Basic Services in NMBM

Basic services include water, sewerage, electricity, refuse collection, storm water and road type (gravel and tarred) the map. The Map 5.2 Annexure D) and Table 5.4 illustrate the situation in Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality in respect of basic services. All the areas depicted as red-brown are poorly serviced. That means that reliable services are mainly around the main towns and townships.

No of Wards

10 16.67% Very Poorly Serviced 148354 14.75%

13 21.67% Poorly Serviced 222820 22.15%

15 25.00% Moderately Serviced 261801 26.03%

10 16.67% Well Serviced 173370 17.24%

12 20.00% Extremely Well Serviced 199443 19.83%

60 100% Total 1005788 100%

158

The differences shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 raise some alarm in that whereas a relatively high proportion of the community do receive basic services, a significantly lower proportion receive community based services. This is an area which is in all cases either neglected or taken for granted and needs urgent attention. Perhaps some of the causes of community protests in the two municipalities in this area could be attributed to this (NMBM, 2011:13; BCM 2007/2008:192).

Table 5.5: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (Water, Sewerage, Electricity, Storm water, Road types, and Refuse Collection). (Map 5.2 in Annexure D)

Number of Wards

% Level Population %

5 8.33 Very Poor Service 71,752 7.13

5 8.33 Poorly Serviced 96,531 9.60

16 26.67 Moderately Serviced 273,040 27.15

20 33.33 Well Serviced 330,764 32.89

14 23.33 Extremely Well Serviced 233,701 23.24

60 100% Totals 1,005,788 100%

Source: NMBM Service Monitor of Wards 2011

The following statement underlines the importance of this relationship:

Whilst BCM delivers basic services (Water, Sanitation, waste removal and electricity) to about 70% of households, many households still lack adequate, transport, social services, economic opportunities and an enriching environment (BCM 2008:1)).

In addressing the requirements of the Local Government Turnaround Strategy of 2009, Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality emphasised the following:

159

Municipal Turnaround Strategies should be customized and informed by the local environment and local challenges … A one size fits all approach is not practical for the successful development and implementation of a turnaround strategy in brutal honesty on the part of the relevant institution regarding its challenges both political and administrative (NMBM, 2010).

Besides the direct service delivery and basic services shortcomings which have been discussed, the institutional challenges (external and internal) in the two municipalities over the research period at the political as well as the administrative levels were immense. These precipitated into an organisational “lameness” which permeated throughout both institutions to the extent of impacting on each and every citizen in these metros in one way or another and in varying degrees. This was brought to light by the affected communities in various ways, through community protests by the have-nots, and by withholding of municipal rates by those who have. Several NGOs consistently complained about these issues on behalf of the sometimes ‘voiceless communities’, and even the municipalities themselves have acceded to these problems. Clear examples are to be found in the State of the City Report of 2010, the IDP Reviews of Nelson Mandela Metro 2006-2011 and Buffalo City Metro 2007/2008. The communities in some cases brought these things to the fore as illustrated below:

Census 2011 enumerators were prevented from conducting their duties at NU 10 in Mndatsane informal settlement and Silverton informal settlement in KwaZulu-Natal till Service Delivery would come their way.

Young and Old take to the street against corruption in BCM, we must seek radical change, and we must fight corruption.

Winnie Madikizela-Mandela on sanitation in the Eastern Cape: “I have been quite shocked at how grave these shortcomings are.”

160 5.5 The two Municipalities as Institutions

The status quo of both municipalities as institutions able to deliver on their mandates was gauged in this study through the category “Impact”. This was deliberately done with the awareness that the Paris Declaration had not been implemented in either of the municipalities. The category was responded to by everybody participating in the study and the emphasis was on:

 Sustainable growth

 Economic growth

 Poverty reduction

 Job opportunities

 Capacitation

 Achievement of MDGs

 Reduction of inequalities

 Transformation

The researcher found out that most respondents in this study felt that although there was some sustainability in the two municipalities, poverty was becoming worse by the day.

Capacity development was seen as a major problem and little was being done in this area.

Again most participants in this study confirmed that economic growth was not improving and that the inequality gap was widening further. Most participants were also convinced that the MDGs would not be met and that there was also no notable development in the two municipalities in many areas where there should have been. These wide-ranging views on various issues were expected because of the two municipalities’ capacities to deliver on their mandates as seen from documental evidence (Annual reports, IDP Reviews) and also because of the fact that the field work was done in the period preceding, during and after a heavily contested local municipality election of June 2011.

There is a very big likelihood that some of the responses were influenced to an extent by the prevailing situation in the two municipalities at that time. Job creation presented one of the major challenges, as most respondents felt that not enough job opportunities were

161

available. This sad fact on employment is confirmed in BCM where in a study in 2007 it was found that one in every three adults between the ages of 15-65 was unemployed (this figure includes 15-year-olds still in school as well as under 65s who go on early pension) (FHISER, 2007:11).