Municipalities will need to seek an appropriate mix of
service delivery options. Choices about delivery options should be guided by clear
criteria such as coverage, cost, quality and the socio-economic objectives of the
municipality.
Delivery mechanisms which municipalities can consider
include the following options:
- Building on existing capacity.
- Corporatisation.
- Public-public partnerships.
- Partnerships with community-based organisations and
non-governmental organisations.
- Contracting out.
- Leases and concessions (public-private partnerships).
- Transfers of ownership (privatisation).
2.2.1. Building on existing capacity
Municipalities in South Africa have very different levels
of administrative capacity. Approaches which build on existing capacity must be based on
an evaluation of the skills, capacity and potential of the existing administration. In
most instances the bulk of the workforce comprises semi or unskilled black workers, who
have historically been denied access to training and personal development opportunities
and alienated from the communities they serve. Management remains predominantly white, and
historically schooled in rigid, authoritarian and outdated management practices. In this
context, two approaches for improving internal efficiency are managerial reform and worker
empowerment. Both imply wide-reaching changes in the way the administration is organised
and operates.
Management reform involves building a culture and
commitment to results and value-for-money. It also involves a service-orientation where
labour is a partner in delivering services to the community. This stands in sharp contrast
to the bureaucratic culture of budget maximisation, centralisation and control, and the
emphasis on inputs which is prevalent in many municipal administrations. Management reform
measures include (but are not limited to):
- The introduction of performance-based contracts for
senior staff: Performance-based contracts can improve accountability and induce a
focus on outputs. Municipalities should consider the introduction of performance-based
contracts for the first two or three reporting levels of senior officials. These posts
would remain professional appointments, but employment contracts would specify job outputs
(results to be achieved) and performance standards. Contracts would be renewable based on
an assessment of performance against specified targets. The introduction of performance
contracts would need to be in accordance with fair labour practice.
- Revising or developing codes of conduct:
Existing codes of conduct tend to emphasise the prohibition of certain actions, such as
corruption or financial and ethical misconduct. While these prohibitions are important and
must remain in force, codes of conduct should also bind employees to proactive action. For
example, codes of conduct could oblige management to act in the interests of the
community, to consult relevant stakeholders and to develop staff within their departments.
Codes of conduct should also deal with sexual harassment, and provide for investigation,
disciplinary and grievance procedures in this regard.
- Affirmative action: Municipalities need to
proactively ensure that the gender and racial composition of management reflects the
composition of South African society. Municipalities should develop affirmative action
programmes in line with the National Labour Relations Forum framework, and develop
mechanisms to support and monitor the implementation of their programmes.
Management reform goes hand in hand with worker
empowerment. The central thrusts of worker empowerment are human resource development and
the decentralisation of operational responsibility. In many municipal administrations
hierarchical grading systems and narrow job definitions have deskilled jobs at the
front-line level. Combined with inadequate training, the lack of opportunities to
influence job content and organisation and poor management practices, the result is a
demoralised and inefficient workforce.
Mechanisms to improve performance include (but are not
limited to):
- Empowering and enhancing the skills of the front
line: Front-line workers interact with the community and end-users of services on
a daily basis. As such, they need to be empowered to provide information, services and
advice to the community. The front line needs to be reskilled, and encouraged to play a
more active role in building cooperative relations between municipalities and communities.
If capacitated and empowered, front-line staff can utilise the considerable knowledge and
expertise of those who actually perform delivery functions to enhance effective
operations. Strategies to develop the skills of front-line staff should be included in the
integrated human resource development strategies of municipalities, which should cover
capacity building, training, staffing, and labour relations.
- Decentralisation of operational management
responsibility: Within an organisational framework which specifies clear
objectives, outputs and performance standards, the decentralisation of operational
management responsibility encourages innovation and commitment. Decentralisation can take
different forms, from increasing the discretion of operational management to the creation
of self-managed work teams. Decentralisation of management responsibility should be
accompanied by training, and should be situated within a programme of organisational
development.
- Developing strategies together: Ongoing
consultation and communication ensures that the workforce is informed about and
contributes to the development of organisational strategies and vision. Mechanisms to
facilitate consultation range from regular meetings between organised labour, management
and councillors, to breakaways to discuss specific issues.
Training and capacity-building is an essential part of both
management reform and worker empowerment. Joint training programmes for managers from
different line functions, or for management and workers, can be particularly effective in
building a common vocabulary; understanding of concepts, issues and problems; and
approaches to service transformation.
Whichever combination of alternative service delivery
mechanisms is adopted, municipalities will need to invest in restructuring and reorienting
their existing administrative capacity and systems.
2.2.2. Corporatisation
Corporatisation refers to the separation of service
delivery units from the Council (in the same way that an external service provider is
separate from the municipality). Service units which are corporatised may be
"ringfenced" or have their budgets separated from the rest of the municipal
budget. They will be managed as operationally autonomous units. Corporatisation allows
Council to set policy and service standards and hold the unit to account against those
standards. It also offers greater autonomy and flexibility to the management of the
service unit to introduce commercial management practices to the delivery system.
Corporatisation can take a number of forms, ranging from
the establishment of public utilities similar to the Water Boards which exist in parts of
the country, to joint-ventures between municipalities. Corporatisation may be particularly
appropriate for municipalities with large areas of jurisdiction, such as Metropolitan
Councils.
Where some municipal functions are corporatised, reporting
requirements and accountability mechanisms must be clearly defined by the municipal
Council. This is to ensure that lessons from policy implementation is fed back into policy
development.
2.2.3. Public-public partnerships
Public-public partnerships or public joint ventures allow
for horizontal cooperation between municipalities to exploit economies of scale. They also
allow for vertical cooperation to improve coordination at the point of delivery.
Public-public partnerships are common internationally in areas such as joint purchasing
consortia, training initiatives, technical support and information services. Within South
Africa, municipalities are beginning to explore innovative partnership agreements, such as
partnering with the Post Office for the collection of municipal revenue. This makes it
easier for citizens to pay their municipal bills and decreases the strain which revenue
collection places on municipal capacity.
Substantial benefits can be derived from public-public
partnerships, and municipalities are encouraged to explore the options as individual
organisations and through organised local government associations.
2.2.4. Partnerships with community-based organisations
and non-governmental organisations
Partnerships with community-based organisations and
non-governmental organisations can be effective ways of gaining access to external
expertise and experience. They can also stimulate local economic development.
Community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations often have particular
skills relating to facilitating development initiatives, developing small, medium and
micro-sized enterprises, and capacity-building. Another advantage of these partnerships is
that community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations often have close
linkages with community groups and can act as effective intermediaries in development
initiatives.
Municipalities should also consider including
non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations in partnerships with
other public or private institutions. For example, some municipalities have found
three-way public-private- community-based organisation partnerships to be very effective
with respect to maintenance projects such as sewer rodding. In such partnerships the
municipality provides funding and project management capacity; the private sector
contractor provides access to equipment and training; and the community-based organisation
provides functions such as the recruitment and management of local labour and community
liaison. This approach enables the transfer of skills, creates employment and provides an
effective service without draining municipal capacity.
2.2.5. Contracting out
It is common practice for municipalities to contract with
specialist private companies to provide services. Specialist companies can sometimes
provide economies of scale and specialist expertise and experience more efficiently than
in-house capacity. Contracting out can range from the contracting of specific aspects of a
particular service, to the introduction of competitive tendering for the delivery of most
aspects of a service. Where services are contracted out, municipalities should protect
standards and promote quality through tender evaluation processes, contract
specifications, and contract monitoring and compliance techniques.
In developing and assessing tender documents,
municipalities should be aware that the lowest bidder is not always the best contractor.
While price is an important factor, the financial standing of the contractor, their
commitment to providing training and good employment conditions, willingness to use local
labour, technical capacity to undertake the contract, environmental and health and safety
record, and commitments regarding service tariffs, quality standards, quality control
systems and customer relations are equally important. Municipalities can also use
contracting out as a means of empowering local and emerging business.
Where a large number of functions associated with a
service, or the management of an entire service, are contracted out, the allocation of risk* becomes a
critical issue. Generally, where the contractor takes on higher risks it also demands a
better deal, either in the form of more control and autonomy over the management of the
service or increased financial rewards.
Contracting out is most effective when municipalities are
both clear and specific about the nature of the service they are seeking from a
contractor, and have the capacity to manage the process of tendering and contract
development and monitoring in a manner which ensures that municipal objectives are met.
Instances may arise where national departments with
constitutional mandates to regulate service provision within specific sectors, prescribe
matters which must be regulated by contracting out instruments.
2.2.6. Leases and concessions
Leases and concessions are forms of public-private
partnerships that are most common for services where large-scale capital investment is
required. They typically differ from contracting out in three important respects:
- The duration of the contractual relationship between the
municipality and the contractor is usually longer (often between 20 and 30 years).
- The contractor is usually required to take charge of the
assets and infrastructure associated with the service for the duration of the contract,
and to invest in them. The investment of the contractor in assets and infrastructure is
usually the driving motivation for a municipality to enter into a lease or concession
agreement.
- The risk implicit in the contractor's responsibility for
infrastructure development is normally accompanied by the transfer of responsibility for
revenue collection (user-charges) to the contractor.
A variety of mechanisms exists through which the contractor
can take responsibility for the development of new infrastructure, or the rehabilitation
of existing infrastructure. The contract period is typically long enough for the
contractor to recover their investment in infrastructure through revenue generated from
user-charges. The contractor will own the assets for the period of the contract. At the
end of the contract, ownership of infrastructure and assets is transferred to the
municipality.
The variety of types of concessions and leases is reflected
in the names of the partnerships, including:
- Build-operate-transfer (the contractor builds the asset,
operates it for a period, and then transfers it to the municipality).
- Build-own-operate-transfer.
- Build-operate-train-transfer.
Concessions and leases can provide an effective mechanism
to maximise private sector investment in municipal infrastructure. Where this type of
partnership is municipality-driven, and aims to harness the capacity of the private sector
to meet public interests, substantive benefits can be derived.
However, if poorly managed and structured, the risks of
these partnerships are high. For this reason national government is currently developing a
regulatory framework for the development of public private partnerships to ensure public
accountability and the protection of consumer and worker rights. Regulation is vital to
guard against monopoly pricing, "cherry-picking" of high-income customers (and
hence limited access for low-income groups), poor quality services and unfair labour
practices. In contracting out or negotiating leases and concessions, the objective of
black economic empowerment must also be promoted through better structuring of such deals.
National government will develop a regulatory framework for municipal
public-private-partnerships in 1998.
Regulation of public-private partnerships will address the
following specific matters:
- Monitoring, oversight and consultative mechanisms:
The development of a framework for monitoring the financial position of municipalities is
particularly important to ensure greater clarity with respect to the security of loan
investments.
- Tendering and procurement processes,
including the issue of unsolicited proposals: Tendering and procurement processes need to
be sensitive to black economic empowerment.
- Contractual arrangements, including
mechanisms to ensure contract compliance and review.
- The regulation of tariff setting.
- The resolution of disputes.
2.2.7. Transfer of ownership
The transfer of ownership refers to the sale of municipal
assets as well as responsibility for managing the complete delivery of the service to a
private company. This is often called "privatisation" to distinguish it from
other forms of private sector involvement in service delivery. In current South African
circumstances, the transfer of ownership is not an option for core municipal services,
particularly water, electricity and solid waste collection and disposal. Given the central
role that these services play in meeting the material, social and economic needs of
communities, it is undesirable that ownership of associated infrastructure and assets is
removed from the public sphere.
However, the privatisation of assets which are not
considered strategic to the core purpose and role of municipalities may boost municipal
capacity and revenue to focus on the delivery of strategic and core services.
Privatisation of "non-core" assets may remove the necessity for public subsidy
of services which constitute a drain on municipal revenue, and generate capital which can
be utilised for strategic and core activities. With the exception of services aimed at
meeting basic needs, which are clearly "core" municipal activities, there is
variation between municipalities regarding municipal assets which are "non-core"
and therefore open to the option of privatisation. While national guidelines will be
issued in this regard, each municipal Council will need to make its own assessment in
relation to the strategic direction put forward in the municipal integrated development
plan.