EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT · 2019. 7. 9. · 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT 1. Background 1.1 Water services delivery is performed

1

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT 1. Background 1.1 Water services delivery is performed by a number of stakeholders, Water Services

Authorities, Water Boards, Private Sector owners and Service Providers across the country. Water remains more than ever the very life force of our country, without it there is no life, no economy, no development and no hope to become the best we can be. As the Department of Water and Sanitation, we take our role as custodian of water resources very seriously and we are always exploring ways in which we can facilitate the conservation and protection of our most precious resource.

1.2 The incentive- based regulation Green Drop (GD) Certification Programme was

developed in 2008. Since then, this uniquely South African approach has managed to improve municipal wastewater management and keep the public and stakeholders informed and updated with credible and current information. I am overwhelmed by the embracing of this approach by not only our municipal sector, but also the quest to be assessed for excellence by our private operators and sector partners. The participation of Water Services Institutions (WSIs) in the programme is clear indication of commitment and enthusiasm to achieve excellence in water management and provision thereof. I am proud to say that the progressive manner in which we are improving our performance, is evident of the passion and commitment by dedicated men and women in the sector.

1.3. This form of regulation is being paired with risk based regulatory approach which

developed good correlation by presenting best management practice paired with risk management to inform the sector where key priorities lie . Green Drop is implemented by the Department bi-annually, with the alternate year being the year where focus is on Green Drop (PAT) report.

1.4 Such ‘risk’ is defined and calculated as Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR), which is a risk

calculated against the Design Capacity of plant which also represent the hydraulic loading onto the receiving water body, Operational flow exceeding- on- and below capacity; number of non-compliance trends in terms of effluent quality as discharged to the receiving water body and compliance or non-compliance in terms of technical skills

1.5 The 2014 Green Drop Progress Report provides information on the performance of

Water Services Authorities (WSAs) with respect to Cumulative Risk Rating per wastewater treatment works from July 2012 to June 2013. A total of 152 municipalities and 824 plants were assessed, with the works receiving a total of 5 000 Ml wastewater per day or 1 825 000 Ml/year. The Report not only provides audit details on risk associated with effluent quality compliance as per site specific water use Authorization or default standards based on sensitivity of receiving environment as part of best practice but also include:

• Assessment of wastewater risk abatement planning which is a risk-based approach in wastewater treatment and dealing with associated risks and mitigation thereof,

• Capital & Refurbishment expenditure for Financial Year 2012-2013 (Rand) • Technical skills availability for operation of the plants, and • Management support

3

2. 2014 GREEN DROP RISK RESULTS 2.1 The 2014 Green Drop Progress report is based on a self-assessment by the

municipalities and confirmed by the Department of Water and Sanitation to ensure credibility and verified information is reported to the public. The DWS team that served as moderators for the information provided by the Water Services Institutions is made up of a trained group who not only assesses the performance, but they also ensure that regulatory advice is given to municipal wastewater management on required improvements.

2.2 The main objective of this regulation approach is to identify, measure and develop

the core competencies required for the sector that, if strengthened, will gradually and sustainably improve the level of wastewater management in South Africa.

2.3 A wastewater treatment works with a higher Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR) value

means that plant has reached or is approaching its critical state of operation and therefore requires intervention. A lower CRR value means the plant holds a low and manageable risk position.

2.4 The 2014 Green Drop Progress Report presents the current risk profile and a 6-year

trend analysis of wastewater treatment plants on three levels:

National overview that collate and elevate the detailed findings on system level to that of a provincial overview, which can then be compared and inculcated as a national view of wastewater treatment performance. Comparative analyses amongst the provincial performances are useful indicators and benchmarks for the various role players.

Province specific risk figures and information to highlight the strengths, weaknesses and progress for the collective of WSIs within the province or region;

System specific risk data and information pertaining to the performance of each wastewater treatment system per WSI (municipal, private WSIs);

2.5 Risk-based regulation allows the municipality to identify and prioritise the critical risk

areas within its wastewater treatment process and to take corrective measures to abate the identified risks. Risk analysis is used by the Regulator (DWS) to identify, quantify, prioritize and manage the risks according to their potential impact on the water resource, to ensure a targeted regulation of those facilities that fall in high and critical risk parameters.

2.6 Wastewater treatment works risk profiles are the summation of the respective

municipal performances. Each Province has different dynamics with municipal participants that progressed or regressed on different levels. The status of National Risk Performance is summarized as follows:

198 plants shows progress by taking up lower risk (CRR %deviation) positions - these municipalities are congratulated and commended for their responsible and active mitigation of risk;

The majority of plants are in high risk (259 plants) and medium risk (218 plants), with 212 plants in critical risk and 135 plants in low risk space.

4

2.7 The plants that digressed by taking up increased risk ratios will be placed under

surveillance and continuously monitored for implementation of corrective interventions and risk mitigation measures.

2.8 One of the key performance areas within the national Green Drop Certification

programme is the presence and implementation of risk abatement management by a Water Services Institution. The Department has commenced with risk-based regulation in 2008, thereby establishing a baseline risk profile for each municipal plant in South Africa.

5

CUMULATIVE RISK COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Performance Category 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 Risk Trend [2013-2014]

Highest CRR 25 29 32 28 30 29 ↓ Average CRR 13.5 13.3 13.6 12.3 12.2 13.4 ↑ Lowest CRR 5 4 3 2 4 3 ↓ Average Design Rating (A)

2.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 → Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B)

3.3 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.1 ↑ Average Effluent Failure Rating (C)

3.2 5.7 5.7 4.7 4.9 5.1 ↑ Average Technical Skills Rating (D)

1.7 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.9 ↑ AVERAGE % DEVIATION FROM maximum-CRR

67 66.8 69.2 66 65.4 71.7 ↑ 2.9 The above data indicate that the overall risk profile of wastewater treatment plants

remained reasonably constant over the period 2008 to 2013. However, digress in the performance of municipal treatment facilities is evident for 2014, based on the unvarying upwards risk trend arrows. The highest risk plant and position of 30 (2013) has reduced to a CRR value of 29 but still giving an increased national average of 13.4 as opposed to 12.2 in 2013. The cumulative effect can be seen in the increased and digressed CRR/CRRmax% deviation from of 65.4% (in 2013) to 71.7% (in 2014). A positive reflection is to be found in the reduction of both the maximum CRR (30 to 29) and minimum CRR (4 to 3) of all plants.

2.10 The movement of risk in the following barchart shows that the majority of plants are

in high risk (259) positions, followed by 218 plants in medium risk and 212 plants in critical risk positions. The reduction in the number of plants in low risk domain, which decreased from 199 to 135, is raising concern. Some of the formerly ‘low risk’ plants have since moved into higher risk positions, which is undesirable. This can be seen by the increase in high risk plants from 232 to 259, and critical risk plants from 121 plants to 212 plants.

6

2.11 The overall picture projects negatively and suggests that the municipal industry as a

whole has not managed to contain and then turnaround the risk. The Regulator regards this trend with concern and the plants that have digressed into higher risk positions are placed under regulatory surveillance. It is important to understand that municipalities that are positioned in low risk domain, that have successfully abated their risks, will have a positive and uplifting impact on the cumulative risk profile of their province, whilst high risk municipalities will down-grade the collective CRR score of the province and thereby counteract or outweigh the positive contributions

2.12 The 2014CRR/CRRmax% deviation is made up by the risk profiles of the various provinces as

follows (comparative figure for 2013 provided below the 2014 results):

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 -

50

0 -

50

0 -

50

0 -

50

0 -

50

50

-70

50

-70

50

-70

50

-70

50

-70

70

-90

70

-90

70

-90

70

-90

70

-90

90

-10

0

90

-10

0

90

-10

0

90

-10

0

90

-10

0

Oct-08

Apr-11

Apr-12

Apr-13

Jun-14

Oct-08

Apr-11

Apr-12

Apr-13

Jun-14

Oct-08

Apr-11

Apr-12

Apr-13

Jun-14

Oct-08

Apr-11

Apr-12

Apr-13

Jun-14

196

138

220 199

135

259 262 244

272

218

264 284

213 232

259

129 137 154

121

212

Nu

mb

er o

f W

WTP

s

RISK PERCENTAGE

National Risk Profile: CRR as % of CRRmax

7

2.13 The above table show provincial risk profile for 2014, it is therefore important that

Provincial Action Plans, whether support directed, or other, identify the lower performers (municipalities with high and critical risk plants) and direct corrective action and risk mitigation measures accordingly. Various opportunities co-exist for municipalities, business and agriculture to cooperate and improve wastewater services. It is in the collective interest of municipal ‘neighbours’ within a province/ region to work together, share resources, experience and best practice to stimulate further progress via progressive risk abatement. Successful partnerships will result in a positive replacement of high risk with lower risk treatment facilities on a national scale – thereby presenting a safer and healthier environment and reliable service to all. The Green Drop scorecard ‘rewards’ such partnerships through incentive scoring for ‘cross pollination’ (collaboration)

2.14 In addition to the assessment of municipal systems, it is imperative to mention the

participation of 19 privately owned systems. I want to congratulate all the municipalities and private institutions that have managed to reduce their risk positions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

57

.7%

66

.8%

66

.8%

71

.5%

72

.9%

80

.2%

83

.3%

84

.2%

86

.1%

Performance Position in South Africa

Ris

k P

rofi

le -

% C

RR

/CR

Rm

ax

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE LOG 2014

8

3. PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCE 3.1 Eastern Cape The following municipalities are in critical and high risk positions in 2014 and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:

WSA Name

2014 Average

CRR/CRRmax % deviation

WWTPs in critical and high risk space

Ndlambe LM 100.0%

Alexandria-KwaNonkqubela, Bathurst-Nolukhanyo, Bushmans River Mouth, Marselle, Kenton on Sea - Ekuphunleni, Port Alfred

OR Tambo DM 100.0% Flagstaff, Lusikisiki, Mqanduli, Mthatha, Nqgeleni, Port St John, Qumbu, Tsolo

Chris Hani DM 88.6% Cala, Cofimvaba, Cradock, Elliot, Engcobo, Molteno, Queenstown, Sada, Sterkstroom, Tsomo

Dordrecht, Hofmeyr, Middelburg, Tarkastad

Blue Crane Route LM

88.2% Cookhouse, Pearston, Somerset East

Koukamma LM 87.1% Clarkson, Kareedouw, Krakeel River, Louterwater, Sandrift, Stormsriver

Coldstream, Joubertina, Misgund

Sundays River Valley LM

86.8% Addo, Enon-Bersheba, Greater Kirkwood, Paterson

Baviaans LM 84.3% Rietbron Steytlerville, Willowmore

Ikwezi LM 82.4% Jansenville, Klipplaats

Alfred Nzo DM 81.6% Bizana, Cedarville, Ntanbankulu Matatiele

Makana LM 80.2% Alicedale, Belmont Valley, Mayfield

Kouga LM 75.6% Hankey, Humansdorp, Jeffrey's Bay, Kruisfontein, St. Francis, Thornhill

Joe Gqabi-Ukhahlamba DM

69.3%

Aliwal North, Burgersdorp, Herschell, Jamestown, Lady Grey, Mount Fletcher, Oviston, Sterkspruit, Steynsburg, Ugie

Camdeboo LM 60.8% Aberdeen

Amathole DM 52.6% Adelaide, Peddie

Critical risk WSA and plants

High risk WSA and plants

Medium risk WSA and plants

9

3.2 Free State The following municipalities are in critical and high risk positions and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention :

WSA Name

2014 Average



Naledi LM 100% Dewtsdorp, Van Stadensrus, Wepener

Nala 100% Bothaville, Wesselsbron

Mafube LM 97.7% Frankfort, Namahadi, Tweeling, Cornelia, Villiers

Letsemeng LM 97.7% Jacobsdal, Koffiefontein, Luckhoff, Oppermans, Petrusburg

Mohokare LM 96.1% Zastron, Rouxville, Smithfield

KopanongLM 96.1%

Edenberg, Fauresmith, Gariep Dam, Jagersfontein, Philippolis, Reddersburg, Springfontein, Trompsburg

Nketoana LM 95.6% Lindley-Ntha, Petrus Steyn, Reitz Arlington

Tswelopele LM 94.1% Hoopstad

Setsoto LM 93.2% Clocolan, Marquard, Senekal Ficksburg

Ngwathe LM 90.6% Heilbron, Koppies, Parys, Vredefort

Moqhaka LM 88.1% Steynsrus Viljoenskroon, Kroonstad

Masilonyana LM 87.1% Brandfort, Masili, Theunissen, Soutpan

Winburg

Phumelela LM 86.3% Memel, Warden, Vrede

Mantsopa LM 84.7% Excelsior, Hobhouse, Lady Brand, Thaba Patchoa, Tweespruit

Metsimaholo 79.4% Deneysville, Oranjeville

Dihlabeng LM 76.0% Mautse, Rosendal Bethlehem, Clarens, Mashaeng, Fouriesburg

Matjhabeng LM 70.8% Theronia Mmamahabane, Mbabane, Odendaarlsurs (AS), Thabong, Allanridge (AS), Ventersburg

Mangaung LM 67.9% Sterkwater Bainsvlei, Bloemspruit, Boshabelo

Maluti A Phofung LM

62.7% Makwane, Matsegeng, Moeding

Tokologo LM 37.3% Bultfontein

Critical risks

High risk

Medium risk

10

3.3 Gauteng Province

Five plants in Gauteng reside in critical risk position, and a number of plants are in high risk positions. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:

WSA Name 2014 Average CRR/CRRmax % deviation


Randfontein LM

81.8% Randfontein

Midvaal LM 79.1% OheniMuri Vaal Marina, Meyerton

Ekurhuleni Metro

72.6% Tsakane, Welgedacht

Vlakplaas, Esther Park, J.P. Marais, Jan Smuts, Waterval, Dekama, Rondebult, Benoni, Hartebeesfontein

City of Tshwane

69.2% Ekangala, Rethabiseng

Babelegi, Rayton, Baviaanspoort, Godrich, Zeekoegat, Sunderland Ridge, Refilwe

Mogale City LM

66.5% Flip Human

Emfuleni LM 62.0% Sebokeng

Lesedi LM 61.8% Heidelberg

Critical risk plants


Medium risk WSA

11

3.4 Kwazulu-Natal Province

The following municipalities are in high- and critical risk positions and will be placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:



Uthukela DM 89.7% Weenen, Wembezi, Estcourt

Ladysmith, Bergville, Colenso, Ekuvukeni, Winterton, Ezakheni

Uthungulu DM 86.0%

Mbongolwane, Nkandla, Oceanview, Owen SitholeAgric College

Gingindhlovu, King dinuzulu, KwaBadala, Mpushini, Mtunzini, Ekuphumuleni Hospital, Melmoth, Caterine booth Hospital, Ekhombe

Umkhanyakude DM

80.0% Ingwavuma-Mosvolt Hospital, KwzMsane, Manguzi Hospital, Matubatuba, Hluhluwe, Mkhuze, Hlabisa Hospital, St Lucia, Jozini

Ugu DM 77.0% Mbango, Margate Eden Wilds, Malangeni, Melville, Murchison Hospital, Pennington, Red Dessert, Shelly Beach, Harding, Ramsgate, Scottburgh, Munster, Palm Beach, South Broom

Zululand DM 74.3% Thulasizwe eDumbe-Paul Pietersburg, Klipfontein, Vryheid, Ceza Hospital, Itshelejabu Hospital, Nongoma, Pongola, Ulundi, Nkonjeni Hospital

Sisonke DM 72.9% Franklin Underberg, Bulwer, Polela, St Apollonaris

Amajuba DM 69.1% Utrecht, Welgedagt

Umzinyathi DM 64.2% Tugela Ferry

Ilembe DM 62.2% Vukile, Montebello Hospital

Mphumulo Hospital, Ntunjambili Hospital, Stanger, Kwadukuza

% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max)

TREND

90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs

70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs

50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs

<50% Low Risk WWTPs

12

3.5 Limpopo Province

The following municipalities are in high and critical risk positions in Limpopo following the assessments. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:



Greater Sekhukhune DM

90.3%

Burgersfort,Elandskraal, Groblersdal, Jane Furse,Leeuwfontein (Mokganyaka),Meckleberg (Moroke), Monsterlus (Hlogotlou), Motetema, Nebo, Phokwane, Tubatse

Denilton, Marble Hall, Roosenekaal

Mogalakwena LM

86.4% Rebone Mokopaneold&new

Lephalale LM 83.5% Zongesien

Mookgophong LM

82.4% Thusang (Roedtan)

Thabazimbi LM 80.4% Thabazimbi Northam, Rooiberg

Mopani DM 79.5% Modjadji (Duiwelskloof), Senwamokgope, Namakgale

Lulekani, Giyani, Pahlaborwa, Lenyenye

Vhembe DM 78.8% Mutale, Mhinga, Musina, Nancefiled, Thifulanani

Thohoyandou, Dzanani, Siloam Ponds

BelaBela LM 78.4% Radium Pienaarsrivier

Modimolle LM 73.5% Vaalwater

Capricorn DM 69.4% Alldays, Lebowakgomo Ponds, Senwabarwana




13

3.6 Mpumalanga Province The following municipalities are in critical risk positions in 2014. All municipal plants that are in critical and high risk space are placed under regulatory surveillance. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:



Dipaleseng LM 100.0% Belfour, Greylingstad, Grootvlei Mine, Grootvlei Eskom

Lekwa LM 100.0% Standerton, Morgenzon

PixleykaSeme LM 98.8% Volksrust, Vukuzakhe, Amersfoort, Perdekop, Wakkerstroom

Msukaligwa LM 98.5% Breyten AS, Chrissesmeer, Davel, Ermelo, Lothair, Breyten Ponds

Emalahleni LM 96.6%

Klipspruit, Rietspruit, Riverview, Ferrobank, Phola-Ogies, Kriel-Ganala

Naauvwpoort

Mkhondo LM 94.8% Amsterdam, Piet Retief

Govan Mbeki LM 92.0% Embalenhle, Trichardt, Evander, Kinross, Leandra-Leslie

Bethal

Victor Khanye LM 87.3% Botleng, Delmas

Thembisile LM 84.3% KwaMhlanga Ponds East KwaMhlanga West, Tweefontein

Albert Luthuli LM 83.5% Ekulendeni-Kromdraai, Mpuluzi-Mayflower

Badplaas, Carolina

Emakhazeni LM 83.4% Emthonjeni-Machadorp WatervalBoven-Mgwenwa, Belfast, Dullstroom

Dr JS Moroka LM 81.2% Vaalbank

Bushbuckridge LM 80.2% Dwarsloop, Thulamahshe, Mangwaza, Tintiswalo Hospital

Maviljan, Mkhuhlu

Nkomazi LM 78.8% Hectorspruit, Komatipoort, Mhlathikop, Tonga, Malelane

Umjindi LM 77.3% Barberton

Steve Tshwete LM 61.9% Blinkpan-Mine Village

Mbombela LM 58.0% Kabokweni



Medium risk WSA

Low Risk WSA

14

3.7 North West Province The following municipalities are in high and critical risk positions in 2014 and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:

WSA Name

2014 Average



Maquassi Hills LM

100.0% Rulaganyang, Wolmaranstad, Leeudoringstad

Moretele LM 100.0% Swartdam

NgaraModiriMolema DM

99.6%

Coligny, Itsoseng, Lichtenburg, Ottosdal, Sannieshof, Mafikeng, Delareyville, Lehurutshe-Welbedacht, Atamelang, Zeerust, Mmabatho

Ventersdorp LM 94.1% Ventersdorp

Matlosana LM 89.9% Stilfontein, Hartebeesfontein Orkney, Klerksdorp

Dr. Ruth S Mompati DM

88.2% Bloemhof, SchweizerReinecke, Vryburg

Kgetlengriver LM

88.2% Koster Swartruggens

Moses Kotane LM

76.5% Mogwase

Madibeng LM 71.2% Rietfontein-Hartbeespoort, Letlhabile, Mothotlung

Rustenburg LM 58.4% Monnakato

Critical risk plants


Medium risk WSA

15

3.8 Northern Cape Province The following municipalities (red and orange marking) are in high and critical risk positions in the Northern Cape following the post 2013 assessments. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance and placed under regulatory surveillance and therefore require immediate intervention:



Renosterberg LM 100.0% Vanderkloof, Petrusville, Pillipstown

Richtersveld LM 100.0% Port Nolloth Gamagara LM 94.5% Olifantshoek, Dibeng, Dingleton

Marareng LM 94.1% Warrenton Thembelihle LM 92.7% Hopetown Old and New Strydenburg Old and New

Ga-Segonyana LM 91.2% Kuruman Mothibistad

!Kai! Garib LM 90.2% Kenhardt Keimoes, Kakamas

Karoo Hoogland LM

86.3% Williston Fraserburg, Sutherland

Mier LM 86.3% Askam, Loubos Rietfontein

Umsobomvu LM 76.5% Noupoort Colesberg

Sol Plaatjie LM 76.2%

Homevale, Beaconsfield, Ritchie-Rietvale

Phokwane LM 74.5% Jan Kempsdorp Hartswater

Dikgatlong LM 68.6% Barkley West

Ubuntu LM 68.6% Richmond

Siyancuma LM 68.6% Douglas

Kareeberg LM 68.6% Carnavon

Siyathemba LM 66.7% Prieska

Nama Khoi LM 64.7% Bergsig Springbok, Steinkopf, Carolusburg, Nababeep

!Kheis LM 62.4% Groblershoop

Joe Morolong LM 55.9% Hotazel

Emthanjeni LM 49.0% De Aar

Hantam LM 43.5% Calvinia

% Deviation = CRR/CRR(max)

TREND

90 – 100% Critical risk WWTPs

70 - <90% High Risk WWTPs

50-<70% Medium risk WWTPs

<50% Low Risk WWTPs

16

3.9 Western Cape Province Five plants in Western Cape reside in critical risk position in 2014, and forty six plants are in high risk positions. Subsequently, these plants are placed under regulatory surveillance therefore require immediate intervention:

WSA Name

2014 Average



Lainsburg LM 88,2% Lainsburg

Stellenbosch LM 79,5% Franschhoek, Stellenbosch, Wemmershoek, Pniel, Raithby, Klapmuts

Kannaland LM 78,4% Ladismith, Zoar

Prince Albert LM 76,5% Klaarstroom, Leeu Gamka, Prince Albert

Cederberg LM 75,6% Algeria, Wupperthal

Citrusdal, Eland's Bay - Piketberg

Swellendam LM 75,3% Buffelsjag, Barrydale, Koornland, Klipperivier, Suurbraak

Matzikama LM 74,5% Nuwerus Doringbaai, Klawer, Bitterfontein, Lutzville, Vredendal South, Ebennaeser, Koekenaap, Strandfontein

Cape Agulhas LM 72,1% Struisbaai, Waenhuiskrans, Bredasdorp

Langeburg LM 64,5% Montagu, Ashton

Swartland LM 64,4% Koringberg, Kalbaskraal, Moorreesburg, Riebeeck Kasteel, Riebeeck Wes

Breede Valley LM 63,0% Rawsonville

Saldanha Bay LM 58,0% Saldanha

Oudtshoorn LM 57,6% Oudtshoorn

Drakenstein LM 56,1% Wellington

Berg River LM 55,3% Velddrift

Hessequa LM 51,8% Stilbaai, Albertina, Riversdale

Theewaterskloof LM

49,6% Caledon

City of Cape Town Metro

49,3% Borcherd's Quarry, Athlone




Low risk WSA and plants

17

Green Drop Progress Acknowledgement 2014 The following municipalities are commended for their outstanding achievement in terms of risk abatement and overall risk management practices. Well done and continue to aspire to advance this good practice to even higher peripheries in the coming year of full Green Drop Certification Audits.

Eastern Cape: Best overall risk positions achieved: Buffalo City; Nelson Mandela

Best progress in risk abatement: Camdeboo

Free State: Best overall risk positions achieved: Tokologo

Best progress in risk abatement: Tokologo

Gauteng:

Best overall risk positions achieved: City of Johannesburg; Johannesburg Water

Best progress in risk abatement: Merafong

Kwa-Zulu Natal:

Best overall risk positions achieved: eThekwini; Umhlathuze; Umgungundlovu

Best progress in risk abatement: Umhlathuze

Limpopo:

Best overall risk positions achieved: Polokwane

Best progress in risk abatement: Vhembe

Mpumalanga:

Best overall risk positions achieved: Mbombela

Best progress in risk abatement: Albert Luthuli; Nkomazi; Steve Tshwete

Northern Cape:

Best overall risk positions achieved: Tsantsabane; Hantam; Emthanjeni

Best progress in risk abatement: Tsantsabane; Hantam; Kamiesberg; Kheis; Joe

Morolong; Siyathemba; Siyancuma; Ubuntu; Khai

Ma; Nama Khoi

North West:

Best overall risk positions achieved: Tlokwe; Rustenburg

18

Best progress in risk abatement: Tlokwe; Rustenburg; Moses Kotane

Western Cape:

Best overall risk positions achieved: Beaufort West; Bitou; Witzenberg; Overstrand

Best progress in risk abatement: Beaufort West; Bitou; Hessequa; Bergriver;

Drakenstein

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT · 2019. 7. 9. · 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE 2014 GREEN DROP PAT REPORT 1. Background 1.1 Water services delivery is performed

Documents