JOB CREATION SUMMIT

AUGUST 2013

DELMAS

1 of 44

CONTENTS

• Purpose of the presentation

• Socio-economic analysis – research approach

• Socio-economic challenges of Mpumalanga

• Socio-economic profile/situation of VictorKhanye

• Challenges and recommendations

2 of 44

PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION

• To inform the House about the socio-economic situationand challenges of Victor Khanye for:

– planning,

– budget,

– strategy &

– intervention purposes

• “Dashboard approach”

• Socio-economic data challenges on municipal level!

3 of 44

SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Socio-economic research

Inform budget & planning process

Planning and Budget

Priorities, strategies

& spending

Economic impact

• Demographics• Labour• Education & health• Basic service delivery/infrastructure• Development & income• Poverty & inequality• Economic sectors & performance

• Service delivery• Economic growth & development• Poverty• Unemployment• Inequality

Socio-economic framework

• MTSF & Outcomes• National priorities• National budget• SONA• National DepartmentPolicies & NDP• PGDS & IDP/LED• SOPA & MEGDP• Vision 2030

4 of 44

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHALLENGES OF MPUMALANGA

Socio-economic challenges

High HIV prevalence

Educational challenges

High unemployment

Low HDI

High inequality

High poverty

Basic service

delivery challenges

Low economic

growth

Sectoral dependency

Unequal economic

distribution

High inflation

MEGDP

1. Reduce unemployment

2. Reduce inequality

3. Reduce poverty

5 of 44

DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORSDEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS

Stats SA Census

Stats SA Census

Share of Nkangala's

figure

Share of Mpumalanga’s

figure

Ranking: highest (1) –lowest (18)

2001 2011 2011 2011

Population number 56 335 75 452 5.8% 1.9% 15

Number of households 13 428 20 548 5.8% 1.9% 14

Area size (km2) 1 568 9.4% 2.0% 17

Population per km2 32

6 of 44

• According to Stats SA (2011 Census), 75 452 people were recorded in 2011 – 5.8%

of Nkangala’s population.

• Population grew by 33.9% between 2001 & 2011 while the annualised population growth rate was measured at 2.9%.

• Population in 2007 Community Survey was under-estimated at only 50 452.

• Females 51.4% and males 48.6% of the population – 82.3% Africans, 16.0% Whites, 1.1% Coloureds, 0.3% Asians and 0.3% Others.

• Youth/children up to 34 years, 72.8% of Victor Khanye’s population.

• Number of households 20 548 (3.7 people per household) – 5.8% of Nkangala’s

households.

• Female headed households 30.2% and child headed (0-17 years) households 0.4 % in 2011.

POPULATION NUMBER

7 of 44

42 390

75 452

83 235

171 982

186 010

249 705

310 458

390 610

541 248

0 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000 500 000 600 000 700 000

Dipaleseng

Emakhazeni

Umjindi

Victor Khanye

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Thaba Chweu

Lekwa

Msukaligwa

Mkhondo

Chief Albert Luthuli

Steve Tshwete

Dr JS Moroka

Govan Mbeki

Thembisile Hani

Nkomazi

Emalahleni

Bushbuckridge

Mbombela

Population number

Population by Local Municipal Area, 2011

= CRDP Sites

POPULATION GROWTH RATE

8 of 44

-0,9%2,6%3,1%

8,2%9,8%

16,7%

20,2%

21,0%

33,9%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Chief Albert LuthuliDr JS Moroka

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka SemeBushbuckridge

DipalesengEmakhazeni

LekwaNkomazi

MsukaligwaMpumalanga

MkhondoThaba Chweu

Thembisile HaniMbombela

UmjindiGovan Mbeki

Victor KhanyeEmalahleni

Steve Tshwete

Percentage

Population growth rate between 2001 & 2011 by Local Municipal Area, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 20.0%

LABOUR INDICATORS

• Unemployment rate of 28.2% (strict definition) in 2011 – 8 573 unemployed as a percentage of the EAP of 30 415 – decreasing trend.

• Unemployment rate for females 37.9% and males 21.6% - youth unemployment rate of 35.8% in 2011.

• Employment number 6.1% of Nkangala's employed.

• Employment increased with 8 619 between 2001 & 2011!

LABOUR INDICATORS Census Census Share of Nkangala's figure

Ranking: best (1) – worst (18)

2001 2011 2011

Economically Active Population (EAP)/Labour Force

23 074 30 415

Number of employed 13 266 21 843 6.1%

Number of unemployed 9 808 8 573 5.6%

Unemployment rate (%) 42.5% 28.2% 10

9 of 44

LABOUR - UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

10 of 44

52,1%

46,6%

37,2%

37,0%

36,1%

35,9%

35,4%

34,3%

28,2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

BushbuckridgeDr JS Moroka

DipalesengThembisile Hani

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka SemeMkhondo

Chief Albert LuthuliNkomazi

MpumalangaVictor Khanye

MbombelaEmalahleni

UmjindiMsukaligwa

Govan MbekiEmakhazeni

LekwaThaba ChweuSteve Tshwete

Unemployment rate

Unemployment rate by Local Municipal Area, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 31.6%

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

11 of 44

= CRDP Sites

64,6%

61,4%

49,4%

45,2%

45,1%

45,1%

44,6%

42,3%

35,8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Bushbuckridge

Dr JS Moroka

Thembisile Hani

Dipaleseng

Chief Albert Luthuli

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Mkhondo

Nkomazi

Mpumalanga

Mbombela

Umjindi

Emalahleni

Victor Khanye

Lekwa

Msukaligwa

Govan Mbeki

Emakhazeni

Thaba Chweu

Steve Tshwete

Youth unemployment rate (%)

Youth unemployment rate by Local municipal area, 2011

(Sectoral employment)LABOUR INDICATORS

12 of 44

Agriculture24,1%

Mining 10,3%

Manufacturing7,9%

Utilities 0,6%Construction

4,7%Trade 21,7%

Transport5,4%

Finance 3,5%

Community services 10,8%

Private households

10,9%

2001

Agriculture18,2%

Mining 12,7%

Manufacturing7,8%

Utilities 0,5%Construction5,9%

Trade 18,7%

Transport5,2%

Finance 4,9%

Community services 14,3%

Private households

11,9%

2011

• Leading industries in terms of employment – trade 18.7%, agriculture 18.2% andcommunity services 14.3%.

• Decreasing role/share of agriculture & trade and increasing role/share of communityservices & mining as employer.

EDUCATION INDICATORS

• Citizens of 20+ with no schooling, 11.8% - 5 529 people (6.0% of Nkangala’s figure).

• Population 20+ with matric & higher 34.5% - improving but lower than district andprovincial averages.

• Functional literacy rate (15+ and grade 7+) – increasing but lower than district andequal to provincial averages.

• Matric pass rate 76.7% in 2012 – improving and ranked 5th - university/degreeadmission rate of 26.2% in 2012.

EDUCATION INDICATORS Trend Latest figure Better (+) or worse (-) than

Nkangala

Better (+) or worse (-) than

province

Ranking: best (1) – worst

(18)2001 2011

Number of people 20+ with no schooling 8 361 5 529 4

Population 20+ with no schooling (%) 25.9% 11.8% (-) (11.5%) (+) (14.1%) 7

Population 20+ with matric & higher (%) 18.7% 34.5% (-) (39.7%) (-) (38.7%) 10

Functional literacy rate (%) 56.0% 76.9% (-) (79.0%) (=) (76.9%) 8

13 of 44

EDUCATION – NO SCHOOLING

14 of 44

25,7%

19,9%

19,4%

18.6%

18,1%

18,0%

17,5%

12,0%

11.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

NkomaziChief Albert Luthuli

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

BushbuckridgeMkhondo

Thembisile HaniDr JS Moroka

EmakhazeniMpumalangaMsukaligwa

DipalesengMbombela

Victor KhanyeLekwa

UmjindiThaba ChweuGovan Mbeki

Steve TshweteEmalahleni

% with no schooling

% of people 20+ with no schooling by Local Municipal Area, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 14.1%

EDUCATION – FUNCTIONAL LITERACY

15 of 44

67,6%

69,7%

70,4%

71,4%

71,7%

72,1%

73,4%

74,0%

76,9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nkomazi

Mkhondo

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Dr JS Moroka

Thembisile Hani

Chief Albert Luthuli

Dipaleseng

Bushbuckridge

Emakhazeni

Lekwa

Mpumalanga

Victor Khanye

Msukaligwa

Umjindi

Thaba Chweu

Mbombela

Govan Mbeki

Steve Tshwete

Emalahleni

% with functional literacy

Functional literacy rate (15 years+ with Grade 7+) by Local Municipal Area, 2011

Mpumalanga = 76.9%

= CRDP Sites

HEALTH INDICATORS

• HIV prevalence rate of pregnant women was 55% in 2011 – increasing trend and third highest in 2011 among the 18 municipal areas.

• HIV prevalence rate excluding pregnant women was 23.0% in 2011 - decreasing trend. • TB cases – decreased & 3rd lowest in province.• Clinics – 3 of Nkangala’s 84 clinics.• Community health centres - none of Nkangala’s 19 CHCs.• Hospitals – 1 of Nkangala’s 8 hospitals.

16 of 44

HEALTH INDICATORS 2009 2010 2011 Ranking: best (1) –worst (18)

HIV prevalence rate - survey(pregnant women attendingantenatal clinic 15-49 years old)

30.0% 25.0% 55.0% 16

HIV prevalence rate – DHIS(excluding pregnant women)

44.2% 34.4% 23.0% 10

2010 2011 2012Ranking: best (1) –

worst (18)

TB cases 485 499 428 3

PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES 2011

Number of clinics 3

Number of community health centres (CHC) 0

Number of hospitals 1

HEALTH - HIV PREVALENCE RATE

17 of 44

60,0%

56,1%

55,0%

43,2%

39,0%

37,5%

31,5%

27,4%

19,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Dipaliseng

Mkhondo

Victor Khanye

Emakhazeni

Msukaligwa

Govan Mbeki

Mbombela

Umjindi

Chief Albert Luthuli

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Nkomazi

Thaba Chweu

Emalahleni

Lekwa

Thembisile Hani

Steve Tshwete

Bushbuckridge

Dr JS Moroka

= CRDP Sites

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY/ INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS

• Households with connections to piped water: on site & off site, weekly municipal refuseremoval levels better than district and provincial levels and relatively high rankings.

• Households with informal dwellings, electricity for lighting lower/worse than district andprovincial levels.

• In general improving indicators.

• Victor Khanye ranked fourth in Blue Drop Report.

• Ranked 17th in Green Drop report – critical state of all aspects of waste water services.

BASIC SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS

Trend Latest figure Better (+) or worse (-) than Nkangala

Better (+) or worse (-) than province

Ranking: best (1) – worst (18)

2001 2011

% of households in informal dwellings

29.2% 15.4% (-) (13.8%) (-) (10.9%) 13

% of households with no toilets or with bucket system

11.8% 5.7% (-) (3.8%) (+) (7.2%) 10

% of households with connection to(tap) piped water: on site & off site

93.6% 95.7% (+) (92.7%) (+) (87.4%) 4

% of households with electricity for lighting

65.0% 84.9% (-) (85.7%) (-) (86.4%) 10

% of households with weekly municipal refuse removal

62.3% 73.7% (+) (48.3%) (+) (44.1%) 5

18 of 44

HOUSING - 2011

Formal 79,3%

Traditional 2,5%

Informal 15,4% Other 2.8%

19 of 44

• Formal housing 79.3% - 16 291 households in Victor Khanye.

• Traditional housing 2.5% – 521 households.

• Informal housing 15.4% - 3 158 households.

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY - HOUSING

20 of 44

31,5%

15,4%

10,2%

7,7%

7,3%

6,0%

3,1%

2,9%

1,2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

DipalesengGovan Mbeki

LekwaThaba Chweu

EmalahleniVictor KhanyeSteve Tshwete

MsukaligwaUmjindi

EmakhazeniMpumalanga

Thembisile HaniDr JS Moroka

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka SemeChief Albert Luthuli

MbombelaMkhondoNkomazi

Bushbuckridge

% of households in informal dwellings

% of households in informal dwellings, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 10.9%

SANITATION - 2011No toilets 2,3%

Flush toilet/chemical toilets 81,8%

Pit toilet with ventilation1,1%

Pit toilet without ventilation 9,0%

Bucket toilet 3,4% Other 2.4%

21 of 44

• Flush/chemical toilets 81.8% - 16 806 households.

• Pit latrines 2 072 – pit toilets with ventilation 1.1% - 232 households & pit latrines without ventilation 9.0% - 1 840 households.

• No toilets 2.3% - 465 households.

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY- SANITATION

22 of 44

15,9%

13,5%

13,1%

6,9%

6,2%

5,7%

5,1%

3,5%

2,4%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Nkomazi

Mkhondo

Bushbuckridge

Mbombela

Emakhazeni

Mpumalanga

Dipaleseng

Chief Albert Luthuli

Msukaligwa

Victor Khanye

Umjindi

Steve Tshwete

Dr Pixley ka Isaka Seme

Lekwa

Thembisile Hani

Thaba Chweu

Emalahleni

Govan Mbeki

Dr JS Moroka

% of households with no toilets or with bucket system

% of households with no toilets or with bucket system, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 7.2%

PIPED WATER - 2011

Piped (tap) water inside dwelling or yard 83,2%

Piped (tap) water on a communal stand 12,5%

No access to piped water (tap) 4,3%

23 of 44

• Piped water in a dwelling or yard 83.2% - 17 100 households.

• Piped water on a communal stand 12.5% – 2 565 households.

• No access to piped water 4.3% - 882 households.

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY - WATER

24 of 44

77,9%

78,5%

79,0%

81,5%

81,8%

92,9%

94,6%

95,4%

95,7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Dr JS MorokaMbombelaMkhondo

BushbuckridgeNkomazi

Chief Albert LuthuliMpumalangaMsukaligwa

UmjindiDr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

DipalesengEmalahleni

Thaba ChweuEmakhazeni

Thembisile HaniVictor Khanye

LekwaSteve TshweteGovan Mbeki

% of households with access to piped water

% of households with access to piped (tap) water in dwelling, on-site or off-site, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 87.4%

BLUE DROP PERFORMANCE

MUNICIPAL AREA 2010 2011 2012 Ranking: best (1) –worst (18)

Steve Tshwete 92.2 96.5 97.5 1

Dr JS Moroka 95.7 84.4 92.4 2

Mbombela 80.9 74.9 87.6 3

Victor Khanye 18.2 80.0 4

Emakhazeni 71.2 83.7 79.8 5

Thembisile Hani 37.8 27.7 78.3 6

Govan Mbeki 78.9 77.5 77.5 7

Umjindi 52.5 60.5 75.5 8

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme 46.9 40.4 9

Dipaleseng 6.8 40.4 10

Emalahleni 29.7 46.9 37.5 11

Lekwa 19.5 10.4 34.4 12

Bushbuckridge 8.4 29.8 30.8 13

Msukaligwa 10.5 21.2 14

Thaba Chweu 45.1 59.4 19.0 15

Chief Albert Luthuli 8.2 9.7 18.4 16

Nkomazi 17.5 59.4 17.2 17

Mkhondo 28.6 5.0 11.3 18

25 of 44

GREEN DROP PERFORMANCE

MUNICIPAL AREA 2011 2012 Ranking: best (1) – worst (18)

Thaba Chweu 45.2% 23.9% 1

Steve Tshwete 54.9% 44.2% 2

Mbombela 48.5% 46.6% 3

Lekwa 88.9% 54.0% 4

Chief Albert Luthuli 87.0% 56.5% 5

Emakhazeni 68.9% 62.4% 6

Thembisile Hani 64.8% 62.8% 7

Dr JS Moroka 61.6% 70.2% 8

Umjindi 69.6% 72.7% 9

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme 78.9% 72.9% 10

Msukaligwa 90.7% 73.1% 11

Bushbuckridge 83.3% 73.5% 12

Emalahleni 72.5% 78.4% 13

Govan Mbeki 68.4% 83.2% 14

Mkhondo 91.7% 88.2% 15

Dipaleseng 72.2% 92.7% 16

Victor Khanye 94.4% 94.0% 17

Nkomazi 74.4% 96.5% 18

26 of 44

Risk profile and log by municipal area

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY - ELECTRICITY

27 of 44

66,8%

83,1%

83,3%

84,9%

85,2%

87,5%

92,3%

93,9%

96,7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Mkhondo

Emalahleni

Msukaligwa

Umjindi

Dipaleseng

Nkomazi

Emakhazeni

Thaba Chweu

Victor Khanye

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Mpumalanga

Chief Albert Luthuli

Lekwa

Mbombela

Govan Mbeki

Steve Tshwete

Thembisile Hani

Bushbuckridge

Dr JS Moroka

% of households with electricity for lighting

% of households with electricity for lighting, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 86.4%

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERY - REFUSE REMOVAL

28 of 44

4,6%

7,5%

13,6%

19,3%

20,3%

33,8%

62,0%

73,7%

81,8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Thembisile Hani

Bushbuckridge

Dr JS Moroka

Chief Albert Luthuli

Nkomazi

Mbombela

Mkhondo

Mpumalanga

Thaba Chweu

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Umjindi

Msukaligwa

Emalahleni

Emakhazeni

Victor Khanye

Dipaleseng

Lekwa

Steve Tshwete

Govan Mbeki

% of households with weekly municipal refuse removal

% of households with weekly municipal refuse removal, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 42.4%

BASIC SERVICE DELIVERYHousehold Services Index by Local municipal area, 2001 - 2011

29 of 46

0,5

8 0,6

5

0,6

5

0,6

2 0,6

8

0,7

0

0,7

0

0,6

8 0,7

2 0,7

7

0,7

7

0,7

2

0,7

1

0,7

3

0,7

4

0,7

1 0,7

5

0,8

4

0,7

0

0,7

0

0,7

1

0,7

1

0,7

2

0,7

4

0,7

6

0,7

9

0,8

1

0,8

1

0,8

2

0,8

3

0,8

3

0,8

4

0,8

4

0,8

5

0,8

7

0,8

9

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Ho

use

ho

ld s

erv

ice

s in

de

x

Region2001 2011

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

2001 2007 2011Ranking: best (1) -

worst (18)

Emalahleni 0.61 0.63 0.70 1

Steve Tshwete 0.62 0.63 0.69 2

Govan Mbeki 0.59 0.62 0.68 3

Thaba Chweu 0.52 0.57 0.64 4

Umjindi 0.53 0.56 0.64 5

Mbombela 0.52 0.55 0.64 6

Emakhazeni 0.51 0.56 0.63 7

Lekwa 0.52 0.54 0.62 8

Msukaligwa 0.51 0.54 0.61 9

Victor Khanye 0.52 0.53 0.61 10

Dr JS Moroka 0.46 0.50 0.60 11

Thembisile Hani 0.45 0.49 0.58 12

Dipaleseng 0.46 0.49 0.57 13

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme 0.46 0.49 0.57 14

Bushbuckridge 0.43 0.48 0.57 15

Chief Albert Luthuli 0.43 0.47 0.56 16

Mkhondo 0.43 0.44 0.53 17

Nkomazi 0.39 0.42 0.52 18

30 of 44

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOMEMUNICIPAL AREA 2001 2011 Ranking: highest (1) –

lowest (18)

Steve Tshwete R55 369 R134 026 1

Govan Mbeki R47 983 R125 480 2

Emalahleni R51 130 R120 492 3

Mbombela R37 779 R92 663 4

Lekwa R38 113 R88 440 5

Thaba Chweu R35 795 R82 534 6

Msukaligwa R31 461 R82 167 7

Umjindi R35 244 R81 864 8

Victor Khanye R35 281 R80 239 9

Emakhazeni R36 170 R72 310 10

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme R23 399 R64 990 11

Dipaleseng R19 454 R61 492 12

Mkhondo R26 935 R53 398 13

Chief Albert Luthuli R22 832 R48 790 14

Thembisile Hani R18 229 R45 864 15

Nkomazi R19 195 R45 731 16

Dr JS Moroka R17 328 R40 421 17

Bushbuckridge R17 041 R36 569 18

31 of 44

INEQUALITY AND POVERTY

• Gini-coefficient at 0.60 - improving but ranked 12 in the province.• Poverty rate of 37.7% - 28 640 poor people (6.6% of Nkangala’s poor) – decreasing

trend.• Poverty gap (an indicator of how far poor households are below the poverty line)

at R79 million – increasing trend.

INDICATORS Trend Latest figure Better (+) or worse (-) than

Nkangala

Better (+) or worse (-) than

province

Ranking: best (1) –worst (18)

2001 2007 2011

Gini-coefficient(0 best to 1 worst)

0.68 0.64 0.60 (+) (0.61) (+) (0.62) 12

Poverty rate 42.9% 40.5% 37.7% (-) (33.1%) (+) (39.4%) 8

Number of people inpoverty

25 896 27 246 28 640 4

Poverty gap (R million) R37 R59 R79 4

32 of 44

INCOME INEQUALITY

33 of 44

0,62

0,61

0,60

0,60

0,60

0,58

0,57

0,57

0,56

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00

Msukaligwa

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Lekwa

Mkhondo

Emalahleni

Govan Mbeki

Victor Khanye

Bushbuckridge

Steve Tshwete

Mbombela

Dipaleseng

Umjindi

Thaba Chweu

Chief Albert Luthuli

Emakhazeni

Dr JS Moroka

Nkomazi

Thembisile Hani

Gini- coefficient

Gini-coefficient by Local Municipal Area, 2011

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 0.62

POVERTY RATE

34 of 44

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 39.4%

63,4%

57,1%

45,3%

44,7%

43,6%

43,2%

39,8%

37,9%

37,7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Mkhondo

Nkomazi

Dipaleseng

Bushbuckridge

Chief Albert Luthuli

Thembisile Hani

Msukaligwa

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Umjindi

Dr JS Moroka

Victor Khanye

Mbombela

Lekwa

Thaba Chweu

Govan Mbeki

Emalahleni

Steve Tshwete

Emakhazeni

HOUSEHOLD GOODS - 2011

Television Stove Computer Motor-car Cellphone Refrigerator

Householdgoods

75,1% 72,4% 15,1% 28,9% 89,3% 63,3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e a

ccess

Household goods

35 of 44

HOUSEHOLD GOODS INDEX Household Goods Index by Local municipal area, 2001 - 2011

36 of 46

0,3

1 0,3

7

0,2

9 0,3

3 0,3

9

0,3

8 0,4

2

0,4

1

0,5

1

0,3

8

0,3

4

0,3

6

0,4

4

0,4

6

0,4

7

0,4

2

0,4

6 0,5

3

0,5

5 0,6

2

0,6

2

0,6

3

0,6

3

0,6

4

0,6

5

0,6

5

0,6

5

0,6

5

0,6

7

0,6

7 0,7

2

0,7

2

0,7

2

0,7

2

0,7

3

0,7

4

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

Ho

use

ho

ld g

oo

ds

ind

ex

Region

2001 2011

ECONOMIC INDICATORSECONOMIC INDICATORS

Trend

1996-2011

Forecast

2011-2016

Better (+) or worse (-) than

Nkangala

Better (+) or worse (-) than

province

Ranking: best (1) – worst (18)

GDP growth (%) 2.0% 3.4% (-) (4.0%) (-) (3.5%) 9

Trend Latest figure Ranking: best (1) – worst (18)

2001 2007 2011

Contribution to Mpumalanga GVA (%)

2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 12

• Expected to record a GDP growth of 3.4% per annum over the period 2011-2016 –lower that district and province – historic growth rate in the period 1996-2011 relatively low at 2.0% per annum.

• Agriculture, transport, community services, finance and mining should contribute the most to Victor Khanye’s economic growth in the period 2011-2016.

• GVA in 2011 – R3.4 billion at current prices and R1.9 billion at constant 2005 prices.

37 of 44

GDP GROWTH

38 of 44

2,5%

2,6%

3,0%

3,3%

3,3%

3,4%

3,4%

3,6%

3,7%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Dipaleseng

Mkhondo

Thaba Chweu

Nkomazi

Umjindi

Lekwa

Msukaligwa

Bushbuckridge

Dr JS Moroka

Victor Khanye

Chief Albert Luthuli

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Mbombela

Thembisile Hani

Steve Tshwete

Emalahleni Local

Emakhazeni

Govan Mbeki

% GDP growth forecasted

Forecasted GDP growth by Local Municipal Area, 2011-2016

= CRDP Sites

Mpumalanga = 3.5%

INDUSTRY VictorKhanye

Emalahleni Steve Tshwete

Emakhazeni Thembisile Hani

Dr JS Moroka

Nkangala

Agriculture 30.8% 13.0% 42.8% 6.8% 2.0% 4.6% 100.0%

Mining 2.4% 52.8% 40.6% 3.3% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%

Manufacturing 1.4% 19.0% 74.9% 1.7% 2.4% 0.6% 100.0%

Utilities 0.3% 74.1% 20.9% 1.2% 1.9% 1.7% 100.0%

Construction 4.4% 52.5% 27.7% 3.9% 6.7% 4.8% 100.0%

Trade 5.8% 46.1% 26.0% 3.2% 14.7% 4.3% 100.0%

Transport 8.5% 48.3% 25.9% 9.9% 4.8% 2.6% 100.0%

Finance 5.1% 48.9% 39.6% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% 100.0%

Community services 6.6% 34.5% 26.1% 3.6% 14.9% 14.3% 100.0%

Total 4.5% 45.2% 38.7% 3.5% 4.9% 3.2% 100.0%

ECONOMIC INDICATORSContribution by Local Municipal Areas to Nkangala's industries (GVA constant 2005 prices)

39 of 44

• Contribution to Nkangala economy only 4.5% - relatively small economy.

• Agriculture contributing 30.8% to the district’s agriculture industry – other

contributions relatively small.

ECONOMIC INDICATORS

• Leading industries in terms of contribution to Victor Khanye economy – communityservices (20.0%), transport (17.0%), mining (16.4%), finance (15%) and agriculture(13.2%).

40 of 44

Agriculture12,7%

Mining 20,6%

Manufacturing4,7%

Utilities 0,8%Construction

1,3%Trade 11,4%

Transport14,6%

Finance 16,2%

Community services 17,7%

2001Agriculture

13,2% Mining16,4%

Manufacturing4,3%

Utilities 0,6%

Construction2,0%

Trade 11,6%Transport17,0%

Finance15,0%

Community services20,0%

2011

TOURISM INDICATORS

• Number of tourist trips increasing – 9.7% of Nkangala and 3.4% of the provincial total.

• Total spent R253.8 million in 2011 – increasing trend.

• Total tourism spent equal to 6.9% of municipal area’s GDP- increasing percentage share of GDP since 2001.

41 of 44

TOURISMINDICATORS

Trend Latest Percentage share of

Nkangala

Percentage share of

Mpumalanga

Ranking: highest (1) –lowest (18)2001 2007 2011

Number of tourist trips 20 407 49 105 118 031 9.7% 3.4% 10

Bednights 132 481 198 895 535 137 9.7% 3.4% 10

Total spent R million (current prices)

R30 R86 R253.8 6.9% 2.2% 12

Total spent as a % of GDP (current prices)

2.0% 3.4% 6.9% 7

NATIONAL & PROVINCIAL GRANTS & EXPENDITURE

• Decreasing total allocation – 1.6% of total allocations to local municipalitiesin Mpumalanga & third lowest in province.

• MPG total expenditure (especially CoE) in VKLM increased from R210million in 2009/10 to R295 million in 2012/13 according to NT’s Vulindleladatabase – R1 billion in total over the relevant period.

• MPG infrastructure expenditure in VKLM between 2009/10 to 2012/13 justmore than R70 million according to the IRM database of NT.

• Remark: Victor Khanye Local Municipality (VKLM) obtained an unqualifiedaudit opinion in both 2011/12 and 2012/13 – received a clean audit opinionin 2010/11.

42 of 44

TYPE OF ALLOCATION

2011/2012(R million)

2012/2013(R million)

2013/2014(R million)

% of allocations to all local

municipalities in Nkangala

% of allocations to

all local municipalities

in Mpumalanga

Ranking: highest (1)

– lowest (18)

Total allocation R90.6 R112.7 R83.3 5.9% 1.6% 16

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS

43 of 44

= CRDP Sites

R70

R83

R128

R212

R304

R381

R398

R566

R885

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Emakhazeni

Dipaleseng

Victor Khanye

Umjindi

Dr Pixley Ka Isaka Seme

Lekwa

Thaba Chweu

Steve Tshwete

Msukaligwa

Mkhondo

Govan Mbeki

Chief Albert Luthuli

Emalahleni

Dr JS Moroka

Thembisile Hani

Nkomazi

Mbombela

Bushbuckridge

Thousands

DORA budget allocations to Mpumalanga municipalities in 2013/14

CHALLENGES & RECOMMENDATIONSChallenge Recommendation

1. High proportion of population aged 0-34 years(children/youth) and relatively high unemployment rate

Resources must be channelled to youth development –importance of skills development & creation of jobsImportance of a job creation strategy targeting youth, women& people with disabilities

2. Educational challenges – relatively lowuniversity/degree admission rate

Improving the level of educationImportance of interventions to improve the quality of grade12 certificate & employability of matrics

3. Basic service delivery challenges – especially in terms ofinformal dwellings

Faster roll-out of basic services and municipal infrastructure

4a. Relatively high poverty number & rate

4b. Very high HIV prevalence rate!

Importance of poverty strategy – emphasis on job creation -impact positively on reduction of povertyInterventions to reduce high HIV prevalence rate

5. Relatively low contribution to Mpumalanga GVA and lowgrowth rate

Importance of attracting new businesses through aninvestment strategy & active Business/LED forum

6. High dependence/reliance on community services(government)

Identification of key industries/sectors/projects to drive theeconomy sustainably into the future – role of tourism,manufacturing, trade, transport, agriculture etc (role/impactof Kusile, cargo airport etc?)

7. Reduce unemployment, poverty and inequality (MEGDP& NDP)

Effective and efficient government spending making animpact on the triple challenges

8. Budget must be in line with and respond to IDP & socio-economic challenges

Municipality must work closely with COGTA, Finance andother role-players – IDP Manager & CFO working closely

44 of 44