140 likes | 240 Views
MASIBAMBANE CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING PROGRESS REPORT ON THE RURAL HOUSEHOLD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMME (RHIP) 22 nd JUNE 2012. PRESENTATION OUTLINE. RHIP Overview RHIP Objectives Progress per Province – 2010/11 Challenges – 2010/11 Progress per Province – 2011/12
E N D
MASIBAMBANE CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETINGPROGRESS REPORT ON THE RURAL HOUSEHOLD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMME (RHIP)22nd JUNE 2012
PRESENTATION OUTLINE • RHIP Overview • RHIP Objectives • Progress per Province – 2010/11 • Challenges – 2010/11 • Progress per Province – 2011/12 • Financial Performance – 2011/12 • Job Creation – 2011/12 • Health and Hygiene – 2011/12 • Challenges – 2011/12 • Way Forward – 2012/13 & 2013/14
RHIP OVERVIEW • The RHIP is a special four year programme to provide basic sanitation (and water) to rural communities. • It has been allocated a total budget of R1.2 billion. • The budget is allocated to the NDHS as a Schedule 7 Grant - NDHS appoints IAs & enters into SLAs with WSAs. • The budget split over the MTEF is: • 2010/11: R100 million; • 2011/12: R231,5 million; • 2012/13: R479,5 million and • 2013/14: R389 million.
RHIP OBJECTIVES • To support municipalities to address rural basic sanitation (and water supply) backlogs. • To improve the quality of life in rural communities. • To contribute to the rural development priority of government. • To contribute to job creation and Local Economic Development. • To contribute towards meeting the sanitation (and water supply) MDG targets of South Africa. • To accelerate delivery of sanitation (and water supply) to meet the 2014 target.
CHALLENGES - 2010/11 • Programme started in Oct 2010 (procurement delays). • Some WSAs did not fully grasp the nature of Schedule 7 Grant and delayed signing SLAs with NDHS as they wanted to implement the programme themselves. • Excessive rainfall was experienced during December 2010 and January 2011 which caused delays. • Implementing Agents struggled to source building material and have it delivered on site on time. • Some contractors struggled with difficult ground conditions i.e. hard rock and high water table.
Progress Per Province – 2011/12 Draft and Confidential
CHALLENGES - 2011/12 • The 2 appointed Implementing Agents (Mvula Trust and IDT) were not sufficient to implement such a programme at scale and achieve the outcomes set. • The existing SLAs between the NDHS and the Programme Management Support PSP (Maxima Global/TranSpace) on one hand and Mvula Trust and IDT on the other were not consistent with each other. • The process of handling claims of the Implementing Agents needed to be restructured to assist them with improved cash-flow management.
CHALLENGES - 2011/12 cont… • The recovery plans submitted in Sept 2011 by the 2 Implementing Agents were too optimistic. • The IAs ability to procure building materials from suppliers in large quantities posed a serious challenge to the outcomes of the programme. • The scope of work approved for the IDT was at high risk of not being completed by end of the 2011/12 financial year. • In December 2011 NDHS re-allocated 7,098 units from IDT and negotiated with Mvula Trust to complete these units by the end of the 2011/12 financial year.
WAY FORWARD - 2012/13 & 2013/14 • NDHS has reduced the previously budgeted allocations of IDT and Mvula Trust to a total of +/-60% of the 2012/13 budget (in line with NDHS Portfolio Committee recommendations). • NDHS is currently in process of putting the +/- 40% balance of the 2012/13 budget to tender for additional Implementing Agents to be added to the programme. • The SLA of the Programme Management Support PSP is to be aligned to the performance of the IAs. • In 2012/13 both machinery & manual labour will be used in difficult ground conditions where needed.