While it is clear that municipalities differ significantly in terms of capacity, attitudes and functions, it can also be argued that most display certain fundamental characteristics, which are very different from those of private sector or civil society actors. Municipalities have powers of enforcement and taxation (although these are often modest compared to other government levels). They have particularly important leadership powers, through which they can convene various actors and build collective visions. On the other hand, they are often burdened by bureaucratic procedures and political interference, and undermined by a lack of human and financial resources. Many are content with the status quo, or lack the power they need to act; some have never exercised their power because they are dominated by a culture of apathy and resistance to change. These are all fundamental characteristics affecting the effective delivery of urban services.
It is likely that municipalities will need to embark on a process of change if they are to involve other stakeholders effectively and move away from providing services themselves. In order to understand the nature of the change required, it is first necessary to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the municipalities - to assess their capacity to enter into effective and sustainable partnerships with both the private sector and the various actors making up civil society. This analysis will expose the attitudes, issues and concerns harboured by municipalities in relation to the private sector, for instance, and thus earmark some potential partnership difficulties. Conversely, an understanding of a particular municipality's strengths, and the capacity it has shown to innovate, may help to define some of the opportunities and attributes that it will bring to a partnership.
Municipal attitudes towards poor communities and NGOs are also primary indicators of how they will behave, and the decisions their leaders will make. While some have experience of participatory processes, few have embraced the strategic change that would promote community participation as an inherent process in the formulation and delivery of services. While the traditional model of the municipality as provider has been obscured by community participation in some situations, rarely has it been transformed.
It is also notable that those municipalities that have pursued associations with both the private sector and the community in water, sanitation or waste services have generally kept these approaches quite separate. With notable exceptions, few have attempted to bring the experience of working with civil society into a PPP. Evidence suggests that this is because the municipal goals of involving the private sector aim to solve financial and institutional deficiencies, while initiatives involving civil society aim to target poverty more directly. These two sets of problems have not generally been unified in the problem analysis or the response. One of the key aspects of a PPP focused on the poor is the integration of all initiatives into an innovative, holistic solution.
Box 6.1 Municipal Capacity and the Changing Municipal Role | ||
The municipality of Stutterheim, located in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, first adopted a 10-year affermage contract* for the delivery of water and sanitation services in 1993, prior to the democratic elections in South Africa. The contract was formed with Aqua Gold (now WSSA, a joint venture between Northumbrian-Lyonnaise International and a local company, Group 5). The shift towards the private sector as a vehicle for the delivery of municipal services of all types came at a time when the local council was dominated by businessmen who were keen to streamline the municipality and delegate the responsibility for service functions to private sector companies. In the case of water and sanitation, the intention was to delegate the management of all water and sanitation responsibilities. In the apartheid context of segregation in South Africa, this included the provision of all water supply and sewerage services to the people living within the 'white' areas of the town, and the provision of bulk water and the treatment of sewerage effluent for the segregated township areas. It is important to note that the political arm of the council provided the driving force for the partnership arrangement. After the national and local elections in 1994-95, Stutterheim Council was amalgamated with the administration that had previously been responsible for providing services to the township areas. Despite this vast change and a six-fold increase in population under the municipal jurisdiction, the new Stutterheim Transitional Local Council (STLC) chose to establish in-house capacity to deliver water and sewerage to the underserviced parts of the municipality and not to contract the private operator to extend its operations. At the instigation of WSSA, this decision has been revisited a number of times. There is no question that WSSA would prefer to deliver all services at all levels in all parts of the municipality. The current arrangement does not optimise efficiency of service delivery, and WSSA is criticised for being involved in a contract that appears to perpetuate unequal services. Nevertheless, the council has consistently chosen to retain responsibility for delivering and upgrading some tertiary- level water and sanitation services, believing this to be a more cost effective in the low-income areas of the municipality. At the outset, the council was supported, not led by, the executive arm of the municipality. The partnership was developed in the isolated context of water and sanitation without consideration of the roles and responsibilities for other related initiatives. The role of procurement was passed on to a national engineering consultant and the process was carried out in accordance with standard contracting procedures. However, soon after the contract was established, the old (white-only) council was replaced by a council - democratically elected by all citizens - with different priorities. More focused on the social aspects of their constituency, less experienced in management, and beset by the turnover in key engineering staff, the council has never been able to properly manage or monitor the partnership arrangement or implementation process. The contract itself does not define responsibilities well, and the lack of a regulator in South Africa has resulted in repeated problems over the allocation of costs and responsibilities. The partnership does not form part of a strategic planning or integrated development approach, and the council has failed to establish any connection between the water and sanitation partnership and economic development activities with the poorer groups in the town (despite the fact that water and sanitation services represent some 12% of the council annual budget and there is a mandate for integrated development planning; see Box 4.3). The municipality plays no substantial coordinating role. At the time the partnership was established, there was little concern for the mechanics of public consultation or the explicit involvement of stakeholders in the decision to enter into a partnership arrangement. The council had a mandate to manage the town and was not concerned with building a consultative approach or obtaining explicit approval for a decision on delegating management. Effective town management was, however, a key issue, and the council envisaged a key role for the private sector in attaining this end. The case of Stutterheim provides an illustration of a partnership arrangement that is, to some extent, misread by municipal decision-makers. It also provides an illustration of an arrangement where partnership objectives and roles need to be reoriented to meet the new demands and visions of the post-apartheid council. The primary concerns expressed by council officials in Stutterheim, and echoed by the private operator, concern the capacity of the municipality to act as an equal party in the contract (see Boxes 11.1 and 12.1). This lesson is relevant for all municipalities, particularly those, like Stutterheim, which are managed by political representatives who had no involvement at the partnership formulation stage. Among other messages, it highlights the need for ongoing capacity building throughout the duration of a contract if the political wing of a municipality is to act as an effective decision-making partner, able to optimise its own role and the role of the private sector in changing circumstances.
* See Chapter 8 for more detail on leases and affermage contracts | ||
| Source: Plummer, 2000a | |