Government of Urban Councils Zimbabwe Association of Zimbabwe Service Level Benchmarking for Urban Water Supply, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in Zimbabwe Peer Review Annual Report – 2015 May 2016 Page 1 of 52 SLB Peer Review Coordinating Committee “Measure and Compare for Effective Service Delivery� Page 2 of 52 Contents CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 FOREWORD ...................................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................13 1.1 STRATEGIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 13 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING........................................................................................................... 14 1.3 SLB METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN ZIMBABWE ............................................................................................................. 15 1.3.1 Inception ................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.2 Participatory development of indicators ................................................................................................... 15 1.3.3 Data collection .......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.4 Data analysis, validation and development of benchmarks ..................................................................... 16 1.3.5 Introduction of a peer review mechanism ................................................................................................ 16 2. PEER REVIEW PROCESS – SETUP AND ACTIVITIES FOR 2015 ............................................................................17 2.1 DEFINITION .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE....................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Government .............................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.2 Urban Councils Association of Zimbabwe (UCAZ) ..................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Peer Review Coordinating Committee (PRCC) ........................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Peer Review Panels ................................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 SLB ACTIVITIES FOR 2015 ...................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Activities and Key Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 20 2.3.2 Peer Review Visits to Different Towns ....................................................................................................... 21 3. RESULTS FROM THE 2015 PEER REVIEW PROCESS ...........................................................................................25 3.1 TREND ANALYSIS OF 2014 SLB DATA ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Water Supply Indicators ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.2 Wastewater Management Indicators ....................................................................................................... 30 3.1.3 Solid Waste Management Indicators ........................................................................................................ 33 3.1.4 Summary of 2014 Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 36 3.2 AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF DATA ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 PERFORMANCE RANKING OF COUNCILS ..................................................................................................................... 40 3.4 KEY CHALLENGES FACED BY COUNCILS ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.5 BEST PRACTICES ................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.6 EMERGING ISSUES................................................................................................................................................. 42 3.7 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS BY PEER REVIEWERS ........................................................................................................... 42 3.8 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLANS ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.9 CAPACITY ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................. 44 3.10 STATUS OF ASSETS .............................................................................................................................................. 45 3.11 GENERAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS BY REVIEWERS................................................................................................ 45 4. LESSONS LEARNT AND WAY FORWARD...........................................................................................................46 4.1 LESSONS LEARNT ................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.1.1 Process and Organisation ......................................................................................................................... 46 4.1.2 Understanding of Questionnaires ............................................................................................................. 47 4.1.3 Documentation ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Page 3 of 52 4.2 WAY FORWARD..................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.2.1 Format of Visits in 2016 ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.2.2 Planned Activities and Meetings ............................................................................................................... 48 4.2.3 Capacity Development .............................................................................................................................. 49 4.2.4 Look and Learn Visits ................................................................................................................................ 50 4.2.5 Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) .................................................................................................... 50 4.2.6 Handbooks and Documentation ............................................................................................................... 50 5.0 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................51 Page 4 of 52 Executive Summary Background The 2015 annual report is the third in a series of annual reports produced by the Service Level Benchmarking Coordination Committee (SLBCC). The purpose of the report is to disseminate and share lessons learned from the peer review process with our wider stakeholder groups, namely government, donors, development partners, urban communities. The services being benchmarked are water supply, wastewater and solid waste. After its inception in 2012, the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) and Peer Review Process (PRP) has registered considerable achievements in the management of water, wastewater and solid waste services in urban local authorities in Zimbabwe. The advent of the refugee crisis in Europe and the devastating Elnino induced droughts, epitomised by climate change realities continue to draw the attention of most governments and development partners away from Africa. This has resulted in low FDIs into the region, leading to de-industrialisation and constrained investments in infrastructure in general, and water and sanitation in particular. Despite the myriad of challenges facing the country and indeed the local government sector, tremendous progress had been and still is being made in delivering these much needed services to the citizenry. One such noble intervention is the attempt at benchmarking these three services and the review of progress against agreed benchmarks through a Peer Review mechanism. Guided by the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-ASSET), the Service Level Benchmarking and Peer Review Process is an integral part of the national drive towards accountability, transparency and prosperity to the citizens of Zimbabwe. The Service Level Benchmarking process seeks to continuously monitor and improve service delivery in the WASH sector through accurate data reporting. The SLB Peer Review process is being funded and implemented by the World Bank, in partnership with the Government of Zimbabwe, Local Authorities and Zimbabwe Local Government Association (ZILGA). Critical to the success of this process is the need to get stakeholders commitment and buy-in. This is achieved through structured engagement aimed at ensuring stakeholder participation throughout the process, from activity planning to monitoring, review and reporting. Pursuant to our objective of ensuring stakeholder involvement, a workshop for Town Clerks was held in Bulawayo from 26-27 January 2015. This was followed by a capacity building workshop for Mayors/Chairpersons on the 28 January 2015 in Bulawayo. These workshops provided a firm foundation for the success of the SLB programme. Obtaining buy-in and commitment at these two levels of local authority leadership was essential in order to avoid the previous year’s pitfalls. An additional benefit to this high level uptake of the programme was the assurance for its sustainability beyond the external financial and technical support from the World Bank where local authorities are expected to take over funding, coordination and management of the entire programme. Similarly, a workshop for external stakeholders, including donors and development partners was held on 6th February 2015 to share the SLB 2014 annual report. As with the other two workshops, the annual report got a resounding reception. The donors and development partners were appreciative of the initiative despite the seemingly low progress in achieving the desired benchmarks. Despite the slow start, the results were general noticeable improvements in all the services. Most importantly was the catalytic nature of the project and its ability to foster vertically and horizontal learning among Local Authority peers. In addition, the SLB process was accepted as a more objective and scientific way of monitoring and evaluating service delivery performance by local authorities through self-assessments and peer assessments. Page 5 of 52 In order to mainstream the project into the overall WASH sector initiatives and to ensure that there is no duplication of efforts as well as funding with other partners, the annual report was also shared with the WASH Urban Rehabilitation Technical Committee, it being a sub-committee of the National Coordination Unit (NCU) of the National Action Committee (NAC). This was critical in order to harmonise interventions across the sector and to ensure that the impact of the interventions is felt by a larger population. Likewise, the report and the lessons thereto were cascaded to UCAZ officers’ forums such as the Town Treasurers Forum and the Town Engineers Forum. This report reviews the progress of the SLB process to date and gives a summary of the results of the Peer Review process of 2015. Unlike in the previous reports, the results for the 2015 peer review process show that there is an improvement in service delivery across all Local Authorities. Factors that contributed to this improvement are the notable investments in water and sanitation assets, mainly by development partners during the period. Development partners such as GIZ, World Bank, UNICEF and AfDB carried out interventions aimed at improving the asset base for water and sanitation services delivery. We also noted the contribution made by the Government of Zimbabwe through its PSIP to finance outstanding water and sanitation infrastructure in some local authorities. These interventions, though far inadequate given the magnitude of the problems in the sector, did make some noticeable impact on service delivery. Despite the limited financial base, most councils did take steps to address some areas of concern, especially those that did not require huge capital funding. A change of systems and attitudes was also reflected by the movement of indicators. As this was a third round of data collection, some of the movements in indicators could also be due to a tightening of the data gathering systems as officials became more conscious of the need to keep proper and accurate records. Some councils carried out property surveys and this, in a way, helped them to improve revenue collection by identifying properties that were missing from their databases. Data availability and completeness was generally good. However, reliability of some of the data remained questionable due to statistics that could not be scientifically verified. Most Local Authorities have now embraced the separation of Operation & Maintenance (O&M) in their budgets. However there is need to ensure adherence to this practice during resource allocation and during expenditure. Generally, Local Authorities were better prepared for the review process than before and good team work was exhibited throughout the reviews. Summary Results on Indicators Based on 2014 Data Water Supply Indicators Data on water supply in the table below shows some slight improvement. However, there is need for some local authorities to separate industrial, commercial and institutional consumption which tends to push consumption figures upward. Reliability of data has significantly improved as compared to the 2013 data. Like in the previous year, there was very minimal investment in infrastructure mainly due to the depressed economic environment. However, to a greater extent, local authorities have managed to maintain the existing infrastructure in a sound condition to maintain the current service levels. Non-revenue water is still high in most councils. There is need for investment in metering installations and replacement, and also in leak detection. In addition, zonal metering may also improve tracking and accounting for water losses, as these will be confined to smaller geographical zones. GIS uptake among local authorities is very low, despite its costs being moderate. Individual local authorities need to come up with strategies for the reduction of NRW, which is above 50% for the majority of the councils. Data on water production shows that there is adequate water being produced, however, at the consumer Page 6 of 52 end water accounted for is very low. In some instances there is conflicting data on water produced and continuity of water supply. When it comes to the quality of water supplied, councils appear to be tempering with data, especially when quality is bad. The main weakness is that councils are reporting good results and not testing all relevant key parameters. The testing of the quality of drinking water right from the treatment plant, intermediate points (reservoirs and pumping stations), and consumer end need to be tightened and guided by clear protocols. Health Officers should come up with a monitoring protocol for quality of water. Periodic independent water quality testing is highly recommended for all councils. Equally significant is the need to standardise testing parameters across councils. When it comes to tariff structure and tariff setting, there is no uniformity among councils. Some councils are charging very high tariffs while others are charging uneconomic tariffs. There is a tendency to over-charge consumers when there is no cost build up to justify the tariff because tariffs are largely estimates. There is need for a standard method of calculating the cost built up to a tariff structure. Such justification is essential for Local Authorities to gain the confidence of rate payers. This might result in more revenue as resistance to pay is overcome by being transparent in the way tariffs are determined. Redressing customer complaints and paying attention to customer needs is an area requiring attention in most Local Authorities. While there is evidence of use of multiple mechanisms by which consumers can make their complaints, there is lack of empirical evidence of how, when and by who the complaints were resolved. In addition, registers do not have provision for the complainant to endorse to vouch that the complaint had been satisfactorily attended to. There is need for local authorities to daft a model complaints register which councils can adopt to suit their context. The table below summarises the councils’ performance on the water supply indicators. Page 7 of 52 Summary of SLB indicators - Water Supply (2014) Efficiency in satisfactory Efficiency of Efficiency in Property level Extent of response/ cost recovery collection of coverage of Per Capita metering of Quality of reaction to in water water supply Maintenance direct water Supply of water Continuity of water customer supply related Coverage supply Water 150 connections Extent of NRW water supply supplied complaints services charges Ratio Benchmarks 100% lcd 100% 25% 24 hrs 100% 80% 150% 75% 20% Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Town/City in % RS in lpcd RS in % RS in % RS in hrs RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS Beitbridge 82 1 125 3 91 2 42 1 9 4 95 4 90 2 85 4 35 4 1 4 Bindura 82 1 146 3 41 2 51 2 10 4 100 1 100 2 289 4 55 4 2 4 Bulawayo 94 1 177 1 87 1 33 2 24 1 10 1 10 1 184 2 63 1 0 1 Chegutu 94 1 129 4 10 2 46 4 4 4 97 3 27 2 144 2 11 4 1 4 Chinhoyi 70 1 204 3 80 3 27 4 10 1 100 1 85 2 118 2 45 4 3 4 Chipinge 85 1 164 1 100 2 28 3 18 4 95 2 69 3 117 4 43 4 2 4 Chiredzi 77 1 232 1 20 2 59 2 12 4 100 1 83 3 161 4 25 4 2 4 Chirundu 90 1 152 4 0 4 18 4 16 4 54 4 67 4 0 4 90 4 0 4 Chitungwiza 76 4 31 4 59 3 18 3 3 4 98 2 9 3 132 4 58 4 0 4 Epworth 14 4 4 4 88 3 38 3 0 4 0 4 100 2 108 4 42 2 1 4 Gokwe 68 1 83 1 100 1 26 2 10 4 24 4 44 2 118 4 77 2 25 1 Gwanda 71 1 222 4 89 1 45 4 13 4 55 2 71 1 63 2 23 2 0 4 Gweru 94 1 260 1 100 2 46 2 20 1 87 2 90 2 167 1 16 1 0 4 Harare 82 1 529 1 76 1 56 1 17 2 97 1 43 1 113 2 44 1 0 4 Hwange LB 120.16 4 529 1 100 2 29 4 19 4 72 4 75 3 252 1 112 4 0 4 Kadoma 92 1 249 1 61 1 73 1 12 2 94 1 88 2 153 1 37 1 4 1 Kariba 100 1 373 1 92 2 31 2 23 2 95 4 100 3 180 1 50 4 5 1 Karoi 82 4 90 4 98 4 29 4 4 4 38 4 25 4 83 4 53 4 6 4 Kwekwe 100 4 403 3 100 4 43 4 24 4 97 4 95 4 148 4 35 4 1 4 Lupane 33 1 70 4 100 4 37 4 6 4 86 1 25 4 148 4 67 1 0 4 Marondera 97 1 136 1 88 2 48 2 6 4 95 2 63 2 46 4 82 2 0 4 Masvingo 99 1 225 1 70 2 34 2 8 4 100 1 92 3 553 2 63 2 1 4 Mutare 92 1 445 4 100 2 64 2 12 4 99 1 80 2 472 4 41 4 0 4 Mvurwi 80 1 90 1 78 2 12 2 12 2 0 4 63 2 97 1 75 1 1 1 Norton 62 4 73 4 98 1 48 4 2 4 92 1 4 4 88 4 32 4 0 4 Plumtree 65 1 222 4 100 4 39 4 22 4 100 4 100 4 363 4 31 1 6 4 Redcliff 99 1 287 1 68 2 57 3 6 4 94 2 73 2 64 1 31 4 6 4 Rusape 70 1 258 1 99 2 64 4 22 1 97 1 82 1 150 1 73 1 5 4 Ruwa 64 3 14 1 100 2 34 4 5 4 88 1 100 2 120 1 46 3 1 4 Shurugwi 84 4 179 4 12 4 26 4 8 4 100 4 100 4 104 4 9 4 2 4 Victoria Falls 87 4 382 1 64 4 33 2 21 1 98 1 75 2 173 1 71 1 0 4 Zvishavane 86 1 212 3 42 2 26 4 20 4 73 4 88 1 289 4 11 4 4 4 Average 81.0 2 209.2 2 75.3 2 39.4 3 12.4 3 79.1 2 69.2 2 165.1 3 48.2 3 2.5 4 Std Deviation 19.9 1.3 138.3 1.4 30.1 1.0 14.6 1.1 7.2 1.2 31.2 1.4 29.9 1.0 117.6 1.4 24.5 1.4 4.6 1.1 Wastewater Management Indicators A summary of results on wastewater management is shown in the table below. These results show that the collection of sewage for treatment is still very low. It is evident that sewage is being collected from sources but most of it is not reaching wastewater treatment plants. This is revealed by a high treatment capacity in relation to the incoming sewage. It is also important to ensure that flows at sewage treatment plants are recorded and that the plants themselves are well-maintained. The testing of sewage seems to have improved and this needs to be encouraged for current and future decision making. Page 8 of 52 Summary of SLB indicators - Wastewater Management (2014) Efficiency in satisfactory Adequacy of response/ Efficiency in Efficiency in Coverage of Coverage of Efficiency in capacity for Quality of Extent of reaction to cost recovery Collection of Maintenance Functional sewerage collection of treatment of Sewage recycling or re- customer of in sewage sewage Coverage Toilets network sewage Sewage treatment use of sewage complaints management charges Ratio Benchmarks 100% 66% 95% 100% 100% 10% 80% 150% 75% 15% Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Town/City in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS Beitbridge 100 4 63 4 48 4 73 4 0 4 17 4 80 3 106 2 82 4 17 4 Bindura 74 1 63 1 205 4 256 1 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 30 1 129 1 46 4 0 4 Bulawayo 93 1 86 1 35 4 154 2 0 2 8 4 76 1 261 2 90 1 1 1 Chegutu 98 4 86 4 97 4 141 4 0 2 0 4 40 2 206 2 14 4 3 4 Chinhoyi 70 1 63 1 87 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 90 2 434 1 57 4 4 4 Chipinge 0 1 -32 3 83 2 185 2 17 4 0 4 100 3 53 2 22 1 13 4 Chiredzi 73 1 67 1 121 4 279 2 100 2 0 4 67 3 254 4 17 4 6 4 Chirundu 100 4 35 4 0 4 872 3 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 67 4 109 4 21 4 9 4 Chitungwiza 70 4 69 3 107 3 454 4 0 4 110 4 62 2 241 4 61 4 6 4 Epworth 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 100 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 Gokwe 25 4 8 1 7 4 286 3 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 67 2 12 1 500 1 16 1 Gwanda 84 4 70 3 55 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 40 4 75 4 94 4 84 4 0 4 Gweru 100 1 98 3 47 3 116 3 0 4 0 4 95 2 922 2 14 4 100 4 Harare 82 1 66 1 153 2 162 1 0 1 35 4 89 1 149 2 32 2 1 4 Hwange LB 92 4 90 4 0 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 100 4 100 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 Kadoma 97 1 89 1 206 3 465 3 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 97 2 631 1 44 2 8 1 Kariba 100 4 83 4 55 4 90 2 0 4 0 4 100 3 84 1 48 4 2 1 Karoi 94 4 94 3 78 4 234 3 67 4 0 4 90 4 108 4 31 4 18 4 Kwekwe 100 4 94 4 78 4 91 4 85 4 0 4 91 4 124 4 65 4 2 4 Lupane 94 1 #DIV/0! 1 689 4 2059 3 67 1 0 4 90 3 105 2 32 1 18 4 Marondera 91 1 73 4 0 4 239 4 #DIV/0! 4 100 4 83 2 44 4 298 4 4 4 Masvingo 98 1 97 1 40 2 213 2 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 91 3 202 2 52 2 1 3 Mutare 98 1 97 1 139 2 105 2 82 2 0 4 95 2 571 4 42 4 100 4 Mvurwi 97 4 #DIV/0! 4 845 + 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 90 4 104 4 41 1 0 4 Norton 70 4 42 4 97 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 100 1 254 1 0 4 0 4 Plumtree 71 1 18 1 72 1 26 1 100 1 29 1 67 1 336 1 12 1 7 4 Redcliff 100 1 99 1 71 3 1 4 0 1 0 4 30 2 135 2 23 2 2 1 Rusape 68 1 43 1 113 4 287 1 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 100 2 162 1 32 1 3 4 Ruwa 100 1 79 2 66 2 0 3 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 98 4 196 3 10 4 0 4 Shurugwi 84 4 69 4 69 4 150 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 90 4 134 4 55 4 3 4 Victoria Falls 99 4 82 3 90 3 55 2 55 2 0 4 100 2 257 1 57 1 1 4 Zvishavane 100 1 83 1 56 4 59 4 0 4 0 4 98 3 182 1 43 4 6 4 Average 81.9 2 65.8 2 119.1 3 220.3 3 33.6 3 16.8 4 82.2 3 220.0 2 64.2 3 11.7 4 Std Deviation 26.9 1.5 #DIV/0! 1.3 178.7 0.9 381.5 1.1 #DIV/0! 1.1 34.6 0.5 #DIV/0! 1.1 #DIV/0! 1.3 #DIV/0! 1.3 #DIV/0! 1.1 Poor wastewater management had resulted in councils paying heavy fines to EMA due to their continued pollution of the environment. While most councils are able to give accurate figures pertaining to water produced and pumped into the distribution system, the same cannot be said with certainity for wastewater. Most sewage treatment plants do not have working meters to measure amount of flow. It follows therefore that most of the figures are based on estimates. This casts doubt on both reliabilty of the figures and accuracy of the data supplied. Furthermore, there is very little recycling of wastewater being done. This is an area where councils are lossing huge opportunities for maximising usage of wastewater resources (water, energy and nutrients) including revenue generation. Solid Waste Management Indicators A summary of results on solid waste management is given in the table below. These results show an appreciable effort by councils although the general impression in the country is that solid waste is not being properly managed. Littering is now the main challenge which is being worsened by the continual sprouting of vending sites in most towns. Most councils have invested in the acquisition of refuse Page 9 of 52 collection equipment, although a lot still needs to be done. However, there is very minimal recycling/reuse of solid waste materials and lack of scientific refuse disposal systems. Most councils are still a long way from developing compliant landfills, as prescribed by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA), as these require appropriate land and huge capital investments. To date, only Norton and Bulawayo have managed to construct landfills as prescribed by EMA standards. However, it is encouraging to note that most councils are actually seized with this issue to the extent that more councils may be having compliant landfills in the not so distant future. Summary of SLB indicators - Solid Waste Management (2014) Coverage of Efficiency in SWM services Extent of Extent of satisfactory through door Efficiency of recovery of scientific response/ Efficiency of to door collection of municipal disposal of reaction to cost recovery Efficiency in Maintenance collection of municipal solid waste waste at customer in SWM collection of Coverage Coverage of waste solid waste collected landfill sites complaints services SWM charges ratio receptacles Benchmarks 100% 100% 20% 100% 80% 100% 75% 20% 100% Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Town/City in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS in % RS Beitbridge 96 3 83 4 3 4 0 4 100 3 291 4 47 4 1 4 30 4 Bindura 87 4 61 4 0 4 0 4 100 1 186 4 36 4 11 4 58 1 Bulawayo 23 1 60 4 3 4 93.766 3 70 1 0 2 #DIV/0! 1 1 1 68 1 Chegutu 96 3 96 4 1 4 0 4 85 2 309 4 17 4 1 4 7 4 Chinhoyi 86 1 122 4 1 4 0 4 65 2 333 2 100 4 9 1 10 4 Chipinge 21 3 88 4 0 4 0 4 50 3 30 4 54 4 1 4 3 4 Chiredzi 73 1 95 4 0 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 563 4 16 4 7 4 73 4 Chirundu 53 4 37 4 0 4 0 4 55 3 129 2 6 4 9 4 12 4 Chitungwiza 90 3 59 4 0 3 0 4 21 3 297 4 50 4 0 4 8 1 Epworth 1 4 7 4 0 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 1 4 Gokwe 4 4 30 4 0 4 0 4 100 4 28 2 100 2 1 4 3 3 Gwanda 68 4 50 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 575 4 52 4 2 4 86 4 Gweru 100 1 54 2 15 3 0 4 57 2 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 40 4 70 1 Harare 83 1 74 4 5 1 0 2 76 2 215 2 33 1 4 4 80 1 Hwange LB 99 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 100 3 230 2 36 4 0 4 53 4 Kadoma 95 3 94 4 5 4 0 4 75 2 230 1 32 1 6 1 45 1 Kariba 100 4 82 4 0 4 100 4 50 4 153 1 54 4 2 1 51 1 Karoi 88 4 76 4 5 4 0 4 100 3 466 2 0 4 1 4 15 4 Kwekwe 92 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 50 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 Lupane 241 3 257 4 30 4 0 1 100 3 466 2 23 4 1 4 42 4 Marondera 96 3 62 4 0 4 0 4 50 2 701 4 16 4 18 4 14 1 Masvingo 99 3 87 4 0 4 0 4 60 3 269 2 85 2 2 4 81 1 Mutare 92 1 66 2 0 1 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 #DIV/0! 4 0 4 0 4 Mvurwi 100 4 248 4 0 4 0 4 100 4 52 4 25 4 1 4 100 4 Norton 79 4 75 4 0 4 0 4 71 4 376 4 30 4 9 4 6 4 Plumtree 100 1 71 1 0 3 0 4 67 1 #DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! 4 12 4 Redcliff 20 4 49 4 0 4 0 4 20 4 216 4 24 4 2 4 22 4 Rusape 100 3 93 4 0 4 0 4 100 2 439 1 27 1 7 4 58 4 Ruwa 64 4 50 4 25 4 0 4 5 4 107 4 61 4 7 4 64 4 Shurugwi 100 4 195 4 0 4 0 4 100 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 #DIV/0! 4 86 4 Victoria Falls 100 4 94 4 9 4 0 4 80 4 177 1 78 1 6 4 37 4 Zvishavane 100 3 85 4 0 4 0 4 67 4 201 1 44 4 6 4 26 4 Average 82.7 3 81.2 4 3.3 4 6.1 4 68.1 3 242.8 3 41.8 3 5.3 4 38.2 3 Std Deviation 42.0 1.2 57.7 0.7 7.2 0.8 23.8 0.6 #DIV/0! 1.0 #DIV/0! 1.3 #DIV/0! 1.2 #DIV/0! 1.0 31.3 1.4 Weight of solid waste has also been largely estimates as most local authorities do not have access to weighbridges. The challenge might soon be over as councils are beginning to procure self-weighing refuse trucks, a development that will improve accuracy of data for future peer reviews. Page 10 of 52 2016 Outlook and Beyond While we celebrate the achievements made in 2014, there is still a lot to be done with respect to the following issues identified by Local Authorities: Development of Master/Strategic Plans Councils need to seriously consider developing master plans to enable long-term planning for growth and expansion, taking into consideration population and capacity of council to service that population effectively. The current mushrooming of peri-urban settlements is, in part, attributed to the absence of operational master plans. Master plans allow cities to plan for future growth and expansion, thereby averting the shortage of land for urban expansion. Increased stakeholder participation and coordination The underlying argument is that when citizens participate in the governance of their local affairs, the resulting interventions are sustainable. It is therefore a widely held view that citizen participation in the decisions that affect them directly, is no-longer an option, but a requirement for every council. To date, there is no structured way by which citizen participation is encouraged. Despite the absence of a framework, councils are set to gain much more by involving locals in deciding what is good for them. In fact, research has shown that citizens who take part in the governance of their councils are more willing to pay their taxes than those who do not. Expansion and rehabilitation of infrastructure This is an area that requires huge capital investments, which at the moment is beyond the reach of many councils. While foreign direct investments and grants are ideal vehicles for achieving these, local initiatives have to be sought in order to ensure that councils do not slip back to 2008/2009 cholera outbreak period. Improved revenue collection strategies Councils need to continuously look at sustainable ways of improving revenue generation as well as tightening financial leakages. The traditional debt collection methods might be out of sync with reality. More robust and home-grown solutions need to be explored to complement the traditional sources of revenue for councils. Reviewing of tariff structures to economic levels The peer review process has revealed that there is no standard way by which councils arrive at tariffs for the various services that they provide. Comparative analysis of the tariff schedules for the 32 local authorities for water indicates that some tariff levels are too high while others are uneconomically too low. The concept of cost build up to tariff structure is a new phenomenon that councils are beginning to take on board as a result of the SLB process. There is need for councils to work out a standard tariff structure which can be shared and applied with consideration of the contextual factors of the particular local authority. Establishment of compliant landfills As indicated under the section on summary of indicators, local authorities might need to come together and develop a model landfill which they can share with EMA for approval. This approach is prudent given that there appears to be no standard landfill at EMA. Councils need to take the initiative. Page 11 of 52 1. Introduction 1.1 Strategic Context The good performance of local authorities in delivering key services such as water and solid waste management is key to the success of the government’s economic blueprint – the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-ASSET): October 2013 - December 2018. Zim-ASSET aims to achieve sustainable development and social equity anchored on indigenization, empowerment and employment creation which will be largely propelled by the judicious exploitation of the country’s abundant human and natural resources. This Results Based Agenda is built around four strategic clusters that will enable Zimbabwe to achieve economic growth and reposition the country as one of the strongest economies in the region and Africa. The four strategic clusters identified are: Food Security and Nutrition; Social Services and Poverty Eradication; Infrastructure and Utilities and Value Addition and Beneficiation. The cluster approach enables Government to prioritise its programmes and projects for implementation with a view to realizing broad results that seek to address the country’s socio- economic challenges. To buttress the aforementioned clusters, two sub-clusters were also developed namely Fiscal Reform Measures and Public Administration, Governance and Performance Management. Zim-ASSET is designed to address the past policy failures by focussing on strategic areas of development, with emphasis on internal resources as opposed to external donor support. Preliminary evaluations have revealed some level of progress on MDG 6, which looks at measures to Combating HIV and AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases; and on MDG 2 which looks at achieving Universal Primary Education, among others. However, achievements in the health sector continued to be adversely affected by sporadic outbreaks of epidemic diseases such as typhoid, dysentery, high maternal mortality, shortage of funds to procure essential drugs and equipment and to rehabilitate dilapidated infrastructure. As for water, sanitation and hygiene, high levels of pollution continued to affect urban drinking water. The Elnino-induced drought has affected sources of clean water in rural areas such as boreholes, forcing people to resort to unprotected sources of drinking water. These practices have further exposed the population to communicable diseases that further strain the already strained health delivery system. The utilities and infrastructure sector has also not been spared, as roads, civil aviation and railway networks across the country have not seen major improvements and modernisation due to shortage of capital and long term investments. In the urban areas, capacity challenges also affected the efficient operation of councils resulting in poor water and sewerage reticulation systems. The Zim-ASSET Infrastructure and Utilities cluster is focused on the rehabilitation of infrastructural assets and recovery of utility services in Zimbabwe, including water and sanitation infrastructure. The water supply and sanitation sector outcomes include improved access to water supply and sanitation services to the people of Zimbabwe, and improved water supplies and wastewater disposal in towns, cities and rural areas. Read in conjunction with the Social Services and Poverty Eradication Cluster, the Zim-ASSET document thrives for improved service delivery by local authorities. In this regard, public infrastructure (sewerage system, roads, health facilities, waste management, schools and social amenities) need to be constructed and maintained in all local authorities. Page 12 of 52 Clearly, the SLB Project perfectly dovetails with the aims and spirit of Zim-ASSET as it tries to improve service delivery in water supply, wastewater and solid waste management in all the 32 urban local authorities through strategic planning, monitoring and reporting of service delivery. Similarly, there are strong linkages with other government initiatives, namely output-based budgeting, performance appraisals and E-governance. National imperatives now demand that the SLB Project takes a more holistic and integrative approach that will add value to other initiatives, with the overall objective being to deliver improved and sustainable water supply and sanitation services. This approach, anchored on horizontal learning and peer review, will entail revision and strengthening of organizational functioning and culture, and formulating evidence-based targets at the corporate, unit and individual level. This will be operationalised by peer-reviewed information systems improvement plans (ISIP) and performance improvement plans (PIP), both leading to an output-based budgeting system. The response on the government and donor side will be to revise financial allocation systems to recognize efficiency and need through an incentivized allocation system. The WASH sector has undergone a torrid time since the cholera outbreak of 2008/9, and this has attracted the attention of donors at a time when the capacity of government to financially support the sector has greatly weakened and the councils’ ability to independent raise funds is declining. However, there is realisation in the sector that some areas could be reasonably fixed without much capital outlay. The introduction of the service level benchmarking project in 2012 has greatly opened up the sector and brought some urgency into the recovery of WASH activities in the 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe. The accompanying Peer Review process, introduced in 2014, has brought more transparency and openness in sharing of ideas and experiences amongst the councils. 1.2 Objectives of Service Level Benchmarking The Goal of SLB Project is to improve service delivery through enhanced performance, transparency and accountability. With the Zim-ASSET thrust on the performance of local government, councils are encouraged to examine ways of implementing changes in their practices. Benchmarking provides councils the most useful options to achieve: • a greater success in understanding and meeting customer needs; • collective establishment of challenging, but realistic goals which relate to strategic council needs; • a deeper understanding of performance measures and the development of true measures of productivity; • a greater awareness of sector “best practices� and the desire to equal or surpass them; • improved competitiveness. The specific objectives of the Zimbabwean SLB Peer Review process in urban areas are: i. To support and facilitate improvements in the delivery of water and sanitation services (water supply, wastewater management, and solid waste management) in Zimbabwe, against agreed national and international standards of performance. ii. To carry out a thorough participatory review of water and sanitation services in urban areas and report on the findings. iii. To enable and facilitate the delivery of recommended service improvements/changes in partnership with those using and delivering services. Page 13 of 52 iv. To provide opportunities for sharing/learning good practice and benchmarking services on a national basis. v. To provide an opportunity for teams to review progress, innovation, strengths, gaps and future needs to improve services. vi. To provide an effective mechanism for council and residents involvement, thus ensuring two-way communication. 1.3 SLB Methodology Adopted in Zimbabwe In order to refresh our minds, and indeed remind ourselves of the SLB roadmap, we decided to once more give an outline of the SLB methodology that was adopted in Zimbabwe. This approach is also useful to those who are reading our reports for the first time. The SLB process phases are as follows: 1.3.1 Inception The SLB project started with an inception workshop which was held in September 2012. The purpose of the workshop was to refine the methodology and present the draft data collection instruments. 1.3.2 Participatory development of indicators The draft data collection instruments were presented to town engineers, town treasurers and other officials from urban local authorities and from the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) at a workshop held in Kadoma in October 2012. Three questionnaires, on water supply, wastewater management, and solid waste management, and a reliability assessment framework were presented and thoroughly analysed. The process of finalising the data collection instruments continued after the workshop up to the end of November 2012. 1.3.3 Data collection The data collection took place between January and March 2013. It was carried out by a team comprising of members from WSP, Zimbabwe Local Government Association (ZILGA), MLGPW&NH, MEWC, staff and MSc students from the University of Zimbabwe. A capacity building element was incorporated into the project right from the start when data collection teams were formulated (Fig 1.1). Data for 2012, on water supply, wastewater and solid waste management, were collected from all the 32 urban local authorities in Zimbabwe. Figure 1.1. Incorporation of the local capacity building element into the SLB Project by ensuring involvement of all key partners right from the beginning Page 14 of 52 1.3.4 Data analysis, validation and development of benchmarks The data were compiled in a Microsoft Excel master sheet and results presented to ZILGA forum meetings, the Infrastructure Technical Reference Group (ITRG), Australian Embassy, Africa Development Bank, GIZ and UNICEF. A technical review workshop was held in Kadoma to validate the data, review data collection tools and set local benchmarks with a horizon of 2018. The most important outcome of the Kadoma Workshop was the unanimous agreement that from 2014, the benchmarking exercise would be led by ZILGA teams through a peer review mechanism with financial and technical support from the World Bank for three years. 1.3.5 Introduction of a peer review mechanism A number of meetings took place in 2014 before the introduction and roll out of a peer review mechanism at the end of July 2014. These include a Town Engineers Forum meeting in Mutare in March, a three-day workshop in Masvingo in May to finalise the data collection handbook and to introduce the draft peer review mechanism, and Town Clerks Forum meeting in Bulawayo end of May to further develop the modalities of the peer review mechanism. This was finalised through another Town Clerks meeting in Kadoma in July, which set up the governance structures and timetable for peer reviews to be led by Town Clerks. Subsequently, an inaugural peer review meeting was held in Masvingo on 29-30 July 2014. This was followed by the launch of the SLB Peer Review Process by the then Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing and the Minister of Environment, Water and Climate. Page 15 of 52 2. Peer Review Process – Setup and Activities for 2015 2.1 Definition Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. Peer review in urban service level benchmarking can thus be described as the systematic examination and assessment of the performance of a council/utility by other councils/utilities. Peer reviews in Zimbabwean local authorities have therefore been designed to support and facilitate the drive for quality improvement using a process that responds to changes in national development and priorities. 2.2 Governance Structure The Peer Review process is carried out through agreed programme implementation structures, as shown in Fig 2.1. However, the structure is also supported by cooperating partners such as the World Bank, UNICEF, GIZ, AusAid and AfDB. Sector Policy formulation and Government monitoring Identify/facilitate best practice and use Urban Councils lessons learnt to lobby Association of for changes in sector Zimbabwe policies Oversees the Peer Review Process, identifies areas for improvement, adopts Peer Review realistic targets and - if Coordinating necessary- convince Committee authorities of the need for change Visit and review each council, ensure that customers get fair Peer Review Panels value, and providers have incentives to perform Figure 2.1. Governance Structure for SLB Peer Review System Adopted in Zimbabwe 2.2.1 Government The government membership comprises the WASH Cluster, namely; i. Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing ii. Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate, Page 16 of 52 iii. Ministry of Health and Child Care, iv. Ministry of Finance, v. Ministry of Economic Development, vi. Ministry of Energy and Power Development, vii. Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development, and viii. National Action Committee on Water (Secretariat). 2.2.2 Urban Councils Association of Zimbabwe (UCAZ) This comprises all 32 urban local authorities and the attendant structures of the Association, namely; i. Executive Committee, ii. Presidential Committee, iii. Finance and Audit Subcommittee, iv. Technical Services Subcommittee, v. Health Services Subcommittee, vi. Management, Manpower and Legal Subcommittee vii. Housing and Social Services Subcommittee, and viii. Women in Local Government Forum. The above committees are serviced by Council Officers’ Fora. 2.2.3 Peer Review Coordinating Committee (PRCC) a) Membership of PRCC i. Chairperson of Town Clerks Forum (Chair) ii. Secretary of Town Clerks Forum iii. Chairperson of Town Engineers Forum iv. Chairperson of Directors of Finance Forum v. Chairperson of Housing Officers Forum vi. Chairperson of Health Officers Forum vii. Representative from Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing viii. Representative from Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate ix. Representative from the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) x. Representative from UCAZ Secretariat b) Terms of Reference of PRCC i. Devise and maintain a schedule of peer reviews of urban water and sanitation services, ensuring that the performance of each utility is reviewed every year. ii. Revise and circulate a template for Peer Review Reports for each year, depending on agreed areas of focus. iii. Organise and hold at least one general meeting of stakeholders each calendar year. Page 17 of 52 iv. Prepare and submit an annual report of Peer Reviews to stakeholders, including the Urban WASH Sub-Committee. v. Oversee the peer review process, to ensure that reviews are carried out in a timely and objective manner, and to ensure that peer review is an appropriate and effective process. vi. Provide final sign-off of each of the peer review reports within four weeks of peer review date. vii. Develop and implement a capacity building or training programme to support the peer review process viii. Act as an honest broker for appeals and complaints against individual peer reviews. ix. Advise Government on sector policies as a follow up of findings of the SLB process. x. Solicit for funds to sustain the SLB process. 2.2.4 Peer Review Panels a) Membership of Peer Review Panels Each peer review team comprises the following officials: i. Representative of Town Clerks Forum (Chair) ii. Representative of Chamber Secretaries Forum iii. Representative of Town Engineers Forum iv. Representative of Directors of Finance Forum v. Representative of Housing Officers Forum vi. Representative of Health Officers Forum vii. One representative from Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing and/or from Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate viii. Representative from ZINWA ix. Representative from UCAZ Secretariat x. Representative of World Bank b) Terms of Reference of Peer Review Panels i. Analyse peer review data in accordance with agreed benchmarks, SLB Data Collection Handbook and reliability scoring, and SLB Peer Review Handbook. ii. Be prepared to communicate with relevant staff from the council/utility under review for purposes of data clarification. iii. As independent reviewers of the service, communicate with the rest of the peer review panel members by email, teleconference, or any other means. iv. Attend the peer review meeting. v. Contribute to the peer review report in a timeous manner. Page 18 of 52 2.3 SLB Activities for 2015 2.3.1 Activities and Key Deliverables The timelines for activities and key deliverables in 2015 are described briefly below. 26-27 January 2015: Presentation of 2014 SLB report to Town Clerks Forum in Bulawayo. The workshop also considered and finalised the Peer Review Handbook and elaborated a program for the year. A methodology for ranking councils was also developed. The workshop introduced the Performance Improvement Plans. 28 January 2015: Training of Mayor/Chairpersons on SLB in Bulawayo. The Peer Review Process and its findings were explained to the political leadership in detail and it was agreed that the councillors would be involved in the feedback session of peer review visits to their councils. 6 February 2015: Presentation of 2014 report to donors at the World Bank offices in Harare. 26 February 2015: Presentation of the SLB 2014 report to the WASH Urban Rehabilitation Technical Coordinators’ Meeting at UNICEF Offices. 22-26 February 2015: Training of SLB Focal Persons on data capturing, interpretation and analysis held at Kadoma Ranch Hotel and Conference Centre. 27 February 2015: SLB peer review procedures presentation to Directors of Finance Forum in Zvishavane. The meeting also discussed and agreed on how to deal with arrears in a uniform way. 27 March 2015: SLB peer review procedures presentation to the Engineers Forum in Kariba The format for guiding benchmarking and peer reviewing remained the same as in the previous years (Table 2.1). The Peer Review Teams (PRT) visited councils to collect data and scrutinise the operation of each council. The visits started in February until end of June 2015.October 2015: Peer Review Coordinating workshop in Harare to consider an SLB Concept Note and develop a program for the rest of the year and for 2016. 2-4 December 2015: SLB Peer Review Coordinating Committee workshop in Bulawayo to review progress and findings of 2015 and prepare an annual report for the year. Table 2.1. Categorisation of urban councils in Zimbabwe which was used for formulation of Peer Review Panels Cities Municipalities Town Councils Local Boards Bulawayo Bindura Beitbridge Epworth Gweru Chegutu Chipinge Hwange Harare Chinhoyi Chiredzi Lupane Kadoma Chitungwiza Gokwe Chirundu KweKwe Gwanda Karoi Ruwa Masvingo Kariba Mvurwi Mutare Marondera Norton Redcliff Plumtree Page 19 of 52 Victoria Falls Rusape Shurugwi Zvishavane 2.3.2 Peer Review Visits to Different Towns The visits to each local authority were organised as shown in Tables 2.2 to 2.5. The visits were generally organised as follows: Day 1: Most guests would have arrived the previous day and are ready to start on time 9.00am Introductions and review of councils’ preparedness in terms of fully completed questionnaires, all supporting documents in place, and a team SWOT Analysis ready for presentation. (Meeting to agree on format of presentation and acceptable forms of data submission – soft or hardcopies) 9.30am - Guided field visits to water supply, wastewater and solid waste management installations. 1.30pm Lunch provided by Reviewed Council 2.30pm Council leadership team make overview presentation. Reviewers’ question time 3.00pm Reviewers commence drilling down and observations, review of evidence, and reliability scoring. (Council to provide latest copies of questionnaires and ALL supporting documents) Day 2: The outline structure for the day will be: 8.00 am Reviewers continue drilling down and observations, review of evidence, and reliability scoring. 12.30 pm Lunch provided by Reviewed Council – reviewers may use this time for confidential discussions 1.00 pm Discussions by core team and report writing on findings; planning for feedback session 4.00 pm Feedback to the expanded council management led by the Chair of the Peer Review Team (Other members of council management, besides the heads of department can be invited to this session). 4.20 pm Questions and answers with the expanded council management 4.30 pm Close In cases where the council was poorly prepared for the peer review visit, the peer review process took much longer than anticipated. It was important that review teams completed and submitted their report before departure. The reviewed council was supposed to revise their data as per reviewers’ recommendations and re-submit all documents, including supporting information, overview presentation, and Performance Improvement Plan, within a week. Failure to comply with this often hindered the whole process of analysis of results and production of the annual report. Table 2.2 shows the peer review matrix used for the reviews. Like in the previous year, councils were paired according to their classification. However, it has been provisionally agreed that in the coming Page 20 of 52 year, pairing will be different in that classification of the councils will no longer be a criteria for pairing councils. Instead, councils will sit in November 2016 to agree on the new method to be used for pairing local authorities. Page 21 of 52 Table 2.2. Peer Review Matrix for Cities used in 2015 Council Visited Dates of Visit Council providing Peer Reviewers and their designations Government Mutare Masvingo KweKwe Kadoma Harare Gweru Bulawayo Mutare 16-17 Feb TC CS TE TT HU HO MoEWC Masvingo 19-20 Feb TC HU CS HO TT TE MoLGPW&NH KweKwe 16-17 March CS HU TC TE HO TT MoEWC Kadoma 19-20 March TE HO TT HU TC CS MoLGPW&NH Harare 8-9 April TT TE TC HO CS HU MoEWC Gweru 13-14 April HO TT TE HU CS TC MoEWC Bulawayo 21-22 May HU CS HO TT TC TE MoLGPW&NH Table 2.3. Peer Review Matrix for Municipalities used in 2015 Council Visited Dates of Visit Council providing Peer Reviewers and their designations Government Vic Falls Redcliff Marondera Kariba Gwanda Chitungwiza Chinhoyi Chegutu Bindura Vic Falls 23-24 Feb TC HU TT CS HO TE MoLGPW&NH Redcliff 26-28 Feb TE CS TC HU HO TT MoLGPW&NH Marondera 5-6 March TC TE TT HO HU CS MoEWC Kariba 16-17 March HO TT TE TC HU CS MoEWC Gwanda 19-20 March HO TT TE CS TC HU MoLGPW&NH Chitungwiza 8-9 April HU CS HO TE TC TT MoEWC Chinhoyi 13-14 April TT HU CS TC TE HO MoEWC Chegutu 1-2 June CS HU HO TT TE TC MoLGPW&NH Bindura 26-27 May TC HU CS HO TT TE MoLGPW&NH Page 22 of 52 Table 2.4. Peer Review Matrix for Town Councils used in 2015 Council Visited Dates of Visit Council providing Peer Reviewers and their designations Government ++++ Zvishavane Shurugwi Rusape Plumtree Norton Mvurwi Karoi Gokwe Chiredzi Chipinge Beitbridge Zvishavane 16-17 Feb TT TE TC HU HO MoEWC Shurugwi 19-20 Feb TC TT TE HO HU MoLGPW&NH Rusape 9-10 March HU HO TT TC TE MoLGPW&NH Plumtree 12-13 March HU HO TT TC TE MoEWC Norton 23-24 March HU TT TE TC HO MoLGPW&NH Mvurwi 26-27 March HU HO TT TE TC MoLGPW&NH ZINWA Karoi 8-9 April HO HU TE TT TC MoEWC ZINWA TE - ZINWA Gokwe 4-5 June Chipinge HU HO TT TC MoEWC Chiredzi 11-12 May TC HU HO TT TE MoLGPW&NH Chipinge 14-15 May TE TC HO HU TT MoEWC Beitbridge 28-29 May TT TE TC HU HO MoLGPW&NH ZINWA Table 2.5. Peer Review Matrix for Local Boards used in 2015 Council Visited Dates of Visit Council providing Peer Reviewers and their designations Government ++++ Ruwa Lupane Hwange Epworth Chirundu Ruwa 5-6 March TE HO TT TC MoEWC TE -Harare Lupane 1-2 June TC- Hwange TE HO TT MoEWC ZINWA TC – Hwange 4-5 June TT HO Mvurwi TE MoEWC TE –Vic Falls + ZINWA Epworth 11-12 May TE TT TC HO MoLGPW&NH ZINWA TC - Chirundu 14-15 May HO Lupane TT TE MoLGPW&NH ZINWA Where an official is not in post for Local Boards, efforts will be made to find a replacement from nearest Town Council OR ZINWA NB: TC = Town Clerk/Secretary; TE = Town Engineer; TT = Town Treasurer; HO = Health Officer; HU = Director of Housing; CS = Chamber Secretary Page 23 of 52 3. Results from the 2015 Peer Review Process 3.1 Trend Analysis of 2014 SLB Data 3.1.1 Water Supply Indicators The data for 2014, collected and reported in 2015, did not show much change from the data of 2012 and 2013 (Table 3.1). Table 3.1. Results for Water Supply Indicators in 2014 as compared to 2013 and 2012 data and target benchmarks Ref Indicator Target All Councils All Councils All Councils Remarks Performance Average Average Average or Benchmark Performance Performance Performance 2012 2013 2014 1. Water Supply Indicators 1.1 Property level coverage of direct water 100 77.8 75.9 80.7 Marginal increase supply, % 1.2 Per capita supply of water , L/cap.d 150 241.1 212.6 200.3 Noticeable decrease 1.3 Extent of metering of water 100 86.1 84.0 76.6 Noticeable connections, % decrease 1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW), % 25 37.8 41.2 39.8 Marginal increase 1.5 Continuity of water supply, hr/d 24 12.1 12.4 12.3 Virtually no change 1.6 Quality of water supplied, % 100 79.4 88.1 84.5 Marginal increase 1.7 Efficiency in satisfactory 80 68.0 64.6 71.0 Fluctuating response/reaction to customer complaints, % 1.8 Operating cost recovery in water supply 150 181.1 161.1 172.1 Marginal decrease services, % 1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supply- 75 51.5 42.6 48.1 Marginal decrease related charges, % 1.10 Maintenance Coverage ratio, % 20 3.8 4.8 2.5 Fluctuating The following specific points were noted from Table 3.1: Property level coverage of direct water supply, %: Results for 2014 recorded an increase in properties with direct water supply. Although few new connections were done, the increase is probably a result of improved accuracy of data on properties arising from property surveys and the introduction of GIS in some councils. As a result of use of these two measures, data reliability has improved significantly. However, it has been observed that the survey instruments require improvements to enable capturing of varied data such as condition of the meters at the households. This becomes economic since there will be recording of multiple services which would ideally require another survey to be conducted. Per capita supply of water, L/cap.d: There was a noticeable decrease in per capita supply of water across councils. Most bulk meters are not working whilst estimates based on pumping records Page 24 of 52 would be unreliable, considering the state of the infrastructure and the age of the pumps. The figures on per capita water supply seem to betrayal other indicators on water supply such as continuity of supply as the majority of councils are still facing serious water shortages. Although the impact of inclusion of non-domestic consumption would not affect the figure in most councils, this would present a challenge to some, especially those based on mining and large industries. However, as most councils are now buying bulk water meters, we expect these figures to reduce to the true value in the next year or so. Extent of metering of water connections, %: Results recorded a noticeable decrease which again could be a result of more reliable and accurate data obtained from the surveys as well as use of GIS to locate metered properties. Despite the overall decrease registered, there were councils that invested in new meters. This positive gain could not translate into realisable result because of the over-estimated figures presented in the previous year. After carrying out property surveys, most councils presented data on functional meters only, which tended to decrease the value of the indicator. Extent of non-revenue water (NRW), %: Results showed a marginal increase in NRW when a decrease was desirable. The marginal gains could be a result of investments in new meters, introduction of zonal/district metering and maintenance of water reticulation system. On the other hand, there was a decrease in the number of functional meters as local authorities struggled to replace them. The use of Promun software has greatly improved, enabling councils to accurately determine the amount of water monthly consumption from exception reports. Meter management is recommended through carrying out physical inspections on the functionality of meters on a regular basis. Although data on water production shows that there is adequate water being produced in most Local Authorities, the production figures do not tally with water billed. Such discrepancies need to be further investigated. Results also show that some councils had suspiciously very low NRW, which could be due to high estimates of water consumed especially due to lack of functional meters. Towns with unrealistically low NRW are Chitungwiza, Mvurwi and Chirundu. On the other hand, Harare, Mutare, Kadoma Redcliff, Rusape and Chiredzi have unrealistically high NRW figures (Fig 3.1). Individual Local Authorities need to come up with strategies for reduction of NRW as this is still way above the benchmark. The high non-revenue water partly explains why consumers do not have continuous water supply despite the very high per capita figures. The high NRW also constitute a major threat to the viability of local authorities. Further analyses of this indicator were therefore done. 100.0 2012 Data 2013 Data 80.0 2014 Data Extent of non-revenue water (NRW), % 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Victoria falls Bulawayo Masvingo Harare Mutare Gweru Redcliff Hwange Chipinge Chirundu Bindura Beitbridge Chiredzi Rusape Lupane Chitungwiza Kadoma Zvishavane Norton Chegutu Kariba Karoi Marondera Plumtree Gwanda Epworth Ruwa Mvurwi Chinhoyi Gokwe Kwekwe Shurugwi -20.0 -40.0 -60.0 Town Page 25 of 52 Figure 3.1. Non-Revenue Water results for 2012-2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Figure 3.2 shows the NRW figures for 2014 expressed in m3 per hour per kilometre (m3/hr.km). It reveals the state of decay of infrastructure in councils and shows that Mutare, KweKwe and Rusape are loosing a lot of water per unit length of their water mains. This could be due to ageing pipes, types of pipes, poor workmanship, etc. A programme of leak detection and repair would greatly assist in solving this problem. However, this does not rule out the contribution of non-functional meters and water thefts. 0.0080 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW), m3/hr.km 0.0070 0.0060 0.0050 0.0040 0.0030 0.0020 0.0010 0.0000 Bulawayo Victoria falls Harare Masvingo Gweru Mutare Chipinge Hwange Chiredzi Zvishavane Redcliff Rusape Chirundu Marondera Norton Bindura Kadoma Plumtree Beitbridge Chegutu Kariba Gwanda Lupane Karoi Chitungwiza Epworth Ruwa Mvurwi Gokwe Kwekwe Chinhoyi Shurugwi Town 3 Figure 3.2. Non-Revenue Water results in m /hr.km for 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Another measure of the integrity of pipes is the average number of water pipe bursts per 100 km in a month as shown in Fig 3.3. The 2012 figures for Mutare, Kadoma, Zvishavane, Gokwe and Chinhoyi were way too high compared to other towns and cities in Zimbabwe. The figures for 2014 show an improved situation. In 2014 higher figures were recorded for KweKwe, Masvingo, Beitbridge, Rusape, Kariba, Chipinge and Shurugwi. 100 Average number of pipe bursts per 100 km in a month 2012 Data 90 2013 Data 80 2014 Data 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Harare Zvishavane Redcliff Marondera Plumtree Beitbridge Victoria falls Chegutu Bulawayo Masvingo Kariba Karoi Gweru Mutare Chipinge Epworth Ruwa Hwange Mvurwi Chiredzi Gokwe Chinhoyi Bindura Rusape Chirundu Norton Kwekwe Kadoma Shurugwi Gwanda Lupane Chitungwiza Town Figure 3.3. Average number of pipe bursts per 100 km in a month for 2012-2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Continuity of water supply, hr/d: Results show that the water supply situation practically remained constant with water availability averaging 12.3hrs. Very few councils, such as Kwekwe and Bulawayo indicated 24 hr of water supply. This data is questionable and might need to be further corroborated by the consumers themselves. In most cases, per capita supply, NRW and continuity of supply figures Page 26 of 52 are not tallying. The water supply situation is critical for Chitungwiza, Epworth and Norton (which indicated supplies of just a few hours a day). These towns do not have a water treatment plant of their own and rely on the City of Harare. The data supplied was largely based on estimates since no Local Authority has an up to date record of continuous water supply for a particular suburb for a period of seven days as required by the indicator. This calls for the need for good record-keeping on the supply situation for different areas in a single council. There is need for councils to carry out routine inspections of certain strategic points so as to come up with a more realistic figure. For example, high level ground might not experience the same water flow as low lying areas, thereby making the figures too general to the extent of giving false impressions about adequacy of water to consumers. 24 Average 12.3 hrs, Benchmark 24hrs, 75th Percentile 19hrs 20 Continuity of water supply (hrs) 16 12 8 4 0 Town/ City Figure 3.4. Continuity of Water Supply results for 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Quality of water supplied, %: Most councils have shown a marked improvement in carrying out water tests. Although most towns do not have the requisite equipment for carrying out these tests, external tests are being done by the Ministry of Health, EMA and other accredited water testing laboratories. Unlike in the previous reporting periods where water tests tended to be confined to water treatment plants, results show that the majority of councils are now carrying out the prescribed tests. However, there is still no standard testing regime to be followed by all local authorities. Some councils are doing basic tests like jar test and residual chlorine once in every shift, once per day, whilst in other councils these tests are very erratic. In most cases, bacteriological tests are not being done or are done haphazardly. There is no pattern for monitoring intermediate and consumer end points. In view of these observations, councils need to come up with an appropriate sampling, testing and quality control protocol in order to improve the protection of their water consumers. Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints, %: Most councils indicated that they have multiple mechanisms by which residents can present their complaints. These mechanisms include the use of complaints registers, telephone, SMS messaging and WhatsApp, e- mail among others. Despite these claims, there is no empirical evidence of a complainant feedback mechanism. It is not possible to establish whether the complaints were addressed within the time indicated or not because there is no provision for endorsement by the complainant. In light of these observations, councils need to design a comprehensive complaints register which captures all the Page 27 of 52 missing details in the current registers. This would ensure that councils have a standard way in which customer complaints are registered and followed up. This is essential after observing that some councils have suspiciously too low complaints for a period of a year. Despite these short-comings, in general, there has been a marked improvement in the way in which councils interface with residents. Operating cost recovery in water supply services, %: Results show that there has been an increase in cost recovery in water supply. This could be a result of councils’ improved financial management systems and more realistic budgeting. In addition, the justification of tariff build up by councils improved accountability and transparency in the formulation of budget figures, which might have enhance the confidence that residents have over their council. However, Mutare and Masvingo tariffs of over 400% are unrealistically too high and need to be further investigated. On the contrary, Marondera, Norton, Beitbridge, Redcliff, Karoi, Mvurwi and Gwanda have unrealistically low figures. High cost recovery figures show that councils are not investing enough in the sector. This is partly caused by poor revenue collection and by the need to deal with unfunded mandates such as council schools and clinics. 400.0 Operating cost recovery in water supply services, % 2012 Data 350.0 2013 Data 2014 Data 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Harare Redcliff Zvishavane Marondera Victoria falls Bulawayo Beitbridge Plumtree Chegutu Kariba Masvingo Karoi Gweru Chipinge Mutare Epworth Hwange Ruwa Mvurwi Chiredzi Gokwe Norton Chirundu Kwekwe Bindura Kadoma Chinhoyi Rusape Shurugwi Lupane Chitungwiza Gwanda Town Figure 3.5. Operating Cost Recovery in Water Supply results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges, %: The average revenue collection efficiency decreased marginally from 51.5% in 2012 to 48.1% in 2014. The scope for increase is high if councils put in place strategies for revenue collection such as pre-paid water meters, water disconnections, hiring debt collectors, ward-based billing, etc. Worth noting is the supportive attitude adopted by the parent Ministry to councils’ revenue collection strategies. There is still concern with councils on very low collections below 20% such as Gweru, Chegutu, Zvishavane and Shurugwi. However, the issue of separation of arrears from current bills is still a problem. Councils need to come up with a formula which will address this challenge including consultations with some organisations that are already practicing this system such as ZESA. Some examples of this practice are beginning to emerge in Promun software for councils such as Kariba and Ruwa. Page 28 of 52 100.0 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related 2012 Data 90.0 2013 Data 80.0 2014 Data 70.0 60.0 charges, % 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Harare Redcliff Victoria falls Beitbridge Bulawayo Zvishavane Chegutu Kariba Masvingo Marondera Karoi Plumtree Epworth Gweru Mutare Chipinge Mvurwi Ruwa Chiredzi Hwange Chirundu Gokwe Kwekwe Shurugwi Bindura Chinhoyi Lupane Kadoma Rusape Chitungwiza Norton Gwanda Town Figure 3.6. Efficiency in Collection of Water Supply-related Charges results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Maintenance Coverage ratio, %: The results show that only 2.5% was used for maintenance-related expenses out of all the expenses incurred in water supply. This is still very low when compared to the target benchmark of 20%. It has been recommended that councils keep separate votes for maintenance and for repairs. In addition, a well costed maintenance plan is required for each council. Most Local Authorities do not have maintenance plans and they are failing to separate maintenance costs from repair costs. Councils need to embrace this practice as it is the hallmark of good asset management. 3.1.2 Wastewater Management Indicators The data collected for 2014 did not show much change from the data for 2013 (Table 3.3). Table 3.2. Results for Wastewater Management Indicators in 2014 as compared to 2012 and 2013 data and target benchmarks Re Indicator Target All Councils All Councils All Councils Remarks f Performance Average Average Average or Performance Performance Performance Benchmark 2012 2013 2014 2. Wastewater Management Indicators 2.1 Coverage of toilets, % 100 81.3 82.6 Marginal increase 81.9 2.2 Coverage of sewerage network services, 66/80 68.9 64.3 Not changing much % 65.8 2.3 Efficiency in collection of sewage, % 95 Councils over-estimated 30.5 62.8 collection because of no 119.1 flow meters 2.4 Adequacy of capacity for treatment of 100 161.5 272.7 Most councils still have sewage, % 235.0 spare capacity 2.5 Quality of sewage treatment, % 100 4.3 24.2 Improving steadily 33.6 2.6 Extent of recycling or reuse of sewage, % 10 2.9 3.0 Recycling is negligible in 16.8 most councils 2.7 Efficiency in satisfactory 80 Significant improvements response/reaction to customer 59.1 74.2 complaints, % 82.2 2.8 Efficiency of cost recovery in sewage 150 235.5 162.2 Fluctuating but still management, % 220.0 meeting the benchmark Page 29 of 52 2.9 Efficiency in collection of sewage 75 42.4 44.7 Significant improvements charges, % 64.2 2.1 Maintenance Coverage ratio, % 15 Some positive change. 0 2.7 6.6 More still needs to be 11.5 done The following points were noted: Coverage of toilets, %: Results show a marginal increase in coverage of toilets. There are areas where to some extent open defecation is still being practiced. Cases in point include one high density suburb in Victoria Falls which has no toilets for many years. In most councils, however, coverage of toilets has greatly improved. Again, reliability and accuracy of data in this area has been enhanced through surveys and GIS applications. Coverage of sewerage network services, %: There is noticeable improvement although data reliability is still questionable. As has been observed on data for coverage of toilets, there are properties that are still to be connected to the network. Results also indicate that some properties in high density suburbs are still dependent on septic tanks. Similarly, new properties have been occupied without sewer connections, although councils argue that council by-laws require that such properties are connected prior to occupation. This may point to poor enforcement of by-laws by councils resulting in neglecting their development control responsibility. Another problem is the proliferation of new housing schemes without due regard to the treatment of sewage produced in these new schemes. Efficiency in collection of sewage, %: There has been a marked improvement in this area as a result of investments by AFDB, GIZ, UNICEF, WB and PSIP. However, measuring the actual flow still remains a challenge in almost all councils. Also critical is the issue of adequate treatment of the sewage collected. An average figure above 100% obviously shows that councils are over estimating amount of flow. In the absence of flow meters, there can be reasonable estimation of the amount of flow but there is no standard way by which this is done across councils. It is therefore suggested that councils carry out 24-hour flow measurement campaigns lasting seven days each in the dray and the wet seasons. This should be very easy to implement since councils have engineers and the plans are manned for most of the time. Councils are also urged to assess their opwn figures and investigate when they do not make practical sense rather than wait for the reviewers to tell them so. 100.0 2012 Data 90.0 2013 Data Efficiency in Collection of Sewage, % 80.0 2014 Data 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Harare Redcliff Victoria falls Beitbridge Zvishavane Masvingo Marondera Karoi Plumtree Bulawayo Kariba Chegutu Mutare Epworth Gweru Ruwa Mvurwi Hwange Chipinge Chirundu Gokwe Bindura Chinhoyi Chiredzi Kwekwe Shurugwi Rusape Lupane Norton Kadoma Gwanda Chitungwiza Town Page 30 of 52 Figure 3.7. Efficiency in Collection of Sewage comparative analysis results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Adequacy of capacity for treatment of sewage, %: There is need to get accurate figures on inflows so that we get more reliable data. The data on water produced and distributed into the system does not tally with data on sewage collected at the treatment works. There is need for engineers to have a standard way of estimating sewage flows that guide local authorities. Councils such as Marondera, Epworth and Hwange need to give more attention to the treatment capacity of their plants. Some councils reporting higher adequacy figures might be painting a wrong picture as they are not collecting enough sewage or are underestimating the inflows. We also note that there is need to account for wastewater collected in septic tanks, and therefore does not reach sewage treatment plants. There is therefore a need for methodological uniformity so that the figures show similar interpretation. Although rehabilitation projects could have improved the functional capacity of the plants, not much change was expected as there were no new constructions. Quality of sewage treatment, %: Most councils are not carrying out wastewater quality testing. Sewage treatment is mostly by natural treatment methods such as waste stabilisation ponds. Larger towns and cities have trickling filters and activated sludge plants In the absence of sewage testing, the quality of sewage is compromised and cannot be supported by scientific evidence. This has result in councils continuously polluting the environment and river bodies, attracting punitive fines from EMA. Extent of recycling or reuse of sewage, %: There has been little improvement on this indicator as this requires capital works for rehabilitation or new constructions. There is a need to raise awareness of new farmers on the benefits of using sewage treatment plant effluent for crop/pasture irrigation so that councils can have somewhere to divert effluent to. Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints, %: There is now some improvement as discussed for water supply. Councils need to improve the recording and tracking of complaints. Efficiency of cost recovery in sewage management, %: The reliability score is not reflective of the actual performance of the indicator. Although not much sewage is reaching the treatment plants and undergoing treatment, councils continued to bill residents but not financing rehabilitation and maintenance of the ageing infrastructure. The Marondera, Chipinge and Gokwe data are suspiciously low and require further investigation. On the other hand, Mutare, Kadoma, KweKwe and Plumtree posted very high figures, possibly reflective of under-expenditure in the sector. However the indicator is still above the agreed benchmark. Page 31 of 52 1000.0 Efficiency in Cost Recovery in Sewage Management, % 900.0 800.0 2012 Data 700.0 2013 Data 600.0 2014 Data 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 Harare Beitbridge Zvishavane Redcliff Marondera Masvingo Plumtree Victoria falls Karoi Bulawayo Chegutu Kariba Mutare Gweru Chipinge Ruwa Epworth Hwange Mvurwi Chirundu Gokwe Bindura Chinhoyi Chiredzi Kwekwe Rusape Norton Lupane Shurugwi Kadoma Gwanda Chitungwiza Town Figure 3.8. Efficiency in Cost Recovery in Sewage Management comparative analysis results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Efficiency in collection of sewage charges, %: There is an improvement in performance but this could be due to revenue allocation system being used by councils whereby they allocate money received to some areas, leaving out water charges. This enables councils to disconnect water in case of arrears. There does not appear to be a rational method for charging for sewage costs with councils currently using fixed rates for billing sewage. There is need to relook at tariff setting for sewer. Maintenance Coverage ratio, %: There is considerable progress arising from interventions by development partners in the rehabilitation of sewerage infrastructure. Sewage is no longer on the streets. Most sewage ponds are operational although below capacity and they require rehabilitation and maintenance. Most Local Authorities are not adhering to their maintenance schedules. 3.1.3 Solid Waste Management Indicators The data collected for the year 2014 did not show much change from the data for 2013 (Table 3.3). Table 3.3. Results for Solid Waste Management Indicators in 2014 as compared to 2012 and 2013 data and target benchmarks Ref Indicator Target All All All Councils Remarks Performan Councils Councils Average ce or Average Average Performanc Benchmark Performan Performan e 2014 ce 2012 ce 2013 3. Solid Waste Management Indicators 3.1 Coverage of SWM services through 100 18.5 67.7 Significant improvement kerbside collection of waste, % 82.7 3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid 100 64.4 71.3 Sustained positive change waste, % 83.8 3.3 Extent of recovery of municipal solid 20 0.7 0.6 Very little changes waste collected, % 3.4 3.4 Extent of scientific disposal of waste at 100 3.6 3.7 Slight increase landfill sites, % 6.3 3.5 Efficiency in satisfactory 80 Insignificant change response/reaction to customer 67.9 71.1 complaints, % 66.3 Page 32 of 52 3.6 Efficiency of cost recovery in SWM 100 186.0 261.9 Achieving well above services, % 242.8 benchmark 3.7 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges, 75 56.1 36.6 Collection situation is % 41.8 generally worsening 3.8 Maintenance Coverage ratio, % 20 6.0 6.6 Nominal change 5.3 3.9 Coverage of receptacles, % 100 40.3 46.7 Fluctuating 38.2 Coverage of SWM services through kerbside collection of waste, %: There is some significant improvement on the indicator with most councils buying refuse collection equipment. Challenges still remain in new housing developments, especially those with no roads. Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste, %: There is a sustained improvement (Fig 3.7) which is very encouraging. The accounting for collected loads remains vague in the absence of studies on refuse generation per person per day and absence of weighbridges. However, we have noted that some councils have acquired refuse vehicles that have self-weighing capabilities. Most councils reported more frequent collections of solid waste collection for industrial, commercial and domestic. In most councils, commercial waste is collected daily while domestic waste is collected once a week. 300.0 Efficiency in Collection of Municipal Solid Waste, % 250.0 2012 Data 200.0 2013 Data 2014 Data 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Harare Beitbridge Zvishavane Redcliff Marondera Masvingo Plumtree Victoria falls Karoi Bulawayo Chegutu Kariba Mutare Gweru Chipinge Ruwa Epworth Hwange Mvurwi Chirundu Gokwe Bindura Chinhoyi Chiredzi Kwekwe Rusape Norton Lupane Shurugwi Kadoma Gwanda Chitungwiza Town Figure 3.9. Efficiency in Collection of Municipal Solid Waste comparative results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Extent of recovery of municipal solid waste collected, %: Very little recycling of sewage is taking place in councils as reflected in the 2014. Some examples of recovery from Bulawayo and Karoi have been noted for dissemination to other councils, although these are at a very small scale. This has the effect of shortening the life span of the dumpsites as they quickly fill up. Little examples available show a huge potential for waste recycling if councils take deliberate actions in support of current waste scavengers. Extent of scientific disposal of waste at landfill sites, %: No change was recorded. Councils are at different stages of planning for compliant landfills in accordance with EMA regulations. However, a demonstration is required and Norton Town Council has recently constructed one which will hopefully be used as a model for other councils. It is recommended that councils seek donor funds for the construction of pilot scientific landfills as funds for the construction of such landfills will remain a constraint in the short-term. Page 33 of 52 Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints, %: Change negligible. Councils need to come up with a better method of registering complaints as well as ensuring endorsement of their resolution. The current registers require review. Efficiency of cost recovery in SWM services, %: The cost recovery aspect improved substantially probably due to raised tariffs which in turn effected the collection efficiency if councils (Fig 3.10). On the other hand, poor expenditure levels could have contributed to the increase in the indicator. The change in this indicator therefore needs to be considered with utmost care. Councils with unusually high cost recovery levels are Chinhoyi, Marondera, Norton, Rusape, Chiredzi, Gwanda, Karoi and Plumtree. The ones that are underperforming on this indicator are Chipinge, Gokwe and Mvurwi. 1000.0 Efficiency of Cost Recovery in SWM Services, % 900.0 800.0 2012 Data 700.0 2013 Data 600.0 2014 Data 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 Harare Zvishavane Redcliff Marondera Beitbridge Victoria falls Plumtree Chegutu Kariba Bulawayo Masvingo Karoi Gweru Mutare Epworth Chipinge Ruwa Hwange Mvurwi Chiredzi Gokwe Chinhoyi Rusape Chirundu Norton Bindura Kwekwe Kadoma Shurugwi Lupane Gwanda Chitungwiza Town Figure 3.10. Efficiency in Cost Recovery in Municipal Solid Waste Management comparative analysis results for 2012 to 2014 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Efficiency in collection of SWM charges, %: Collection efficiency went down substantially (Fig 3.11). This poses a serious threat to the sustainability of service delivery. The reasons for this have already been discussed. One would naturally expect councils doing badly in cost recovery to have poor collection efficiency but this was not necessarily the case. The general levels of collection efficiency warranty intervention at national level toavoid the collapse of some councils. 100.0 2012 Data Efficiency in Collection of SWM Charges, % 90.0 2013 Data 80.0 2014 Data 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Harare Beitbridge Zvishavane Redcliff Masvingo Marondera Plumtree Victoria falls Karoi Bulawayo Kariba Chegutu Mutare Gweru Ruwa Hwange Epworth Chipinge Chirundu Mvurwi Gokwe Chinhoyi Bindura Chiredzi Kwekwe Shurugwi Rusape Norton Lupane Kadoma Gwanda Chitungwiza Town Figure 3.11. Efficiency in Collection of SWM Charges comparative results for 2012 and 2013 for all 32 urban councils in Zimbabwe Maintenance Coverage ratio, %: Very little change from previous year. Page 34 of 52 Coverage of receptacles, %: The issue of a standard receptacle was referred to individual local authorities in recognition of stipulations in their respective by-laws. The reported fluctuations are attributed to the understanding of what constitutes an acceptable receptacle. Littering remains a challenge that councils and EMA need to tackle from behavioural perspective. There is need for change of attitudes of residents, perhaps through vigorous community awareness campaigns. 3.1.4 Summary of 2014 Indicators Table 3.4 gives a summary of all indicators for the 2014 data. These indicators were affected by some councils which did not submit complete information. In some cases wrong data passed through the peer review process unnoticed. There is need for especially Engineers, Treasurers and Health Officers to pay very close attention to detail during the review process in order to improve the quality of data. It is normally expected that a member of the SLB Team, chair of the review panel, and the Town Clerk/Secretary of the visited council demonstrate responsibility for all collected data. Page 35 of 52 Table 3.4. Summary of all SLB Indicators for 2014 data Water Supply Indicators 2014 Chitungwiza Victoria falls Hwange LB Zvishavane Marondera Bulawayo Average if Beitbridge Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Chipinge Plumtree Chinhoyi Chegutu Kwekwe Kadoma Gwanda Chiredzi Epworth Rusape Bindura Lupane Mutare Redcliff Harare Mvurwi Gokwe Norton Gweru Kariba Town Ruwa Karoi Ref Perfomance Indicator 1.1 Property level coverage of direct water supply 82 94 76 92 14 94 100 92 99 70 97 62 64 94 86 82 70 99 120 87 70 77 100 85 68 84 71 82 65 80 90 33 80.6 1.2 Per capita supply of water 237 177 31 445 4 260 403 249 225 204 136 73 14 129 212 146 125 287 529 382 258 232 373 164 83 179 222 90 222 90 152 70 200.1 1.3 Extent of metering of water connections 76 87 59 100 88 100 100 61 70 80 88 98 100 10 42 41 91 68 100 64 99 20 92 100 100 12 89 98 100 78 0 100 75.3 1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) 56 33 18 64 38 46 43 73 34 27 48 48 34 46 26 51 42 57 29 33 64 59 31 28 26 26 45 29 39 12 18 37 39.4 1.5 Continuity of water supply 17 24 3 12 0 20 24 12 8 10 6 2 5 4 20 10 9 6 19 21 22 12 23 18 10 8 13 4 22 12 16 6 12.4 1.6 Quality of water supplied 97 97 98 99 0 87 97 94 100 100 95 92 88 97 73 100 95 94 72 98 97 100 95 95 24 100 55 38 100 0 54 86 81.8 1.7 Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints 43 10 9 80 100 90 95 88 92 85 63 4 100 27 88 100 90 73 75 75 82 83 100 69 44 100 71 25 100 63 67 25 69.2 1.8 Operating cost recovery in water supply services 113 184 132 472 108 167 148 153 553 118 46 88 120 144 289 305 85 64 252 173 150 161 180 117 118 104 63 83 363 97 0 148 165.6 1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges 44 63 58 41 42 16 35 37 63 45 82 32 46 11 11 55 35 31 112 71 73 25 50 43 77 9 23 53 31 75 90 67 48.2 1.10 Maintenance Coverage ratio 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 3 0 0 1 1 4 2 1 6 0 0 5 2 5 2 25 2 0 6 6 1 0 0 2.5 Wastewater Management Indicators 2014 2.1 Coverage of functional toilets 82 93 70 98 0 100 100 97 98 70 91 70 100 98 100 74 100 100 92 99 68 73 100 0 25 84 83 94 71 97 100 94 81.9 2.2 Coverage of sewerage network services 66 86 69 97 0 98 94 89 97 63 73 42 79 86 83 63 63 99 90 82 43 67 83 -32 8 69 70 94 18 #DIV/0! 35 #DIV/0! 65.8 2.3 Efficiency in collection of sewage 153 35 107 139 0 47 78 206 40 87 0 97 66 97 56 205 48 71 0 90 113 121 55 83 7 69 55 78 72 845 0 689 119.1 2.4 Adequacy of capacity for treatment of sewage 162 154 454 105 0 116 91 465 213 0 239 141 59 256 73 1 0 55 287 279 90 185 286 150 0 234 26 0 872 2059 235.0 2.5 Quality of sewage treatment 0 0 0 82 #DIV/0! 0 85 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 55 #DIV/0! 100 0 17 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 67 100 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 67 33.6 2.6 Extent of recycling or reuse of sewage 35 8 110 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 29 0 0 0 16.8 2.7 Efficiency insatisfactory response/raection to customer complaints 89 76 62 95 #DIV/0! 95 91 97 91 90 83 100 98 40 98 30 80 30 100 100 100 67 100 100 67 90 75 90 67 90 67 90 82.2 2.8 Efficiency of cost recovery in sewage management 149 261 241 571 #DIV/0! 922 124 631 202 434 44 254 196 206 182 129 106 135 #DIV/0! 257 162 254 84 53 12 134 94 108 336 104 109 105 220.0 2.9 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 32 90 61 42 #DIV/0! 14 65 44 52 57 298 0 10 14 43 46 82 23 #DIV/0! 57 32 17 48 22 500 55 84 31 12 41 21 32 64.2 2.10 Maintenance Coverage ratio 1 1 6 100 #DIV/0! 100 2 8 1 4 0 0 0 3 6 0 17 2 #DIV/0! 1 3 6 2 13 16 3 0 18 7 0 9 18 11.5 Solid Waste Management Indicators 2014 3.1 Coverage of SWM services through door-to-door collection of waste 83 23 90 92 1 100 92 95 99 86 96 79 64 96 100 87 96 20 99 100 100 73 100 21 4 100 68 88 100 100 53 241 82.7 3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 74 60 59 66 7 54 94 87 122 62 75 50 96 85 61 83 49 0 94 93 95 82 88 30 195 50 76 71 248 37 257 83.8 3.3 Extent of recovery of municipal solid waste collected 5 3 0 0 - 15 5 0 1 0 - 25 1 0 0 3 - - 9 - - - - 0 - - 5 - - - 30 3.4 3.4 Extent of scientific disposal of waste at landfill sites - 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 - - - - - - - - - 6.3 3.5 Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints 76 70 21 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 57 50 75 60 65 50 71 5 85 67 100 100 20 100 80 100 #DIV/0! - 50 100 100 - 100 67 100 55 100 66.3 3.6 Efficiency of cost recovery in SWM services 215 - 297 - - - #DIV/0! 230 269 333 701 376 107 309 201 186 291 216 230 177 439 563 153 30 28 #DIV/0! 575 466 #DIV/0! 52 129 466 242.8 3.7 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges 33 #DIV/0! 50 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 32 85 100 16 30 61 17 44 36 47 24 36 78 27 16 54 54 100 #DIV/0! 52 - #DIV/0! 25 6 23 41.8 3.8 Maintenance Coverage ratio 4 1 - 0 - 40 #DIV/0! 6 2 9 18 9 7 1 6 11 1 2 - 6 7 7 2 1 1 #DIV/0! 2 1 #DIV/0! 1 9 1 5.3 3.9 Coverage of receptacles 80 68 8 - 1 70 - 45 81 10 14 6 64 7 26 58 30 22 53 37 58 73 51 3 3 86 86 15 12 100 12 42 38.2 Page 36 of 52 3.2 Availability and Reliability of Data Most councils, regardless of size, are still struggling to collect and maintain quality data. It is still difficult to get basic data on infrastructure such as the length of water/sewer reticulation systems, capacity of water and wastewater treatment plants, and so forth. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of measuring instruments such as flow meters, resulting in estimates which, in most cases are over-estimated. Team work among council officials has notably improved. This has, to some extent, enhanced the availability of data and its reliability. However, ordinary accounting data which should be readily available from computers and audit reports were sometimes difficult to get. The general impression is that there is a disconnect between those who generate the data and those who are supposed to manage the data. It is strongly recommended that councils develop Information Systems Improvement Plan (ISIP) and Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) with clear annual targets which should be religiously adhered to. At least, five councils provided complete data for the year under review. Overall, data supply improved from 80.5% in 2012, 82.3% in 2013, and 90.9% in 2014. There is now a general appreciation of the SLB process which is attributed to the continuous training and general monitoring has improved. Table 3.5 shows the level of availability of data for 2012, 2013 and 2014. Councils that are still struggling to provide enough data are Gwanda, Karoi, KweKwe, Hwange and Mvurwi, in that order. What is most worrying is that some of these councils have previously fared well in data submission. On the contrary, councils like Lupane have greatly improved in their data generation. Page 37 of 52 Table 3.5: Analysis of competence of councils as reflected in their ability to produce data for the years 2012 to 2014 Analysis of the Competence of the Council as Reflected by its Ability to Produce Data for 2012 Average per Indicator Hwange Colliery Victoria Falls Chitungwiza Zvishavane Marondera Hwange LB Beitbridge Bulawayo Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Plumtree Chinhoyi Chipinge Epworth Chegutu Kwekwe Kadoma Chiredzi Gwanda Bindura Mvurwi Mutare Redcliff Lupane Norton Rusape Harare Gokwe Kariba Gweru Ruwa Karoi Town Water Supply 86.4 99.1 92.7 85.5 90.9 88.2 86.4 90.9 86.4 61.8 99.1 99.1 60.0 30.9 97.3 66.4 77.3 95.5 98.2 86.4 72.7 90.0 90.0 73.6 92.7 54.5 52.7 92.7 40.0 81.8 44.5 45.5 91.8 78.8 Wastewater Management 89.7 100.0 97.4 75.6 79.5 74.4 75.6 92.3 94.9 73.1 84.6 97.4 60.3 12.8 97.4 62.8 74.4 88.5 30.8 92.3 67.9 87.2 80.8 84.6 78.2 15.4 70.5 94.9 26.9 82.1 89.7 10.3 16.7 71.5 Solid Waste Management 97.3 100.0 100.0 43.8 43.8 98.6 74.0 75.3 95.9 97.3 831.0 98.6 27.4 27.4 97.3 27.4 45.2 95.9 71.2 72.6 27.4 83.6 83.6 27.4 80.8 97.3 35.6 100.0 91.8 43.8 95.9 12.3 13.7 91.3 Average per Town 91.1 99.7 96.7 68.3 71.4 87.1 78.7 86.2 92.4 77.4 338.2 98.4 49.2 23.7 97.3 52.2 65.6 93.3 66.7 83.8 56.0 86.9 84.8 61.9 83.9 55.7 53.0 95.9 52.9 69.2 76.7 22.7 40.7 80.5 Ranking (best Council) 9 2 5 21 19 10 16 12 8 17 1 3 30 32 4 29 23 7 22 15 25 11 13 24 14 26 27 6 28 20 18 33 31 Analysis of the Competence of the Council as Reflected by its Ability to Produce Data for 2013 Average per Indicator Victoria Falls Chitungwiza Zvishavane Marondera Hwange LB Beitbridge Bulawayo Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Plumtree Chinhoyi Chipinge Epworth Chegutu Kwekwe Kadoma Chiredzi Gwanda Bindura Mvurwi Mutare Redcliff Lupane Norton Rusape Harare Gokwe Kariba Gweru Ruwa Karoi Town Water Supply 99.1 92.7 98.2 100.0 88.2 94.5 98.2 87.3 97.3 99.1 99.1 100.0 91.8 100.0 93.6 81.8 92.7 63.6 88.2 87.3 99.1 94.5 68.2 54.5 99.1 84.5 89.1 89.1 44.5 79.1 60.0 88 87.6 Wastewater Management 82.1 100.0 98.7 100.0 100.0 74.4 80.8 100.0 93.6 96.2 84.6 97.4 97.4 76.9 100.0 93.6 75.6 88.5 5.1 70.5 98.7 74.4 96.2 84.6 15.4 98.7 88.5 94.9 92.3 89.7 46.2 0.0 80.2 Solid Waste Management 2.7 100.0 100.0 79.5 83.6 98.6 91.8 97.3 76.7 97.3 93.2 98.6 100.0 87.7 100.0 94.5 90.4 90.4 2.7 91.8 94.5 78.1 94.5 98.6 94.5 100.0 89.0 95.9 0.0 95.9 90.4 0.0 81.5 Average per Town 61.3 97.6 99.0 93.2 90.6 89.2 90.2 94.8 89.2 97.5 92.3 98.7 96.4 88.2 97.9 90.0 86.3 80.8 32.0 83.2 97.4 82.3 86.3 79.3 69.7 94.4 88.9 93.3 45.6 88.2 65.5 29.2 82.3 Ranking (best Council) 28 4 1 11 13 17 14 8 16 5 12 2 7 19 3 15 21 24 31 22 6 23 20 25 27 9 18 10 29 26 30 32 Analysis of the Competence of the Council as Reflected by its Ability to Produce Data for 2014 Average per Indicator Victoria Falls Chitungwiza Zvishavane Marondera Hwange LB Beitbridge Bulawayo Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Plumtree Chinhoyi Chipinge Epworth Chegutu Kwekwe Kadoma Chiredzi Gwanda Bindura Mvurwi Mutare Redcliff Lupane Norton Rusape Harare Gokwe Kariba Gweru Ruwa Karoi Town Water Supply 100 100 100 99.1 85.5 92.7 88.2 100 99.1 96.4 88.2 98.2 100 100 100 93.6 95.5 100 100 100 99.1 93.6 94.5 98.2 94.5 100 92.7 88.2 100 58.2 69.1 98.2 94.5 Wastewater Management 100 98.7 97.4 98.7 97.4 89.7 88.5 100 100 94.9 89.7 96.2 97.44 100 100 92.3 91 100 7.69 92.3 98.7 79.5 97.4 100 97.4 100 74.4 93.6 100 96.2 94.9 93.6 92.4 Solid Waste Management 100 98.6 103 94.5 75.3 82.2 61.6 100 100 95.9 93.2 98.6 100 100 100 95.9 100 100 91.8 98.6 95.9 82.2 100 98.6 100 94.5 79.5 64.4 97.3 83.6 90.4 100 93.0 Average per Town 100.0 99.1 100.1 97.4 86.1 88.2 79.4 100.0 99.7 95.7 90.4 97.7 99.1 100.0 100.0 93.9 95.5 100.0 66.5 97.0 97.9 85.1 97.3 98.9 97.3 98.2 82.2 82.1 99.1 79.3 84.8 97.3 93.3 Ranking (best Council) 2 9 1 15 25 24 30 2 7 20 23 14 8 2 2 22 21 2 32 19 13 26 16 11 16 12 28 29 10 31 27 18 Page 38 of 52 The reliability of data remained a concern throughout the Peer Review exercise (Table 3.5). To improve the quality of data collected, a template was developed to collect evidence against benchmarks. This helped to some extent but there is still a need for proper systems to collect and manage data efficiently in councils. The reviewers were generally insisting on data that was presented with proper proof as required in the Supporting Information Template. In some instances, reviews were delayed in order to get the required evidence. Supporting evidence is the cornerstone of the peer review process as it represents the only way that reviewers can verify the authenticity of submitted data . City of Bulawayo had the most reliable data, with an overall average score of 1.7. The average reliability for all councils was 3.0. This shows no change from the previous year. Reliability is high in cities; Harare (1.8), Bulawayo (1.7) and Kadoma (1.9). Councils which greatly need to improve on data reliability include Kwekwe (4.0) and Shurugwi (4.0) Table 3.5. Summary Data reliability scores of 2014 SLB data in urban councils Water Supply Indicators 2014 Chitungwiza Victoria falls Hwange LB Zvishavane Marondera Bulawayo Beitbridge Score per Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Chipinge Plumtree Chinhoyi Indicator Kwekwe Chegutu Kadoma Gwanda Average Chiredzi Epworth Bindura Rusape Redcliff Lupane Harare Mutare Mvurwi Gokwe Norton Gweru Kariba Ruwa Karoi Perfomance Indicator Propery level coverage of direct water supply 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 Per capita supply of water 1 1 4 4 4 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 Extent of metering of water connections 1 1 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 1 3 4 2 4 2 2 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 Continuity of water supply 2 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 Quality of water supplied 1 1 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 4 2 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 2 Efficiency insatisfactory response/raection to customer complaints 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 Operating cost recovery in water supply services 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 1 2 2 4 4 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 3 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges 1 1 4 4 2 1 4 1 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 1 1 4 1 3 Maintenance Coverage ratio 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 Wastewater Management Indicators 2014 Chitungwiza Victoria falls Hwange LB Zvishavane Marondera Bulawayo Beitbridge Score per Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Chipinge Plumtree Chinhoyi Indicator Kwekwe Chegutu Kadoma Gwanda Average Chiredzi Epworth Bindura Rusape Redcliff Lupane Harare Mutare Mvurwi Gokwe Norton Gweru Kariba Ruwa Karoi Perfomance Indicator Coverage of functional toilets 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 2 Coverage of sewerage network services 1 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 1 4 3 1 4 3 4 1 4 4 1 2 Efficiency in collection of sewage 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 + 4 4 3 Adequacy of capacity for treatment of sewage 1 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 1 4 3 3 3 Quality of sewage treatment 1 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 3 Extent of recycling or reuse of sewage 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 Efficiency insatisfactory response/raection to customer complaints 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 3 Efficiency of cost recovery in sewage management 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 1 4 1 2 1 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 2 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 3 Maintenance Coverage ratio 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Solid Waste Management Indicators 2014 Average Score Chitungwiza per Indicator Victoria falls Hwange LB Zvishavane Marondera Bulawayo Beitbridge Masvingo Shurugwi Chirundu Chipinge Plumtree Chinhoyi Kwekwe Chegutu Kadoma Gwanda Chiredzi Epworth Bindura Rusape Redcliff Lupane Harare Mutare Mvurwi Gokwe Norton Gweru Kariba Ruwa Karoi Perfomance Indicator Coverage of SWM services through door-to-door collection of waste 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 3 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 Extent of recovery of municipal solid waste collected 1 4 3 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 Extent of scientific disposal of waste at landfill sites 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 Efficiency in satisfactory response/reaction to customer complaints 2 1 3 4 4 2 4 2 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 1 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 3 3 Efficiency of cost recovery in SWM services 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 2 1 1 4 1 4 2 4 4 2 1 4 2 2 3 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 3 Maintenance Coverage ratio 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Coverage of receptacles 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 Average Reliability Score 1.8 1.7 3.5 2.8 3.8 2.5 4.0 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.4 2.8 3.6 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.7 4.0 3.4 3.9 2.3 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.0 3.3 Performance Ranking of Councils A performance ranking methodology is still being developed. This methodology will be used to scientifically assess individual local authority performance against agreed performance scores. It is anticipated that the tool will be ready in time for the Local Government Investment Conference (LOGIC) in September 2016. Page 39 of 52 3.4 Key Challenges Faced by Councils The Peer Review Teams were tasked to analyse and come up with a list of key challenges facing each council. However, the ddefinition of key challenges was not well understood among reviewers, as reflected in their reports. Despite the different definitions of this term, reviewers need to agree on what they are reporting as key challenges. The main key challenges identified are (i) lack of scientific disposal of solid waste, (ii) faulty water meters and (iii) inadequate infrastructure. Inadequate raw water Wild animals menace Absence of master plan Inability to separate arrears from current charges Poor maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure Power outages Ownership of water infrastructure Lack of land for urban expansion Staffing Inadequate computerisation Vandalism of infrastructure Illegal settlements Non-functional sewer treatment plant Ageing infrastructure Lack of feedback mechanisms on complaints Lack of maintenance budgets High operational costs Unsustainable water tariffs Low revenue collection High non-revenue water Environmental Pollution Non collection of waste Inadequate infrastructure Faulty water meters Non-compliant landfills 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Frequency a Challengeis Mentioned Figure 3.12. A summary of key challenges faced by councils in 2014 3.5 Best Practices The term best practice is not well understood by most local authorities. For instance, a local authority mandate cannot be reported as a best practice. Simply put, a best practice is a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark. This is another term that has caused much disagreement and interpretations among reviewers. In the majority of cases, what are depicted as best practices are in fact things that the council is expected to do by legislation. However, there is some agreement that a best practice has to be an innovation, something that a council has invented and has proved helpful which others can replicate. A best practice should have a measure of efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources. It remains a subject of much contestation. There has been instances where councils tend to stage manage best practices. The following practices (Fig 3.13) where viewed as befitting to be acknowledged as best practices; 1. Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) 2. Customer Call Centres 3. Payment management tool 4. Retention of 10% of collections by wards for local use Page 40 of 52 5. Vehicle tracking and monitoring system Vehicle tracking and monitoring system Payment management tool Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Frequency a Best Practice is Mentioned Figure 3.13. A summary of best practices as identified by councils in 2014 3.6 Emerging Issues An emerging issue is something we have not thought about or it's something we already know, but is changing. In view of this definition, the following issues (Fig 3.14) were accepted as appropriate to be pointed out as such. Separation of urban and rural councils Climate change Illegal construction of septic tanks and shallow wells on high … Rapid informal sector growth De-industrialisation Gold panning activities leading to pollution of water bodies 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Frequency an Emerging Issue is Mentioned Figure 3.14. A summary of emerging issues as identified by councils in 2014 3.7 Key Recommendations by Peer Reviewers Fig 3.15 summarises the key recommendations given to various local authorities. These include the need to ensure that LAs have compliant landfills; increased efficiency and cost effectiveness of O&M costs; increased infrastructure capacity; and increased coverage of water and sewer metering. Improvement of revenue collection still remains a central issue to be addressed by all councils. Page 41 of 52 Figure 3.15. Summary of Key Recommendations made by Review Teams on various Local Authorities Procurement of collection plant and equipment Expedite recruitment of key personnel Team building Need to improve on water and sewer connectivity to all … Improve tools for capturing customer complaints Recycling/reuse of solid and liquid waste Need to improve on water and sewer management in local … Reduction of non-revenue water Facilitate adoption of GIS in LAs Facilitate the development of LAs master plans Sustainable tariff structures Intensify engagement of residents to improve revenue … Increase coverage of water and sewer metering Increase infrastructure capacity Increase efficiency and cost effectiveness of O&M costs Need to ensure that LAs have compliant landfills 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Times a Recommendation is Mentioned Figure 3.15. A summary of key recommendations as identified by councils in 2014 3.8 Performance Improvement Plans Most councils had varying difficulties in developing PIPs. From the assessment of the PIPs received, there is need for training for all local authorities. The following are the comments given by reviewers Page 42 of 52 of the received PIPs (Fig 3.16). Prioritisation according to available resources No timelines given Smart plan tied to a budget Incomplete submissions of PIPs Unrealistic timelines Budget figures not stated on some items 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency a Performance Improvement Plan Issue Mentioned Figure 3.16. A summary of comments received by peer reviewers on PIPs submitted by councils in 2014 3.9 Capacity Issues There is a general lack of understanding of what is meant by capacity issues. It should be noted that these capacity issues should be related to the provision of the three services and not for the entire council operations. Fig 3.17 summarises some of the capacity issues that came out from the 2014 reports. As can be observed, most councils are yet to install GIS systems. This is followed by financial management and ICT capacity. Clearly, these are issues requiring urgent attention by councils. Training on use of leak detection equipment Training on SLB templates Job evaluation exercise Asset management training Team work/team building Recruitment of substantive HoDs/staff ICT training Training in financial management GIS training 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency a Capacity Issue is Mentioned Figure 3.17. A summary of capacity issues as identified by councils in 2014 Page 43 of 52 3.10 Status of Assets Fig 3.18 shows the frequency of mention of assets condition. Although most of the assets are in reasonably good condition compared to previous years, there is need to qualify what is exactly meant by each description. There might be need for using the Lickett scale to establish the actual weighting for each response Good* (mostly donor supported councils) Poor Fairly good * 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Frequency a Status of Assets is Mentioned Figure 3.18. A summary of state of assets as identified by councils in 2014 3.11 General Comments/Observations by reviewers Reviewers also made general comments on each council visited. These are summarized in Fig 3.19. The main issues are:  State of preparedness of local authorities for the review process: good  State of preparedness of local authorities for the review process: poor  Team work: good  Service delivery has improved Lack of maintenance of infrastructure Completeness of data: good State of preparedness of review team: poor Need to embrace good corporate governance and … Management of complaints improved Evidence of improved rehabilitation of infrastructure State of preparedness of the review team: good Need for improved coordination between local authorities … Majority of local authorities have carried out property surveys Team work: poor Service delivery has improved Team work: good State of preparedness of local authorities for the review … State of preparedness of local authorities for the review … 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Times a General Comment is Mentioned Figure 3.19. A summary of general comments as identified by councils in 2014 Page 44 of 52 4. Lessons Learnt and Way Forward 4.1 Lessons Learnt 4.1.1 Process and Organisation The 2015 SLB process was better organised than in previous years. A number of the teething problems that the process was facing had been resolved. Adequate time was given to the review process and submission of data had significantly improved. The Chairing of the review process and report writing after the review also improved greatly. We therefore adjusted the process a number of times, even before the peer review visits started. One major issue was balancing the length of the visits, considering the limited resources and the quality of the expected product. In future, two full days would be required to ensure that reviewers do a thorough job and come out with a well written report before they leave the town of review. More time, however, will be required for big cities like Harare and Bulawayo. The role of the panel chair was sometimes compromised as some chairs did not understand what was expected of them. As most communication was by email, it was evident afterwards that not everyone had access to internet. As a result, a lot of vital information and communications were lost. In some cases, the review panels arrived without ever seeing the documents of the reviewed council. Councils are at different stages of development, especially in terms of ICT. This had a bearing on the mode of presentation and the pace of the review discussions. Electronic copies were always required for verifying the data against checking figures. The effect of any changes in figures can only be captured if an electronic copy is being used. Some councils tempered with checking figures and formulae, despite being warned not to do so. This defeated the whole purpose of checking and verifying the data. Next time all cells with formulas will be locked from editing. A number of organisational challenges were faced. These include late withdrawal from panel visits and complaints on levels of subsistence allowances. The World Bank system cannot cater for last minute changes and councils will have to foot the whole bill for such changes. In case of changes by the Town Clerk/Secretary, they have to find a suitable replacement (another Town Clerk/Secretary) and notify the Chairperson of the PRCC. All councils are given the timetable for review visits and it is essential that the HODs know in advance where they will be travelling to. Review panels should be finalised two weeks before the visits to allow enough time for administrative procedures of the World Bank. Regarding allowances, local authorities were free to top on the standard World Bank rate, if their system allows it. There was evidence of lack of communication of the SLB process among departments in some councils and this was seen through disparities in the data provided by engineering, solid waste management, and accounting departments. Page 45 of 52 4.1.2 Understanding of Questionnaires It was wrongly assumed that members of the SLB Team who had visited several councils in 2013 were now familiar with the questionnaires. This was a costly assumption as sometimes the data that were obtained were of poor quality. The Review Teams were not able to detect mistakes in the data in the field. The checking figures and formulas had been tempered with and questionnaires were returned with data elements still missing. In fact, there was hardly any follow up on the data after the visits. This resulted in only about 82% of the data being gathered. The following issues need to be considered, going forward:  Training for the SLB core teams - Ministries, UCAZ and ZINWA should have specific people to work on the SLB Project who will go for a serious training on the questionnaires and how they are completed and verified.  The Chairperson of the Review Team should remain responsible for collecting and submitting all revised documents after review. These documents are the questionnaires, SWOT Analysis, supporting information template, and overview presentation. 4.1.3 Documentation Some councils were failing to provide relevant documentation whilst others were providing too much documentation. The Supporting Information Template is the minimum of what is required. It was always very difficult to get this template filled out in full. The template tries to standardise the data so that it is easier to import into one database. The SWOT analysis was also on a template with clear instructions on what to do. However, some councils were still developing their own models/templates, which posed problems in compilation. The completion of questionnaires remained a problem, even in some cities. The data in the questionnaire is linked and it is easier to work as a team when completing these questionnaires. It was expected that the Town Clerk/Secretary would check the questionnaires for correctness and completeness before submission. This did not happen in many councils and at times departments were submitting their data separately. There was supposed to be a link between the questionnaires and the supporting evidence provided. This was always a problem. As summary of some of the key lessons worth noting were; 4.1.4 Citizen Engagement: Since the start of the peer reviews some three years ago, there has been noticeable improvement in the way that local authorities are engaging their respective committees. There is evidence of greater community involvement through the sprouting of health clubs in most of the local authorities to manage solid waste and recycling of solid waste. Page 46 of 52 4.1.5. Private/Public Partnerships: The SLB project has increased opportunities to engage the private sector in the provision of improved services. Cases in point include the bio-gas project in Harare City Council, Chinhoyi Municipality/Delta Ltd recycling of bottles, pre-paid meter installations in Shurugwi, just but to mention a few examples. 4.1.6. Participation by Chairpersons of Peer Review Teams There has been noticeable improvement in the attendance by TCs/Secretaries as chairperson of peer reviews, although there is room for further improvement. Similarly, there was evidence of familiarity with the peer review process, including the overall coordination of the entire process. This has resulted in improved time management and production of quality reports although there is need to continuously orient them on the process. 4.1.7. Coordination and organization of the peer review process Admittedly, the handover of the SLB process from World Bank to UCAZ has had its own teething problem. Lack of clear delineation of roles sometimes resulted in duplication or in other cases failure to invite appropriate reviewers prior to the review dates. This led to delays in starting some reviews, although these challenges were largely overcome. The need to streamline the coordination and organization of the SLB process requires further scrutiny with a view to improving the entire process so that peer review processes are not unnecessarily delayed. 4.1.8. Participation at Peer Reviews for Local Boards Peer reviewing Local Boards has not been as smooth as was expected. There were serious attendance challenges in Epworth and Ruwa where distress calls were raised due to poor attendance to the reviews. The situation had to be salvaged by having reviewers being summoned from neighboring councils. In addition, there appears to be lack of interest among some local authorities reviewing certain local authorities, a situation that requires to Page 47 of 52 be attended to immediately because such attitudes my lead to lack of interest and commitment in the process by the affected local authorities. 4.1.9. Performance Improvement Plans There has been some improvement in the current performance improvement plans in terms of presentation. However, this remains something that the PRCC had long noted and has planned to conduct a training workshop in order to address the identified gaps. The issues that are still nagging most councils relate to clear articulation of the works to be done, expected implementation time for each activity, the activity budgeted and source of funding. In addition, current PIPs are not drawn from previous PIP thus delinking the two processes, making the previous PIP irrelevant. 4.1.10. Participation by Town Mayors/Chairpersons: The project has noted participation by Mayors/Chairpersons throughout the process. This 4.1.11. Best Practices – Engaging communities in Public Works: Bindura Municipality with the help of the community managed to rehabilitate the sewer system. The strategy created employment and ownership by the community, it also saved quiet a substantial amount of the council’s revenue. 4.1.12. What really is the gap under the SLB Project? While the project is assisting Local Authorities to get to know their actual data , gaps across all departments and solutions identified. The project still needs to assist LAs to come up with actual costs to address these solutions. 4.2 Way forward 4.2.1 Format of Visits in 2016 In 2016, the visits to councils will be in two parts to ensure that data quality is greatly improved. All LAs will be required to submit their completed questionnaires well in advance to enable analysis of data completeness. These will be availed to the reviewers before the reviewers so that they are familiar with the data submitted before the visit. After the data is in place, the Peer Review teams will visit and validate the data and complete reliability scoring. This arrangement is expected to add Page 48 of 52 value to the reviews and reduce the amount of time spent during the actual review. The proposed schedules for the visits will be sent out to all local authorities in January 2015. 4.2.2 Planned Activities and Meetings The 2016 work plan outlines what is required to be done for the entire year. The PRCC will ensure that the timelines are strictly adhered to. SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING 2016 WORKPLAN: ACTIVITY RESPONSIBITY TIME FRAME SOURCES OF FUNDING 1. Formulation of Peer Review Town Clerks Forum 3 November 2015 Les/Partners Matrix 2. Finalise and package 2013 & Peer Review 30 November 2015 (1day) Local 2014 Annual Peer Review Coordinating Authorities/Partners Reports Committee 3. Report writing 2015 Annual Peer Review By 30 November 2015 Local reports Coordinating (3days) Authorities/Partners Committee 4. Finalisation and Packaging of Peer Review By 30 November 2015 Local Peer review Handbook Coordinating (2days) Authorities/Partners Committee 5. Finalisation and Packaging of Peer Review By 30 November 2015 Local Data Collection Handbook Coordinating (2days) Authorities/Partners Committee 6. Ranking of Local Authorities Peer Review 2 days Local Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee 7. Production of concept paper on Peer Review By 30 November 2015 Local transfer of SLB management to Coordinating Authorities/World UCAZ Committee/World Bank Bank 8. SLB 2015 Annual Review Peer Review 16-17 December 2015 Local Workshop & Presentation of Coordinating Authorities/Partners 2016 Annual Plan Committee Local 9. Meeting of Peer Review Peer Review 16-17 December 2015 Authorities/Partners Chairpersons Coordinating Committee JANUARY-DECEMBER 2016 WORKPLAN Page 49 of 52 10. Training of data collection focal Peer Review 12-14 January 2016 Local persons (2) Per LA & Coordinating Authorities/Partners Monitoring team (2) per Sector Committee 11. Sensitisation of IT/Systems Peer Review 20-21 January 2016 Local Administrators on SLB process Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee 12. Training of Promun users Peer Review January 2016 World Bank/Local Coordinating Authorities Committee 13. Capacity Building of Peer World Bank/UNICEF By 16 February 2016 World Bank/Local Review Coordinating Authorities Committee 14. Partners engagement Peer Review March 2016 Local workshop Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee 15. Conducting Peer Reviews Peer Review February-May 2016 Local Coordinating Authorities/World Committee Bank/UNICEF 16. SLB Performance Achievements Local April 2016 Local Awards ceremony Government/Peer Authorities/Partners Review Coordinating Committee 17. Sensitisation of councillors on Peer Review May 2016 Local SLB process Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee 18. Report writing 2015 Annual Peer Review June 2016 Local reports Coordinating Authorities/World Committee Bank 19. Look and Learn visits Peer Review August 2016 Local Coordinating Authorities/World Committee Bank 20. Stakeholder dialogue meetings Peer Review October 2016 Local Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee 21. Formulation of Peer Review Town Clerks Forum November 2016 Local Matrix Authorities/Partners 22. Peer Review Annual Workshop Peer Review December 2016 Local Coordinating Authorities/Partners Committee Page 50 of 52 4.2.3 Capacity Development Training in 2015 will be organised as follows: 12-14 January 2016: Training of data collection focal persons (2) Per LA & Monitoring team (2) per Sector 20-21 January 2016: Sensitisation of IT/Systems Administrators on SLB process 16 February 2016: Capacity Building of Peer Review Coordinating Committee March 2016: Partners engagement workshop May 2016: Sensitisation of councillors on SLB process 4.2.4 Look and Learn Visits Look and Learn visits are part of the first day of the peer review visits. One external visit is planned and detailed plans with be discussed with the World Bank in January 2016. 4.2.5 Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) PIPs formed part of the reports for 2015 review reports. All Local Authorities management to submit what they felt were pressing needs which required further attention in 2016. These were analysed and the frequency of issues are presented in the table below. There was general observation that most councils did not fully comprehend the concept of PIPs. This resulted in submissions that are below standard. For example, most of the PIPs are not linked to budgets. Some councils had not fully comprehended the concept of PIPs. There is need for more effort to be put in the development of PIPs. There is need to review the structure of the PIP reports in order to incorporate such plans into the council budget. The Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing could play an important role by compelling Local Authorities to ensure that issues raised in the PIPs are factored into their budget. 4.2.6 Handbooks and Documentation The Peer Review Handbook and the Peer Review reports are currently being edited and packaged for printing and distribution to stakeholders. Page 51 of 52 5.0 Conclusion The 2014 peer review results provided valuable lessons to the councils. While progress towards achievement of benchmarks is gradual, as was expected, however, there were many achievements. First, reviewers were more aware of the learning objective of the review. As a result, availability of data greatly improved as there was no longer hidden suspicions. Second, data quality was much improved than before. Third, completeness of data and questionnaires also improved greatly. Forth, the general coordination and management of the entire peer review process was commendable as compared to the previous period. Last, council leadership at both technical and political levels have embraced SLB to the extent that sustainability of the project is no longer in doubt. Clearly, councils have demonstrated ownership and commitment to the process, one such commitment is reflected in the willingness of councils to co-fund some of the costs from own resources and assigning senior council staff to the peer reviews. The opportunity costs cannot be understated. We continue to look forward to even greater performance in 2016 and an even more committed teams to propel the project to greater heights. Page 52 of 52