220 likes | 374 Views
Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure (CMIP) and Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG). DPLG PRESENTATION TO THE P O RTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Budget review 10 March 2003. Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG). PROBLEM STATEMENT.
E N D
Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure (CMIP) and Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) DPLG PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Budget review 10 March 2003
PROBLEM STATEMENT • Supply vs demand driven approach not responsive to community needs-unsustainable • Centralised disbursement from different depts- admin burden • Inequitable allocations to municpalities • No clear spending accountability • Programme not supportive municipal capacity and development
OVERVIEW (C0NT) • Infrastructure is key to social security and economic development • Decentralization recognises municipalities as primary agency for infrastructure delivery • MIG approach seek to to enhance accountability in terms of policy outcomes and outputs • National and provincial departments provide support and capacity to municipalities
BROAD OVERVIEW • Last 7 years focused on addressing the needs of the underserved communities estimated at 15,2 million in 1994 • Approximately over 5 million (61%) have access to water, and an estimated 3,4 (66,1)million has access to electricity • Levels of under-servicing remains high and requires an integrated strategy to address • Infrastructure delivery remains governments key priority
PRINCIPLES • Equity in the allocation and use of funds • Decentralization of spending authority • Efficient use of funds • Promote integrated development objectives of the three spheres • Predictability and transparency
OBJECTIVES • Fully subsidize the capital costs of providing basic services to the poor • Distribute funding for MI in an equitable, transparent and efficient manner • Assist developmental capacity of municipalities through multi-year planning • Coordinated pursuit of national policy and priorities. • Increased job creation through higher investment in public infrastructure
INSTITUTIONAL ARRENGEMENTS • Multi-departmental accountability fund- DPLG take financial accountability • Policy making and regulatory functions of each of the national depts. Remains intact • MIPTT- for policy decisions • TMITT-for operational coordination
PROCESS • Pilot phase 2003/04 financial year • Infrastructure transfers will go directly to local government in support of IDPs • The Grant will be consolidate from CMIP, LED,WSCG,CBPWP,UTG,BS&R and NEP (post restructuring) • Largely formula driven to ensure proper targeting and windows for innovations
Pilot sites • Nodal areas were identified as key • Ethekwini (U) Nelson Mandela(U) • Sekhukhuni (R) Bohlabela (R) • Kgalagadi (R) Alfred Nzo (R) • OR Tambo ( R) Maluti-A-phofung (R) • Mangaung
CHALLENGES • MIG only provides basic services • Need for concession for poor municipalities with no revenue base • No guarantees for proper O&M implementation capacity ( sustainability) • Lack of Technical support for mostly rural municipalities to deliver infrastructure
Progress • Since inception approximately 2,5 million households benefited from CMIP • 1760 projects completed value R 2345m • Currently 936 projects under construction value R2335m
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS ALLOCATION R70 MILLION CMIP : ACHIEVEMENTS - 2002/2003 INTERGRATED SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ALLOCATION – R230 MILLION
CMIP : PROJECTED OUTPUT DELIVERABLES - 2004/2005 & 2005/2006
CMIP CHALLENGES • Lack of technical capacity at municipal sphere • Lack of monitoring capacity by municipalities • Too lengthy procurement procedures followed by municipalities • Life cycle costing for O&M by municipalities