document_title: National Convention

question_text: who were the three groups fighting for power in the national convention

question_tokens: who were the three groups fighting for power in the national convention

text: National Convention

text: Elections[edit]

text: The election took place from 2 to 6 September 1792 after the election of the electoral colleges by primary assemblies on 26 August. Owing to the abstention of aristocrats[clarification needed], the anti-republicans, and the fear of victimization the voter turnout in the departments was low – 11.9% of the electorate came, compared to 10.2% in the 1791 elections - in spite of the fact that the number of those eligible to vote had doubled.[clarification needed] Therefore, the increased suffrage had very little impact. The electorate returned the same sort of men that the active citizens had chosen in 1791.[1]

text: In the whole of France, only eleven primary assemblies wanted to retain the monarchy. Of the electoral assemblies, all tacitly voted for a republic – though only Paris used the word. None of the deputies stood as a royalist for elections. Out of the five million Frenchmen able to vote, only a million showed up at the polls. [clarification needed][2][note 1]

text: The Convention held its first sessions in a hall of the Tuileries Palace, then it sat in the Salle du Manège, and finally from 10 May 1793 it met in the Salle des Machines, an immense hall in which the deputies were loosely scattered. The Salle des Machines had galleries for the public who often influenced the debates with interruptions or applause.[4] [note 2]

text: The members of the Convention came from all classes of society, but the most numerous were lawyers. 75 members had sat in the National Constituent Assembly, 183 in the Legislative Assembly. The full number of deputies was 749, not counting 33 from the French colonies, of whom only some arrived in Paris in time. Besides these, however, the newly formed départements annexed to France from 1782 to 1789 were allowed to send deputations.

text: According to its own ruling, the Convention elected its President every fortnight, and the outgoing President was eligible for re-election after the lapse of a fortnight. Ordinarily the sessions were held in the morning, but evening sessions also occurred frequently, often extending late into the night. Sometimes in exceptional circumstances, the Convention declared itself in permanent session and sat for several days without interruption. For both legislative and administrative the Convention used committees, with powers more or less widely extended and regulated by successive laws. The most famous of these committees included the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security.

text: The Convention held legislative and executive powers during the first years of the French First Republic and had three distinct periods: Girondin, Montagnard or Jacobin, and Thermidorian.

text: Girondin Convention[edit]

text: The first session was held on 20 September 1792. The following day, the assembly agreed the proposition "That royalty be abolished in France" and was carried with cheers. On the 22nd came the news of the Battle of Valmy. On the same day it was decreed that "in future the acts of the assembly shall be dated First Year of the French Republic". Three days later the corollary that "the French republic is one and indivisible" was added to guard against federalism. A republic had been proclaimed, but it remained to enact a republican government. The country was little more republican in feeling or practice than it had been before at any time since Varennes. But now it had to become a republic, because it no longer had a king.[6]

text: When the Convention met the military situation was undergoing an extraordinary transformation that seemed to confirm the Girondin prophecies of easy victory. After Valmy the Prussians withdrew to the frontier, and in November French troops occupied the left bank of the Rhine. The Austrians, who had besieged Lille in October, were defeated by Dumouriez at the Battle of Jemappes on 6 November and evacuated the Austrian Netherlands. Nice was occupied and Savoy proclaimed its union with France. These successes made it safe to quarrel at home.[7]

text: The Girondins and the Montagnards[edit]

text: Most historians divide the National Convention into two main factions: the Girondins and the Montagnards.[citation needed] The Girondins were the more moderate conservatives at Convention. They protested the vast influences held at the Convention by Parisians. They drew their name from the Gironde, a region of France from which many of the deputies of this faction originated. They were also known as the Brissotins after their most prominent speaker, Jaques Pierre Brissot.[8]

text: The Montagnards represented a considerably larger, more democratic, portion of the deputies. They were much more radical than the Girondins and held strong connections to the Jacobin Club of Paris. They drew their name from the high bleachers that they sat on while the Convention was in session. The Montagnards dominated the Convention.[9]

text: Three questions dominated the first months of the Convention: revolutionary violence; the trial of the king; and Parisian dominance of politics.

text: Antagonism between Paris and the provinces created friction among the people that served as a propaganda tool and combat weapon for the two groups. The departments resisted the idea of centralization. They saw this idea being symbolized by the desire to reduce the capital of the Revolution to its one-eighty-third share of influence. Much of the Gironde wished to remove the Assembly from a city dominated by "agitators and flatterers of the people": it did not at the time encourage an aggressive federalism that would have run counter to its political ambitions.[10]

text: The Plain[edit]

text: The Plain was a third faction during the Convention. Though some historians consider these men to be closely associated with the Girondins, the Plain was much more centrist in their ideals.[citation needed] The Plain held the largest group of deputies and derived their name from their place on the floor of the Convention. During the start of the Convention, they sided with the Girondins, however, as it progressed and the Montagnards began to push for the execution of Louis, the Plain began to side with them.

text: The Trial and Execution of the King[edit]

text: From the opening of the Convention the Girondins showed no inclination to bring the king to trial. They were more interested in discrediting Paris and its deputies. Their decision to hound the Jacobins was not merely a choice of priorities; they genuinely wanted to spare the king.[11] But in reality the Convention had to declare him guilty if it wanted to avoid damning 10 August 1792, its own existence, and the proclamation of the Republic. "If the king is not guilty, then those who have dethroned him are", as Robespierre remarked on 2 December. Once the Convention recognized Louis's guilt it could hardly refuse to pronounce the death penalty against a person who had summoned the aid of foreign powers and whom the sans-culottes considered responsible for the ambush at the Tuileries.[12]

text: The discovery of the iron chest in the Tuileries 20 November 1792 made the trial inevitable. Documents found in this secret chest proved without any doubt the treachery of Louis XVI.

text: The trial began on 10 December. The Montagnards put the debate on the ideological level. Louis XVI was classified as an enemy, alien to the body of the nation and as a "usurper". Balloting began on 14 January 1793. Each deputy explained his vote at the rostrum. The vote against the king was unanimous. There was to be no popular referendum as Girondins hoped. The fatal vote started on 16 January and continued until the next day. Of the 721 deputies present, 387 declared themselves for the death penalty, while 334 were opposed. 26 deputies voted for death on condition that he was reprieved. On 18 January the question of reprieve was put to a vote: 380 votes were cast against; 310 for. Each time the Girondins had split.[13]

text: On the morning of 21 January the Convention ordered the entire National Guard to line both sides of the route to the scaffold. Louis was beheaded at the Place de la Revolution. Within the nation, "voters" and "appellants", those that were against the execution of Louis,[clarification needed] swore undying hatred of each other. The rest of Europe, fearing the outcome of the French Revolution in their own countries, decreed a war of extermination against regicides.[14][note 3]

text: The Crisis and Fall of the Girondins[edit]

text: The Assembly began harmoniously, but within a few days the Girondins launched a bitter attack on their Montagnard opponents. Conflict continued without interruption until the expulsion of the Girondin leaders from the Convention on 2 June 1793. The Girondins had relied on votes from the majority of the deputies, many of whom were alarmed as well as scandalized by the September massacres, but their insistence on monopolizing all positions of authority during the Convention, and their attacks on the Montagnard leaders, soon irritated them, causing them to regard the party as a faction. One by one, able deputies such as Couthon, Cambon, Carnot, Lindet and Barere began to gravitate towards the Montagnards, while the majority – the Plain, as it was called – held itself aloof from both sides.

text: Girondins were convinced that their opponents aspired to a bloody dictatorship, while the Montagnards believed that the Girondins were ready for any compromise with conservatives, and even royalists, that would guarantee their remaining in power. The bitter enmity soon reduced the Convention to a state of limbo. Debate after debate degenerated into verbal brawling from which no decision could emerged. The political deadlock, which had repercussions all over France, eventually drove men to accept dangerous allies, royalists in the case of Girondins, Jacobins in that of the Montagnards.[7]

text: Thus the struggle within the Convention continued without results. The decision was to come from outside.

text: Since the king's trial, the sans-culottes had been constantly assailing the "appealers" (appelants), and quickly came to desire their expulsion from the Convention. If this were achieved, the government could recover the energy to enable it to deal with the aristocratic plot by arresting suspects and establishing a revolutionary tribunal.[16] Military setbacks from the First Coalition, Dumouriez's treason and the war in the Vendée, which began in March 1793, were all used as arguments by Montagnards and sans-culottes to portray Girondins as soft. They demanded that the Girondins take measures to change thing, but the Girondins were reluctant to adopt the proposed measures. The Girondins were forced to accept the Montagnards creation of the Committee of Public Safety and Revolutionary Tribunal. Social and economic difficulties exacerbated the tensions between the groups. The final showdown was precipitated by Jean-Paul Marat's trial and the arrest of sectional activists.

text: On 25 May the Paris Commune demanded that arrested patriots be released. In reply, Isnard, who was presiding over the Convention, launched into a diatribe against Paris which was reminiscent of the Brunswick Manifesto: "If any attack made on the persons of the representatives of the nation, then I declare to you in the name of the whole country that Paris would be destroyed". On the next day the Jacobins declared themselves in a state of insurrection. On 28 May the Cité section called the other sections to a meeting in order to organize the insurrection. On 29 May the delegates representing 33 of the sections formed an insurrectionary committee of nine members.[17]

text: On 2 June, 80,000 armed sans-culottes surrounded the Convention. After an attempt of deputies to leave collided with guns, the deputies resigned themselves to declare the arrest of 29 leading Girondins. In this way the Gironde ceased to be a political force. It had declared war without knowing how to conduct it; it had denounced the King but had shrunk from condemning him; it had contributed to the worsening of the economic crisis but had swept aside all the claims made by the popular movement.[18]

text: Montagnard Convention[edit]

text: Scarcely had the Gironde been eliminated when the Convention, now under Montagnard leadership, found itself caught between two threats. While forces of counter-revolution were gaining new impetus from the federalist revolt, the popular movement, roused to fury by high prices, was increasing the pressure it exercised on the government. Meanwhile, the Government was proving incapable of controlling the situation. In July 1793 the nation appeared to be on the point of falling apart.[19]

text: Constitution of 1793[edit]

text: During the month of June the Montagnards played for time. Yet the Convention did not overlook the peasants. It was to these latter that the revolution of 31 May (like those of 14 July and 10 August) brought a substantial and permanent profit. On 3 June the sale of the property of emigrants, in small parcels and payable in ten years, was decreed; on the 10th, the optional division of common lands by head; and on 17 July, the abolition, without compensation, of all that remained of manorial rights.[20]

text: The Montagnards attempted to reassure the middle classes by rejecting any idea of terror, by protecting property rights, and by restricting the popular movement to very narrowly circumscribed limits. It was a delicate balance to achieve, a balance that was destroyed in July by the worsening of the crisis. The Convention rapidly approved the new constitution, hoping to clear itself of the charge of dictatorship and calm the anxieties of the departments.[21]

text: The Declaration of Rights which precedes the text of the Constitution solemnly reaffirmed the nation's indivisibility and the great principles of freedom of the press, equality and resistance to oppression. It went far beyond the Declaration of 1789, adding to it the right to public assistance, work, education and insurrection. No man could impose his will on others. All political and social tyranny was abolished. Although the montagnards had refused to be led further down the road to democracy, the Constitution became the bible of all democrats.[22]

text: The chief aim of the Constitution was to ensure the major role of the deputies in the Convention, which was seen as being the essential basis for political democracy. The Legislative Assembly was to be elected by direct vote cast for a single member; deputies were elected on receiving a simple majority of the votes cast, and the assembly would sit for one year. The executive council of 24 members was chosen by the Legislative Assembly from among the 83 candidates chosen by the departments on the basis of universal male suffrage, and in this way ministers were made responsible to the representatives of the nation. The exercise of national sovereignty was widened through the institution of the referendum – the Constitution was to be ratified by the people, as were laws in certain precisely defined circumstances.[23]

text: The Constitution was submitted for popular ratification and adopted by a huge margin of more than 1,801,918 in favour to some 17,610 against. The results of the plebiscite were made public on 10 August 1793, but the application of the Constitution, the text of which was placed in the sacred ark and laid in the debating-chamber of the Convention, was postponed until peace had been made.[24]

text: Federalist revolt, war and counter-revolution[edit]

text: Indeed, the Montagnards faced dramatic circumstances – federalist insurrection, war in the Vendée, military failures, and a worsening economic situation. Despite everything, a new civil war could not be avoided.[20] By the middle of June, about sixty departments were in more or less open rebellion. Fortunately the frontier departments had remained faithful to the Convention. The rising was widespread rather than deep. It was essentially the work of the departmental and district administrations. The communes, which were more popular in composition, showed themselves in general lukewarm or hostile; and federalist leaders soon became divided among themselves. Sincere republicans among them could not fail to be uneasy about the foreign invasion and the Vendée. Those who were seeing themselves rejected by the people, sought support from the moderates, the Feuillants and even from the aristocrats.[25]

text: July and August were bad months on the frontiers. Within three weeks Mainz, the symbol of previous successes, capitulated to the Prussians, and the Austrians captured the fortresses of Condé and Valenciennes and invaded northern France. Spanish troops crossed the Pyrenees and began advancing on Perpignan. The Piedmontese took advantage of the diversion of republican forces at Lyons in order to invade France from the East. In Corsica, Paoli's revolt expelled the French from the island with British support. British troops opened the siege of Dunkirk in August and in October the Allies invaded Alsace. The military situation had become desperate.

text: In addition there were other incidents which compounded the fury of the revolutionaries and convinced them that their opponents had abandoned all restraint of civilized behavior. On 13 July, Charlotte Corday murdered sans-culotte idol Jean-Paul Marat. She had been in touch with Girondin rebels in Normandy and they were believed to have used her as their agent.[26]

text: The lack of forethought displayed by the Convention during the first few days was redeemed by its vigor and skill in organizing measures of repression. Warrants were issued for the arrest of the rebellious Girondin leaders; the members of the revolting departmental administration were deprived of their office.[27]

text: The regions in which the revolt was dangerous were precisely those in which a large number of royalists had remained. There was no room for a third party between the Mountain, which was identified with the Republic, and royalism, which was the ally of the enemy. The royalist insurrection in the Vendée had already led the Convention to take a long step in the direction of the Terror – that is to say, the dictatorship of central power and the suppression of liberties. The Girondin insurrection now prompted it to take a decisive step in the same direction.[28]

text: Revolutionary government[edit]

text: The Constituent Assembly had legislated through its commissions. The Convention governed by means of its committees. Two of them were of essential importance: Public Safety and General Security. The second, which had formidable powers, is less well known than the first, which was the true executive authority and was armed with immense prerogatives. It dated from April, but its composition was thoroughly reshuffled during the summer of 1793.[29]

text: The summer of 1793 saw sans-culotte disturbances reach a peak under a double banner: price-fixing and terror. On top of this came the news of unprecedented treason: Toulon and its squadron had been handed over to the enemy.[30] In the name of the wretched poverty of the people, the leaders of the Enragés, with Jacques Roux at their head, called for a planned economy from a Convention which had no liking for the idea. But the revolutionary logic of the mobilization of resources by national dictatorship was infinitely more powerful than economic doctrine. In August, a series of decrees gave the authorities discretionary powers over the production and circulation of grain, as well as ferocious punishments for fraud. "Granaries of plenty" were prepared, to stock corn requisitioned by authorities in each district. On 23 August the decree on the levée en masse turned able-bodied civilians into soldiers.[31]

text: On 5 September, Parisians tried to repeat the revolt of 2 June. Armed sections again encircled the Convention to demand the setting up of an internal revolutionary army, the arrest of suspects and a purge of the committees. It was probably the key day in the formation of the revolutionary government: the convention yielded, but kept control of events. It put Terror on the agenda on 5 September, on 6th elected Collot d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne to the Committee of Public Safety, on the 9th created the revolutionary army, on the 11th decreed the Maximum for grain and fodder (general controls for prices, and wages on the 29th), on the 14th reorganized the Revolutionary Tribunal, on the 17th voted in the law on suspects, and on the 20th gave the local revolutionary committees the task of drawing up lists of them.[32]

text: The dictatorship of the Convention and the committees, simultaneously supported and controlled by the Parisian sections, representing the sovereign people in permanent session, lasted from June to September. It governed through a network of institutions set up haphazardly since spring in March, the Revolutionary Tribunal and representatives on missions in the departments; was followed the next month by the Convention's representatives to the armies, also armed with unlimited powers; and enforced acceptance of assignat as the sole legal tender, price controls for grain and the forced loan of a billion livres from the rich.[33]

text: At last France saw a government take shape. Danton resigned from it on 10 July. Couthon, Saint-Just, Jeanbon Saint-Andre, and Prieur of the Marne formed a nucleus of resolute Montagnards who rallied Barrere and Lindet, then successfully added Robespierre on 27 July, Carnot and Prieur of Cote-d'Ore on 14 August, and Collot d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne on 6 September. They had a few clear ideas to which they clung: to command, to fight, and to conquer. Their work in common, the danger, the taste of and pride in power created solidarity that made the Committee an autonomous organism.[34]

text: The committee was always managed collegially, despite the specific nature of the tasks of each director: the division into "politicians" and "technicians" was a Thermidorian invention, intended to lay the corpses of the Terror at the door of the Robespierrists alone. Many things, however, set the twelve committee members at loggerheads; Barrere was more a man of the Convention than of the committee and was a link with the Plaine. Robert Lindet had qualms about the Terror which, by contrast, was the outstanding theme of Collot d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne, latecomers to the committee, forced on it by the sans-culottes in September; unlike Robespierre and his friends, Lazare Carnot had given his support only provisionally and for reasons of state to a policy concession to the people. But the situation which united them in the summer of 1793 was stronger than those differences of opinion.[29] The Committee had to set itself above all, and choose those popular demands which were most suitable for achieving the Assembly's aims: to crush the enemies of the Republic and dash the last hopes of the aristocracy. To govern in the name of the Convention, at the same time controlling it, and to restrain the people without quenching their enthusiasm — this was a gamble.[35]

text: The ensemble of institutions, measures and procedures which constituted it was codified in a decree of 14 Frimaire (4 December) which set the seal on what had been the gradual development of centralized dictatorship founded on the Terror. In the center was the Convention, whose secular arm was the Committee of Public Safety, vested with immense powers: it interpreted the Convention's decrees and settled their methods of application; under its immediate authority it had all state bodies and all civil servants (even ministers would disappear in April 1794); it directed military and diplomatic activity, appointed generals and members of other committees, subject to ratification by the Convention. It held responsibility for conducting war, public order and the provisioning of the population. The Commune of Paris, a famous sans-culotte bastion, was neutralized by coming under its control.[32]

text: The economy[edit]

text: Administrative and economic centralization went hand in hand. The state of siege forced France into autarky; to save the Republic the government mobilized all the nation's productive forces and reluctantly accepted the need for a controlled economy, which it introduced extemporaneously, as the emergency required.[36] It was necessary to develop war production, revive foreign trade, and find new resources in France itself; and time was short. Circumstances gradually compelled it to assume the economic government of the country. Along with organization of the army, this was the most original feature of its work.[37]

text: All material resources were subjected to requisitioning. Farmers surrendered their grain, fodder, wool, flax, and hemp. Artisans and merchants gave up their manufactured products. Raw materials were carefully sought out – metal of all kinds, church bells, old paper, rags and parchments, grasses, brushwood, and even household ashes for manufacturing of potassium salts, and chestnuts for distilling. All businesses were placed at the disposal of the nation – forests, mines, quarries, furnaces, forges, tanneries, paper mills, large cloth factories and shoe making workshops. The labor of men and the value of things were subject to price controls. No one had a right to speculate at the cost of Patrie while it was in danger. Armaments caused more concern. As early as September 1793 efforts were made to create a large factory in Paris for rifles and sidearms.[38] A special appeal was made to scientists. Monge, Vandermonde, Berthollet, Darcet, Fourcroy perfected metallurgy and manufacture of arms.[39]

text: Only to the wage earners did the Maximum seem thoroughly advantageous. It increased wages by one-half in relation to 1790, and commodities by only one-third. But since the Committee did not ensure that it was respected (except for bread), they would have been duped had they not been benefiting from the favorable conditions that a great war always offers the labor force.[40] Still Paris became calmer, because the sans-culottes were gradually finding ways to subsist; the levée en masse and the formation of the revolutionary army were thinning their ranks; many now were working in arms and equipment shops, or in the offices of the committees and ministries, which were expanded enormously.[41]

text: The Army of the Year II[edit]

text: During the summer the requisition of the levy was completed and by July the total strength of the army reached 650,000. The difficulties were tremendous. The war production just started in September. The army was in the middle of the purge. In the spring of 1794 the amalgamation was undertaken. Two battalions of volunteers joined one battalion of regulars to constitute a demi-brigade, or regiment. At the same time the command was reconstituted. The purge ended with most of the nobles excluded. The new generation reached the highest ranks, and the War College (Ecole de Mars) received six young men from each district to improve the staff. Army commanders were to be appointed by the Convention.[42]

text: What gradually emerged was a military command unequaled in quality: Marceau, Hoche, Kleber, Massena, Jourdan, and a host of others, backed by officers who were sound both in their abilities as soldiers and in their sense of civic responsibility.[43] [note 4]

text: For the first time since antiquity a truly national army marched to war, and for the first time, too, a nation succeeded in arming and feeding great numbers of soldiers – these are the novel characteristics of the army of the Year II. The technical innovations resulted chiefly from its sheer size as well the strategy that developed from it. The old system of cordons lost its prestige. Moving between the armies of the Coalition, the French could maneuver along interior lines, deploy part of their troops along the frontiers, and take advantage of the inaction of any one of their enemies to beat the others. Acting en masse, and overwhelming the foe by sheer numbers – such were Carnot's principles. They were still untried, and not until Bonaparte appeared did they enjoy any great success.[45]

text: Fall of the factions[edit]

text: As late as September 1793, there were two distinct wings among the revolutionaries. Firstly those who were later called Hébertists – although Hébert himself was never the official leader of a party – advocated war to the death and adopted the program of the Enragés, ostensibly because the sans-culottes approved it. The Hebertists preferred to side with the Montagnards, so long as they could hope to control the Convention through them. They dominated the Cordeliers Club, filled Bouchotte's offices, and could generally carry the Commune with them.[46] The other wing was that of the Dantonists, which formed in response to the increasing centralization of the Revolutionary Government and the dictatorship of the Committees. The Dantonists were led predominately by deputies of the Convention (rather than the sans-culottes), including Danton, Delacroix, and Desmoulins.

text: Putting the needs of national defense above all other considerations, the Committee of Public Safety had no intentions of giving in to the demands of either the popular movement or the moderates. Following the Hebertists would jeopardize revolutionary unity, while the giving in to the demands of the moderates would have undermined the both the Terror and the controlled economy. However, unity, centralization, and the Terror were all considered essential to the war effort.[according to whom?] In order to balance the contradictory demands of these two factions, the Revolutionary Government attempted to maintain a position halfway between the moderate Dantonists (citras) and the extremist Hebertists (ultras).[47]

text: But at the end of the winter of 1793-4, the shortage of food took a sharp turn for the worse. The Hebertists incited sans-culottes to demand stringent measures, and at first the Committee did prove conciliatory. The Convention voted 10 million for relief,[clarification needed] on 3 Ventose, Barere presented a new general Maximum, and on the 8th Saint-Just obtained a decree confiscating the property of suspects and distributing it to the needy (Ventose decrees). The Hebertists felt that if they increased the pressure, they would triumph once and for all. Although the call appeared like one for insurrection it was probably just for a new demonstration, like the one in September. But the Committee of Public Safety decided on 22 Ventose Year II (12 March 1794) that the Hebertists posed too serious a threat. The Committee linked Hebert, Ronsin, Vincent, and Momoro to the emigres Proli, Cloots and Pereira, so as to present the Hebertists as parties to the "foreign plot". All were executed on 4 Germinal (24 March).[48] This move largely silenced the Hebertists, now without their leadership. Having succeeded in stifling dissent on the left, the Committee then turned on the Dantonists, several members of which were implicated in financial corruption. The Committee forced the Convention to lift the parliamentary immunity of nine Dantonist deputies, allowing them to be put on trial. On 5 April Dantonist leaders Danton, Delacroix, Desmoulins, and Philippeaux were executed.[49]

text: The execution of the leaderships of both rival factions caused some to become disillusioned. Many sans-culottes were stunned by the Hebertists' execution. All the positions of influence traditionally held by the sans-culottes were eliminated: the Revolutionary Army was disbanded, the inspectors of food-hoarding were dismissed, Bouchotte lost the War Office, the Cordeliers Club was forced to self-censor and the Government pressure brought about closing 39 popular societies. The Paris Commune, controlled by sans-culottes, was purged and filled with Committee nominees. With the execution of the Dantonists, many of the members of the National Convention lost trust in the Committee, and even began to fear for their personal safety.[50]

text: Ultimately, the Committee had undermined its own support by eliminating the Dantonists and Hebertists, both of which had backed the Committee. By compelling the Convention to allow the arrests of the Girondins and Dantonists, the Committee believed it had destroyed its major opposition. However, the trials demonstrated the Committee's lack of respect for members of the Convention (several of whom had been executed). Many Convention members who had sided with the Committee in the past by mid-1794 no longer supported it. The Committee had acted as mediator between the Convention and the sans-culottes from which they both had acquired their strength. By executing the Hebertists and alienating the sans-culottes, the Committee became unnecessary to the Assembly.[51]

text: The Terror[edit]

text: Though the Terror was organized in September 1793, it was not introduced until October. It had resulted from a popular movement. A new chapter of the Revolutionary Tribunal was opened after 5 September, divided into four sections: the Committees of Public Safety and General Security were to propose the names of judges and jurymen; Fouquier-Tinville stayed as public prosecutor, and Herman was nominated president.[52] The Terror was meant to discourage support for the enemies of the Revolution by condemning outspoken critics of the Montagnards.[53]

text: The great political trials began in October. The queen was guillotined on 16 October. A special decree stifled the defense of 21 Girondins, including Vergniaud and Brissot, and they perished on the 31st.[41]

text: At the summit of the apparatus of the Terror sat the Committee of General Security, the state's second organization. It consisted of twelve members elected each month by the Convention, and vested with security, surveillance and police functions, including over civil and military authorities. It employed a large staff, headed the gradually constituted network of local revolutionary committees, and applied the law on suspects by sifting through the thousands of local denunciations and arrests which it then had to try.[54]

text: It struck down the enemies of the Republic whoever and wherever they were. It was socially indiscriminate and politically perspicacious. Its victims belonged to the classes which hated the Revolution or lived in the regions where rebellion was most serious. "The severity of repressive measures in the provinces," wrote Mathiez, "was in direct proportion to danger of revolt."[55] Many outspoken members of the community were tried and executed for claims of treason: Camille Desmoulins and Georges Danton were two of the more notable men executed for their "threats" against the Revolution.[56]

text: Deputies sent as "representatives on mission" by the Committee of Public Safety, armed with full powers, reacted according to both the local situation and their own temperaments: Lindet pacified the Girondin west in July without a single death sentence; in Lyon, some months later, Collot d'Herbois and Joseph Fouche relied on frequent summary executions by shooting because the guillotine was not working swiftly enough.[57][note 5]

text: Thermidor[edit]

text: The Jacobin dictatorship could only hope to remain in power so long as it was dealing successfully with a national emergency. As soon as its political opponents had been destroyed, and its foreign enemies defeated, it would lose the chief force that kept it together. The Jacobin fall happened more rapidly than expected because of issues within the party.[59]

text: So long as it remained united, the Committee was virtually invulnerable, but it had scarcely attained the apogee of its power before signs of internal conflict appeared.[60] The Committee of Public Safety had never been a homogeneous body. It was a coalition cabinet. Its members were kept together less by comradeship or common ideals than by calculation and routine. The press of business which at first prevented personal quarrels also produced tired nerves. Trifling differences were exaggerated into the issues of life and death. Small disputes estranged them from one another.[61] Carnot, in particular, was irritated by the criticisms directed at his plans by Robespierre and Saint-Just, Dispute followed dispute.[62] Bickering broke out on the Committee of Public Safety, with Carnot describing Robespierre and Saint-Just as "ridiculous dictators" and Collot making veiled attacks on the "Incorruptible". From the end of June until 23 July Robespierre ceased to attend the Committee.[60]

text: Realizing the danger of fragmentation, they attempted a reconciliation. Saint-Just and Couthon favored it, but Robespierre doubted sincerity of his enemies. It was he who brought about the fatal intervention of the Convention. On 8 Thermidor, Year II (26 July 1794), he denounced his opponents, and demanded that "unity of government" be realized. When called upon to name those whom he was accusing, however, he refused. This failure destroyed him, for it was assumed that he was demanding a blank cheque.[62] This night an uneasy alliance was formed from threatened deputies and members of The Plain. On the next day, 9 Thermidor, Robespierre and his friends were not allowed to speak, and their indictment was decreed. The men of the extreme left played the leading roles: Billaud-Varenne, who attacked, and Collot d'Herbois, who presided.

text: On hearing the news the Paris Commune, loyal to the man who had inspired it, called for an insurrection and released the arrested deputies in the evening and mobilized two or three thousand militants.[63] The night of 9–10 Thermidor was one of great confusion in Paris, as Commune and Assembly competed for the support of the sections and their troops. The Convention proclaimed that the rebels were henceforth outlaws; Barras was given the task of mustering an armed force, and the moderate sections gave this their support. The National Guardsmen and artillerymen assembled outside the Hotel de Ville were left without instructions and little by little they dispersed and left the square deserted. Around two o'clock in the morning a column from Gravilliers section led by Léonard Bourdon burst in the Hotel de Ville and arrested insurgents.

text: On the evening of 10 Thermidor (28 July 1794), Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon and nineteen of their political allies were executed without trial. On the following day it was the turn of a large batch of 71 men, the largest mass execution in the entire course of the Revolution.[64]

text: Thermidorian Convention[edit]

text: Whatever reasons the conspirators had behind 9 Thermidor, the events afterwards went beyond their intentions. Evidently the remaining members on the Committees counted on staying in office and currying the favour of the Jacobin dictatorship, as though nothing more had happened than a party purge.[65]

text: Thermidorian Reaction[edit]

text: They were speedily disabused of this notion. Robespierrists might go out and Dantonists come in; the Convention had recovered its initiative and would put an end, once and for all, to the dictatorial committees government which had ousted it from power. It was decreed that no member of governing committees should hold office for more than four months. Three days later the Prairial Law was repealed and the Revolutionary Tribunal shorn of its abnormal powers. The Commune was replaced with a Commission of Civil Administrators (commission des administrateurs civils) from the ranks of the Conventions. In November the Jacobin club was closed. Not merely anti-Robespierrist but anti-Jacobin reaction was in full flood. At the beginning of September Billaud, Collot and Barere left the Committee of Public Safety; by the end of the year they were in prison.[65]

text: The stability of the government was weakening. Next came the concentration of power, another revolutionary principle. The identification of the Committee of Public Safety with the executive was ended on 7 Fructidor (24 August), restricting it to its former domain of war and diplomacy. The Committee of General Security kept its control over the police. There was now to be a total of sixteen committees. Conventionnels, while aware of the dangers of fragmentation, were even more worried by its experience of monopoly of powers. In a few weeks the revolutionary government was dismantled.[66]

text: These measures affected, finally, the instruments of the Terror and opened numerous breaches in the apparatus of repression. The law of 22 Prairial was repealed, the prisons were opened and "suspects" were released: 500 in Paris in a single week. A few public trials were staged — including those of Carrier, held responsible for the mass-drowning at Nantes, and Fouquier-Tinville, notorious as the public prosecutor of the Great Terror of the late spring and summer of 1794 – after which the Revolutionary Tribunal was quietly put aside.[67][note 6]

text: The destruction of the system of revolutionary government eventually brought about the end of the Economic Terror. Maximum was relaxed even before 9 Thermidor. Now nobody believed in it any longer. Because the black market was plentifully supplied, the idea took hold that price control equalled scarcity and that free trade would bring back abundance. It was generally supposed that prices would rise but that then they would fall as a result of competition. This illusion was to be shattered in the winter. Formally the Convention put the end to the maximum on 4 Nivose Year III (24 December 1794).[68]

text: The abandonment of the controlled economy provoked a frightful catastrophe. Prices soared and the rate of exchange fell. The Republic was condemned to massive inflation and its currency was ruined. In Thermidor, Year III, assignats were worth less than 3% of their face value. Neither peasants nor merchants would accept anything but cash. The debacle was so swift that economic life seemed to come to standstill.

text: The crisis was greatly aggravated by famine. Peasants, finally, stopped bringing any produce, because they did not wish to accept assignats. The government continued to provision Paris, but was unable to supply the promised rations. In provinces local municipalities resorted to some sort of regulations, provided not direct coercion in obtaining provisions. The misery of rural day laborers, abandoned by everyone, was often appalling. Inflation ruined creditors to the advantage of debtors. It unleashed an unprecedented speculation.[69]

text: At the beginning of spring, scarcity was such that more unrest appeared almost everywhere. Paris was active again.

text: Crushing of the popular movement[edit]

text: Discontent increased along with the shortages. On 17 March a delegation from faubourgs Saint-Marceau and Saint-Jacques complained that "We are on the verge of regretting all the sacrifices that we have made for the Revolution." Police law was passed which lay down the death penalty for use of seditious language. Arms were distributed to the "good citizens", the faithful nucleus of the National Guard. The trial of strength was approaching.

text: On 10 Germinal (30 March) all the sections called their general assemblies. The political geography of Paris emerged clearly from this. Convention debate was centered on two issues: the fate of Barere, Collot, Billaud and Vadier, and the implementation of the constitution of 1793. While in the sections of the center and the west formal addresses called for the punishment of the "Four" and passed over the food shortages, the sections of the east and the faubourgs demanded measures to deal with the grain crisis, the implementation of the constitution of 1793, the reopening of the popular societies and the release of the imprisoned patriots.[70]

text: On the morning of 12 Germinal (1 April) crowds gathered on the Ile de la Cité and, pushing aside the palace guards, burst into the chamber where the Convention met. Amidst the uproar, spokesmen of the sections outlined the people's grievances. Reliable battalions of National Guard were called and demonstrators, lacking arms and leaders, were forced to withdraw. For the most people it was the constitution of 1793 – seen as a liberating utopia – which represented the solution to all evils. There were others who openly regretted the passing of "the reign of Robespierre".[71]

text: But it was not the end. A new explosion was on the horizon. Insurrection was being openly prepared. On 1 Prairial (20 May 1795) the alarm bells sounded in the faubourgs Saint-Antoine and Marceau. The armed battalions arrived at Place du Carousel and entered the sitting chamber. After an hour of uproar, "The Insurrection of the People" (L'Insurection du Peuple) was read. In the chaos, none of the ringleaders thought of implementing the key item of the program: the overthrow of the government.

text: The remainder of the Montagnards, The Crest (la Crête de la Montagne), managed to obtain the passage of decrees favorable to the rebels. But at 11:30 p.m. two armed columns entered the chamber and cleared out the rioters. The next day insurgents repeated the same mistakes and after receiving promises from the deputies to take speedy measures against the famine, returned to the sections.

text: On 3 Prairial the government assembled loyal troops, chasseurs and dragoons, national guardsmen, selected from those "who had fortune to preserve" — 20,000 men in all. Faubourg Saint-Antoine was surrounded and on 4 Prairial surrendered and was disarmed. Uncertainty about how to react, hesitancy in action, and lack of revolutionary leadership had doomed the popular movement to throw away its last chance in battle.[72]

text: 4 Prairial Year III is one of the crucial dates of the revolutionary period. The people had ceased to be a political force, participants in history. They were now no more than victims or spectators.

text: Constitution of the Year III[edit]

text: The victors now could set up a new constitution, the task the National Convention was originally elected for. The Commission of Eleven (the most notable members of which were Daunou, Lanjuinais, Boissy d'Anglas, Thibaudeau and La Révellière) drafted a text which would reflect the new balance of power. It was presented on 5 Messidor (23 June) and passed on 22 August 1795 (5 Fructidor of the Year III).

text: The new constitution went back to the constitution of 1791 as to the dominant ideology of the country. Equality was certainly confirmed, but within the limits of civil equality. Numerous democratic rights of the constitution 1793 – the right to work, to relief, to education – were omitted. The Convention wanted to define rights and simultaneously reject both the privilege of the old order and social leveling.

text: The constitution went back to the distinction between active and passive citizens. Only citizens over twenty-five years old, disposing of an income of two hundred days of work, were eligible to be electors. This electoral body, which held the real power, included 30,000 people, half as many as in 1791. Guided by recent experience, institutions were set up to protect the Republic from two dangers: the omnipotence of an assembly and dictatorship.

text: Bicameral legislature as a precaution against sudden political fluctuations was proposed: the Council of Five Hundred with rights to propose laws and Council of the Ancients, 250 deputies, with powers to accept or reject proposed laws. Executive power was to be shared between five Directors chosen by the Ancients from the list drawn by Five Hundred. One of the Directors would be renewed each year with re-election after five years. As one of the practical precautions, no military were allowed within 60 miles of the sitting assembly and it could relocate in case of danger. The Directory still retained great power, including emergency powers to curb freedom of the press and freedom of association.

text: The Constitution generally was accepted favorably, even by those on the right, who were hopeful for the upcoming elections and even more happy to get rid of the legislative body so hated by them.

text: But how to make sure that the new elected body would not overturn the constitution as it was before with Legislative Assembly? Thermidorians attempted this on 5 Fructidor (22 August) by voting for a decree on "formation of a new legislative body". Article II stipulated: "All members presently active in the Convention are re-eligible. Election assemblies may not take fewer than two-thirds of them to form the legislative body". This was known as the Law of the Two-Thirds.[73]

text: Vendemiaire[edit]

text: On 23 September the results were announced: the constitution was accepted by 1,057,390 votes, with 49,978 against. The Two-Thirds decrees obtained only 205,498 votes in favor and 108,754 against.[74]

text: But the Convention had not taken into account those Paris sections who were against Two-Thirds decrees and failed to provide precise vote figures: 47 Parisian sections had rejected the decrees.[75] Eighteen of the Paris sections contested the result. The Lepeletier section issued a call to insurrection. By 11 Vendemiaire seven sections were in state of revolt, sections which were the base of the Convention since 9 Thermidor and now won by the far right if not royalists. The Convention declared itself permanent.[76] The conventionnels knew the score. They knew the art of insurrection by heart and to bring down muscadins was easier than the sans-culottes.[77] Five members including Barras were appointed to deal with the crisis. A decree of 12 Vendemiaire (4 October) repealed the former disarmament of the former terrorists and an appeal to sans-culottes was issued.[note 7]

text: During the nights of Vendemiaire 12-13 (October 4–5), General Jacques de Menou de Boussay was tasked with putting down the royalist rebels and keep them from attacking the Convention. He recruited other generals to help aid in quelling the insurrection such as, Napoleon Bonaparte. The rebels outnumbered the Army by the thousands, but because of their preparations the night before, Bonaparte and the armies were able to line the road into Paris with cannons from Sablons Camp. Without a way into Paris, the rebels surrendered to the Convention on Vendemiaire 13. Barras and the Convention gave the armies permission to kill. Within 45 minutes over 300 royalist rebels were dead in front of the Church of Saint Roch. The rest had scattered and fled.[78]

text: Moderate repression ensued and the White Terror in the south was stopped. On 4 Brumaire Year IV, just before breaking up, the Convention voted a general amnesty for "deeds exclusively connected with the Revolution".[76]

text: Legacy[edit]

text: The article on the Convention in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica concludes, "The work of the Convention was immense in all branches of public affairs. To appreciate it without prejudice, one should recall that this assembly saved France from a civil war and invasion, that it founded the system of public education (Museum, École Polytechnique, École Normale Supérieure, École des langues orientales, Conservatoire), created institutions of capital importance, like that of the Grand Livre de la Dette publique, and definitely established the social and political gains of the Revolution." By a decree of 4 February 1794 (16 pluviôse) it also ratified and expanded to the whole French colonial empire the 1793 abolition of slavery on Saint-Domingue by civil commissioners Sonthonax and Polverel, though this did not affect Martinique or Guadeloupe and was abolished by the law of 20 May 1802.


document_title: Water supply and sanitation in South Africa

question_text: where does south africa's water come from

question_tokens: where does south africa 's water come from

root

text: Water supply and sanitation in South Africa

text: Water resources and water use[edit]

text: Water availability in South Africa varies greatly in space and time. While the West is dry with rainfall only during the summer and as low as 100mm, the East and Southeast receive rainfall throughout the year with an average of up to 1,000mm. Total annual surface runoff is estimated at 43 to 48 km3, depending on the source.[6][7]

tag: p

text: Much of the runoff is lost through flood spillage, so that the available surface water resources are estimated at 14 km3/year only. Although groundwater is limited due to geologic conditions, it is extensively utilised in the rural and more arid areas. Available groundwater is estimated at 1 km3/year. The main rivers of South Africa are fairly small compared to the large rivers of the world: For example, the discharge of the Nile River alone is about six times higher than the available surface water resources from all South African rivers together.[8][9]

text: The main rivers are the Orange River draining to the Atlantic Ocean, the Limpopo River, the Incomati River, the Maputo River, the Tugela River, the Olifants River (Limpopo), and the Breede River. The Incomati, Maputo, Thukela and Limpopo all drain to the Indian Ocean. South Africa's most important rivers are transboundary: The Orange River is shared with Botswana, Namibia and Lesotho, the "water tower" of Southern Africa. The Limpopo-Olifants river basin is shared with Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, which lies the furthest downstream. International commissions of all riparian countries have been set up to manage these transboundary water resources.[8][9] Potential future water resources are seawater desalination or the transfer of water from the Zambezi River.

text: Total annual water withdrawal was estimated at 12.5 km3 in 2000, of which about 17% was for municipal water use.[6][7] In the northern parts of the country, both surface water and groundwater resources are nearly fully developed and utilised. In the well-watered southeastern regions of the country significant undeveloped and little-used resources exist.[6] The Gauteng area around Johannesburg, which is very water scarce, receives water from various dams in the area such as the Vaal Dam and imports water from the Orange River system through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, in particular from the Katse Dam.[10] Cape Town receives its drinking water from an extensive system of rivers and dams, including the Berg River Dam.

text: Wastewater reuse[edit]

text: In South Africa, the town Garden Route, George faced water shortages and had decided on an IPR strategy (2009/2010), where final effluents from its Outeniqua WWTP are treated to a very high quality through UF and disinfection prior to being returned to the main storage facility, the Garden Route Dam, where they are combined with current raw water supplies. This initiative augments the existing supply by 10,000 m3 per day, approximately one third of the drinking water demand. The process configuration includes the following treatment processes: drum screen, UF, and chlorine disinfection. Provision has been made for powdered activated carbon (PAC) addition at George WTW, if required as an additional operational barrier.[11]

text: In Beaufort West, South Africa’s a direct wastewater reclamation plant (WRP) for the production of drinking water was constructed in the end of 2010, as a result of acute water scarcity (production of 2,300 m3 per day).[12][13] The process configuration based on multi-barrier concept and includes the following treatment processes: sand filtration, UF, two-stage RO, and permeate disinfected by ultraviolet light (UV).

text: Another example of DPR is the reuse plant constructed and operated in the town Hermanus (Overberg) in South Africa, where now 2,500 m3 per day of effluent reused, with a future plan to increase the capacity to 5,000 m3 per day. The treatment processes applied include UF pre-treatment, RO desalination, as well as advanced oxidation and carbon filtration. The product from the reuse plant is fed directly into the drinking water reticulation system.[11]

text: Access[edit]

text: South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that enshrines the basic right to sufficient water in its Constitution, stating that "Everyone has the right to have access to (...) sufficient food and water". However, much remains to be done to fulfil that right.[14]

text: After the end of Apartheid South Africa's newly elected government inherited huge services backlogs with respect to access to water supply and sanitation. According to one source, about 15 million people were without safe water supply and over 20 million without adequate sanitation services in 1990.[15]

text: Water[edit]

text: In 2015, the total number of people in South Africa lacking access to an "improved" water supply was 3.64 million.[16][1] 93% of the population had access to an improved water source in that year.[16]

text: In his State of the Union address in May 2004 President Thabo Mbeki had promised "all households will have running water within five years".[17] Despite substantial progress, this goal was not fully achieved. In some rural areas, women spend up to one-third of their time fetching water from streams and wells.[18] They are also responsible for using it to cook meals, wash laundry and bathe children.

text: Sanitation[edit]

text: With respect to sanitation, progress has been slower. The total number of people in South Africa lacking access to "improved" sanitation was 18 million in 2015 .[16][1] This means that only 66% of the total population had access to improved sanitation in that year.[16]

text: According to estimates by the WHO/UNICEF global Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation based on survey and census data, the share of South Africans with access to improved sanitation increased slowly from 71% in 1990 to 75% in 2000 and 79% in 2010. In 2010, an estimated 11 million South Africans still did not have access to improved sanitation: They and used shared facilities (4 million), bucket toilets (3 million) or practiced open defecation (4 million).[4]

text: According to Statistics South Africa, access is higher, partially because it includes shared facilities in its definition of sanitation. According to the 2011 census figures, access to sanitation increased from 83% in 2001 to 91% in 2011, including shared and individual pit latrines as well as chemical toilets.[19] The share of households with access to flush toilets increased from 53% in 2001 to 60% in 2011. The health impacts of inadequate saniation can be serious, as evidenced by the estimated 1.5 million cases of diarrhoea in children under five and the 2001 outbreak of cholera.[20] While most coliforms are harmless to human health, the presence of E. coli , which covers approximately 97% of coliform bacteria found in the intestines of animals and in faeces, underlines the presence of more harmful pathogens in the water system (DWAF 1996b).[21]

text: Service quality[edit]

text: Water quality and continuity of supply[edit]

text: Service quality is highly variable and data is sketchy. In 2003, 63% of municipalities were not able to say if they met drinking water quality standards or not. Water supply to 37% of households was interrupted for at least one day in 2003.[22] Customers did not and often still do not trust that drinking water quality is adequate. This is why the Department of Water Affairs introduced in 2008 a so-called "blue drop" incentive-based water quality regulation strategy. Under the strategy municipal service providers are certified with a "blue drop" if they fulfill certain requirements. These include not only compliance with water quality standards, but also the existence of a water safety plan, process controlling and the credibility of sample results, among others.[23]

text: The system is regarded internationally as unique in the drinking water regulatory domain and has been well received by the World Health Organization. However, observers from the private sector say that a "strong spin element" surrounds the programme and that water quality is actually deteriorating nationally, "while the government attempts to discredit commentators who persist in their view that there is a problem".[24] In 2009, 23 water supply systems obtained the Blue Drop certification. In 2010, 9 lost it and 24 gained it for the first time, bringing the total to 38 (less than 5 percent) out of 787 systems that were assessed. The three top performers were Johannesburg, Cape Town and the small town of Bitou.[25][26]

text: Water supply is increasingly under pressure. Eutrophication is a growing concern [27] with about one third of the total volume of water held in strategic storage approaching the point where it is no longer fit for purpose without significant and costly management intervention. Return flows out of mining areas, particularly from gold mining activities, are rapidly deteriorating, with highly acidic water starting to decant from adandoned and derelict mines.[28]

text: Wastewater treatment[edit]

text: 55% of wastewater treatment plants, especially smaller ones, do not meet effluent standards and some do not even measure effluent quality. In analogy to the blue drop certification system for drinking water, the government has launched a green drop certification for municipal wastewater treatment. As of May 2011, 7 out of 159 water supply authorities were certified with the green drop, and 32 out of 1,237 wastewater treatment plants.[29] In 2009, when 449 wastewater treatment plants were assessed, according to official government data 7% were classified as excellently managed, 38% "performed within acceptable standards" and 55% did not perform within acceptable standards.[30][31]

text: According to Bluewater Bio, an international firm specialised in wastewater treatment, out of 1,600 wastewater treatment plants in South Africa - not all of which were included in the Green Drop assessment - at least 60% are not meeting regulatory compliance requirements.[32] According to a study by the South African Water Research Commission in partnership with the South African Local Government Association published in June 2013, 44% of wastewater treatment plants included in a representative sample used inappropriate and unnecessarily expensive technologies. There is a lack of funding for maintenance because of low tariffs, insufficient collection and the absence of ring-fencing of revenues for the purpose of maintaining assets, so that municipalities "run assets to failure".[33]

text: Stakeholders[edit]

text: The public water and sanitation sector in South Africa is organised in three different tiers:

text:
The national government, represented by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), as a policy setter.
Water Boards, which provide primarily bulk water, but also some retail services and operate some wastewater treatment plants, in addition to playing a role in water resources management;
Municipalities, which provide most retail services and also own some of the bulk supply infrastructure.

tag: ul

text: Banks, the professional association WISA, the Water Research Commission and civil society also are important stakeholders in the sector.

text: Policy and regulation[edit]

text: The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) in the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs is primarily responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy governing water resources management as well as drinking water supply. Concerning sanitation, "there is a worrying absence of regulation (...) at all levels of government", according to an independent report. Around 2010 the sanitation function has been moved from DWA to the Department of Human Settlement (DHS), although some regulatory functions apparently remain with DWA, "causing institutional confusion over roles and responsibilities".[34]

text: Service provision[edit]

text: Responsibility for service provision is shared among various entities: The country's 231 municipalities are in charge of water distribution and sanitation either directly or indirectly through municipally owned enterprises or private companies; government-owned water boards are in charge of operating bulk water supply infrastructure and some wastewater systems; and the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority finances and develops dams and bulk water supply infrastructure.

text:
Eastern Cape
  Free State
  Gauteng
  KwaZulu-Natal
  Limpopo

  Mpumalanga
  North West
  Northern Cape
  Western Cape

tag: table

text: Municipalities. According to the Constitution, the Municipal Structures Act and the Water Services Act of 1997[35] responsibility for the provision of water and sanitation services lies with water services authorities, which the Water Services Act defines as the municipalities. There are 52 district municipalities and 231 local municipalities in South Africa (see Municipalities of South Africa).[36]

text: In many cases, the district municipalities are the water services authorities. However, the national government can assign responsibility for service provision to local municipalities. Overall, there are 169 water services authorities in South Africa, including water boards, district municipalities, local municipalities and municipal companies. Usually municipalities provide water and sanitation services directly through a municipal unit or department. For example, eThekwini (Durban) provides these services through the eThekwini Water and Sanitation Unit.[36]

text: However, they can delegate this responsibility to a water services provider for a defined period. For example, in 2001 the city of Johannesburg created Johannesburg Water, a legally and financially independent company wholly owned by the municipality. This was done as part of a "Transformation Plan" embarked upon by the Greater Johannesburg Municipal Authority at the time. Johannesburg Water has committed itself to comply with the provisions of the King Report on Corporate Governance, including affirmative action, transparency, performance evaluation, a code of ethics, professional risk management and sustainability reporting.

text: The 1996 constitution strengthened the autonomy of municipalities. As a consequence, the responsibility for rural water supply and sanitation has been transferred from the national government, represented by DWAF, to municipalities.

text: Private sector participation. Since 1994 some municipalities have involved the private sector in service provision in various forms, including contracts for specific services such as wastewater treatment, short-term management contracts and long-term concessions.

text: Water Boards. The 13 government-owned Water Boards play a key role in the South African water sector. They operate dams, bulk water supply infrastructure, some retail infrastructure and some wastewater systems. Some also provide technical assistance to municipalities.

text: Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority. The Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) is a state-owned entity with the mission to finance and implement bulk raw water infrastructure. It was created in 1986 to develop the Lesotho Highland Water Project, a joint project between Lesotho and South Africa. As of 2012, TCTA has developed or is developing six other dam and bulk water supply projects throughout the country, including the Berg River Dam. TCTA sells bulk water to the government, represented by the Department of Water as the owner of the Water Boards that treat the water and sell it on to municipalities and mines. TCTA uses these revenues mainly to repay the debt it has raised to finance its infrastructure, its operating costs and to pay royalties to the government of Lesotho.[37]

text: Others[edit]

text: Research, training and knowledge. South Africa has a fairly strong research and training infrastructure in the water sector. The Water Research Commission (WRC) supports water research and development as well as the building of a sustainable water research capacity in South Africa. It serves as the country's water-centred knowledge ‘hub’ leading the creation, dissemination and application of water-centred knowledge, focusing on water resource management, water-linked ecosystems, water use and waste management and water utilisation in agriculture.[38]

text: The Water Institute of Southern Africa (WISA), a professional association, keeps its members abreast of the latest developments in water technology and research through its national and international liaison, links and affiliations.[39]

text: Financiers and promoters. The Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) is an important player in the water and sanitation sector, both as a financier and as an advisor and project promoter. In 2005-2006 about 29% of its approved projects were for water supply (1,881 million Rand) and sanitation (165 million Rand).[40] Other financing institutions in the sector include the Infrastructure Finance Corporation Limited, which claims to be the only 100% privately owned infrastructure debt fund in the world.[41]

text: Civil society. South Africa has a vibrant civil society, comprising a large number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with very diverse goals, membership and methods. On the one hand, civil society includes militant so-called "new social movements" that sprang up after the end of Apartheid, such as the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign formed in 2000 and the shack dweller organisation Abahlali baseMjondolo formed in 2005. They fight water cut-offs for non-payment and are engaged in "mass popular appropriation" of water services. These groups claim to represent the poorest and most oppressed people in South Africa.

text: On the other hand, civil society in South Africa includes the Mvula trust which has disbursed over R300 million to water services programmes and projects and has provided services to over a million South Africans who previously did not have access to either water or sanitation services. It is specialised in implementing and supporting the delivery of water services in rural and peri-urban areas through community management, the establishment of community based water services providers and supporting local authorities to create an enabling environment for sustainability.[42]

text: Human resources[edit]

text: South Africa experiences a brain drain that also affects the availability of qualified engineers in water and sanitation utilities. The number of civil engineers in municipalities has declined from 20 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1994 to 2.8 in 2009.[43]

text: One reason is the official policy of cadre deployment, whereby persons loyal to the ruling party, the African National Congress, are given jobs in different branches of government. This intransparent process puts party loyalty ahead of competence and demoralises public service employees, according to a 2012 study by the Human Sciences Research Council. Skilled staff are concentrated at the national and provincial levels, but there is a skills deficit at the municipal level. South Africa does not have a unified civil service, so that there are no uniform standards for hiring and promotion at the municipal level. According to the study, there is also a high level of turnover of middle and senior managers in the civil service, due to stressful working conditions and opportunities for qualified professionals in the private sector.[44][45]

text: History and recent developments[edit]

text: During Apartheid, the national government had no role in providing public water or sanitation services.[46]

text: The history of the water supply and sanitation sector since the end of Apartheid has been characterised by a strong government commitment to increase access to services and a gradual reduction of the role of Water Boards and the national government in service provision.[47]

text: There has been tension between the goal of increased cost recovery enshrined in the Water Services Act on the one hand, and the constitutional rights introduced in 1996 and the policy of free basic water introduced in 2001 on the other hand. There have been a number of controversies on policies in the sectors, including about private sector participation, which was introduced in the mid-1990s, the practice of cutting off water or installing flow restrictors for those who do not pay their bills, and the installation of pre-paid meters.[47]

text: Transition[edit]

text: In 1994, the first post-Apartheid government assigned the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry the task of ensuring that all South Africans would have “equitable access to water supply and sanitation”. To that end, the Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program was created to target key areas for instituting water and sanitation systems, and the National Sanitation Program was established to increase the rate of distribution of water and sanitation services.[46]

text: The passing of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996 created a new, constitutional dispensation with a guaranteed Bill of Rights. Among those rights are the section 24(a) right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being, and the section 27(1)(b) right to sufficient water.[46]

text: The government also created new policies such as the Water Services Act, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998, and the National Water Act (NWA) of 1998 in order to target water and sanitation problems.[46]

text: Water Services Act of 1997[edit]

text: In 1994 the government published its first White Paper on Water and Sanitation Policy, which led to the Water Services Act of 1997.[35]

text: The Act calls for higher cost recovery, which proved a challenge due to widespread poverty and a culture of non-payment for water in many Townships, as a remnant of protests against Apartheid. Higher water tariffs and rigorous cut-offs for non-payment, or flow reductions through the installation of "tricklers" that allow only a very limited flow of water, imposed hardships on the poorest.

text: The Act also modified the role of Water Boards, providing a clear legal definition of the functions of Water Boards and municipalities. Water Boards have historically been the only bulk water providers. Municipalities were obliged to buy water through them. The Act allowed municipalities to develop their own bulk water supply infrastructure or to buy bulk water from providers other than Water Boards. Conversely it also allowed Water Boards to provide retail water services at the request of municipalities.[48] Since the Act has been passed the capacity of both Water Boards and many water service providers has increased significantly.

text: Municipal Systems Act of 2000[edit]

text: The Municipal Systems Act (MSA) placed the responsibility for water services on local governments. It thus became each city’s responsibility to provide basic water and sanitation services for all residents. The funding for improvements to water and sanitation systems would come from the national government via the Municipal Infrastructure Grant MIG or Equitable Shares, or via local revenue collection.

text: Free basic water policy[edit]

text: Durban was the first South African city to introduce a policy of free basic water in 1998.[49] After Thabo Mbeki became President of South Africa in 1999 and a cholera outbreak occurred in 2000, the African National Congress promised free basic water during a municipal election campaign in December 2000. In July 2001 free basic water became a national policy through a revised tariff structure that included at least 6 "kilolitres" (cubic meters) of free water per month (40 litre/capita/day for a family of five or 25 litre/capita/day for a family of eight). The policy was being implemented gradually within the means of each municipality.

text: Management contract for Johannesburg and pre-paid meters[edit]

text: Johannesburg management contract. Building on earlier experiences with private sector participation since 1994, a five-year management contract for water services in Johannesburg, South Africa's largest city and the country's economic and financial hub, was awarded in 2000 to the Joint Venture Water and Sanitation Services South Africa (WSSA). The Johannesburg management contract was not renewed when it expired in 2005. However, private operators continue to provide services in many other South African cities.

text: Prepaid meters. 170,000 prepaid meters were installed in poor townships of Johannesburg, including in Soweto. Prepaid meters were also installed in other cities as part of management contracts with private operators. These meters, which cut off water supply above the 6 cubic meter monthly limit if no payment is made, sparked substantial protests in poor neighbourhoods. Residents of Phiri, a neighborhood in Soweto, sued against prepaid meters with the support of South African and international anti-privatisation activists in what has been called the Mazibuko case, named after the first plaintiff.[50]

text: In April 2008 the South African High Court found the practice of prepaid meters in Soweto unconstitutional, and wrote that denying the poor access to adequate water "is to deny them the rights to health and to lead a dignified lifestyle." Further, the judge stated that "25 liters per person per day is insufficient for the residents of Phiri", and ordered the city to provide free basic water in the amount of 50 liters per person per day with the option of an ordinary credit-metered water supply (instead of prepaid) for more use. The Court apparently assumed a household size of eight.[50]

text: In October 2009 the Constitutional Court overturned the case and declared prepaid meters to be lawful.[51] The court case led to the development of a more social practice concerning prepaid meters. For example, the minimum amount can be increased from 6 m3 per month to 10 or even 15 m3 per month depending on the level of poverty and size of a household. Also, new prepaid meters still deliver a minimum amount of 40 liter per hour under low pressure after service is cut off. Furthermore, 1000 liter of "emergency water" can be used four times per year, for example to extinguish fires, even if bills should not have been paid. 2000 liter of additional water can be granted by local authorities on demand for special needs. However, not all residents are aware of these fairly complex mechanisms.[52]

text: Basic Sanitation White Paper[edit]

text: In response to the fact that access to sanitation lags significantly behind access to water, the government published its White Paper on Basic Household Sanitation in 2001.[53] It called for universal access to basic sanitation by March 2010, with priority accorded to communities with the greatest needs. The policy outlines the roles of the various stakeholders - households, municipalities, provincial governments, various branches of national government - and establishes coordination and monitoring mechanisms.

text: It also calls for Infrastructure Grants to municipalities to finance investments in sanitation. The paper notes that it is the government's policy to provide free basic services to the poorest, but does not spell out how this policy will be implemented in the case of basic sanitation.

text: Decentralisation[edit]

text: Following a second White Paper on water supply and sanitation policy published in 2002 (after the first White Paper in 1994) a national policy was established to further decentralise the sector, phasing out the national government's involvement in service provision, limiting DWAF's role to policy and regulation.[54]

text: In rural areas this policy of decentralisation has been supported by the Masibambane program, a sector-wide approach linked to budget-based donor support for rural water supply and sanitation. The initial investment was ZAR 2.2 billion (EUR 279 million) with a focus on the three poorest provinces and a target to reach about 2.5 million people. A 2004 evaluation by the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) Africa showed that the program performed well financially.[55] The program is now in its third phase.

text: National Sanitation Strategy, Bucket Eradication Programme and Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy[edit]

text: In February 2005 the government launched a programme to eradicate the use of bucket toilets. Bucket toilets consist of a bucket placed under a toilet seat; in formally established settlements the buckets are emptied on a daily basis by the municipality and the content is brought to a sewage treatment plant. However, buckets are also used in newly established informal settlements. There were 250,000 bucket toilets in formally established settlements as of 2005. There was a strong political will to carry out the program. As of March 2008, 91% of the bucket toilets were replaced by flush toilets or Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines where water was not readily available.[56]

text: However, communities resisted the construction of latrines, forcing construction to a standstill and asked for flush toilets. There had been no community participation in the choice of technologies. The programme was very much focused on the provision of infrastructure, with little emphasis on sustainability and hygiene promotion, so that the health impact was limited. The deadline to complete the program was moved from 2007 to 2010.[57][58]

text: In August 2005 a National Sanitation Strategy was published. It covers, among other things, "the roles and responsibilities in sanitation delivery, planning for sanitation, funding sanitation, implementation approaches, regulating the sanitation sector, and monitoring and evaluation." It was followed by a Free Basic Sanitation Implementation Strategy in March 2009, with the aim of reaching universal access to sanitation by 2014. According to one observer, the strategy was "deliberately vague" because the issue of free provision of sanitation services is so controversial. There is no legal obligation to provide free basic sanitation. The implementation strategy includes eight different options to channel subsidies. The policy was piloted in 17 municipalities in 2010, and in a further 23 municipalities in 2011, although it is unclear which subdsidy mechanism is being used.[58]

text: List of Ministers in charge of water[edit]

text: Ministers of Water Affairs and Forestry

text:
Dr. Kader Asmal (1994–1999)
Mr. Ronnie Kasrils (1999–2004)
Ms. Buyelwa Sonjica (2004–2006)
Ms. Lindiwe Hendricks (2006–2009)

text: Ministers of Water and Environmental Affairs:

text:
Ms. Buyelwa Sonjica (2009–2010)
Ms. Edna Molewa (since 2010)

text: Efficiency[edit]

text: One indicator to measure the technical efficiency of water utilities is the level of non-revenue water. In a well-managed utility that level should be below about 25%. In Johannesburg, the estimated level declined from 44% in 2003 to 31% in 2006. In Durban it stood at an estimated average of 31% between 2002 and 2006. In Cape Town the estimates fluctuated significantly between 10% and 37%, suggesting that the estimates may not be reliable. The average level of non-revenue water for South African utilities participating in the International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities in the 2002-2006 period was 31%.[59]

text: Financial aspects[edit]

text: Tariff level[edit]

text: Tariffs include bulk water tariffs charged by water boards to municipalities and retail water tariffs charged by municipalities to users.

text: Bulk water tariffs vary greatly. In 2011 the largest water board, Rand Water, charged Rand 3.97 (US$0.48) per cubic meter. The highest bulk water tariff (Rand 9.11 or US$1.10 per cubic meter) was charged by the financially crippled Namakwa Water Board, while the lowest tariff (Rand 2.28 or US$0.28) was charged by the Pelladrift Water Board.[60]

text: Retail water tariffs vary between municipalities and between user categories, with non-residential users being charged higher tariffs than residential users. Typically water tariffs also vary with consumption, with higher tariffs applied to higher consumption. The average retail water tariff in 2006 for a sample of cities and across all consumption levels was estimated to be the equivalent of US$1.06 per cubic meter.[2]

text: In 2010 Johannesburg water provided between 6 and 15 cubic meters of water per month for free, depending on the poverty level of residents. For those considered not poor, the tariff for the tranche between 6 and 10 cubic meters was R4.93 (US$0.73), for the tranche up to 15 cubic meters it was R7.31 (US$1.08) and so on until R14.94 (US$2.21) for a consumption exceeding 40 cubic meters per month. The bill for 10 cubic meters per month thus is R20.[61] Poor households have to register themselves as "indigent" (poor), which - according to critics - leads to a situation where only a fraction of the poor receive the higher free basic water allocation to which they are eligible.[62]

text: In Cape Town water tariffs for the first block beyond free basic water are slightly lower than in Johannesburg at R4.55 until 10 cubic meters, and the next tranche at R9.7 is broader than in Johannesburg covering until 20 cubic meters per month, with R23,42 charged beyond 50 cubic meters, resulting in a steeper tariff structure. The water bill for 10 cubic meters per month is R18. The sewer charge is 70% of the water charge.[63]

text: Durban distinguishes between a lower tariff for semi-pressure service for houses in low-income settlements with roof tanks and a higher full pressure service for "formal" housing areas. Semi-pressure service is free until 9 cubic meters, while full-pressure service costs R9.50 per cubic meter until 9 cubic meters per month, and R11.25 until 25 cubic meters. The bill for 10 cubic meters per month is R7 for semi-pressure service and R97 for full-pressure service. There is also a free low-pressure service for ground tanks in informal and rural areas, under which water is pumped once a day to fill a 200 litres ground tank. [64]

text: Free basic water[edit]

text: South Africa has introduced a policy of free basic services, including water, electricity and solid waste collection. As part of that policy, every household is to receive the first 6 cubic meters per month for free. The policy was introduced gradually since 2000 within the means of each municipality.[65] Each municipality decides if free basic water is made available to everyone or only to the poor. Most municipalities provide free basic water to all or almost all their residents. In 2012 the program reached 86% of all households.[66]

text: Based on an average consumption of 5 cubic meters of free water per household and month, an estimated 8 million beneficiary households, and an estimated water supply cost of 4 Rand per cubic meter, the annual cost of the policy can be estimated at 2bn Rand (USD 280m). This corresponds to about 0.1% of GDP in 2011, or about 0.25% of government expenditures. Another estimate puts the cost of free basic water at 5.84 Rand per capita per month, which corresponds to 2.2bn Rand per year.[67]

text: Out of the 32 million people that received free basic water in 2005, almost half, or 15 million, were not poor. Furthermore, many poor in rural areas, who receive limited amounts of water for free through standpipes, do not benefit fully. Those without access to publicly provided water do not benefit at all from the program.[68] The policy is more successful in wealthier municipalities, which have the ability to cross-subsidise water provision for the poor, than in poorer, often rural municipalities. This is one of the reasons why in 2009 the government announced it would review its implementation strategy for free basic water, possibly through registers of poor users.[69]

text: As part of this review process, Durban has now changed its implementation of the free basic water policy: Households living in properties that are valued above a certain threshold now must prove that their income is below the poverty limit, in order to continue to receive free basic water. The reason for the change was that most of those benefiting from free basic water were not poor. They used less than amount of free basic water - 9 cubic meters per month in the case of Durban - for the simple reason that there were two or less residents in the household.[49]

text: Affordability[edit]

text: There is little information available on their affordability, i.e. the share of water bills in household income. If a household consumes less than the free basic water limit, the share is obviously zero. For a household in Cape Town that has no sewer connection and consumes 10 cubic meters of water, the monthly water bill is almost R20 or USD 2.40. With the poverty line at R500 per capita and month,[70] the monthly income of a four-person household at the poverty line would be R2000, and the water bill would be 1 percent of income. However, according to another source the poverty level in South Africa was only R1000 per household,[67] in which case the share of the water bill would be 2 percent of income, and higher for those living below the poverty line.

text: Cost recovery[edit]

text: In 2010, eleven of the 13 water boards were financially viable. The exceptions were Namakwa and Bushbuckridge water boards. Municipalities owed the water boards more than Rand 1.3bn (about US$200 million). There is little information available on cost recovery at the municipal level, partly because revenues and costs associated with water supply and sanitation are not necessarily accounted for separately in municipal budgets. If Water Services Authorities prepare water and sanitation budgets, asset replacement costs (depreciation) are often not included in budgets.[67] Furthermore, the policy of free basic water leads to deficits in the supply of these services. Municipalities cover these deficits in large part through the "equitable share" transfers from national government.[71]

text: Investment[edit]

text: According to the 2008 Infrastructure Barometer published by DBSA and based on figures provided by the National Treasury, total municipal investments in water supply and sanitation in 2007 were 13.4 billion Rand (USD 1.9 billion at the 2007 exchange rate), broken down as follows:

text:
5.6 billion Rand for water supply by municipalities
4.7 billion Rand for sanitation by municipalities
1.0 billion Rand for water resources development by Water Boards
1.0 billion Rand for water resources development by DWAF
1.1 billion Rand for water resources development by the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA)[3]

text: Municipal investments in the sector increased substantially from 2001 when they were about four times less than in 2007 at 2.8 billion Rand.[72]

text: In 2010/11 total spending by the Department of Water Affairs was 8.2 billion Rand, including compensation for employees (1.2 bn), consultants for the design and supervision of civil works (0.6 bn) and investments. Investments include direct expenditures for TCTA and indirect expenditures in the form of transfers to Water Boards and Water Service Authorities (municipalities), mostly for dams, bulk water transfers and water treatment plants. The largest project under construction is the De Hoop Dam which is part of the Olifants River Water Resources Development Programme that provides water for mining and municipal uses.[73]

text: Financing[edit]

text: Municipal water and sanitation investments were financed from the following sources in 2003-06:

text:
51% through inter-governmental grants;
19% through borrowing; and
30% through internal cash generation.[3]

text: The larger municipalities rely more on loans and on internal cash generation, while the smaller ones depend more on grants and other sources of funding. Wealthier municipalities partially finance free basic water through cross-subsidies from non-residential users and local tax revenue.

text: All municipalities receive a constitutionally mandated share of national tax revenues as an unconditional recurrent grant, called "equitable share". One of its objectives is to offset the cost of free basic water and free basic electricity. The formula provides higher grants to those municipalities that have a high number of poor among those that receive water services. If a municipality increases access to water, its share in the transfers thus also increases. The number of poor is determined through census data, which - according to some municipalities - underestimates the actual extent of poverty.[67]

text: In the 2012/13 budget the total equitable share was Rand 37.8 billion (USD 4.6bn). In addition there is a Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG). The MIG programme is aimed at providing all South Africans with at least a basic level of service by the year 2013 through the provision of grant finance to cover the capital cost of basic infrastructure for the poor. In the 2012/13 budget the allocation for MIGs was Rand 13.8 billion (USD 1.7 billion). In addition, there is a Capacity Building Grant. All these grants are administered by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (formerly the Department of Provincial and Local Government).[74]