GDS Home

Green Drop System Version 2.1 - Online visitors Total: 16 | Guests: 16 Login

Green Drop Assessment: Overview

Filter by:

Provincial Green Drop Score

FusionMaps

Provincial Green Drop Score

(Show footnote)

South Africa: Comparative Analysis: Green Drop Scores

Province	Number of Works	Provincial Green Drop Score	Risk Profile [CRR as % of CRR(Max)]	Average Green Drop Score	Green 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 Total	821				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.

South Africa: Green Drop Comparative Analysis

Performance Category	2009	2010	Performance Trend
Number of Municipalities Assessed	98	156 (99%)
Number of Wastewater Systems Assessed	444	821
Average Green Drop Score	37%	45%
Number of Green Drops ≥50%	216 (49%)	361 (44%)
Number of Green Drops <50%	228 (51%)	460 (56%)
Number of Green Drop Awards	33 (3.89%)	40 (4.87%)
Average Site Inspection Score	N/A	51.4%	N/A
Provincial Green Drop Score	N/A	71%	N/A
N/A = Not Applied, = improvement, = digress, = no change

Green Drop Comparative Analysis

(Show footnote)

Analysis of the 2020/11 Green Drop assessments and site inspection results indicate that municipal wastewater service performance vary from ‘excellent’ to ‘unacceptable’.

A total of 156 municipalities and 821 wastewater systems were assessed in 2010, compared to 98 municipalities and 444 systems in 2009. The marked improvement in submission of performance portfolios by municipalities affirms the commitment by municipal management to raise their service standard and performance. The incentive-based regulatory approach seems to have succeeded to raise the overall awareness and to act as positive stimulus for gradual and sustainable improvement across the country. This is evident when comparing the 2009 average Green Drop score of 37% to the current improved status of 45%.

Analysis of the Green Drop results indicate a fairly good National Green drop Score of 71%. However, this value might be skewed as a few excellent Provincial Scores would balance out the lower Provincial performers.

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.

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 ....

CRR %Deviation from CRR max

Score Chart

< 50%: Low risk

50 - <70%: Medium risk

70 - <90%: High risk

90 - <100%: Critical risk

CRR %Deviation from CRR max

(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.

South Africa: Cumulative Risk Comparative Analysis

Performance Category: Risk-based indicators	2009	2010
Highest CRR	29	32
Average CRR	13.3	13.6
Lowest CRR	4	3
Average Design Rating (A)	1.4	1.4
Average Capacity Exceedance Rating (B)	3.7	4.1
Average Effluent Failure Rating (C)	5.7	5.7
Average Technical Skills Rating (D)	2.4	2.6
Average Risk Profile	66.8%	69.2%
N/A = Not Applied, = digress, = improvement, = no change

Cumulative Risk Comparative Analysis

(Show footnote)

From the above table, both positive and negative observations can be derived. The positive picture is that the average risk position is maintained at 13.6 CRR, whilst the lowest CRR position was improved upon by taken on 1 CRR unit lower position (3.0). Also, no digress can be observed in terms of decreased effluent quality and design capacities of plants for the country as a whole.

However, the highest CRR position was occupied by CRR 29 (2009) has moved to CRR 32 which is a higher risk position. Most importantly is that the average %deviation from the maximum CRR has increased from 66.8 to 69.2%. This might be a marginal increase, but indicates that plants continue (on average) to move into higher risk space.

Although the national picture looks stable with slight negative leaning, it is impressed upon the municipalities with digressing risk profiles to address those situations. These municipal treatment plants are clearly identified in the various Chapters under “Regulatory Impression” and marked with CRR↑ for each individual plant. CRR values marked in red and orange means that those treatment plants are in high- and critical risk positions. Unless those plants are not turning around performance, the above table will not show a positive risk profile for the country, and the health of the receiving environment will remain under threat.

Green Drop Performance Categories

Score Chart

< 30%: Critical state

30 - <50%: Very poor performance

50 - <80%: Average performance

80 - <90%: Good status

90 - 100%: Excellent situation

Green Drop Performance Categories

(Show footnote)

The Green Drop Results chart provides a snapshot view of the number of plants (and %) in each performance category. Ideally, the South African public would want to see that the majority of wastewater systems reside in the blue, green and yellow sections in future. Currently, only 44% of all systems occupy this space. As the Green Drop Certification programme and regulatory pressure continue, it is likely that more and more systems will move into the higher performance categories.

This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer 7.0 (or newer) and Mozilla Firefox 3.0 (or newer) at 1024x768 screen resolution.
Click here to download Internet Explorer 7 or click here to download Firefox 3.

If you experience any challenges regarding this site, please contact the Webmaster.

S T A T S
	This page :	158,083
	Hits today:	3,656
	Site hits :	2,631,384
	Version 2 :	2,182,546