department of cooperative governance and traditional affairs portfolio committee on sports and...

DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SPORTS AND RECREATION

4 August 2015

120 Plein Street

1

http://www.google.co.za/url?q=http://www.gov.za/issues/20years/did_you_know.htm&sa=U&ei=hbI6U9_hIYKv7AbH1oDQCw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAg&sig2=_2LFxIJUqkE3VsFQMrHRpg&usg=AFQjCNHuIpgwph5Tc1TaIP8y1b7ndJBWXQ

Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation1. BACKGROUND

2. OBJECTIVES

3. SUPPORT TO MUNICIPALITIES

4. MIG ALLOCATIONS FOR SPORT AND RECREATION AS PER THE FORMULA SINCE 2012/2013

5. PROVINCIAL MIG development of sports and recreation by municipalitiALLOCATIONS FOR SPORT AND RECREATION SINCE 2012/13 – 2014/15

6. ANALYSIS

7. PROPOSALS

a. Improving the prioritisation of the es

b. Improving institutional arrangements

c. Strengthening the participation of DSRA in the MIG planning sessions

d. National Coordination and monitoring

8. REVIEW OF THE MIG

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

2

BackgroundBackground

1. Integration of all the municipal infrastructure programmes was a Cabinet decision (2003) to try to find a coordinated approach with regard to the municipal infrastructure delivery.

2. This is also in line with the Constitution and the Municipal Systems Act, 2003 that stipulate that municipalities should be centres of development and should take control of services and infrastructure projects within their area of jurisdictions after consultations with their communities through IDP public participation process.

3. Communities must determine what government should do for them.

4. Streamline reporting by municipalities for myriad of grants administered by a number of departments.

3

BackgroundBackground1. Municipal Infrastructure Grant programme is the largest local

government infrastructure development funding in South Africa.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. The MIG was started in 2004/05, through the merger of:

a. Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme,

b. Local Economic Development Fund,

c. Water Service Capital Grant,

d. Community Based Public Works Programme,

e. Building for Sports & Recreation Programme and

f. Urban Transport Grant.

4

% Share of Grants amalgamated into MIG in 2003:

Sector Allocation 2003/04 % share

Building for sports and recreation 123 095 3%Public Works 259 820 7%CMIP 2 246 253 58%LED 117 000 3%Water and Sanitation 1 101 812 29%MIG Pilot 47 0%

Transport 9 0%

Total 3 848 036 100%

5

Objectives of the MIG ProgrammeObjectives of the MIG Programme

1. Subsidise the capital costs of providing basic services to poor households

2. Distribute funding for municipal infrastructure in an equitable, transparent and efficient manner - formula

3. Assist in enhancing the developmental capacity of municipalities, through supporting multi-year planning and budgeting systems; and

4. Provide a mechanism for the coordinated pursuit of national policy priorities with regard to basic municipal infrastructure programmes

5. Governed by the MIG Policy Framework (2004) and Annual DoRA which set BPP for administration

6

Support to municipalitiesSupport to municipalitiesCoGTA’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:

1.Supporting municipalities during the pre-implementation phase of projects by supporting and guiding municipalities to meeting the objectives of the MIG Programme.

a.Infrastructure programme planning support to ensure that municipalities will have projects aligned to deal with remaining backlogs

b.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

c.MIG implementation planning support to ensure that MIG projects are appropriately planned and scheduled for implementation.

d.Support municipalities to set spending trajectories on their MIG programmes

7

2. Assisting municipalities during the implementation phase of projects by supporting and guiding municipalities to meeting the objectives of the MIG Programme.

a. Support municipalities by ensuring that positive spending trends are maintained as per the pre-set payment scheduled. This includes frequent engagements with municipalities on maintaining spending discipline (under expenditure) and set remedial actions on how to overcome poor expenditure trends

b. Coordinated site visits to targeted projects in which all relevant stakeholders participate to confirm that projects are implemented as approved.

3.COGTA with the cooperation of provinces has established teams that are visiting specific municipalities to address identified challenges

Support to municipalitiesSupport to municipalities

8

MIG 2014-15MIG 2014-15

Province No. Projects budgeted Value

EC 597 R2,916 billion

FS 286 R813 million

GT 88 R453,318 billion

KZ 580 R3,207 billion

LP 563 R3,064 billion

MP 206 R1,707 billion

NC 216 R450 million

NW 320 R1,598 billion

WC 202 R472 million

TOTAL 3 670 R14,6 billion

9

Total number of MIG projects with actual Total number of MIG projects with actual expenditure per Province expenditure per Province

Province Water Sanitation Street/Community Lighting

Roads & Storm water

Solid Waste

Facilities

Sport & Rec

Facilities

Public Facilities

Total

EC 145 48 5 253 6 48 132 637FS 50 55 12 70 14 39 37 277GT 12 13 9 71 8 9 36 158KZN 147 85 6 396 10 82 240 966LP 144 12 4 110 2 15 25 312MP 85 67 41 83 7 4 37 324NC 51 37 21 63 8 10 21 211NW 79 33 17 93 14 16 37 289WC 112 107 34 122 15 75 31 496TOTAL 825 457 149 1 261 84 298 596 3 670

10

Important amenities under the P-ComponentImportant amenities under the P-Component

1. The DRSA has raised a concern that municipalities are not prioritising sport & recreation facilities

2. During the 2010/11 financial year the decision was taken by the Appropriations Committee that the total P-component (15% of the MIG) be ring-fenced in future for the development for sport and recreational facilities by municipalities.

3. Prior to this decision bilaterals between the two departments had resolved that only 5% of the MIG will be ring-fenced for sport and recreation and the remainder 10% be ring-fenced for other amenities such as ECD facilities (33% of the P-Component)

4. The next table explains:

a. Sport & recreation will have a share of 5% from the total MIG allocation as opposed to 3% share before the consolidation of the grants in 2004. (The remaining 67 per cent of the P-component would therefore be available for other municipal public facilities)

5. Ring-fencing doesn’t necessarily mean that municipalities are compelled to spend the funds as per the provision of formula components and municipalities are still required to engage communities before projects are identified and implemented.

a. Active participation of the relevant sector departments during early stages of IDP processes is very crucial.

11

Including other important amenities under the P-Including other important amenities under the P-ComponentComponent

12

National MIG Allocations for sports and recreation since 2012/13National MIG Allocations for sports and recreation since 2012/13

Table 11: National Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15)

Note amount for 2014/15 is up to May 2015

Gauteng MIG allocations

R'000

P-Component R'000

No of projects funded

Amount Funded R'000

% of total Provincial

MIG allocation

2012/13 13,426,313 1,091,243 180 322,225 2%2013/14 13,777,259 1,958,062 322 630,640 5%2014/15 14,279,473 2,011,955 197 461,138 3%Total 41,483,045 5,061,260 699 1,414,003 3%

13

Provincial MIG Allocations for sports and recreation since Provincial MIG Allocations for sports and recreation since 2012/132012/13

Table 2: Eastern Cape Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15)


Eastern Cape

MIG allocationsR'000

P-ComponentR'000

No of projects funded Amount fundedR'000

% of total provincial MIG

alloc2012/13 2,918,290 437,744 14 26,561 0.92013/14 2,952,906 442,936 14 35,446 1.22014/15 3,079,289 461,893 18 90,355 2.9Total 8,950,485 1,342,573 46 152,362 1.7

Table 3: Gauteng Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15)


Gauteng MIG allocationsR'000

P-ComponentR'000

No of projects funded Amount fundedR'000

% of total provincial MIG

alloc2012/13 484,655 72,698 5 4,646 1.02013/14 456,461 68,469 21 45,548 10.02014/15 445,427 66,814 9 34,077 7.7Total 1,386,543 207,981 35 84,271 6.1

14


Table 4: Free State Investment on on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) Free State MIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount Funded

R'000% of total

Provincial MIG allocation

2012/13 1 020 313 64 748 25 98 993 10%2013/14 968 682 140 897 40 149 796 15%2014/15 829 794 144 461 43 95 717 12%Total 1 798 476 350 106 83 245 513 14%


Table 5: KwaZulu-Natal Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) KwaZulu-

NatalMIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount

Funded R'000% of total


2012/13 3 152 666 188 871 90 90 296 3%2013/14 3 193 259 391 565 199 256 482 8%2014/15 3 270 390 401 469 85 118 957 4%Total 6 463 649 981 905 284 375 439 6%


15


Table 6: Limpopo Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) Limpopo MIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount

Funded R'000% of total


2012/13 2 462 883 136 007 15 54 522 2%2013/14 2 650 869 367 328 17 66 418 3%2014/15 2 748 406 376 619 17 71 168 3%Total 5 399 275 743 947 34 137 586 3%


Table 7: Mpumalanga Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) Mpumalanga MIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of

projects funded

Amount Funded R'000

% of total Provincial MIG allocation

2012/13 1 427 874 72 212 11 23 294 2%2013/14 1 574 216 242 927 7 16 820 1%2014/15 1 717 515 249 071 6 11 216 1%Total 4 719 605 564 210 24 51 330 1%


16


Table 8: Northern Cape Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) Northern Cape MIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount Funded

R'000% of total


2012/13 515 429 38 591 9 15 299 3%2013/14 499 123 62 464 10 9 474 2%2014/15 462 944 64 044 6 4 834 1%Total 962 067 126 508 16 14 308 1%


Table 9: North West Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) North West MIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount Funded

R'000% of total


2012/13 1 444 203 80 372 11 8 614 1%2013/14 1 481 743 241 476 14 50 656 3%2014/15 1 725 708 247 584 13 34 814 2%Total 3 207 451 489 060 27 85 470 3%


17


Table 10: Western Cape Investment on sport and recreation (2012/13 – 2014/15) Western

CapeMIG allocations

R'000P-Component

R'000No of projects

fundedAmount Funded

R'000% of total


2012/13 455 320 38 517 26 25616 6%2013/14 455 688 101 294 38 44738 10%2014/15 484 576 103 856 35 53401 11%Total 940 264 205 150 73 98 139 10%


18

AnalysisAnalysis

1. A total amount of R1,414 billion was spent the last three years on sport and recreation facilities which is 3% of the total MIG over the last three years.

2. From the above the investment in sport and recreation facilities development (new/ rehabilitation or upgrading) municipalities in Free State and Western Cape provinces have invested 14% and 10% respectively over 2012/13 – 2014/15.

3. In the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo provinces the bulk of the MIG funding is allocated to district municipalities (Water Service Authorities) to implement water and sanitation priorities only (MIG funding follows functions).

4. The main reasons for the low levels of investment are:

a. Although norms and standards have been developed by the DSRSA, individual municipalities do not know the sport and recreation targets to be achieved

b. Low levels of prioritisation by municipalities on the development of sport and recreation facilities. Municipalities rather spend MIG funding on other priorities (other public amenities)

c. There are human resources constraints at National, Provincial and Local Government Levels in terms of monitoring and support, the management of sport and recreation responsibilities as well as for implementation sports development programmes

19

Proposals Proposals

1. Improving the prioritisation of the development of sports and recreation by municipalities

a.Setting of local targets to be achieved over time by DRSA informed by norms and standards

b.Guiding municipalities on how the targets must be achieved using grant funding

c.DSRSA must lead an audit of sport and recreation facilities per district, local municipality and/or ward level in order to determine the needs as well as the state of facilities.

d.Projects would be prioritized on the basis of the provincial plans which integrate other provincial plans of other sectors such as education and health.

e.This would give effect to municipal facilities plans and would clearly indicate the facilities to be rehabilitated and new facilities required and inform the municipal IDP, planning and budget processes.

20

Proposals Proposals

2. Improving institutional arrangements

a.DSRSA and its provincial counterparts to be in a position to monitor if municipalities are meeting all the norms and standards regarding the development of sport and recreation facilities

b.Improving to ability by National to define the needs of the municipality as per sector norms and standards

c.Upscaling the capacity of the sector and its provinces to ensure compliance monitoring and oversight

d.Dedicated staff component to deal with the development of sport and recreation

21

Proposals Proposals

3. Strengthening the participation of DSRA in the MIG planning sessions

a.Annual planning sessions with receiving MIG municipalities are held and are aimed at trying to influence the municipal MIG implementation plans before they are finalised for implementation by 1 July each year (start of municipal financial year)

b.It should be noted that it is still important for sectors to engage municipalities to identify needs and participate in the IDP processes

c.Important to upscale the role played by the sector in the relevant business process of the MIG including site visits and project appraisals.

22

Proposals Proposals

4. National Coordination and monitoring

a.Importance of co-ordinating government activities with the objective of creating a common approach to service delivery challenges facing government has become extremely important.

b.The establishment of Inter-Ministerial Task Team (IMTT) on service delivery will assist with the coordination of service delivery initiatives and sport and recreation matters as part of the agenda for the IMTT.

23

MIG Policy ReviewMIG Policy Review

1. MIG are nearing its end with the finalization of a few areas wrt to:

a. Introducing regional management contracts

b. Incentivizing the MIG

c. Introducing the MIG2 to municipalities that are performing with different conditions that talks to improving the spatial configuration of cities and town using the MIG

2. Process is aligned to the local Government Grant Review process facilitated by National Treasury (DCoG is part of the Steering Committee).

3. Agreement on a consolidated grant mechanism that sector oversight to be improved although a consolidated grant approach is considered.

4. Sectors to participate in the planning and budgeting cycles of a municipality

24

1. MIG has performed well in many respects.

2. But the context has changed and MIG must adapt to respond to these changes

Key Review OutcomesKey Review Outcomes

25

1. Make allowance of use of MIG for renewal more explicit - Renewal must take place within a context of proper infrastructure management, including adequate maintenance

2. Allow municipalities to spend up to 5% of their MIG allocation on repairs and maintenance

3. Allow use of MIG for economic infrastructure - also be used for infrastructure that unlocks economic growth or catalyses revenue generation.

4. Infrastructure grants should only be applied in situations where the necessary operating and maintenance arrangements associated with infrastructure are in place or can reasonably be put in place within the medium term

5. Infrastructure Investment is subject to Infrastructure Investment Plan (IIP) to be in place

6. Introduce two MIG ‘streams

a. MIG-1 is current MIG

b. MIG-2 has less conditionality and is monitored based on overall capital programme and achievement of agreed outputs, rather than on a project-by-project basis

Policy review responsePolicy review response

26

1. Rural roads focus in Priority Districts - Allow municipalities qualifying for N funding window in MIG to use up to their full N allocation for rural roads

2. Use the M window in the formula to offer incentives for strong performance

3. A top-slice of MIG for ‘Regionally Strategic Municipal Infrastructure

4. Improved coordination of MIG across spheresa. Reintroduce coordinating structuresb. Improved national sector policies on basic servicesc. Active engagement by sector departments in planning and budgeting

processes of target municipalities (MTSF approach)d. Improved sector monitoring of relevant norms and standards

5. Monitoring and evaluation1. Increased focus on monitoring performance as well as compliance2. Takes place at programme level, municipal level and project level (MIG-1

stream only)

Policy review responsePolicy review response

27

1. High level design of MIG-2 stream

2. High level design of incentives to deal with relevant policy response

3. Conceptual proposals for implementing MIG in dysfunctional municipalities

Work to be concludedWork to be concluded

28

Recommendations Recommendations

• Re-determine the current 15 per cent (P-Component) of the MIG to allow for the development of other public facilities to be funded from the MIG as part of the 2016 Division of Revenue Act and MIG Framework processes;

• Municipalities are made aware of their roles and responsibilities on sports and recreation facilities i.e. MIG allocation letters as well as DSRSA, DCoG and its provincial counterparts conduct workshops and meetings with municipalities to advocate for sports and recreation;

• DSRSA with their appropriate analysis inform municipal IDP processes through sport and recreation sector plans on targets; and

• DSRSA and its regional counterparts to improve their participation in MIG planning processes and business processes and procedures (project appraisal and site visits);

• DSRSA monitor the implementation as there are even cases whereby sport and recreation facilities would be included in the IDP, registered with DCoG however not implemented.

29

THANK YOU!

30

department of cooperative governance and traditional affairs portfolio committee on sports and...

Documents

mig project

mig programmesubsidise

mig pilot470

mig processes

sports recreation programme

infrastructure projects

mig policy framework

municipal systems act