Staff Reporter
WaterCAN has cautiously welcomed the Presidency’s National Water Action Plan but warned that its success will depend on whether a new presidential committee can enforce deadlines and accountability rather than becoming another layer of bureaucracy.
The organisation said in a statement issued on Saturday that the plan had been introduced as communities across South Africa faced prolonged water outages, deteriorating water quality, failing infrastructure and weak municipal accountability.
At the centre of the plan is the National Water Crisis Committee, known as Watercom, which will be chaired by the president. It is intended to coordinate the response across national government departments, provinces, municipalities and other water institutions, while monitoring implementation of the plan.
WaterCAN said stronger coordination might be necessary, but South Africa had previously introduced numerous strategies, committees and turnaround plans that had failed to produce lasting improvements.
The creation of Watercom would only be meaningful if it had the authority and political will to enforce deadlines, require transparent reporting and hold institutions accountable for repeated failures, the organisation said.
“We have seen many plans, committees and commissions that identify the right problems but fail to change what communities experience,” WaterCAN Executive Director Ferrial Adam said.
“Watercom cannot become another structure that meets, reports and makes recommendations while taps remain dry and infrastructure continues to deteriorate.”
WaterCAN said many of the measures contained in the Action Plan were not new.
Proposals to ring-fence municipal water revenue, reduce water losses, repair ageing infrastructure, improve billing, strengthen technical capacity, reform institutions and attract additional investment had appeared in government policies and planning documents for years.
Some of the interventions had been under discussion, or could have been implemented under existing legislation, for well over a decade, it said.
“This is not primarily a shortage-of-ideas crisis,” Adam said.
“The real problem has been weak implementation, fragmented responsibility and an absence of meaningful consequences when institutions fail. Tackling corruption is essential, but so is rebuilding capable municipalities that can deliver on their constitutional mandate. Private-sector investment can support the sector, but it cannot replace competent and accountable public institutions.”
WaterCAN called on Watercom to publish clear targets and implementation timelines, identify the institutions and officials responsible for each intervention and report publicly on progress.
Communities should be able to determine what had been promised, what had been delivered and what action was taken when deadlines were missed, it said.
Adam said the plan should include a clearly defined role for civil society organisations and affected communities in monitoring implementation and delivery.
“We need capable public institutions, a responsible private sector and an empowered civil society,” Adam said.
“Communities and civil society organisations have spent years documenting water failures, testing water quality and raising the alarm. They should not be treated simply as stakeholders to be consulted after decisions have been made.”
WaterCAN said it supported responsible private-sector participation where it could provide finance, technical expertise and innovation to strengthen public water infrastructure.
However, the organisation warned that private participation should not become a mechanism for privatising water services or allow the state to abandon its constitutional responsibility to provide equitable, reliable and affordable water services to everyone.
“We are not opposed to private capital or expertise,” Adam said.
“But water services must remain publicly accountable, properly regulated and governed in the public interest. Access to water cannot be determined by the ability to pay.”
INSIDE METROS
