View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Background Municipal Infrastructure Grant programme is the largest local government infrastructure development funding in South Africa. The programme was introduced as part of major reforms implemented by government to improve service delivery in a coordinated manner (that involves all government spheres). The Department of Cooperative Governance manages the MIG by exercising its mandate to foster cooperative governance and to develop capacity in the local government sphere. The MIG was started in 2004/05, through the merger of: –Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme, –Local Economic Development Fund, –Water Service Capital Grant, –Community Based Public Works Programme, –Building for Sports & Recreation Programme and –Urban Transport Grant.
Citation preview
DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL
AFFAIRSAFFAIRS
PRESENTATION TO THE STANDING PRESENTATION TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONSCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) Projects and FundingProjects and Funding
February 2015February 2015
Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation1. BACKGROUND2. SUMMARY OF MIG EXPENDITURE BY PROVINCE AS AT
END JAN 20153. EXPENDITURE IN LAST SEVEN MONTHS OF FINANCIAL
YEAR4. MIG EMIG ALLOCATION, BENEFICIARIES AND
EXPENDITURE PER SECTOR 5. EXPENDITURE PER SECTOR AS AT JAN 20156. CHALLENGES 7. SUPPORT TO MUNICIPALITIES8. STOPPING OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
(MIG)
BackgroundBackground• Municipal Infrastructure Grant programme is the largest local
government infrastructure development funding in South Africa. • The programme was introduced as part of major reforms
implemented by government to improve service delivery in a coordinated manner (that involves all government spheres).
• The Department of Cooperative Governance manages the MIG by exercising its mandate to foster cooperative governance and to develop capacity in the local government sphere.
• The MIG was started in 2004/05, through the merger of:– Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme, – Local Economic Development Fund, – Water Service Capital Grant, – Community Based Public Works Programme, – Building for Sports & Recreation Programme and – Urban Transport Grant.
Summary of MIG Expenditure by Summary of MIG Expenditure by Province as at end January 2015Province as at end January 2015
Province Allocated (R'000)
Transferred to date
Expenditure to date
Expenditure as %
allocation
Expenditure as % transferred
Balance Unspent
Eastern Cape
2 916 227
1 663 196
1 452 710 49.81% 87.34%
210 486
Free State 813 654
566 378
354 701 43.59% 62.63%
211 677
Gauteng
453 318 331 732
225 822 49.82% 68.07%
105 910
KwaZulu Natal
3 207 141
2 176 888
1 586 366 49.46% 72.87%
590 522
Limpopo
3 064 058
1 514 828
938 962 30.64% 61.98%
575 866
Mpumalanga
1 707 250
1 126 639
871 952 51.07% 77.39%
254 687
Northern Cape
450 944 332 245
268 564 59.56% 80.83%
63 681
North West
1 598 850 952 582
748 025 46.79% 78.53%
204 557
Western Cape
472 393 362 154
273 463 57.89% 75.51%
88 691
TOTAL
14 683 835
9 026 642
6 720 566 45.77% 74.45%
2 306 076
Expenditure in last seven months of the municipal financial Expenditure in last seven months of the municipal financial year (June 2014 – Jan 2015)year (June 2014 – Jan 2015)
Province Spent by Province
Spent by Province
Spent by Province
Spent by Province
Spent by Province
Spent by Province
Spent by Province
July August September October November December January
Eastern Cape 150 999
117 074
216 107
243 458
-
617 652
107 420
Free State
58 919
50 099
38 238 44 992
72 072
44 297
46 084
Gauteng
7 236 29 172
43 117
49 588
28 675
32 118
35 916
KwaZulu Natal 149 570
256 449
209 669
266 699
233 256
238 158
232 565
Limpopo
43 351
112 673
171 152
128 760 168 468
153 222
161 336
Mpumalanga
56 900
107 588
120 882
98 412
179 786 185 025
123 359
Northern Cape
32 768 43 310
45 866
43 915
68 110
19 183
15 412
North West
112 831 183 366
82 997
79 107
104 695
78 246
106 783
Western Cape 18 768
43 861
49 947
43 544
55 136
14 267
47 940
TOTAL
631 342 943 592
977 975
998 475
910 199
1 382 168
876 815
MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure per Sectorper Sector
Province
Water and Sanitation Roads and Storm water
Allocation Planned Households Expenditure Allocation Planned
Households
Planned Kilometers of Roads (km)
Expenditure
Eastern Cape 671 088 146 283 374 393 902 947 384 991 787 23226 768 139 845 915
Free State 272 182 728 265 078 121 379 534 224 148 474 18381 126,90 95 667 650
Gauteng76 010 181 120 007 27 065 925 266 465 347 76,35 143 099 320
KwaZulu Natal 1 322 367 236 1 814 562 991 217 567 388 172 900 797 389 0 348 322 482
Limpopo 1 827 659 568 488 413 442 471 390 971 180 229 16 733 362 276 749 408
Mpumalanga 806 342 190 635 846 340 111 967 361 423 306 597 735 123
Northern Cape 224 298 156 429 504 147 672 139 114 736 263 30 383 133.2 40 072 188
North West 549 252 765 110 461 255 218 518 576 081 988 66 887 0 204 901 498
Western Cape 274 002 131 45 663 159 596 322 121 192 720 0 12 766.46 77 697 425
TOTAL 6 023 203 101 4 192 908 2 878 636 309 3 408 393 014 952 999 14 030 1 924 091 009
MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure per Sectorper Sector
ProvinceCommunity Lighting Sport Facilities
Allocation Planned Households Expenditure Allocation Planned
Households Expenditure
Eastern Cape 7 377 886 15 071 3 080 975 51 624 289 24 499 14 232 053
Free State 24 593 828 72 865 4 650 745 148 498 460 501 741 283 328 343
Gauteng 5 428 655 31,585 149,529 49 724 129 152,727
35,631,665
KwaZulu Natal 6 455 291 48 582 6 455 291 71 736 815 467 173 71 736 815
Limpopo 13 096 000 25 999 998 631 119 288 452 181 342 37 061 428
Mpumalanga 12 226 295 7 085 407 46 169 152 46 618 35 017 232
Northern Cape 394 085 41 522 928 162 12 035 426 31784 1 542 474
North West 32 268 687 40 099 10 165 251 46 249 254 41 349 21 684 762
Western Cape 4 448 789 1 666 977 457 57 940 651 35 363 23 404 802
TOTAL 106 289 516 245 804 34 341 919 603 266 628 1 329 869 488 007 909
MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure MIG Allocation, Beneficiaries and Expenditure per Sectorper Sector
ProvincePublic Facilities Solid Waste
AllocationPlanned
Households Expenditure AllocationPlanned
Households Expenditure
Eastern Cape 81 553 856 53 810 35 730 356 8 130 000 8 945 6 515 693
Free State 98 137 330 568 026 54 837 654 17 419 902 141 006 9 588 392
Gauteng14 103 298 126,248 6,588,673 11 915 133 212,224
2,678,502
KwaZulu Natal 146 501 939 837 577 135 326 219 4 615 863 195 648 4 615 863
Limpopo 169 425 150 120 630 45 864 320 1 625 460 32 766 1 004 106
Mpumalanga 48 858 236 379 533 25 452 903 10 480 896 173 993 6 370 506
Northern Cape 18 936 690 90 766 13 645 228 347 196 14 761 108 881
North West 170 591 914 68 960 44 944 372 69 853 652 192 892 33 407 994
Western Cape 13 417 998 12 578 4 069 462 14 009 620 16 646 6 100 380
TOTAL 724 636 866 2 205 624 361 466 427 132 601 618 724 000 69 710 184
ChallengesChallenges • The following depicts some of the challenges identified and
are being addressed:– Inadequate planning in the context of Integrated Development
Planning.– Lack of Intergovernmental cooperation (Municipalities, provinces, and
sector departments involvement in MIG implementation)– Lack of capacity to manage MIG projects (Project Management Units)– Appointing service providers or contractors who cannot deliver– Late payment of service providers– Council decisions take too long (approval of projects and budgets)– Delays in Technical reports and Environmental Impact Assessment
(sector departments)– Use of MIG funds for operational budget pressures
Support to municipalitiesSupport to municipalities• CoGTA’s main responsibility speaks towards the oversight on MIG
processes and procedures which promotes sound inter governmental relations, coordination between stakeholders, stakeholder support to municipalities and stakeholder participation in MIG project pre-implementation and implementation phases: – Supporting municipalities during the pre-implementation phase of
projects by supporting and guiding municipalities to meeting the objectives of the MIG Programme.• Infrastructure programme planning support to ensure that municipalities will
have projects aligned to deal with remaining backlogs • Projects verification support to municipalities to ensure that projects to be
implemented by municipalities do meet the cross cutting and sector specific conditions of the grant
• MIG implementation planning support to ensure that MIG projects are appropriately planned and scheduled for implementation.
• Support municipalities to set spending trajectories on their MIG programmes
10
• Assisting municipalities during the implementation phase of projects by supporting and guiding municipalities to meeting the objectives of the MIG Programme.– Support municipalities by ensuring that positive spending trends are
maintained as per the pre-set payment scheduled. This includes frequent engagements with municipalities on maintain spending discipline (under expenditure) and set remedial actions on how to overcome poor expenditure trends
– Coordinated site visits to targeted projects in which all relevant stakeholders participate to confirm that projects are implemented as approved.
• COGTA with the cooperation of provinces has established teams that are visiting specific municipalities to address identified challenges
11
Support to municipalitiesSupport to municipalities
MUNICIPAL SUPPORT STATISTICS MUNICIPAL SUPPORT STATISTICS
12
ProvinceB2B
Dysfunctional
B2B function
al not doing well
B2B doing well
LGTAS
MISA Supported Municipalities
From LGTAS
List
From Siyenza Manje Prog.
Requests from
ProvincesTotal
EC 14 13 18 19 16 4 1 21NW 15 4 4 8 5 - 8 13NC 15 6 11 13 7 - 10 17WC 2 8 20 9 6 - - 6FS 9 7 8 10 9 - - 9GP 0 2 10 5 5 - 1 6MP 7 7 7 9 9 - 3 12KZN 8 18 35 23 23 - - 23LP 16 8 6 12 12 - 2 14National 86 73 119 108 92 4 25 121 278NB. Back to Basics actual support will be factored upon finalization of the assessment and provincial action plans. 2 municipalities. In LP were not assessed but the province identified them under ICU.
TECHNICAL RESOURCES PER PROVINCETECHNICAL RESOURCES PER PROVINCE
13
MISA Focus Areas of Support - Engineering MISA Focus Areas of Support - Engineering • PMU and Project Management Support to fast track MIG expenditure• Contract Management, O&M Support• Basic Water & Sanitation Services Support• Audit of existing infrastructure projects• Bulk Water Supply – Planning & Construction of Regional Water
Scheme• Exploration and development of boreholes for water extraction• Maintenance and refurbishment of water purification works • Revamping of ageing infrastructure• Funding Model for Waste Water-Roads-Electrical-Water Infrastructure• O&M Support• Infrastructure Master Plans to ensure sustainable infrastructure
development• Integrated Waste management Plans• Dolomite Risk Strategies,• Water and Sanitation Asset registers • Environmental Impact Assessments• Geo-technical Studies
23-05-14 14
The following planning support is currently provided to various municipalities in nine (9) provinces through MISA Planners and Professional Service Providers (PSPs).•Infrastructure Master Plans (water, sanitation, energy, solid waste and roads & storm water) to ensure sustainable infrastructure development•Spatial Development Plan Reviews•Water Conservation and Water Demand Management•Land-use Management Systems•Water Conservation and Water Demand Management•Infrastructure Asset Registers•Infrastructure Asset Registers, •Infrastructure Asset Management Plans •Operations and Maintenance Plans•By-laws (Technical and Town Planning)•IDP Review
23-05-14 15
MISA Focus Areas of Support – Town MISA Focus Areas of Support – Town PlanningPlanning
CURRENT SUPPORTCURRENT SUPPORTMunicipalities Receiving SupportMunicipalities Receiving Support
Municipalities Kind of Support9. North West Cont.: Tswaing, Ratlou, Moretele, Kgetlengrivier, Mamusa, Moses Kotane, Madibeng, Ventersdorp, Dr Ruth Mompati DM, Lekwa-Teemane, Ngaka Modiri Molema DM, Naledi and Kagisano-Molopo (13)
• Institutional Arrangements of Water and Sanitation Provision • Roads and Storm Water Master
Plans• Develop Energy Master Plan• Operations & Management
23-05-14 16
IMPACT OF MISA SUPPORTIMPACT OF MISA SUPPORT
17
Municipality Before AfterChief Albert Luthuli Bushbuckridge Dipaleseng Dr Pixley ka Seme
These mentioned municipalities had landfill sites which were not compliant to provide environmental friendly communities against the negative impact of waste disposal activities .
Identified landfill sites within the four mentioned municipalities have been licenced through the assistance of MISA.
IMPACT OF MISA SUPPORTIMPACT OF MISA SUPPORT
18
Municipality Before AfterSiyancuma, John Taolo, Ga-Segonyana, Joe Morolong, Gamagara, Khai Mai, Kamiesberg, Thembelihle
5000 buckets were identified to be replaced by proper sanitation facilities in the Northern Cape Province
Removal of 1600 buckets by constructing water borne sanitation facilities for these communities through the implementation of Bucket eradication programme with Human Settlements and DWS.
Lesedi Local Municipality Lesedi LM housing backlog was estimated at 6000 and through Obed Nkosi project a reduction in the backlog was realised.
Through MISA support a total of 699 households were constructed and also access to water, sanitation and waterborne sanitation. 200 temporary jobs were also created during implementation.
IMPACT OF MISA SUPPORTIMPACT OF MISA SUPPORTMunicipality Before AfterVhembe DM Previously water was
provided on a 12 hourly basis and run out of circulation.Poor operation and maintenance of water and waste treatment plants resulting in poor quality of drinking water and a supply shortage due to the low capacity of staff required to operate the water treatments plants towards efficient supply within the District
The district has confirmed that there is 60% improvement in water quality and its provision. After the intervention the supply of water has substantially improved to 24hour provision.
Kgetleng Local Municipality A total of 6 dysfunctional sewer pump stations where dysfunctional in Koster – Kgetleng Local Municipality from June to November 2014.
To date a total R2.8million has been secured from DWA under ACIP to deal with the emergency of sewer spillages. To date the 6 sewer pump stations are functional and managed to save the community from diseases such as cholera and other diseases.
Dipaleseng, Lekwa, Govan Mbeki and Emalahleni
No Energy Master Plans,Roads and Storm Water Master Plans Integrated Waste management Plans
Improved asset management including planning for these municipalities
Stopping of Municipal Stopping of Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG)Infrastructure Grant (MIG)
20
Implementing Division of Revenue Act: Implementing Division of Revenue Act: withholding, stopping and reallocationwithholding, stopping and reallocation
• The DoRA provides for Transferring Officer (DCOG) to:– withhold (delay) the transfer of a grant (MIG)– Recommend stopping of funds to National Treasury– Re-allocate the stopped funds to same or other municipalities in consultation
with NT• On the grounds of:
– The province or municipality does not comply with any provision of this Act;– Roll-overs of conditional allocations approved by the National Treasury in terms
of section 21 have not been spent; or– Expenditure on previous transfers during the financial year reflects significant
under-expenditure, for which no satisfactory explanation is given.• This is done to:
– Facilitate compliance with the Act – Minimize the risk of under spending
Definition of TermsDefinition of Terms• With holding : This refers to the application of
s17 of DORA when transfers are eminent (Delaying transfer for 30 days)
• Stopping : Revise the allocation and cut in terms of section 18 of the DORA
• Re-allocation : Funds are re-allocated to other municipalities. Funds could also be allocated to the same municipality depending on improvements demonstrated
• Off-setting : Reduction of the ES to pay for unspent grants back to national revenue fund
• Based on the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) analysis of the end of January 2015 MIG expenditure report, the DCoG anticipated that some of the municipalities receiving the MIG would substantially under-spend on their allocations by end of June 2015.
• The DCoG will recommended to the National Treasury that a portion of some of those municipalities’ 2014/15 allocation be stopped and the National Treasury to send notices of intention to stop the MIG transfers to the affected municipalities.
• The DCoG wrote and will meet with the municipalities that had reported an expenditure of 40 percent and below, of their 2014/15 MIG allocation, as at end January 2015.
• Following the engagements with those municipalities, the DCoG will engaged with the National Treasury and further recommended to the National Treasury that a portion of some of those municipalities’ 2014/15 allocation be stopped.
23
Rationale for stoppingRationale for stopping
RecommendationsRecommendations• The Committee to note :
– the performance of municipalities regarding the implementation of MIG Programme;
– COGTA support to municipalities through MISA programme, and
– the challenges affecting municipal performance and on-going support provided to municipalities
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!
Recommended