Green Drop System (GDS)

Online visitors Total: 41 | Guests: 25 | Members: 16       Login    

    Green Drop Assessment Analysis: Comparative Performance: Graphical View


Filter by:    Switch to Geographical view

Provincial Green Drop Score

FusionMaps
FusionMaps Export Handler Component

Provincial Green Drop Score
(Show footnote)
Provincial performance profiles are the summation of the respective municipal performances. Each Province has different dynamics with municipal participants that perform exceptionally well, on average, unsatisfactory or very poorly.

 

South Africa: Comparative Analysis: Green Drop Scores

ProvinceNumber of WorksProvincial Green Drop ScoreRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Average Green Drop ScoreGreen Drops Awarded% Systems that achieved >50%Position on Performance log
WC 155 83.1% 62.0%   65.0%   19 75.0% 1
KZ 143 82.0% 55.0%   61.0%   11 66.0% 2
GT 56 78.8% 57.0%   68.0%   5 68.0% 3
EC 123 67.2% 78.0%   33.0%   3 26.0% 4
MP 76 56.0% 73.0%   42.0%   1 41.0% 5
NW 35 50.0% 76.0%   29.0%   1 17.0% 6
FS 95 31.5% 83.0%   24.0%   0 12.0% 7
LP 67 24.0% 79.0%   24.0%   0 15.0% 8
NC 71 23.0% 76.0%   26.0%   0 13.0% 9
SA Total821   40  

Comparative Analysis of Provincial Performance
(Show footnote)
Provincial performance profiles are the summation of the respective municipal performances. Each Province has different dynamics with municipal participants that perform exceptionally well, on average, unsatisfactory or very poorly. The key performance indicators are compared for benchmarking and self assessment purposes.

From the above analysis, it can be seen that Western Cape, followed by Kwa-Zulu Natal and Gauteng are producing the high performing wastewater systems. Eastern Cape, followed by Free State, Northern Cape and Limpopo are producing the bulk of systems that are in critical and poor performing positions.

Green Drop Awards

Score Chart
FusionChart Export Handler Component

Green Drop Awards
(Show footnote)
The Green Drop regulation programme seeks to identify 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. This form of incentive- and risk-based regulation holds the intent to synergise with the current goodwill exhibited by municipalities and existing Government support programmes to give the focus, commitment and planning needed.

Regulation is important to ensure effective and efficient delivery of sustainable water services. This is recognised both by South African authorities and Internationally. It clarifies the requirements and obligations placed on water service institutions, thereby protecting consumers from a potentially unsustainable and unsafe service.

The national position on wastewater service performance is a variation from excellent to very poor. The one accomplishment that can be attributed to municipalities in South Africa is the marked increase in submission of evidence for Green Drop assessment, and the subsequent 100% coverage of all systems. This mark and important reference point which few countries can claim credit. As such, the Regulator has a complete database of the exact strengths and gaps per municipality and per wastewater system from where gradual and sustainable improvement can be facilitated and measured on a continuous basis.

The excellent performers increased from 33 Green Drop awards in 2009 to 40 in 2010/11, with Western Cape (19x) and KZN (11x) producing the highest number of Green Drop awards. Readers must be mindful that Green Drop requirements become more stringent (and detailed) with every assessment cycle. Hence, the 36 systems that achieved Green Drop status are truly ‘excellent’. The Green Drop philosophy does not chase numbers as targets, but quality and excellence ....

 

Provincial Green Drop Score

Score Chart
FusionChart Export Handler Component
< 30%: Critical state    30 - <50%: Very poor performance    50 - <80%: Average performance    80 - <90%: Good status    90 - 100%: Excellent situation    

Provincial Green Drop Score
(Show footnote)
Provincial performance profiles are the summation of the respective municipal performances. Each Province has different dynamics with municipal participants that perform exceptionally well, on average, unsatisfactory or very poorly.

 

Cumulative Risk Rating

Score Chart
FusionChart Export Handler Component
< 50%: Low risk    50 - <70%: Medium risk    70 - <90%: High risk    90 - <100%: Critical risk    

Cumulative Risk Rating
(Show footnote)
Risk is defined and calculated by the following formulae:

Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR) = A x B + C + D

where:
A = Design Capacity of plant which also represent the hydraulic loading onto the receiving water body
B = Operational flow exceeding-, on- and below capacity
C = Number of non-compliance trends in terms of effluent quality as discharged to the receiving water body
D = Compliance or non-compliance i.t.o. technical skills

A CRR value is calculated for each municipal wastewater treatment facility in South Africa, as provided in this Green Drop Report. Municipalities can consult the Department of Water Affairs to obtain the individual risk assessments for their plants. However, the various municipal CRR profiles are usually send to the respective Executive Mayors from the Minister’s office, to inform the political principles of the facilities that reside in high - and critical risk space.

A CRR%deviation is used throughout the Report to indicate that variance of a CRR value before it reaches its maximum CRR value. The higher the CRR%deviation value, the closer the CRR risk is to the maximum value it can obtain.

Example 1: a 95% CRR%deviation value means the plant has only 5% space remaining before the system will reach its maximum critical state (100%).

Example 2: a 25% CRR%deviation value means the plant holds a low and manageable risk position and is not close to the limits that define a critical state (90-100%).

 

Average Green Drop Score

Score Chart
FusionChart Export Handler Component
< 30%: Critical state    30 - <50%: Very poor performance    50 - <80%: Average performance    80 - <90%: Good status    90 - 100%: Excellent situation    

Average Green Drop Score
(Show footnote)
The movement of risk in the following profile is relatively neutral and indicate that no drastic movement is taking place as a national average. The overall picture is one of ‘stability’ whereby it seems that the country as a whole has managed to contain the risk, with slight movement to a higher risk position, as can be seen by the increase in plants in the critical risk (137) and decrease in plants in the low risks (138) positions.

Overall, the risk trend is neutral to negative, particularly when considering that 58 plants left the ‘low risk’ landscape to move to higher risk positions. The Regulator regards this trend with concern and will place municipalities with increased CRR trends under regulatory surveillance.

 

% Systems that achieved more than 50% Green Drop Score

Score Chart
FusionChart Export Handler Component
< 30%: Critical state    30 - <50%: Very poor performance    50 - <80%: Average performance    80 - <90%: Good status    90 - 100%: Excellent situation    

% Systems that achieved more than 50% Green Drop Score
(Show footnote)
A negative trend is observed when comparing the number of Green Drop scores >50% in 2009 (49%) decreased proportionally to 44%. This trend can possibly be explained by considering that 377 ‘first time’ systems were assessed and many of these achieved low Green Drop scores, very similar to the 2009 type trends. The encouraging aspect of this result is that a verified baseline have been established against which continued performance can be gauged and measured.




This page : 20 107
Hits today: 4 624
Site hits   : 8 750 151
Version 2 : 8 302 227