Mr Sicelo Shiceka
Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Private Bag X 804
PRETORIA
0001

8 June 2010

Dear Minister Shiceka

Ministerial visit to Makhaza

Thank you for the productive and collegial telephonic discussion we had on the above matter yesterday. I also appreciate your confirming that all three spheres of government will undertake the visit together to address the issues.

Ensuring that all our citizens have access to adequate sanitation is an objective that should motivate public representatives in all spheres of government. Indeed, each governmental sphere has a crucial role to play in this regard.

I shall be happy to accompany you on a site visit to Makhaza, part of the Silvertown Upgrade Project in Khayelitsha.

The so-called ‘open-air toilets' saga is an issue that has been hijacked for specific agendas to the detriment of residents in this community. I hope that we can use the opportunity to engage constructively, with a view to finding a lasting solution that will put the residents of the community first.

During our discussion last night I said I would compile a fact sheet on the situation, which I attach. I hope this memorandum will form the basis for a fruitful visit and discussion.

My private secretary, Donnae Strydom, will be in contact with your office to finalise logistical arrangements for your visit.

I look forward to seeing you then.

Yours sincerely

Helen Zille
Premier of the Western Cape

MEMORANDUM

To: Minister Sicelo Shiceka
From: Premier Helen Zille
Re: Situation in Makhaza, Khayelitsha
Date: 8 June 2010
Number of pages: 5

1. Terms of original agreement

In late 2007, while I was Mayor of Cape Town, and after extensive consultation between the City of Cape Town and beneficiaries of the Silvertown Upgrade Project, it was agreed that the City would provide each of the 1,316 households with its own toilet that they would enclose themselves. This was in excess of the Norms and Standards set out in the National Housing Code which stipulate the provision of one toilet for every five households when informal settlements are being upgraded. In other words, the City agreed to provide 5 times the number of toilets than stipulated in national guidelines.

The suggestion to provide a toilet for every family that they enclose themselves originated in negotiations with the community.

The toilets that residents agreed to enclose themselves were in addition to those already erected and enclosed with concrete by the City of Cape Town. In other words, when the agreement was reached, all residents had access to a shared toilet in line with the Housing Code.

All residents - including the minority that did not enclose their own toilets - continue to have access to these facilities to this day.

2. Reasons for the agreement

Families understandably want their own toilet and, increasingly, they plan to incorporate these toilet units into their shacks in "en suite" arrangements. This is not possible with concrete blocks which cannot be incorporated into a dwelling.

Community participation is integral to informal settlement upgrading. It is a long and complex process, but achieves "ownership" and prevents gatekeeping and vandalism.

During the community participation process, a budget analysis showed that the concrete enclosures cost more than the actual toilet (R3 000 for the enclosure and R2 500 for the toilet itself). Seeing that this was already over budget, it was agreed that the City would provide what the residents were not in a position to provide themselves.

Makhaza is part of the Silvertown Upgrade Project, which also includes Silvertown proper and Town 2.
It should be noted that the construction of complete housing units is planned by the City and the Province in the near future, which means that, when the top structures of the houses are erected, a toilet will be included per unit. This upgrading militated against the erection of concrete structures enclosing the toilets currently on site, since these would have to be demolished when the final housing units were erected (while the toilets would remain).

In sum, the installation of a toilet for each household (instead of sharing with four other households) who agreed to enclose it was an interim ‘win-win' solution to expand access to decent sanitation to as many people as possible within budget constraints, and harnessing the negotiated contribution of the community.

3. Installation and enclosing of toilets

1,316 toilets were installed by the City of Cape Town in terms of the agreement reached with residents involved in the Silvertown Upgrade Project.

All the residents of Silvertown proper and Town 2 enclosed their own toilet as per the agreement with the City of Cape Town. In Makhaza, 225 of the 280 toilets provided by the City were enclosed, but for whatever reason, 55 did not.

This means that 55 out of a total 1,316 households (approximately 4%) did not enclose their toilets.

4. Outcry at ‘open-air toilets' and City's response

Approximately two months ago, recognising the affront to human rights and dignity caused by ‘open-air toilets', the City of Cape Town offered to enclose the remaining 55 toilets with a galvanised iron structure at the City's cost.

The City decided to press ahead with this offer despite the anger expressed by members of households who had enclosed their toilets at their own expense. They were demanding equal treatment and claimed that the City's offer to enclose toilets preferentially advantaged people who had not adhered to a negotiated agreement.

5. The City's first attempt to enclose the toilets

On 19 March 2010, the City enclosed 26 toilets which were immediately dismantled and removed by unknown persons.

The City laid criminal charges of malicious damage to property and theft.

6. The City's second attempt to enclose the toilets

On 12 May 2010, Executive Mayor Dan Plato personally conducted a door-to-door survey of the area to ascertain the preferences of the community. Each household representative with an unenclosed toilet was requested to complete and sign a document (see annexure 1) which asked:

(a) Whether they wanted the toilet enclosed;
(b) Whether they wanted the City to provide the material for the enclosure; and
(c) Whether they wanted the City's assistance in enclosing the toilets.

The document expressly stated that, should a household not want the City to enclose the toilet, the toilet would be removed for safety and hygiene reasons.

All of the residents surveyed said that they wanted their toilet enclosed and that they would require assistance from the City to do so.

Four of the residents turned down the City's offer to provide material (see annexure 2 for spreadsheet capturing residents' responses). This was a legitimate, comprehensive and impartial community survey, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims by the ANC Youth League to represent the community.

Based on the response to the survey, the City erected 32 galvanised iron structures around the unenclosed toilets which were immediately vandalized, removed and stolen.

ANC Youth League leaders and members were captured on television smashing the toilet enclosures. Community members interviewed by journalists expressed their anger and disgust at the behaviour of the perpetrators.

The next day, the ANC Youth League issued a call to make the entire City of Cape Town "ungovernable" by vandalizing all council-owned property.  "We are going to destroy everything," announced one ANC Youth League regional executive member.

The City pressed charges of malicious damage to property and incitement of damage to property. Two ANC Youth League members were arrested.

The result was that the toilets remained unenclosed, despite two attempts by the City of Cape Town to enclose them and a signed agreement from the residents for the City to do so.

7. Removal of toilets by the City

The City at this point was faced with two choices: to leave the toilets unenclosed or remove them.

To leave the toilets unenclosed would result in the same affront to human dignity that necessitated their enclosure in the first place. 

Since the City could not enclose the toilets without the enclosures being vandalized or stolen, it was decided that the toilets would be removed, on the understanding that the toilets will be returned and installed as soon as enclosures are built, either by the City or as per the original agreement with the residents themselves.

An additional reason for removing the toilets was the persistent threat of damage to council property emanating from the ANC Youth League and vandalism in general. It should be noted here that vandalism in informal settlements last year cost the City of Cape Town R80 million.

The City removed the ‘open air toilets' on Monday 31 May.

8. Current situation

The 1, 261 residents (including the 225 households in Makhaza) who enclosed their own toilets are still serviced by those toilets.

The 55 households in Makhaza whose toilets were removed still have access to a concrete-enclosed toilet on the national ratio of 5 households to 1 toilet.

The City of Cape Town and the Western Cape Provincial Government have therefore not violated any constitutional or policy prescript with regard to the provision of services in Makhaza. All residents in the community have access to toilet facilities.

It should be noted that 93.9% of residents in Cape Town have access to basic sanitation - the highest figure for any metro municipality in the country.  In South Africa as a whole, only 74.5% of people have access to basic sanitation - defined as a ventilated pit latrine (see annexure 3 for a detailed breakdown of access to basic sanitation per province and per metro).

9. Next steps

The City of Cape Town - in the form of a lawyer's letter sent to the legal representatives of the 61 residents whose toilets were removed - has repeated the offer to reinstall the toilets on the proviso that enclosures are first built on site.

The City and the Province will study the South African Human Rights Commission Report on the matter when it is released. In particular, we will consider the recommendation (as reported in the press) that the City provide toilets with concrete enclosures to residents who did not enclose their own toilets as per the original agreement. The following factors will be considered:

* The norms required under the Housing Code and the implications of increasing this to a 1:1 ratio of concrete enclosed toilets. This means that far fewer settlements can be upgraded with flush toilets.

* The national implications of this new norm. We assume it will be equitably applied across the country as a whole.

* The implications of providing a minority of residents with their own toilets enclosed in concrete when most residents adhered to the original agreement and enclosed their own toilets;

* The advisability of erecting permanent structures at considerable cost, given that the toilet enclosures will be demolished when the top structures of the houses are built as part of the upgrading
project.

The City and Province remain committed to finding a solution that puts the residents of Makhaza first. This commitment was re-emphasised following a meeting that Mayor Plato had with the affected residents of Makhaza this morning. The delegation made the following points to the Mayor:

* The residents want to work with the City of Cape Town, but are scared of the ANC Youth League because they intimidate them
* The ANCYL's actions are politically motivated
* The ANCYL don't want the DA to be seen to deliver services

10. Conclusion

Throughout this episode, the City of Cape Town and the Provincial Government of the Western Cape have acted transparently and in good faith.

We have been motivated, at all times, with one objective in mind: to deliver the best quality services to as many people as possible with the budget constraints that we have.

Both the Mayor and I acknowledge that ‘open-air' toilets are an affront to dignity and human rights. This is a point we have both made on public platforms. I have apologized for this in the national Parliament.

We recognise that an innovative policy to optimise service delivery and instill a sense of ownership had unforeseen and unintended consequences, which we have attempted to rectify.

These attempts have been blocked for political reasons and not genuine concern for the residents of this community. Furthermore, the perpetrators have broken the law without rebuke from the political leadership of the  organisation they represent.

We remain committed to working with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to find a lasting solution to this problem.

Issued by the Office of the Western Cape Premier, Helen Zille, June 8 2010

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter