves out the fourth great ill which is lack of economic freedom. The EFF hijacked this term for their version of communism, but economic freedom allows people to solve their own problems. Not another pile of the Master's Plans, pushed down onto South Africans, but allowing them more freedom to do what they believe is important for them. But the government doesn't trust its own citizens, so you can be "given" a free house shitty house after waiting decades but you can't sell it, because the government doesn't believe you can be trusted with your own money. You wait for decades because with free stuff, the demand always outstrips the supply and no one has an incentive to increase the supply. We know poor people will pay for houses if they can own them, because poor people currently pay for houses they cannot own. Rich people have economic freedom and poor people are not allowed to make their own economic decisions and so remain poor. We have the only national dialogue that matters, which are the conversations which happen in parliament. Have your say and vote and you are part of the dialogue. Spending R700m so you can be told by a(nother) group of people how they can lift you from poverty, as long as you do as you are told, is a terrible idea.
