Green Drop System (GDS)

Online visitors Total: 87 | Guests: 87       Login    

    Green Drop Assessment: Top 10 Performance Analysis

Filter by:      

South Africa:  Top 10 WSA Performers  

WSANumber of WorksProvincial Green Drop ScoreRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Average Green Drop ScoreGreen Drops Awarded% Systems that achieved >50%Rank
Tsantsabane 2 63.2% 72.6%  26.8%   0 0.0% 1
Drakenstein 6 58.5% 62.8%  76.4%   0 100.0% 2
Witzenberg 4 52.2% 39.3%  85.4%   1 100.0% 3
Cape Agulhas 4 51.9% 67.5%  25.0%   0 0.0% 4
Dawid Kruiper 4 51.6% 64.4%  26.2%   0 0.0% 5
Bitou 2 49.4% 25.5%  96.3%   2 100.0% 6
Matzikama 10 48.6% 56.3%  65.4%   0 100.0% 7
Harry Gwala 8 45.4% 53.5%  44.4%   0 37.5% 8
Breede Valley 4 45.3% 52.0%  76.1%   0 100.0% 9
Mbombela/Umjindi 9 43.9% 49.2%  64.6%   1 77.8% 10

Top Performers
(Show footnote)
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 way forward is contained in a progressive Green Drop programme which alternates the Green Drop assessments with regulatory implementation on ground level, which will be directed by the Green Drop information. In 2011 to 2012, the Regulation Unit will be engaging (within predetermined Regulatory Inspectors Panels) with allocated Water Services Authorities in order to measure progress on the published Green Drop Reports as well as WS Regulation Performance Publications (RPMS). This would mean that panels will be:
  • Monitoring rectification processes (which will include planning initiatives, technology choices, MG applications, etc);
  • Gauge GDS and RPMS activity;
  • Work with low performing municipalities to identify key areas of focus for turnaround and to perform proper performance audits;
  • Monitoring Service Level Agreements vs. Actual Service Delivery/performance by service providers;
  • Allow for the Municipal Cross Pollination programme to take effect;
  • Work with Water Resource and Protection unit to inform the licensing processes.

 

South Africa:  Top 10 Works with Lowest Risk Rating  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
WC Bitou Plettenberg Bay - Gansevallei   98.8%   96.5% 2.4%   22.7%   23 4
KZ eThekwini Cato Ridge   96.6%   81.6% 18.4%   23.5%   24 7
KZ iLembe Shakaskraal   97.1%   98.5% -1.5%   23.5%   24 6
WC Beaufort West Beaufort West   93.7%   90.7% 3.3%   23.5%   24 24
NC Tsantsabane Postmasburg Wastewater Treatment Works   93.5%   38.2% 144.8%   23.5%   24 25
WC City of Cape Town Groot Springfontein (Dover)   82.4%   41.4% 98.9%   23.5%   24 111
WC Mossel Bay Ruiterbos   79.6%   77.4% 2.8%   23.5%   24 139
WC Theewaterskloof Genadendal   65.4%   58.7% 11.4%   23.5%   24 286
EC Buffalo City Kidds Beach   52.7%   52.7% 0.0%   23.5%   24 383
KZ iLembe Frasers   98.8%   97.6% 1.2%   27.3%   27 3
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Best Risk Profiles
(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%).

South Africa:  Top 10 Performers based on Green Drop Score  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
WC Witzenberg Ceres   99.5%   92.9% 7.1%   36.4%   36 1
WC Bitou Kurland   99.5%   96.1% 3.5%   35.3%   35 2
KZ iLembe Frasers   98.8%   97.6% 1.2%   27.3%   27 3
WC Bitou Plettenberg Bay - Gansevallei   98.8%   96.5% 2.4%   22.7%   23 4
KZ eThekwini Central   97.1%   96.0% 1.1%   46.0%   46 5
KZ iLembe Shakaskraal   97.1%   98.5% -1.5%   23.5%   24 6
KZ eThekwini Cato Ridge   96.6%   81.6% 18.4%   23.5%   24 7
WC City of Cape Town Cape Flats   96.5%   80.3% 20.1%   43.2%   43 8
KZ eThekwini Umkomaas   96.1%   92.2% 4.3%   35.3%   35 9
KZ uMhlathuze Vulindlela   96.0%   83.2% 15.4%   29.4%   29 10
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Top Performers
(Show footnote)
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 way forward is contained in a progressive Green Drop programme which alternates the Green Drop assessments with regulatory implementation on ground level, which will be directed by the Green Drop information. In 2011 to 2012, the Regulation Unit will be engaging (within predetermined Regulatory Inspectors Panels) with allocated Water Services Authorities in order to measure progress on the published Green Drop Reports as well as WS Regulation Performance Publications (RPMS). This would mean that panels will be:
  • Monitoring rectification processes (which will include planning initiatives, technology choices, MG applications, etc);
  • Gauge GDS and RPMS activity;
  • Work with low performing municipalities to identify key areas of focus for turnaround and to perform proper performance audits;
  • Monitoring Service Level Agreements vs. Actual Service Delivery/performance by service providers;
  • Allow for the Municipal Cross Pollination programme to take effect;
  • Work with Water Resource and Protection unit to inform the licensing processes.

 

South Africa:  Top 10 Improving Works based on Green Drop Score  

ProvinceWSA NameWorks NameGreen Drop Score (2011)Green Drop Score (2009)% ProgressRisk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]Cumulative Risk Rating (CRR)Rank
WC George Uniondale   80.3%   1.0% 7 926.0%   35.3%   35 132
FS Kopanong Philippolis   34.4%   0.6% 5 638.3%   88.2%   88 532
FS Kopanong Gariep Dam   34.3%   0.6% 5 621.7%   100.0%   100 536
FS Kopanong Fauresmith   34.2%   0.6% 5 596.7%   100.0%   100 537
EC Sundays River Valley Paterson   33.5%   0.6% 5 483.3%   70.6%   71 540
EC Blue Crane Route Pearston   14.7%   0.4% 3 565.0%   88.2%   88 699
EC Dr Beyers Naudé Klipplaats   52.3%   1.5% 3 383.3%   64.7%   65 387
EC Chris Hani Tsomo   21.1%   0.8% 2 533.8%   82.4%   82 650
EC Dr Beyers Naudé Jansenville   57.2%   2.5% 2 186.0%   52.9%   53 347
FS Kopanong Bethulie   13.0%   0.6% 2 058.3%   88.2%   88 709
< 30%: Critical state30 - <50%: Very poor performance50 - <80%: Average performance80 - <90%: Good status90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Top Improvers
(Show footnote)
Top improvers are based on the Dreen Drop Score achieved in 2011 as percentage of the Previously recorded Greed Drop Score....





This page : 18 607
Hits today: 1 361
Site hits   : 10 276 105
Version 2 : 9 828 181