Vulnerable households, such as poor households in urban areas headed by women, continue to face stresses and shocks arising from policies such as cost-recovery. The introduction of the cost-recovery measures caused a lot of concern among already disadvantaged communities as this increased their vulnerability. According to Peters and Oldfield (2005:
313), lack of access to water in South Africa at the present moment not only reflects the deficiencies in infrastructure in many rural areas and informal settlements in cities and towns, but also shows households’ inability to pay for cost-recovery, even where there is adequate infrastructure. They add that the Department of Water Affairs (DWAF) justifies the
24 introduction of cost-recovery into water legislation arguing that the provision of services would not be achievable unless communities paid for the operations and maintenance costs of their service. DWAF reasons that without these funds accruing from provision of services, there would be a reduction in finances available for the development of infrastructure to provide basic services for those citizens who cannot afford them (Peters & Oldfield, 2005:
315).
Providing basic water through the FBW policy is the government’s way of providing services to citizens living in poverty. However, six thousand litres of free water per household is insufficient to meet the basic needs of a household, especially because many poor households have up to eight people residing in the home (Bayliss and McKinley, 2007; IRIN 2006; Bond, 2005). In addition, as the FBW policy operates within a cost-recovery framework, this means that municipalities would restrict access to water in cases where households have not paid for water consumed above the FBW by means of water restricting devices or disconnection (Peters & Oldfield, 2005:313). As such, the first implication of the cost-recovery policy on poor households is reduced access to water. According to Peters and Oldfield (2005:313), the implementation of the cost-recovery policy results in poor households and poverty-stricken areas facing limited access to water, despite adequate infrastructure and a constitutional right to water. This is because cost-recovery polices allow municipalities to cut off or disrupt the water supply of consumers who have defaulted on their municipal payments.
The second implication is economic insecurity. Water cost-recovery operates on the premise that consumption of water beyond the FBW provided by the municipality must be paid for.
Peters and Oldfield (2005:314) argue that policies of cost-recovery create a paradox in which low income and poor households may not have the financial means to pay for water, and thus continue to experience debilitating and insufficient access to water and increasing household debt, as what they owe the municipality accumulates. In an effort to ensure cost-recovery, pre-paid meters have been introduced in low-income households. With these meters, municipalities recover the cost before the consumption of water. These meters thus cut consumption at the point of purchase and users buy as much as they can afford, but poor households often cannot afford to pay for water (IRIN, 2006:57).
Thirdly, cost-recovery policies have also had negative health implications. The implementation of cost-recovery measures in South Africa has had serious negative, and in
25 some instances, devastating effects on the poor. In 2001 and 2002 for example, a cholera outbreak occurred in KwaZulu-Natal and Alexandra Township in Johannesburg killing over two hundred and fifty people. The government’s policies of full cost-recovery for water and the consequent lack of access to water by the poor forced people in the most deprived neighbourhoods to look for alternative, often contaminated sources of water, when they could not afford to pay for the resource (Bayliss and McKinley, 2007; Bond, 2005). Another health implication arising from the adoption of cost-recovery policy is that the limited amount of free water presents a heavy burden to particularly vulnerable households, such as those headed by women and those affected by HIV/Aids. The restriction imposed on access to water negatively affects the provision of care to the terminally ill. Those afflicted by HIV/Aids need more water for a sanitised environment and taking medication, and their care givers need water to lower the risk of contracting infections from patients (IRIN, 2006:58).
The fourth implication is that households have also had to adopt certain livelihood strategies to cope with the implications of cost-recovery. According to Bayliss and McKinley, (2007:3), poor households often give up consumption of other vital items, as they pay exorbitant tariffs to private vendors. Households have had to adopt various strategies to cope with these high costs such as flushing the toilet only once or twice a day; sharing baths and reusing water to wash clothes and kitchen implements (IRIN, 2006: 57).
The fifth implication of cost-recovery measures, particularly the pre-paid meters, is the negative impact on social networks. Households are linked into a community through collective action and through informal and overlapping networks of reciprocity and cooperation (Cleaver, 1998:295). Those without water use these networks to gain access to the resource. However, with the introduction of cost-recovery measures, water has become expensive for the poor, making neighbours less willing to share, and there have been instances of people stealing water from each other (IRIN, 2006: 57).
According the Peters and Oldfield (2005:315) debates about non-payment of water especially in townships, revolve around two interpretations, namely the inability of a household to pay for water, and a culture of non-payment which is a legacy of the struggle against Apartheid and the belief that water is a right. The General Household Survey of 2007 found that among those who received piped water from a municipality, 63.5% said in 2007 that they paid for the water, as opposed to 66.3% in 2004 when the last General Household Survey was
26 conducted (Statistics South Africa, 2008:7). This indicates a slight decrease in the number of account holders paying their water accounts. The survey found that the reasons for not paying have remained similar over time and these are: no metering system (38.7%), no billing system (25.3%), cannot afford (22%) and water should be free (20%)2. The survey found that the reasons that have seen the biggest increases in percentages since 2004 were firstly that
‘water should be free’ (from 5.9% in 2004 to 20% in 2007), which raises the question of rights and attitudes towards payment for services. The second reason was, ‘cannot afford to pay for water’ (increasing from 11.7% in 2004 to 22% in 2007). This may be due to the increased cost of water and increasing poverty levels in the country. Finally, the absence of a billing system as a reason has also increased considerably from 6.7% in 2004 to 25.3% in 2007 (Statistics South Africa, 2008:7).
A study by Pearce, Willis, and Jenkin (2007:21) on attitudes towards paying for water among Aborigine communities in Australia, identified a number of factors that would influence a community’s willingness to pay for water. The study found that although the belief that water was a cultural right that should not be paid for was prevalent, the inability of a household to pay for services was the main factor hindering willingness to pay. Unemployment and household size were also found to influence willingness to pay for water. Other factors included a perception of unfairness around water billing, and dissatisfaction with the quality of water.
As indicated earlier, cost-recovery in South Africa continues to be adopted, often without the participation of communities that would be most affected by these policies. Pearce et al.
(2007:25) found that using strategies such as effective communication and involving the community in decision-making around water supply, facilitated cost-recovery and promotion of water conservation. They add that when there are feelings of concern about a policy and lack of engagement, this can lead to resistance to the user pay system. On the other hand, Pearce et al. (2007:30) argue that where communities are involved and consulted, they experience feelings of responsibility and involvement in their supply management, and this has been shown to promote and improve willingness to pay for water.
2 The percentages provided are sourced from Statistics South Africa Community Survey Report (2008) and researcher is aware that they add up to 106%.
27 2.6 Conclusion
The literature discussed has demonstrated that the expansion and upgrading of infrastructure and service delivery must be paid for, and this is one of the main reasons for the adoption of cost-recovery policies globally. The negative effects of this phenomenon are widely documented, however there are gaps in the literature on best practice alternatives to cost-recovery that can be adopted by local governments, especially those with a large poor urban population. The participation of communities in policy formulation is also important in the formulation and implementation of policies. There were gaps in the literature on the participation process in the implementation of cost-recovery policies and the involvement of women in the formulation of policies. Implementing cost-recovery negates the benefits that arise from improved services in redressing poverty. This is because poverty alleviation is not achieved, as the poor are excluded in the process and further trapped into debt by the very institutions that are meant to assist them to achieve sustainable livelihoods. This study will therefore contribute to the literature on the effects of cost-recovery on the urban poor, particularly women, and also suggest solutions to mitigate the negative impacts of this policy.
28
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodological approach in the study. This is followed by a review of the steps taken to investigate the research area and identify potential respondents.
Thereafter, the data collection process that utilised both primary and secondary data collection methods is discussed. In addition, justification for the use of the methods and approaches in the research is given. An important aspect of the chapter is the discussion of the ethical considerations of the study and the approach used to address them. Finally, the challenges faced during data collection and the measures taken to address them are presented.