Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698929252018.pdf (South Africa)
BACKGROUND PAPERS: NCOP PROVINCIAL WEEK BUILDING VIABLE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO COMMUNITIES 12-15 SEPTEMBER 2023 Prepared by the Parliamentary Research Unit: 28 July 2023 1 Contents SECTION 1: INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 3 1.

WATER AND SANITATION ....................................................................................... 3 2.
MUNICIPAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................. 20 3.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 33 SECTION 2: SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................... 42 4.

CEMETERIES AND COUNCIL PARKS/RECREATION AREAS............................... 42 5.
SPORT..................................................................................................................... 56 6.

LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS ................................................................................... 76 SECTION 3: MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE TRENDS ....................................................... 77 7.
MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE TRENDS OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, AND CONDITITIONAL GRANTS ............................................................................................. 77 2 BACKGROUND PAPERS NCOP 2023 PROVINCIAL WEEK SECTION 1: INFRASTRUCTURE 1.

WATER AND SANITATION 1.

INTRODUCTION1 This brief provides an overview and the status of the state of municipal water and sanitation infrastructure in South Africa.
It focuses on the water value chain and the legislative framework; funding for water infrastructure; Water and sanitation infrastructure challenges; government interventions to address water infrastructure challenges; and planned and current provincial water infrastructure development projects.

Lastly, it provides possible areas for oversight by Parliament.
The analysis reveals that funding for water and sanitation infrastructure is inadequate, as it is mainly sourced from the national revenue fund and disbursed through grants.

The inability of municipalities to collect water tariffs contributes to backlogs in the roll-out of water and sanitation infrastructure.

The inability of communities to pay for water and sanitation services also exacerbates the funding shortfall for water and sanitation services.
Lack of public-private partnerships on the funding, operation and maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure negatively affects the infrastructure roll-out programme.

Apart from funding, the reliability and quality of municipal water services infrastructure are worst in poorer, mostly rural households in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, and Limpopo provinces.
These findings are congruent with the percentage of households that have access to water services in these provinces, with Limpopo (69%) and the Eastern Cape (71%) displaying the lowest levels of access to water services by households in 2021.

The Community Survey2 further indicates that a significant 22% of Eastern Cape households depend on unimproved water sources (i.e., rivers and springs).
There is a dire need for water services infrastructure roll-out in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, North West and Mpumalanga.

There is a need to capacitate municipalities with relevant technical skills for optimal operation and maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure.
The establishment of the National Water Infrastructure Agency will address the current fragmentation of asset management and revenue collection functions for national water resource infrastructure, which are currently shared between the Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA), the Water Trading Entity (WTE) and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS).
The agency will further enable Government to streamline investment in water and sanitation infrastructure across the country to ensure sustainable and reliable water supply to communities.

Government efforts to 1 Researcher: Thomani Manungufala 2 Statistics South Africa (2017).

3 address municipal water infrastructure challenges are worth noting - which are mainly driven by the DWS.
Lastly, it is recommended that the NCOP provincial week should focus on provinces that are currently facing severe water services infrastructure challenges, which are the Eastern Cape, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, North West and Mpumalanga.

OVERVIEW OF THE WATER AND SANITATION LEGISLATIVE 2.

FRAMEWORK AND THE WATER VALUE CHAIN The State’s objective is to ensure that all South Africans have access to basic water and sanitation services.
The National Development Plan (NDP) articulates the national development goal of eradicating poverty and sharply reducing inequality by 2030.

South Africa is a dry country with limited freshwater resources and access to adequate water and sanitation is a challenge for many households in rural and peri-urban communities.
Insufficient bulk water infrastructure, poor municipal service delivery and/or poor maintenance of existing infrastructure, corruption, as well as households being too poor to pay for the cost of services, are the direct causes of inadequate access to water and sanitation services in South Africa.3 As a long-term driver of development policy in the country, the NDP envisages that all South Africans will have full, affordable and reliable access to sufficient safe water and hygienic sanitation by 2030.
Safe and sufficient drinking water and adequate sanitation are both essential elements to ensure health and well-being of human beings, and they are necessary for economic development.

Sections 24 and 27 of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution grant specific rights related to access to sufficient water.
Section 27 states that 'everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water' and that 'the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of these rights'.

Although the right to basic sanitation is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it can be deduced from section 24(a) (the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and wellbeing), read with the right of access to adequate water.
The Water Services Act (WSA) gives effect to the constitutional rights above, including the right to basic sanitation, refer to Figure 1, which shows the organogram of the South African Water Sector Policy.

The water sector in South Africa is divided into two main sub-sectors, namely water resources management, guided by the National Water Act (1998), and water services provision, guided by the Water Services Act (1997), refer to Figure 2 water value chain.
The water services provision sub-sector refers to water supply and sanitation services, which are predominantly provided by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), water boards and municipalities.

The water resources management sub-sector relates to the sustainable utilisation and protection of water resources such as rivers, wetlands, aquifers, lakes, mainly done by DWS and its entities, such as the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs).
Although the DWS leads the sector through policy development, regulation, and monitoring and evaluation, it has relinquished its implementation responsibility by transferring water schemes to relevant municipalities.

3 Presidency (2012).

4 Figure 1 Organogram of the South African Water Sector Policies International Agreements (e.g.
United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable The Constitution of the RSA, 1996 (Bill of Rights, Sec, 24 & 27) National Sanitation Policy, 2016 National Water Policy, 1997 Water Supply & Sanitation, 1994 National Water and Sanitation Master Plan Volume 1- Call to Action Volume 2 – Plan to Action National Development Plan 2030 Water Research Act (No.

34 of 1971) National Water Act (No.

36 of 1998) Water Services Act (No.


108 of 1997) National Strategies National Water Resource Strategy, 2013 According to Part B of schedule 4 of the Constitution, the provision of water services is a municipal responsibility.

In this case, a Water Services Authority (WSA) is any District, Metropolitan or Local Municipality that is responsible for providing water services to end users.
It may also perform the functions of a Water Service Provider (WSP) and may also form a joint venture with another water services institution to provide water services.

In providing water services, a water services authority must prepare a water service development plan (WSDP) to ensure effective, efficient, affordable, and sustainable access to water services.

The WSDP should be in line with the catchment management strategy of that water management area.
The plan provides a linkage between water services provision and water resources management.4 However, not all municipalities are authorised to provide water.

The two-tiered local government system requires that powers and functions be divided between category B (Local) and C (District) municipalities to avoid duplication and coordination problems.
Authorisation to provide water is granted to all category A (metros) municipalities while category B (local) municipalities are authorised in certain instances and category C (district) municipalities in others.

These divisions are outlined in the Local Government Municipal 4 DWS (2022).

5 Systems Act, No.

117 of 1998; and the Local Government Municipal Structures Act, No.

32 of 2000.
32 of 2000.

A total of 144 municipalities have been authorised to provide water and sanitation services.5 Government’s ‘universal service obligation’ prioritises the provision of water and sanitation services to all South Africans through funding the necessary infrastructure and providing free basic services.
Although substantial progress has been made with regards to providing access to water and sanitation, National Treasury notes that ever-increasing funding is required to service ageing infrastructure, while alternative service delivery options should be explored in outlying communities where the cost of expanding infrastructure is either not cost-effective or unsustainable.6 The Strategic Framework for Water Services (2003) defines a basic water supply facility as the infrastructure necessary to supply 25 litres of potable water per person per day within 200 metres of a household and with a minimum flow of 10 litres per minute (in the case of communal water points) or 6 000 litres of potable water supplied per formal connection per month (in the case of yard or house connections).
In terms of water supply services, the framework commits itself to the sustainable operation of the facility (available for at least 350 days per year and not interrupted for more than 48 consecutive hours per incident) and the communication of good water use, hygiene, and related practices.
Water and sanitation services are financed through the water and sanitation components in the local government equitable share (LGES) and capital spending on water and sanitation infrastructure is financed through the basic services component of the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG).
While metros are generally best able to cross-subsidise within particular services and customers, infrastructure grant funding is supplemented by internal revenue sources and external borrowing across all municipalities.7 MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE 3.

DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES The provision of safe and readily available water is important for public health and poverty reduction.
Access to water and sanitation is the function of viable bulk water and sanitation infrastructure and reticulation systems within communities.

Figure 28 shows the water value chain, which depicts area of operation for municipalities, among other issues.

It is worth noting that municipalities are mainly responsible for water distribution infrastructure, wastewater 5 National Business Initiative (2019).

6 Statistics SA (2017).

7 Ibid.

8 Adapted from DBSA (2012).


6 treatment works, and, to a lesser extent, water treatment works, which is mainly done by water boards that are an extension of the DWS.

The recently published green, blue and no drop watch reports paint a dire picture for both water and sanitation infrastructure across the country.
In summary, the Green Drop report identified 334 wastewater systems in a critical condition across all municipalities in the country.9 This is cause for concern, as it implies that these systems are releasing untreated sewage into the water resources (rivers).

In fact, the state of wastewater treatment systems may be much worse, as this was a sample which represents all wastewater treatment systems across the country.
Furthermore, this means the wastewater treatment systems constitute a significant risk, given the high likelihood of the contamination of drinking water sources.

The recent Cholera outbreak in Hammanskraal is a case in point, although the source of the cholera is still unknown.

There is a clear lack of operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment systems, which is compounded by the high volumes of wastewater.
In other words, the majority of these wastewater treatment systems are receiving loads that are beyond their design carrying capacity.

There is therefore a need for both maintenance and upgrading to accommodate additional volumes of wastewater.
The Blue Drop Watch Report findings on the condition of water treatment infrastructure are as follows: 3% of the sampled systems were in a critical infrastructural condition; 12% were in a poor infrastructural condition; 49% were in an average infrastructural condition, 31% in a good infrastructural condition; and 5% in an excellent infrastructural condition.10 The desirable condition is that all water treatment infrastructure systems should always be in good to excellent condition.
The fact that only 36% are in good to excellent condition is cause for 9 Department of Water and Sanitation (2023).

10 Department of Water and Sanitation (2023a).

7 concern and an indication that there is a lack of maintenance to keep the infrastructure in tip- top condition.

The national water balance presented in the No Drop Watch Report 2023 is extrapolated from the sample of datasets received from municipalities to provide an estimate of the water balance and non-revenue water for all 144 WSAs.
It estimates the System Input Volume (meaning the total volume of water treated for municipal use) to be 4,3 million m3/annum.

Of this, 2 million m3/annum (46%) is estimated to be non-revenue water (NRW).11 This is the volume of water that municipalities are unable to collect revenue for.

Non-revenue water consists of water losses and the unbilled component of authorised consumption.
The international average for non-revenue water is below 30%.12 In 2015 when the last No Drop report was published, the national NRW figure was estimated to be 35%.

The report estimates per capita water consumption to be approximately 216 litres/capita/day compared to the international average of 173 litres per person per day.13 This is cause for concern, since South Africa is a water-scarce country.
The high level of physical losses in municipal distribution systems is one of the main reasons for the relatively high level of per capita consumption in South Africa.

Poor operation and maintenance of infrastructure leads to unacceptably high physical losses.
Municipalities need to improve the operation and maintenance of their infrastructure; repair leaks; improve metering, billing, revenue collection, and debtor management; improve pressure management; and engage in community education and awareness; amongst other measures, to reduce water losses.14 Table 1.1.
Interpretation of the Water Infrastructure Quality Index15 Ranking 1 Service level None Water No access to piped water Minimal Communal standpipe > 200m Sanitation No sanitation Bucket toilets Basic Communal standpipe < 200m Pit toilet without ventilation pipe Intermediate Piped water in the yard VIP, Chemical or ecological toilets Full Piped water in dwelling Conventional water- borne 2 3 4 5 The water service infrastructure quality index describes the engineering infrastructure in terms of the level of service that households have access to.
Whereas a presentation on figures about the percentage of households with access to a particular level of service would provide a one-dimensional picture of service delivery in a particular jurisdiction, this method allows for a much more varied, and accurate description and measurement of engineering services.16 This is extremely useful in the assessment of the condition of the municipal water services infrastructure.

11 Department of Water and Sanitation (2023b).

12 Water Research Commission (2012).


13 Department of Water and Sanitation (2023b) 14 Ibid.

15 Adapted from Statistics SA (2017).

16 Statistics South Africa (2022).

8 Apart from the Drop Reports, the Community Survey Report by Statistics South Africa is one of the most reliable and comprehensive analytical reports on municipal water and sanitation infrastructure.
The South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE)17 and Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)18 infrastructure reports provide high level analysis of the South African water services infrastructure, while the Community Survey uses the household as a unit of analysis.

However, both reports were used in the analysis of the development, operation, and maintenance of the municipal water services infrastructure.
In as far as the water services infrastructure quality is concerned, there is a direct relationship between access to water services and the quality of the water services infrastructure.

For example, Limpopo province has the lowest household access to water services with the corresponding infrastructure quality of 3.37, which is a basic service level where majority of households rely on a communal water standpipe within 200 meters while sanitation is mainly a Pit toilet without ventilation pipe.
Refer to Table 1.1 for interpretation of infrastructure quality figures reflected in Table 1.

Table 1.
Comparison of Access to Water and Sanitation and Water Infrastructure Quality Province Western Cape (WC) Eastern Cape (EC) Northern Cape (NC) Free State (FS) KwaZulu Natal (KZN) North West (NW) Gauteng (GP) Mpumalanga (MP) Limpopo (LP) South Africa (SA) 99.4 71 90.9 93.6 87 83.4 98.4 86.2 69.4 88.7 Source: adapted from Stats SA19 Water (%) Sanitation (%) Water Service Infrastructure Quality 2021 2021 94.8 91.7 87.4 86.3 84.5 77.8 91.8 63.2 58.5 84.1 4.65 3.53 4.14 4.25 3.83 3.73 4.48 3.89 3.37 3.99 Access to water and sanitation is a moving target in South Africa.
Table 1 shows the percentage of households with access to piped or tap water in their dwellings, off-site or on- site20 and improved sanitation by province.

The national average water service infrastructure quality index is 3.99, which means the majority of households are receiving basic water services while only four provinces receive intermediate water service level, which is mainly piped water in the yard and ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, Chemical or ecological toilets.

17 SAICE (2022).
17 SAICE (2022).

18 DBSA (2012).

19 Statistics South Africa (2022).

20 Access to drinking water on-site refers to water accessed in the dwelling or in the yard while access to drinking water off- site means water accessed outside the yard using the neighbour's tap, public or communal taps.

9 Map 1.

Water Services Reliability The water services reliability index complements the water service infrastructure quality.
It indicates the areas or municipalities that suffer the most water interruptions due to failure of the infrastructure, refer to Map 1.

The map presents the results of a hot spot analysis of the water services reliability index, as measured through the length of interruptions experienced by households.

Hot spots represent significant clusters of low values (relatively few interruptions), while cold spots represent significant clusters of high values (high percentage of disruptions).
Hot spot municipalities were largely concentrated in the Western Cape, Gauteng, and Northern Free State.

Cold spot municipalities were mostly clustered across the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, as well as central Limpopo.

This index supports the water service infrastructure quality, as well as the household access to water services statistics.

In summary, the water services supply infrastructure is not reliable in KwaZulu Natal, the Eastern Cape, Limpopo, Northwest and Mpumalanga.
In other words, the water services infrastructure are disruptions because of broken or malfunctioning water services significant/severe in these provinces.

Table 1.2 shows the municipalities where the majority have the most water service interruptions that last more than two days due to ageing, malfunctioning or broken infrastructure.

Table 1.2.
Peculiar Cases of Water Services Interruptions Municipality Province Household Water services interruptions longer than 2 days (%) 10 Karoo Hoogland Northern Cape Big 5 False Bay (disestablished KZN into Big 5 Hlabisa LM) Tokologo Thulamela Elias Motsoaledi Free State Limpopo Limpopo Mutale (disestablished & Limpopo shared between Thulamela and Musina LM) Engcobo (changed name to Dr Eastern Cape AB Xuma) 100 90 93 90 88 89 89 The Karoo Hoogland case was severe, as no households had access to water for more than two days.
To this end, the Auditor General found that delays in planned capital projects significantly affect the delivery of critical water supply to citizens and place considerable strain on already ageing infrastructure, leaving it exposed to breakdowns and water leakages.
This is worsened by failure to prioritise and spend on repairs and maintenance.21 The slow pace of providing access to all households and, in many cases decrease in access to water, is directly linked to deteriorating existing infrastructure and lack of new infrastructure.

The Gauteng province experienced the worst water cuts due to failing water infrastructure.
Rand Water had to cut water supply to enable them to repair major bulk pipelines supplying the key metros.22 FUNDING FOR WATER AND SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND 4.

SERVICES Water services are primarily funded through tariffs and taxes, with some external finance (mainly form local and international financial institutions) in South Africa.

These tariffs and taxes are disbursed in the form of grants, mainly from Vote 31: Water and Sanitation; and Vote 3: Cooperative Governance.
Table 2 below provides details on these grants.

It is worth noting that disaster-related grants have been deliberately omitted, as they are only available when a disaster has struck.

A detailed analysis of funding and related matters is provided in Part B of this concept paper.

Table 2 shows that funding for water and sanitation can be grouped into two broad categories, namely capital funding and operational funding, as outlined by the purpose of each grant.
Capital funding is used for the construction of new infrastructure or rehabilitation and refurbishment of existing infrastructure.

Operational funding is needed for the ongoing operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure.

All these grants have an economic component where consumers pay for full services, as well as a social component where consumers are poor and the municipality can only depend on grant funding.

21 Auditor General South Africa (2023).

22 Masondo S. (2022).


11 There are still significant backlogs in access to water supply and sanitation, as well as refurbishment or replacement of ageing infrastructure.

Many of these projects fall outside the financial ability of local government and can be regarded as social projects.
The total capital required (for new, as well as maintaining and upgrading of existing infrastructure) to meet current backlogs and projected future demand was estimated in 2018 to be R33 billion each year for the next 10 years to achieve water security in South Africa.23 For example, whilst Johannesburg Water, an entity of the City of Johannesburg, requires R61 billion to replace ageing water infrastructure, including water and sewer pipes, reservoirs, wastewater treatment plants and pump stations, the entity will only manage to raise R8 billion in the next five years.
This shortfall almost equals the City's annual budget of around R70 billion.

Johannesburg Water has never met the 1.5% renewal rate due to funding limitations over the past ten years.24 This situation is not peculiar to the City of Johannesburg; it is a common feature across the country and even worse in rural municipalities.
It is worth noting that water and sanitation is also funded through borrowing from local and international financial institutions by municipalities, Water Boards, and the Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA).

Table 2.

Water and Sanitation Grants25,26,27,28 Grant Vote Purpose Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) 3 for basic municipal Provides specific capital infrastructure back-logs for poor households, micro enterprises and social institutions serving poor communities.
finance Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG) 41 that infrastructure of • To develop new, refurbish, upgrade and replace ageing water and waste-water regional to significance infrastructure serving extensive areas across municipal boundaries or large regional bulk infrastructure serving numerous communities over a large area within a municipality.
connects water resources • To implement regional Water Conservation and Water Demand Management (WC/WDM) projects or facilitate and contribute to the implementation of local WC/WDM projects that will directly impact on bulk infrastructure requirements.

23 Department of Water and Sanitation (2019).

24 Masondo (2022).

25 Department of Water and Sanitation (2022).

26 Department of Cooperative Governance (2022).

27 National Treasury (2022).

28 Minister of Finance (2022).
12 Water Services Infrastructure Grant (WSIG) 41 Local Government Equitable Share (LGES) 3 • Facilitate the planning and implementation of various water and sanitation projects to accelerate backlog reduction and improve the sustainability of services in prioritised district municipalities, especially in rural municipalities; • Provide interim, intermediate water supply that ensures provision of services identified and prioritised to communities, including through spring protection, drilling, testing and equipping of boreholes; • Provide on-site sanitation solutions; and Support drought-relief projects in affected municipalities.
Ensure that municipalities can provide basic services and perform the functions allocated to them, such as provision of water, sanitation, electricity, refuse removal and basic municipal administration.
The DWS is in the process of integrating its entities, particularly the Water Trading Entity (WTE) and TCTA to, among others, address the current fragmentation of asset management and revenue collection functions for national water resource infrastructure, which are currently fragmented between the TCTA, the WTE and the Department.

The establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency (NWRIA) will enable these functions to be integrated into one entity.
The Department aims to establish this agency by 2023, as the NWRIA Bill is currently in process for approval by Cabinet and subsequent tabling and passing in Parliament.

PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER 5.
INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS PROVINCES This section provides an overview of several bulk infrastructure development projects that are in the planning and/or implementation stages across the country.29 It is worth noting that these projects will not completely address the infrastructure backlog, but it is a step towards ensuring water security in South Africa.

Western Cape • The Department is resuming the raising of the Clanwilliam Dam at a cost of R3.2 billion.
The advance infrastructure is complete and work on the dam wall started in April 2022.

The due date for completion is 2026.

This project will ensure water security in the West Coast area of Cederberg.

29 Department of Water and Sanitation (2022).

13 • The Department is currently completing the land acquisition process for the Berg River Voelvlei Augmentation Scheme to begin construction with an estimated cost of R1 billion.
This project will increase water supply to the City of Cape Town when it is completed.

Eastern Cape • The Mzimvubu Water Project is aimed at providing water to 750 000 people in the Eastern Cape, at a cost of R25 billion.

The designs are 80% complete and the first round of fundraising started in early January 2022 through a Request for Information/quotations.

• The development of Coerney Dam and Nooitgedacht Water Scheme are long-term water supply assurance projects in Nelson Mandela Bay.
The projects are at procurement stages for design and construction, at an estimated cost of R1.3 billion.

Gauteng The Lesotho Highlands Water Project Phase 2 is aimed at ensuring long-term water supply in Gauteng and the Vaal River System.

The project is estimated to cost R32 billion and work packages for the Dam, Tunnel and the Bridge are currently at procurement stage.

The anticipated completion date is 2027.


Kwazulu Natal • The uMkhomazi Water Project is aimed at delivering long-term additional water to the Ethekwini region at a cost of R23 billion by 2028.

The project is at pre-funding stage and construction is expected to start in 2024.

• The upgrade of the Hazelmere Dam is well underway to ensure long-term water supply to eThekwini.

The project is due to be completed in the third quarter of 2023, at a cost of approximately R800 million.
• The Tugela Goedertrouw Transfer Scheme to ensure long-term water supply to the industrial area of Richards Bay is 64% complete, with construction resumed in April 2022.

The estimated cost of the project is approximately R800 million.

Northern Cape The Vaal GamaGara Water Supply Scheme is critical to mining and potable water supply in the Northern Cape.

Phase 1 is 88% complete at a cost of R 1.4 billion, with Phase 2 starting later in 2022 at a cost of R10 billion.
Limpopo • The multi-phase Olifants River Water Resources Development Project has been re- sequenced as a public-private partnership with mining companies to fast-track water delivery to everyone in the Sekhukhune and Mokgalakwena municipalities by 2028, at 14 a cost of R22 billion.

The project is at approval stage, with some of the work packages at pre-construction stage and was anticipated to begin in late 2022.
• The Giyani Water Services project has been re-packaged and fast-tracked to deliver water to 55 villages in sequential order from March 2022 until December 2023, at a cost of approximately R4 billion.

The project also includes synchronisation with Mopani District Municipality for the provision of reticulation, as the pipelines will be commissioned per village.

The project is currently 67% complete.

This project is delayed.


Free State The Gariep-Mangaung pipeline is a long-term water supply project to Mangaung at a cost of R10 billion by 2029.

The project is currently at feasibility stage.

Northwest The Department is urgently upgrading conveyance infrastructure from Molopo Eye to Mafikeng to increase the reliability of water supply.

Construction was anticipated to have started in early 2022.

The estimated cost of the project is R50 million.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AND INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS 6.


WATER AND SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES There is agreement that municipalities’ water and sanitation services are in a poor state and deteriorating.
Nationally, 5.3 million households do not have access to reliable drinking water; 14.1 million people do not have access to safe sanitation; 56 of wastewater treatment works (WWTWs) and 44% of water treatment works (WTWs) are in poor or critical condition, and 11% are dysfunctional; 46% of municipal water does not generate revenue and 35% is lost through leakages.
These problems are mainly due to, among others, poor governance, weak asset management, billing and revenue collection, operations maintenance, and lack of technical skills.30 In light of these observations and the above analysis, the national government, through the Department of Water and Sanitation, intends to intervene as follows: • Strengthen the role of DWS in supporting and intervening in municipalities where water and sanitation services are failing.
This will be done in conjunction with provinces, the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), National Treasury (NT) and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) in the spirit of cooperative governance (District Development Model), as prescribed by the Constitution to avoid creating inter-governmental conflicts.
• Strengthen and extend the roles, responsibilities, and capacity of water boards to enable them to support municipalities more and to provide water and sanitation services in instances where municipalities are failing to provide the services.

• Review the geographical boundaries of the water boards to make them more sustainable.

This has already started with the disestablishment of Sedibeng Water.

30 Department of Water and Sanitation (2022).


15 • Increase the involvement of private sector financing and management in municipal water and sanitation services.

• Strengthen regulatory interventions based on the results of monitoring mechanisms such as Blue Drop, Green Drop and No Drop.

• Strengthen the National Norms and Standards (issued in terms of the Water Services • Act) and put in place a framework to guide the provision of sanitation services.
Introduce longer term interventions, such as for example taking over the management of wastewater treatment works from municipalities for a longer prescribed period where there is continued non-compliance with norms and standards.

• More effectively link the allocation of municipal water and sanitation grants to enable support and interventions.

• Use DWS internal construction capacity for rapid deployment to address urgent intervention needs.
• Put in place appropriate financing frameworks and mechanisms for support and • interventions.

Improve coordination and linkages of the interventions made in terms of sections of various legislation.

Some of these measures will start impacting municipal water and sanitation services in the short term (within three months) and others will yield results over the medium term.31 CONCLUSIONS AND OVERSIGHT AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION BY 7.
THE NCOP South Africa has enacted relevant legislation pertaining to the roll-out of water and sanitation infrastructure and services.

For example, the Constitution is explicit insofar as the provision of water and sanitation services are concerned.

This is clearly operationalised by the National Water and Water Services Acts, which set out the roles, norms, and standards for the provision of water and sanitation, among other issues.

These are also complemented by municipal legislation and strategies.
Therefore, the existing legislative framework aimed at enabling the State in the provision of water and sanitation services is adequate.

There is, however, a lack of implementation of these legislative imperatives, which contributes to backlogs in access to water and sanitation infrastructure and services.

Further, there is a lack of technical skills to manage, operate and maintain the water and sanitation infrastructure.
This results in water losses and water resource contamination by poorly operated and maintained wastewater treatment facilities.

There is currently a wastewater-management crisis across the country.

The green drop and blue drop assessment outcomes and recommendations are not being implemented by relevant municipalities.

The lack of technical skills in municipalities is the single most contributor to the poor performance of water services authorities across the country.
Water and sanitation infrastructure funding is not adequate, as it is currently mainly sourced from the national revenue fund.

Failure of municipalities to collect water tariffs contributes to 31 Ibid.

16 water and sanitation infrastructure roll-out backlogs.

The inability of communities to pay for water and sanitation services also exacerbates the funding shortfall for water and sanitation services.
Lack of public-private partnerships on the funding, operation and maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure affects the capacity of the State to provide water and sanitation services negatively.

To this end, there is a need to capacitate municipalities with relevant technical skills for optimal operation and maintenance of the provision of water and sanitation infrastructure to ensure sustainable and reliable water supply.
Government should strive to implement water and sanitation legislation before trying to amend them since, in most cases, it is not the legislation that is defective but the political will and the technical ability of the officials in Government that is lacking.

Public-private partnerships should be encouraged, particularly in areas where communities have the ability to pay for services.

In conclusion, the DWS appears to have a plan to address the water and sanitation infrastructure backlogs.
It is therefore recommended that the NCOP holds the Department accountable for this plan by requesting more detailed information on, among others, specific projects, and funding requirements across the provinces.

In addition, the establishment of the NWRIA should be fast-tracked so that a clear water and sanitation infrastructure plan for the entire country could be developed and funded appropriately to ensure reliable water infrastructure for sustainable water supply to all communities.
Table 3 provides a list of proposed areas for the provincial week activities.

Province Table 3.

Proposed Oversight Schedule – Provincial Week 2023 Municipality Sekhukhune District Mopani District Vhembe District Limpopo in Capricorn District Project or Issue Water Supply projects in the entire district Giyani Water Services Project Water supply to Musina and Thulamela municipal areas Wastewater Treatment Systems Polokwane municipal area.
Water supply services to Lepelle Nkupi Local municipality Water services supply in the entire district Water services supply in the entire district Water services supply in the entire district Water services supply in the entire district Water services supply in the entire district (Bushbuckridge, Mbombela and Umjindi) Dr Ruth Segomotsi District Water services supply in the entire district Water services supply in the entire district Ngaka Modiri Molema Bucket Toilets Eradication Programme in Thabo Local Nketoane District Municipalities uMkhanyakude District Ugu District Amathole District OR Tambo District Ehlanzeni District Mofutsanyane Setsoto and KwaZulu Natal Eastern Cape Mpumalanga Northwest Free State 17 Northern Cape Pixley ka Seme District Namakwa District Bucket Toilets Eradication Programme in the entire district Water services supply in the Karoo Hoogland municipality REFERENCES Akbar N; Ostermann S.L (2015).
Understanding, Defining, and Measuring State Capacity in India: Traditional, Modern, and Everything in Between.

An Asian Survey Special Issue on India.

Asian Auditor General South Africa (2023) Water boards: consolidated report on 2020-21 audit outcomes Auditor General South Africa (2021).

AG Presentation to CoGTA Portfolio Committee on 2020-21 audit outcomes Ugu District Municipality and its municipal entities on 02 September 2022.
DBSA (2012) South Africa: State of Economic Infrastructure 2012 Dincecco M (2017).

State Capacity and Economic Development: Present and Past.

Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge, UK DWS (2022).

Water Services Institutions.

Pretoria, South Africa Department of Water and Sanitation (2022).

Annual Performance Plan 2022 -23 to 2024-25.

Pretoria, South Africa Department of Water and Sanitation (2023b) No Drop Watch Report 2023.

Pretoria Department of Water and Sanitation (2022).
Ministerial briefing to the NCOP on Progress in eradicating the gaps in the provision of water and sanitation on 15 March 2022.

Virtual Platform Department of Water and Sanitation (2023) Green Drop Watch Report 2023.

Pretoria Department of Water and Sanitation (2023a) Blue Drop Watch Report 2023.

Pretoria Department of Water and Sanitation (2019) National Water and Sanitation Master Plan.

Pretoria, South Africa Department of Cooperative Governance (2022).
Annual Performance Plan 2022/23 and Updated Strategic Plan 2019-2024.

Pretoria, South Africa National Business Initiative (2019).

Strengthening South African Water Services Authorities.

Report 02 – Kopano Ya Metsi.

Sandton, South Africa National Treasury (2022).

Budget 2022 – Estimates of National Expenditure.

Pretoria, South Africa Masondo S (2022) Joburg's crippling water cuts: R61 billion needed to fix collapsing infrastructure.

News24.

Cape Town, South Africa 18 Minister of Finance (2022).
Appropriation Bill [B7-2022].

Pretoria, South Africa OUTA (2017).

Preliminary investigation into abuse of capital grants used for water and sanitation infrastructure Projects.

Midrand, South Africa Presidency (2012).

National Development Plan 2030 – Our Future – Make it Work.

National Planning Commission, Pretoria South African Government (2022).

Minister Senzo Mchunu on debts incurred by municipalities and water boards.
[Online] https://www.gov.za/speeches/minister-senzo-mchunu-huge-debts-incurred-municipalities-and-water- boards-20-may-2022-0000 SAICE (2022).

SAICE 2022 Infrastructure Report Card for South Africa Statistics South Africa (2017).

The state of basic service delivery in South Africa: In-depth analysis of the Community Survey 2016 data.

Pretoria, South Africa Statistics South Africa (2022).

General Household Survey 2021.

Statistics SA.

Pretoria Ugu District Municipality (2022).


MFMA S132 Hearing Presentation to the CoGTA Portfolio Committee by Dr EMS Ntombela Acting Municipal Manager on the Municipal Recovery Strategy and Action on the 2nd September 2022 Umgeni Water Board (2022).

Corporate Plan 2022/23 t0 2026/27.

eThekwini, South Africa Water Research Commission (2012) The State of Non-Revenue Water in South Africa.

WRC Report No.

TT 522/12 19 2.

MUNICIPAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE 1.


INTRODUCTION32 One of the most important and valuable infrastructure assets that affect every citizen, is a country’s road network.

Citizen expectations of infrastructure service delivery varies for several reasons.

To many people, the provision of decent housing, sanitation and electricity is the most important issue.
Conversely, to others, timeous collection of refuse and the cleansing of streets is their main concern, whilst to many citizens the provision of well- managed health services is the overriding subject.

All these topics are, obviously, of significant importance and all require substantial government funding.

Despite the importance of the road network to a nation’s economic well-being, maintenance funding is often inhibited in favour of greater investment in perceivably more important infrastructure types.
With constrained (and often inadequate) budgets, the undertaking of optimised cost-effective and appropriate road maintenance of even a minor road network is challenged without some form of road maintenance management plan.33 For larger networks, this task becomes even more difficult.

Ad hoc road maintenance on a reactive basis is not only inefficient in terms of cost, it often results in premature failure due to incorrect remedial intervention.
It also creates a perception of inadequate service delivery, and the risk of creating road infrastructure maintenance backlogs.

During the first decades of the 21st century, and despite the lack of financing and the severe criticism from environmentalists, road networks expanded globally.34 The expansion of road infrastructure and related transportation activities offer job opportunities, social welfare, and economic growth.
Given the scale and the pace of expansion, it is estimated that this trend will produce about 25 million kilometres (km) of new roads by 2050, most of them in developing countries.35 It is widely recognised that an operational road network is a key leverage to inclusive economic growth and poverty alleviation.
This role is reflected in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which set targets for improving the ability to access transportation and developing the quality, reliability, safety, sustainability and resilience of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure.36 This brief provides an overview of the state of municipal road infrastructure in South Africa.

Broadly, it focuses on four areas.


Firstly, it provides an overview and status (including the policy and legal framework at a municipal level) of municipal road infrastructure.

Secondly, it 32 Researcher: Dr Sifiso Eric Ngesi 33 Tetley et al (2022).

34 Mouratidis (2020).

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

20 explores challenges facing municipal road infrastructure.

Thirdly, it gives a broad overview of the progress made on the building of new, and the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Finally, it highlights suggested areas for oversight.

2.
OVERVIEW AND CURRENT STATUS 2.1 Legislative and Policy Framework The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution), assigns different roles and responsibilities to the three spheres of Government, namely, national, provincial, and local pertaining to road infrastructure.37 The responsible authority manages all planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of roads under its control.38 The three spheres are inter-related and inter-dependent, and each has the power to legislate in its area of competence.
Transport is a concurrent function.

Schedule 4 Part A and B of the Constitution assigns road transport as a functional area over which National, Provincial and Local Government have a concurrent jurisdiction.

Section 156 (Part B Schedule 4 and Part B Schedule 5) of the Constitution, as well as section 84 of the Municipal Structures Act (No.

117 of 1998), assign responsibility for municipal roads to local municipalities.
To finance the provision of services, local municipalities are empowered to levy property rates, user-fees, and service charges (e.g., for water, electricity, and sanitation) in terms of section 229 of the Constitution.39 In addition to these own revenue sources, local municipalities are also entitled to an “equitable share” of revenue collected nationally.

The Minister of Finance annually distributes a formula-based equitable share allocation amongst the 257 municipalities.
This process takes place, in consultation with the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC).40 Local municipalities are also funded through conditional grants from various national government departments.

Conditional grants are earmarked for a particular purpose and municipalities have no discretion in how they are spent.41 From a transport perspective, municipalities receive the Public Transport Network Grant (PTNG) from the Department of Transport.
The objective of the PTNG, as set out by the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) (No.
5 of 2022), is to ”provide funding for accelerated construction and improvement of public and non-motorised transport infrastructure that form part of a municipal integrated public transport network (IPTN)”.42 The grant is also intended to “support the planning, regulation, control, management and operations of fiscally and financially sustainable municipal public transport network services”.43 These conditional grants are mainly capital for infrastructure, but there are also operational conditional grants for capacity building.
Both the equitable share allocations and the 37 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

38 Ross D and Thownshend (2019).

39 Ajam et al (2021).

40 Section 214 of the Constitution.

41 Ajam et al, ibid.

42 National Treasury (2022).

43 Ibid.

21 conditional grants are reflected annually in the DORA, which is tabled simultaneously with the national budget.
The largest capital grant is the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) which funds provision of infrastructure for basic services, roads and social infrastructure for indigent households in all non-metropolitan municipalities.44 MIG allocations are according to a formula, with vertical and horizontal divisions.
The vertical allocations occur across sectors such as basic residential infrastructure, for example, water supply and sanitation, roads and other services.45 The horizontal division takes account levels of poverty, backlogs, and municipal powers and functions in allocating funds to municipalities.

Aside from the Municipal Structures Act (No.


117 of 1998), a range of other legislation impacting on municipalities have been reviewed or enacted since 1994, including, but not limited to the following:46 • Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act (No.

27 of 1998); • Local Government: Municipal Systems Act (No.

32 of 2000), • Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act (No.

56 of 2003) (MFMA); and • Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act (No.

6 of 2004).
6 of 2004).

These laws form the foundation of the contemporary local government system, embodying the critical package of local government policy reform.
The laws are aimed at making municipalities more accountable, financially sustainable, and capable of delivering essential services to their communities.47 2.2 Current Status South Africa’s road network stretches approximately 750 000 km, and is said to be the eleventh longest globally.48 Its jurisdiction is divided as follow:49 • Primary intercity, with economic roads mainly managed by the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) on behalf of the Department of Transport.
• The secondary and tertiary intercity network, primary access and mobility roads, largely managed by the nine provincial transport department.

• The urban and rural municipal roads managed by local authorities.

The table below provides an overview of the breakdown of the country’s road network in kilometres.

Table 1: South Africa’s Road Network Authority SANRAL 9 Provinces 8 Metros Paved 23 512 47 348 51 682 Gravel 0 226 273 14 461 Total 23 512 273 621 66 143 44 Ibid.

45 Ajam et al, Ibid.


46 Wall (2007).

47 Ibid.

48 South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2022).

49 Ibid.

22 Authority Municipalities Sub-total Un-proclaimed50 (estimate) Estimated Total Paved 37 691 158 124 158 124 Gravel 219 223 459 957 131 919 591 876 Total 256 914 618 081 131 919 750 000 (Sources: South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2022) & Futshane (2023).
The preservation of this valuable national asset should therefore be a national priority and the neglect thereof is something the country can ill-afford.

Systematic road maintenance programmes are therefore an essential operational function of all road authorities.51 3.

SECTOR CHALLENGES South Africa faces many developmental challenges, including but not limited to, infrastructure bottlenecks, and economic and social challenges such as unemployment, poverty, and inequality.
Since the road network is one of the key levers for economic growth, road infrastructure could potentially deliver a higher economic return on investment than any single other type of infrastructure.52 Road transport is key to the national economy, but various challenges inhibit its enhanced contribution to economic and developmental objectives.
For example, increased road traffic, low levels of investment, and poor maintenance have resulted in higher transportation costs and related bottlenecks.53 Poor road safety levels on the country’s roads, particularly for non- motorised transport (NMT) users, exacerbate higher transportation costs.

There is an obvious, but often overlooked, reason for efficient and effective road maintenance that can be analogised with that of owning a motor vehicle.
If the vehicle is serviced regularly and repaired correctly, it offers sustained and (usually) trouble-free motoring (i.e., service delivery).

If the services are carried out on an ad hoc basis and repairs undertaken incorrectly, the vehicle will, in all probability, be prone to frequent breakdown and will eventually be in such a poor condition that it must be scrapped.

The aforementioned analogy can be applied to the road network.
Given timeous and appropriate routine and periodic maintenance, the road will provide an acceptable level of service until such time that it reaches its design life – many roads actually exceed this point significantly before requiring major structural repairs.54 If roads are not adequately maintained, they fail prematurely and, like the motor car, they will require reconstruction long before they should, i.e., they are “scrapped”.
50 II that have not been formally classified as the responsibility of any sphere of government.

This means that authorities are not able to legally spend public funds on these roads, and thus they are in a very poor condition unless they are privately maintained.

51 Southern African Bitumen Association (n.d.).

52 Department of Transport (2018).

53 Ibid.

54 Tetley et al (2022).
23 On a national scale, the replacement value of the 750 000 km of South Africa’s road network is estimated at R2 trillion, with the surfaced road network of approximately 160 000 km being estimated to account for +/- R1.1 trillion of the total replacement cost.55 This is arguably the highest single asset value that the country is responsible for, but likely receives the lowest funding allocation in relation to its actual value.56 The allocation of routine and periodic road maintenance funding is, routinely insufficient to address actual needs and preserve the road network in an acceptable condition.
The consequence of under-funding is an expanding backlog of maintenance and an exponentially increasing budget deficit.
The former Minister of Transport, Fikile Mbalula, contended that the 2022 road maintenance backlog for surfaced roads stood at approximately R200 billion.57 Given that this figure would be required for only 20% of the nation’s paved roads in poor condition, the actual backlog is likely to be much higher.58 Until investment in road infrastructure reaches equilibrium with maintenance requirements, there can arguably not be any improvement in the condition of the road network.
Until such time, acceptable service delivery in this intrinsic sphere of public responsibility will not be realized.

Some of the challenges besetting the municipal road infrastructure include the following:59 • Government has limited funds from the national fiscus to meet the road maintenance burden.

Moreover, there is the increased demand for expansion of the road network, due to increased number of vehicles and new, rapidly expanding towns and cities.
This leads to road congestion, higher vehicle operating costs, and a reduced level of service across extensive portions of the road network.60 • The 2022 floods that hit KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape resulted in, inter alia, the destruction of municipal road infrastructure.

Raging water washed away bridges and collapsed roads.
Although Government “successfully provided rebuilding phases, the response [had] been slow”.61 This disaster revealed the pre-existing weaknesses in inter- governmental processes and coordination.62 • The bulk of all freight is conveyed by road, which contributes to poor road safety.

Excessive freight volumes on roads further compound the road maintenance backlog.
Overloading remains a challenge and existing law enforcement strategies are ineffective and therefore unable to arrest the negative impact of overloaded vehicles on the road network.63 • The allocation for routine and periodic road maintenance funding is routinely inadequate for addressing the actual needs and preserve the road network in an 55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.


59 Department of Transport (2018); South African Civil Engineering (2022); Southern African Bitumen Association (n.d.); and Mouratidis (2020).

60 Department of Transport (2018).

61 Auditor-General of South Africa (2022).

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

24 acceptable condition.


The consequence of under-funding is an expanding backlog of maintenance and an exponentially increasing budget deficit.64 • The poor standard of many municipal roads is a concern and the road maintenance backlog increase on an annual basis, translating into potholes, among other challenges.
There appears to be no consensus on the exact number of potholes affecting the country’s roads, although in February 2023 SANRAL clarified that widely circulating estimates of 25 million potholes is likely improbable and unlikely.65 given the length of tarred road surface available.

• All these challenges are compounded by limited funding, as well as a reduced focus on maintenance and limited technical skills in the public sector.
Many municipalities lack the skills, capacity, and funding to efficiently manage local road networks.66 The importance of skills and experience in each phase of the project process cannot be over- emphasised, nor the need for systems to assess and record road conditions, as well as construction and maintenance work required and implemented.
• Municipal road authorities’ data is considered “comparatively scarce and too incomplete” to enable general conclusions to be drawn, other than to infer that they are not sufficiently informed of the condition of their roads and would, consequently be unlikely to manage these assets in a satisfactory manner.67 It may be that the last condition assessment was done some years previously, and/or that a condition assessment was done on only a portion of the network.
Only a minority of authorities maintain a pavement management system.68 However, the knowledge of the condition of their road systems, together with knowledge of the usage of the system, is essential for prioritisation of expenditure.

• There is no reliable database on the distances and ownerships of roads.
Comparison between information sources reveals apparent duplication of ownership, sections of road with recorded ownership, and other discrepancies.69 • There are variations in the ways that road authorities report expenditure.

A uniform reporting system should be developed.70 • Since the early 2000s, genuine concerns have been raised about adapting road infrastructure to extreme climate events in most industrialised countries.
To date, despite the scientific elaboration of risk assessment methods and suitable engineering measures, climate-related risks have not been efficiently confronted or reduced.

There is a need for alternative and more effective measures, as well as sufficient financial resources.71 • Multiple industries, and most workforces, are dependent on municipal roads for access to essential services, transportation of goods, and the movement of workers.
Poor road maintenance limits this access and increases carbon emissions by causing uneconomical driving, frequent road closures and increases the risk of road incidents.72 • The 2021 findings of the study conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) on the expenditure on the PTNG found that although the municipalities that received the grant 64 Tetley et al, ibid.

65 SANRAL (2023).

66 South African Civil Engineering (2022), ibid.

67 Southern African Civil Engineering, ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.
68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Mouratidis, ibid.

72 Leafy Space (n.d.).
25 were making progress on the provision of the network infrastructure component, there was no reporting on the progress made in the provision of the network operations component, which should include reporting on:73 • Number of average weekday passenger trips carried on PTNG funded networks; • Number and percentage of municipal households within a 500m walk to an Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) station or stop that has a minimum peak period frequency of 15 minutes or better; • Percentage uptime for network operating systems as a proportion of the network's public operating hours; and • Passengers per network vehicle per average weekday PROGRESS ON THE BUILDING OF NEW AND MAINTENANCE OF 4.
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE This section provides a snapshot of some municipal road infrastructure projects that are either new, undergoing rehabilitation or being upgraded in the select provinces.74 The focus is on the three major metros due to the unavailability of data on some of the country’s municipalities at the time of conducting research.
4.1 KwaZulu-Natal 4.1.1 New Infrastructure Like all other South Africa’s provinces, KwaZulu-Natal has to strike a balance between the construction of the new road infrastructure, as well as the urgent need to preserve and improve the condition of the existing one.
It is against this backdrop that in 2022/23, the province made the following budget allocations for the construction of new road infrastructure projects in the following municipalities:75 Table 2: KwaZulu-Natal: New Infrastructure Municipality EThekwini Ugu UMgungundlovu UThukela UMzinyathi Amajuba Zululand UMkakhanyakude ILembe King Cetshwayo Harry Gwala Budget R million R18 million R10 million R62 million R21 million R55 million R24 million R85 million R19 million R44 million R27 million R46 million 73 Sekatane (2021).
74 The criteria used in selecting the provinces was the availability of data at the time of writing the research brief.

75 Daily News (2022).

26 Municipality Total (Source: Daily News (2022).

Budget R million R411 million Given the 2022 April floods that battered the province’s road infrastructure, it is hoped that the construction of the new infrastructure has taken cognisance of the climate change challenges.
Moreover, investment in new technologies or methodologies to mitigate future occurrences should have been embedded in the construction methods.
4.1.2 Projects for Rehabilitation The damage to the road infrastructure of the City of eThekwini due to the April 2022 floods was estimated at R6.5 billion.76 The City reported that it had undertaken 600 projects which included rehabilitation and re-gravelling of access roads that fall under its jurisdiction in rural and township communities.77 Some of the projects that were earmarked for rehabilitation or upgrade in KwaZulu-Natal municipalities are stated in the tables below.
Table 3: KwaZulu-Natal: Projects for Rehabilitation Municipality EThekwini Ugu UMgungundlovu UThukela UMzinyathi Amajuba Zululand UMkhanyakude ILembe King Cetshwayo Harry Gwala Total (Source: Daily News (2022).

4.1.3 Projects for Upgrade Table 4: KwaZulu-Natal Projects for Upgrade Municipality EThekwini Ugu UMgungundlovu UThukela UMzinyathi 76 Mercury (2023).

77 Ibid.
77 Ibid.

Budget R million R178 million R260 million R266 million R132 million R297 million R16 million R146 million R133 million R52 million R213 million R292 million Approximately R2 billion Budget R million R121 million R139.9 million R246 million R143 million R132 million 27 Municipality Amajuba Zululand UMkhanyakude ILembe King Cetshwayo Harry Gwala Total (Source: Daily News (2022).
4.2 Western Cape Budget R million R42 million R161 million R31 million R75 million R152 million R170 million R1.3 billion In response to increased reliance on road-based public infrastructure, the City of Cape Town has developed several programmes related to bulk infrastructure, including:78 2.1 The Congestion Relief Programme This programme includes 14 projects, six (6) of which relate to new infrastructure builds, while the remaining 8 are expansions of existing infrastructure.79 These programmes are intended to relieve congestion on the City’s main road networks.
As of 2021/22, two projects had commenced with construction.80 2.2 Maintenance of Roads under the City’s Jurisdiction The Roads Maintenance Programme focuses on the overall maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s road network.
Projects include rehabilitation, resurfacing, resealing, patching and minor base repairs, and are funded from the operating budget.81 The portfolio of road construction and upgrade projects will continue to provide relief from congestion, support major land development projects, and facilitate non-motorised transport.
2.3 Programmes Aimed at Operations, Non-Motorised Transport, Safety, and Transport Systems Management Planned capital spending on rehabilitation and refurbishment projects is concentrated in the period between 2024 and 2028.
The majority of projects relate to road rehabilitation (49%) and metro road reconstruction (39%), which is in line with the City’s Urban Mobility strategic objectives.82 Planned road rehabilitation projects span a 10-year period, in line with the need to consistently address the road rehabilitation backlog.

Planned metro road reconstruction projects are aimed at addressing R450 million in backlogs.83 The top five projects in terms of 78 City of Cape Town (2022).

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.


83 Ibid.
28 planned spending on rehabilitation are: Broadlands Drive, Jakes Gerwel Drive, and roads located in Simon’s Town, Delft, and Swartklip.84 4.3 Gauteng The City of Tshwane’s was allocated a total capital and operational budget of R2.4 billion in 2023/24 to, amongst others, provide an integrated public transport network and maintain road infrastructure.85 The capital budget for the current financial year is mainly sourced from grants, with a conservative level of expenditure from the City’s own revenue sources.
During the previous financial year, the capital budget focussed on contractually bound projects, with a proven status of readiness to implement and address strategic priorities.

The City of Tshwane has partnered with the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport to invest in the upgrading of the Garsfontein Road.
This upgrade will result in key benefits such as increased time-savings and productivity, as well as environmental benefits.86 It is estimated that productivity will likely increase by R15.4 million per annum or about R308 million over a 20-year period.87 The City argues that it implies a direct benefit to Tshwane’s economy through savings in travel time.
The project costs will be shared between the City of Tshwane and the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport in a 40% and 60% ratio, respectively.88 The extent to which residents can exploit economic opportunities is reliant on how easily they can move around their cities.

When individual movement is constrained, access to economic opportunities is limited.
In this regard, it is maintained that the City of Tshwane will continue to prioritise investments in road maintenance interventions to ensure that its infrastructure meets the highest standards of safety operations and efficiency.

5.

SUGGESTED ISSUES FOR OVERSIGHT • • In August 2022, the National Department of Transport launched the national campaign to fix potholes, dubbed Operation Vala Zonke.
SANRAL was appointed as the coordinating agency to spearhead the campaign, which includes the harmonisation of all data and information on potholes and providing the technology and technical knowledge to ensure quality delivery on the campaign.89 However, it is reported that there are challenges in obtaining data from the other roads authorities.
It is unclear to what extent municipalities are participating in the campaign with respect to fixing potholes in their jurisdictions, and sharing relevant data with SANRAL to ensure an updated and reliable database is available.

In an endeavour to respond to the findings by the Auditor-General of South Africa on how Government had responded to the 2022 floods in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, the preparedness of inter-governmental activities should be at the core of responding to natural disasters.
Inter-governmental processes and coordination to avoid failure in the 84 Ibid.

85 Berlinton (2023).

86 Ibid.

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid.

89 SANRAL (2023).

29 infrastructure rebuilding phase should be strengthened.

In addition, a mechanism should be put in place to address how infrastructure is funded after an adverse event.

• The availability of reliable of rail infrastructure for the movement of long-haul freight may assist in mitigating the deterioration of municipal road infrastructure.
There should be an engagement with Transnet so that it invests in its infrastructure.

Given the inadequate Government resources for infrastructure funding and competing priorities, Transnet should collaborate with the private sector.
This is in line with the White Paper on Rail Policy, 2022, that proposes “private sector participation where government cannot and should not invest, or where it demonstrates superior value for money”.90 This will ensure that there are fewer trucks on the roads, because not only does this leads to congestion, but it contributes to increased carbon emissions.
In addition, the movement of goods and heavy-duty vehicles from road to rail would result in fewer road accidents and the improvement in the quality of road maintenance.91 • There is a need for municipalities to build and sustain capacity in road infrastructure through the development and training of personnel to perform the requisite maintenance.

This should be coupled with adequate and dedicated funding for infrastructure maintenance.
• A reliable database for the ownership of the road network should be developed to ensure that there is accountability and that there are no un-proclaimed roads.

• Municipalities’ knowledge of the condition of their road systems, together with knowledge of the usage of the system, is essential for the prioritisation of expenditure.
For example, it is standard practice to ensure that roads that are more important to the economy are prioritised for maintenance.92 Conversely, a particular road may carry a very low volume of traffic, but serves as the only link for otherwise isolated communities.

It can be argued that more attention should be paid to this road than its count of low vehicle- kilometres driven would suggest.
• A uniform reporting system on municipal road infrastructure expenditure should be developed so that reliable, up-to-date, and consistent data is available to inform municipal planning and maintenance.

• Municipalities should ensure that methodologies for road construction and maintenance are adapted to prevailing climate change considerations.

• Municipalities should strive to ensure that a balancing act is made pertaining to periodic and routine maintenance of their road infrastructure.

6.
6.

CONCLUSION Generally, municipal road maintenance in South Africa is not of an acceptable standard either in its management or physical implementation.

It can therefore be argued that a paradigm shift is required on the subject of routine and periodic road maintenance service delivery.

The perceived poor condition of the country’s municipal road network is a direct consequence of the reactive maintenance practices that seem to be the norm, bar by SANRAL and some provinces and metros.
Should the status quo not be radically and urgently improved, the current situation, will be exacerbated at an exponential rate until the country’s road network reaches a point of no return, with the associated disastrous consequences.

90 Department of Transport (2022).

91 Sinxo (2022).

92 South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2022).

30 REFERENCES Ajam, T.; Burger, J.; Quinot, G.; Botha, M.; Isaacs, D.; and Douglas, J.

(2021).
(2021).

Towards a Municipal Financial and Operational Sustainability Strategy for the Western Cape: A Report for the Western Cape Department of Local Government.

[Internet].

Stellenbosch University.

Available from: <<https://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/economy/spl/SPL%20Library/SPL%202021%20Municipal%20Sustainabil ity%20Report%20v2%202021-06-06%20FINAL%20SMALL.pdf>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Auditor-General of South Africa (2022).

First Special Report on Flood Relief Funds.

[Internet].
[Internet].

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Available from: <<https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/OISD/Reports/2022/october/19-10- 2022/First_Special_Report_on_Flood_Relief_Funds_31_August_2022_FINAL.pdf>> [Accessed 7 July 2023] Berlinton, T. (2023).

City of Tshwane Invests over R2 Billion for the Maintenance and Expansion of Road Infrastructure and Public Transport Systems.

[internet].

City of Tshwane.


Available from: <<https://www.tshwane.gov.za/?p=57637>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

City of Cape Town (2022).

Infrastructure Report: December 2022.

[Internet].

City of Cape Town.

Available from: <<https://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/City%20research%20reports%20and%20revie w/CCT_Mayors_Infrastructure_Report_2022.pdf>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, The.

Daily News (2022).
Daily News (2022).

Road Upgrades: This is How Much Each Municipality in KZN will Get.

[Internet] Daily News.

Available from: <<https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/kwazulu-natal/road-upgrades-this-is-how-much-each- municipality-in-kzn-will-get-a70f9e3c-b0f6-4b47-9c95-f709ff1cd883>> [Accessed 29 June 2023].

Department of Transport (2018).

Draft Roads Policy for South Africa.

[Internet].

South African Government.


Available from: <<https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201803/41488gon203.pdf>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Department of Transport (2022).

White Paper on the National Rail Policy, Pretoria, Department of Transport.

Futshane, S. (2023).

Collaboration is Key to Fixing Potholes on South Africa’s National, Provincial and Municipal Roads.

[Internet].

South African National Roads Agency Limited.


Available from: <<https://stop- over.co.za/collaboration-is-key-to-fixing-potholes-on-south-africas-national-provincial-and-municipal-roads/>> [Accessed 28 June 2023].

Leafy Space (n.d.).

The Challenges Facing Road Maintenance in South Africa and Finding the Right Solutions to Them.

[Internet].

Leafy Space.


Available from: <<https://leafyspace.co.za/the-challenges-facing-road- maintenance-in-sa-and-finding-the-right-solutions-to-them/>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Mercury (2023).

EThekwini Highlights Repair, Rebuilding Work Done One Year after April Floods.

[Internet].

Mercury.

Available from: <<https://www.iol.co.za/mercury/news/ethekwini-highlights-repair-rebuilding-work-done- one-year-after-april-floods-14a6915f-78eb-443e-89ef-37d033e00e9f>> [Accessed 7 July 2023].
Mouratidis, A.

(2020).

The 7 Challenges of Road Management towards Sustainability and Development.

[Internet].

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development.

Available from: 31 <<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348208371_The_7_challenges_of_road_management_towards_sust ainability_and_development>> [Accessed 28 June 2023].

National Treasury (2022).

Division of Revenue Act (No.

5 of 2022).

[Internet].

National Treasury.


Available from: <<https://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/acts/2022/46549_15-6_DivisionofRevenueAct52022.pdf>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Ross, D and Townshend, M. (2019).

The Road Maintenance Backlog in South Africa.

[Internet].

University of Pretoria.

Available from: <<https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/74310/1A_Ross_Road_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y >> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

SANRAL (2023).
SANRAL (2023).

SANRAL Clarifies Claims of 25 Million Potholes on South Africa’s Roads.

[Internet].

South African National Roads Agency Limited.

Available from: <<https://stop-over.co.za/sanral-clarifies-claims-of-25-million- potholes-on-south-africas-roads/>> [Accessed 8 July 2023].

Sekatane, M. (2021).

Policy Brief: Performance on Transport Conditional Grants.

[Internet].

Parliamentary Budget Office.


<<https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/PBO/Analysis_and_Reports/2022/january/17-01- 2022/Dec_2021_PBO_Brief_on_Transport_Conditional_Grants.pdf>> [Accessed 7 July 2022].

Sinxo, Z.

(2022).

Transport: ‘Farmers Will Benefit by Switching from Road to Rai’.

[Internet].

Food for Mzansi.


Available from: <<https://www.foodformzansi.co.za/transport-farmers-will-benefit-by-switching-from-road-to-rail/>> [Accessed 7 July 2023], South African Institution of Civil Engineering (2022).

SAICE 2022 Infrastructure Report Card of South Africa.

Internet.

South African Institution of Civil Engineering.

Available from: <<https://saice.org.za/downloads/SAICE- 2022-Infrastructure-Report-Card.pdf>> [Accessed 27 June 2023].

Southern African Bitumen Association (n.d).


Sabita Information Sheet #9 – Maintaining Surfaced Roads.

[Internet].

Southern African Bitumen Association.

Available from: <<https://www.sabita.co.za/documents/sabbrochure- maintenance-pm.pdf>> [Accessed 28 June 2023].

Tetley, S.; Balaram, Y.; Schmidt, B; and Lewis, T. (2022).

The Management of Road Maintenance in South Africa 2022 – Observations on Current Practice and Modus Operandi towards Addressing Service Delivery.

[Internet].
[Internet].

Institute of Municipal Engineering of Southern Africa.

Available from: <<https://www.imesa.org.za/wp- content/uploads/paper-16-1.pdf>> [Accessed 28 June 2023].

Wall, K. (2007).

Challenges Facing Municipal Infrastructural Management in South Africa.

[Internet].

Sabinet African Journals.

Available from: <<https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC108673>> [Accessed 28 June 2023].

32 3.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1.


INTRODUCTION93 The purpose of this brief is to provide Members of Parliament with an overview of solid waste management in South Africa, as part of the focus areas of the planned Provincial Week programme during July 2023.

For the purposes of this brief, “solid waste” refers to municipal solid waste and does not include other forms of waste (such as hazardous or toxic waste, sanitary waste, medical waste, industrial or construction waste and commercial waste).
In addition to the legislation outlined in this brief, various additional sector-specific regulatory requirements may apply to these other forms of waste, including, for example, the National Water Act (No.

36 of 1998), the Hazardous Substances Act (No.15 of 1973), the Occupation and Safety Act (No.

85 of 1993) and the National Health Act (No.

63 of 1977), as amended.

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2.


LEGISLATION, STRATEGIES AND MANDATES All three spheres of government have specific responsibilities in relation to solid waste management.
Section 156 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) (hereafter referred to as “the Constitution”), read together with Schedule 5, provides local government with executive authority over the functions of cleansing, refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal.94 Furthermore, the core business and mandate of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (hereafter referred to as “the DFFE”) is derived from Section 24 of the Constitution (also referred to as the “Environmental Right”), which includes the requirement for implementing reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation and to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development.95 Apart from the framework environmental Act in South Africa (the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (No.
107 of 1998), as amended), South Africa has a sector-specific Act and White paper in relation to solid waste management96: • The National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA) (No.

59 of 2008), reforms the law regulating waste management to protect health and the environment by providing reasonable measures to prevent pollution.
It therefore provides national norms and standards to regulate the management of waste by all spheres of government and provides for the licensing and control of waste management activities.

o The NEMWA requires all spheres of government to develop Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) and municipalities are required to incorporate 93 Researcher: Jeanie Le Roux 94 SAWIC (2012).

95 DFFE (2023).

96 Ibid.

33 their IWMPs into their Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).
The NEMWA also requires annual performance reports in relation to the implementation of IWMPs in municipalities.

• The White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management (2000) serves as South Africa’s policy on pollution prevention, waste minimisation, impact management and remediation.

South Africa further developed its National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS) in terms of Section 6 of the NEMWA.
It is based on the principles of a circular economy and the revised NWMS was gazetted for implementation in 2021.97 (The first NWMS was published in 1999).98 The NWMS is focused on minimising the amount of waste generated to unlock economic opportunities.
This is primarily achieved by promoting recycling through various beneficiation initiatives.99 Some of the key themes and goals of the NWMS are100: • Waste minimisation: to divert 45% of waste from landfill sites within five years, 55% within ten years, 70% within 15 years and eventually reaching a scenario where no waste ends up at a landfill.

• Effective and sustainable waste services: to enable all South Africans to live in clean communities with well managed and financially sustainable waste services.
• Compliance, Enforcement and Awareness: Mainstreaming waste awareness and fostering a culture of compliance and no tolerance for pollution, littering and illegal dumping.

The Municipal Systems Act (MSA) (No.

32 of 2000) requires municipalities to ensure that all members of the community have access to at least the minimum level of basic services and that such services are equitable and financially and environmentally sustainable.101 The Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) (No.
56 of 2003) provides the overall financial framework for municipalities to manage their budgets and establish tariffs and revenue.

It therefore means that municipalities need to have a sound understanding of all costs associated with its solid waste services, that reasonable and realistic tariffs are set and that revenue collection is performed adequately.
The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process further provides a municipality with the opportunity for formally linking municipal expenditure, income (including tariffs) and performance.102 The historic under-pricing of waste services in many municipalities generally discouraged waste minimisation by households and other waste generators.

Inadequacies in municipal solid waste tariff setting contributed to the challenge.
The Municipal Solid Waste Tariff Strategy was therefore developed in 2012 to provide a framework for municipalities to set 97 PMG (2022).

98 DFFE (2023).

99 DFFE (2023a).

100 PMG (2022).

101 SAWIC (2012).

102 Ibid.

34 waste tariffs that are in line with the NWMS.
It is supported by guidelines for municipalities on how to implement the Solid Waste Tariff Strategy, as well as a broad tariff-setting model and the introduction of cost-recovery tariffs to enable municipalities to fund the “maintenance, renewal and expansion of solid waste infrastructure.”103 The National Domestic Waste Collection Standards set solid waste services standards for uniform application across South Africa, while the National Policy for the Provision of Basic Refuse Removals for Indigent Households incorporates basic solid waste services into the bundle of basic free services.
It ensures the right to access basic solid waste services for households who cannot afford them.104 Municipalities often contract private firms to perform refuse removal services and to manage disposal sites.105 Below is a summary of some of the key mandates and roles of national, provincial and local government in relation to waste management106.
Sphere of government National Provincial Role/Mandate Identify products for extended producer responsibility; • • Develop regulations, norms and standards, including the NWMS, the guidelines for the integration of waste pickers and the Waste Recycling Enterprise Support Programme; • Preparing an IWMP for South Africa along the principles of reduce, re-use, recycle and recover; and • Licensing hazardous waste facilities.
• Prepare IWMPs and reporting on their implementation; • Set provincial norms and standards and to designate waste management officers; and • Act as licensing authorities for municipal solid waste facilities and the environmental inspectorate in relation to regulated provincial aspects of NEMWA.
Local • Preparing IWMPs in municipalities and reporting on their • implementation; Integrating IWMPs in their IDPs and providing services at an affordable price and in line with the Municipal Systems Act; • Passing by-laws on waste services to regulate the removal, storage and disposal of waste, as well as designating a waste management officer; and • Providing receptables for recyclable waste and enforcing by-laws on pollution and waste.

3.
3.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPALITIES 103 SAWIC (2012).

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid.

106 SAWIC (2012).

35 In South Africa, waste collection is predominantly performed by conventional motorised collection vehicle-based systems (through specialised waste collection trucks – often with compactors - and workers who empty refuse bins into the truck).
Communal collection is often common in areas without formal refuse removal services and, to a lesser extent, labour- intensive and non-motorised collection in non-urban areas.107 General waste treatment and disposal services in South Africa are mostly performed through disposal of untreated waste at landfill sites, with limited incineration and composting, and some recycling activities.
The reason for the prevalence of landfill sites as a primary waste disposal method, is due to the relative availability of land (to a lesser extent in some urban areas), as well as it being the lowest cost disposal option.
However, when waste disposal at landfill sites is carried out in compliance with the NEMWA National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (2013), and when the cost of environmental impacts and externalities are included in the calculation, the overall costs rise sharply, with increasing viability of waste minimisation processes.
South Africa is generally committed to a trajectory of focusing more on waste minimisation to divert waste from landfill sites.108 The NEMWA requires all landfill sites to be licensed and that unlicensed facilities comply with licensing requirements, or otherwise be closed.109 The DFFE’s Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill together with the license conditions and specifications, provide for the required standards and ensure regulation of ancillary infrastructure at landfill sites, including weigh bridges and compactors, for example.110 Some local municipalities have piloted waste-to-energy projects, where energy is generated from waste biomass.
A variety of thermal technologies are available for this purpose and include combustion, gasification and pyrolysis.

Landfill gas (mostly methane – also referred to as “biogas”) also provides an opportunity for energy generation at a smaller and more localised scale.
The National Domestic Waste Collection Standards allow for on-site disposal in appropriate low-density settlements, but still require that these facilities be monitored and regulated and that costs incurred through disposal activities be considered in tariff calculations.111 As a result of population growth, urbanization and income growth, waste generation has increased in urban areas, with growing pressures placed on local governments for service delivery and waste management infrastructure (including landfills).112 3.1.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA: KEY CHALLENGES Some of the major challenges identified by the DFFE in relation to solid waste management include a lack of acceptable waste collection or management services in many areas across the country, a need for improved data collection, improved reporting on waste volumes and 107 SAWIC (2012).

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 SAWIC (2018).

111 SAWIC (2012).

112 UNEP (2020).

36 the need to ensure management of increasing waste volumes.
Furthermore, the licensing status of landfill sites requires urgent attention, as well as improved compliance and enforcement of license conditions at existing landfill sites.113 One of the fundamental challenges is the large proportion of municipalities that lack the capacity, infrastructure and ability to ensure waste collection and the proper management of waste and landfill sites in accordance with legal requirements.
This is also evidenced by the large number of municipalities placed under administration.

Poor collection services, illegal dumping of waste, littering, unlicensed solid waste management facilities, poor waste data management and a lack of compliance and enforcement of existing regulations, create challenges in various communities across South Africa.
Improper solid waste management also poses a health risk to affected communities.114 Another key challenge experienced by local governments is the historic and increasing culture of non-payment for municipal services, rates and taxes.

In addition, several municipalities also struggle with the effective administration of municipal bills, having inaccurate and inconsistent billing systems, and failing to facilitate effective revenue collection.
These issues are further exacerbated by residents illegally gaining access to municipal services (such as illegal water or electricity connections).

Other reasons for non-payment include residents refusing to pay for municipal services as an act of protest against the perceived mismanagement of municipal funds.
Some prime examples of the outcome of these combined challenges include overall poor service delivery and the large amounts of debt owed to water boards and ESKOM by municipalities.115 A study commissioned by the United Nations’ Environment Programme, in collaboration with the DFFE, the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and other stakeholders, compiled a report in 2020 on the challenges of municipal waste management services in South Africa.
Overall, it found that there are four main areas where municipalities face challenges, namely financial management, equipment management, labour management and institutional behaviour.
These challenges are visible through the ineffective utilisation of municipal resources, non-compliance with environmental legislation, no or poor levels of service delivery and potential environmental and human health impacts.116 Furthermore, legal requirements for municipalities to provide refuse removal services have evolved and expanded over recent years, with municipalities often referring to “unfunded mandates” that were added through the implementation of the NEMWA.
Overlapping functions of district and local municipalities often result in a lack of accountability, exacerbating solid waste management challenges in smaller municipalities.

The following information from the UNEP report is based on data and information contained in municipal Integrated Waste Management Plans and reports from municipalities that formed part of the Waste Flagship Project at the time.117 3.1.1.

Financial Challenges 113 DFFE (2023).

114 Nyika et al (2020).

115 Pathi & Selepe (2022).


116 UNEP (2020).

117 Ibid.

37 Especially in urban municipalities, solid waste management is often one of the largest budgetary items in the municipal budget.
It is estimated that between 20% and 50% of annual municipal budgets is often spent on solid waste management, of which between 50% and 90% is attributed to waste collection alone, although the costs associated with waste removal services vary significantly between municipalities.118 Since municipalities set tariffs for waste management services, including collections, city cleansing and disposal fees, theoretically, these costs should be recovered to fund ongoing municipal services in the waste sector.
The non-payment of waste services by residents therefore has a significant impact on the municipality’s ability to deliver services, while it is also required to provide services to indigent households free of charge.

Furthermore, municipal solid waste services are mostly underpriced and therefore inadequate to cover the cost of delivering the service.

Most municipalities allocate less money than what is needed for waste management services, which leads to further budget shortfalls.
Ring-fencing solid waste finances in especially smaller municipalities also remains a challenge.119 3.1.2.
Operational Challenges Apart from refuse collection and disposal, municipal waste management also includes litter picking, cleaning illegal dumpsites, operations at municipal-owned waste facilities (including transfer stations), material recovery facilities, buy-back centres, drop-off sites and disposal sites.120 Operational challenges result in ineffective service delivery, service interruptions and backlogs.
Some of the main operational challenges include121: • Fleet management: Waste collection trucks that are not maintained and serviced regularly, lead to vehicle breakdowns.

Some of the reasons behind poor fleet management include the lack of spare capacity, the old age of some of the vehicles and the costs associated with servicing old vehicles.

Hydraulic systems failure is listed as a common challenge across municipalities, mainly due to improper operations as a result of insufficient training of staff.
Illegal dumping: Illegal dumping often occur as a result of insufficient municipal waste management services.

This leads to increased costs in waste removal and in some municipalities, waste generators illegally mix hazardous and general waste, which end up at municipal landfill sites.

• • Shortage of staff and adequate equipment or infrastructure: In the absence of sufficient manpower or infrastructure, municipalities are unable to provide adequate services, often leading to backlogs.
Ageing and malfunctioning infrastructure (including landfill compactors, weigh bridges and collection vehicles) poses an expensive challenge to municipalities and several municipalities are unable to source and distribute refuse bags continuously.

In areas which are inaccessible to waste collection trucks, communal skips are often used, which is mostly accessible to those households 118 Ibid.

119 UNEP (2020).

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid.

38 with access to plastic bags.


Where households are unable to buy bags, it often leads to illegal dumping.

3.1.3.

Legislation In terms of issuing licenses for landfill sites, the provincial department responsible for the environment is the competent authority.

For various reasons, the license application process could face delays, resulting in many landfill sites being operated illegally, as waste management is an ongoing service which needs to be delivered.
However, several municipalities are not compliant with legal requirements after having received the license for their landfill site.

Overall, it was found that compliance monitoring and enforcement was weak and ineffective and there was a general lack of capacity.
The lack of enforcement in the sector leads to a number of other challenges in the sector, including illegal dumping, illegal waste management activities (such as recycling or processing of waste in unsustainable or harmful ways), which negatively impact environmental and human health.122 3.1.4.

Planning and Management Many landfill sites are unable to comply with their license conditions.

Of 251 landfill sites across four provinces, only 17 had functional weigh bridges in 2018.
Landfill sites with dysfunctional weigh bridges had increased management difficulties, partially due to an inability to monitor and control the volumes and weight of waste being disposed at the site.

This has a significant impact on planning and managing the capacity at the landfill site.

Furthermore, by 2022, most of South Africa’s municipalities did not have IWMPs.123 4.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION • To what extent do the relevant government Departments provide support or guidelines for public-private partnerships for improved solid waste management?

(This question would especially be relevant within the context of municipalities that lack the capacity to fulfil their mandate in this regard.)
• Considering the important role played by informal waste pickers in the recycling sector, what is the status of the implementation/adoption of the Waste Picker Integration Guideline for South Africa across municipalities in South Africa, after it was published in August 2020 by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment?

• Does the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment keep a record of non-compliant municipalities in terms of their landfill sites?
If not, how does the Department conduct inspections and ensure compliance monitoring of such sites?

• To what extent are the performance reports for IWMPs received by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment from provinces and municipalities?

(In other words, how many provinces and municipalities are not submitting reports as they should?)
• Which provinces and municipalities are currently non-compliant with these reporting requirements, as well as in terms of the implementation of their IWMPs?

122 UNEP (2020).

123 Ibid.

39 • Apart from issuing compliance notices, how is the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (and its relevant Provincial departments) addressing the challenge of non-compliance with standards and regulations for the management of landfill sites at municipalities?
• What support is provided to capacity-constrained municipalities to assist them to become compliant?

• To what extent does the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment engage with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), in relation to challenges experienced by municipalities?
• To what extent are technologies pilot tested in local conditions to allow for adjustments and the localisation of technology before upscaling in the waste sector?

• To what extent are part-time workers used to address capacity challenges and limit overtime payments of workers at landfill sites and those involved with waste collection?
• To what extent are in-house mechanics, having a dedicated workshop and fleet lease agreements considered as potential solutions to ongoing maintenance challenges of the waste collection and transportation fleets?

• To what extent are municipalities incentivising recycling and making it an accessible service available to residents?

• Are there any opportunities for simplifying the waste license application process for landfill sites?
• To what extent are fines issued to municipalities that are not complying with the license conditions of their landfill sites?

• How can compliance monitoring and enforcement be improved in the waste management sector in local governments?

• How can South Africa’s waste information system be improved for more complete datasets to inform planning?

• How can municipalities improve their billing and administration systems?

• How can municipalities improve their revenue collection?
• How can the under-pricing of waste management services be corrected in municipalities?

• How can municipalities be supported to ensure improved maintenance and repairs of existing fleets and to ensure that they have functioning and suitable infrastructure at landfill sites, in accordance with waste license requirements?
REFERENCES Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) (2023) Policy and legislative context [Online] Available at < http://wastepolicy.environment.gov.za/home/context.htm > [Accessed 8 July 2023] Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) (2023a) Annual Performance Plan of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment: 2023/24.

Pretoria.

Nyika, J.M., Onyari, E.K., Mishra, A. and Dinka, M.O.
(2020) Waste management in South Africa – Chapter 14 of Sustainable Waste Management Challenges in Developing Countries [Online] Available at < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336497412_Waste_Management_in_South_Africa > [Accessed 31 May 2023] 40 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) (2022) Status of Waste management in South Africa [Online] Available at < https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/34368/ > [Accessed 1 June 2023] Pathi, P. & Selepe, M.M.
(2022) Contextualisation of Non-Payments of Municipal Rates, Taxes and user Charges within South African Local Governments.

African Renaissance Vol 19 (No.

3).

September 2022.

South African Waste Information Centre (SAWIC) (2012) Municipal Solid Waste Tariff Strategy [Online] Available at < http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/1352.pdf > [Accessed 9 July 2023] South African Waste Information Centre (1998) Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill.
UNEP (2020) South African Municipal Waste Management Systems: Challenges and Solutions [Online] Available at < https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33287/SAM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > [Accessed 7 July 2023] 41 SECTION 2: SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE 4.

CEMETERIES AND COUNCIL PARKS/RECREATION AREAS 1.

INTRODUCTION 124 The paper provides a brief overview of the current policy and legislative framework at municipal level for both cemeteries and municipal parks and open spaces.
It includes select information on the challenges experienced within these two sectors; progress to date on addressing these; as well as provide possible suggestions for oversight.

The focus is on Cemeteries and Council Parks/Recreation facilities at municipal level, with an emphasis on new infrastructure and the maintenance of existing infrastructure.

While the focus remains on how municipal infrastructure in the nine provinces are constructed and maintained, a select overview will be included below.

2.
2.

OVERVIEW AND CURRENT STATUS The Municipal Demarcation Board’s ranking of functions provides a useful framework and municipalities are encouraged to prioritise the priority 1 functions in the way their administrations, planning, and budgeting are structured and managed.125 However, the specific circumstances within a municipality should also inform the ordering of the priorities and the consequent allocation of resources (Division of Revenue Bill, 2023).
This type of prioritisation by municipalities has resulted in several smaller sectors that also require infrastructure being neglected in the rush to provide access to basic services.

These sectors include sport and recreation, community facilities (such as community halls), cemeteries and crematoria, early childhood development facilities, fire services, public transport facilities (such as taxi ranks), local markets, and municipal buildings.
In poor municipalities, grant funds are the major source of funding for infrastructure for these sectors, yet they are often underfunded due to priority being given to basic services.

This can result in municipalities having too few community amenities as they develop.

Municipalities also feel they cannot invest in these smaller sectors’ (MIG) or Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (NDPG) funds when basic infrastructure backlogs still exist (National Treasury, 2014).
Infrastructure Grant infrastructure with their Municipal The poor performance and misuse of public funds by municipalities have worsened this state of affairs.

Poor audit outcomes, inadequate service delivery, deteriorating infrastructure, and perceptions that public money is wasted have resulted in the erosion of public trust (AGSA, 2023).
According to National Treasury (2023), 43 municipalities are in a financial and service delivery crisis, requiring intervention from national and provincial government.

These municipalities are struggling to meet their mandated obligations and provide an acceptable level of service to their communities.

Budgets are available for services but misuse thereof deprives communities of these services.

124 Researchers: Inez Stephney & Sisanda Loni 125 See table 1 below.
42 The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) reports that capital budgets targeted at capital projects of municipalities, which can include projects such as road upgrades, water distribution, and community parks, are under-utilised.

The national government provides municipalities with grants for infrastructure development and maintenance.

Although municipalities sorely need these grants to finance their infrastructure projects, they often do not spend all the grant funding.
In 2021/22, municipalities did not spend a total of R2.91 billion of these allocated grants.126 The administration and management of cemeteries, parks, and open spaces happen in a complex local government environment.

The latest Division of Revenue Bill (2023), highlights that the current division of responsibilities between district and local municipalities needs to be urgently reviewed, as it creates coordination problems and undermines accountability for service delivery.
In some instances, district municipalities are expected to transfer funds to local municipalities that perform certain functions, which they often fail to do.

Consequently, funds do not follow function.

As a result, service delivery is undermined.

The Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) Report (2023) highlights that municipalities continue to neglect municipal infrastructure because of their reactive approach to planning and maintenance.
They do not ensure that infrastructure projects (mostly funded by grants) are delivered on time, within budget, and at the right quality; and they do not maintain existing infrastructure either.

Existing infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing demands in the country and there is a backlog in both building new infrastructure and maintaining the existing infrastructure.
Due to pressure on local government finances, many municipalities in financial distress use the revenue they generate and their equitable share allocations to pay salaries and administrative expenses.

Grants are used to fund capital projects rather than maintain existing infrastructure assets.

The culture of preventative maintenance is also a challenge for municipalities.
Some municipalities tend not to have funded and updated maintenance plans in place, resulting in assets being left to deteriorate without defects being rectified swiftly.

Municipalities need to budget for repairing and maintaining assets based on their annual asset maintenance plan.

The National Treasury recommends that they budget at least 8% of the value of their infrastructure assets for this purpose.
However, in the 2021/22 financial year many municipalities allocated less than this in their budgets because of limited financial resources and poor financial management (AGSA, 2023).

3.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK This section provides an overview of some of the legislative requirements relating to municipal infrastructure in the provision of municipal services to communities.
Chapter 7 of the Constitution,127 Section 151 states that: municipal services are to be provided in an equitable and sustainable manner, and regulated through by-laws, which are drawn up and administered by municipalities.

Municipalities compile and pass by-laws on the management and preservation of cemeteries, parks/open spaces/recreational facilities.
In terms of Schedule 5B of the Constitution, cemeteries, funeral parlours, and crematoria fall under the jurisdiction of Local Government.128 126 Auditor-General SA (2023).

127 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

128 SALGA (2016), p. 6.

43 The Municipal Demarcation Board has divided municipal functions into three categories according to its assessment of their relative priority.
Table 1: Priority Functions of Local Government Priority 1 Water (potable) Electricity reticulation Sanitation Refuse removal Cemeteries Fire fighting Municipal health services Municipal planning Municipal roads Storm water Traffic and parking Building regulations Municipal public transport Source: National Treasury (2011).
Priority 3 Municipal parks and recreation Priority 2 Air pollution Beaches and amusement facilities Local sports facilities Cleaning Control of public nuisance Fencing and fences Sell food to the public Noise pollution Pontoons and ferries Pounds Street lighting Street trading Trading regulations Public places Local tourism Local amenities Municipal airport Licensing of dogs Child care facilities Sell liquor to the public Markets Burial of animals Municipal abattoirs Table 1 outlines three priority functions of Local Government, with Cemeteries; and Municipal Parks and Recreation falling under priorities 1 and 3, respectively.
Cemeteries consequently may be considered as addressing the community’s health and safety needs.

Section 156 of the Constitution requires that Municipalities prioritise the delivery of basic services in terms of how its administrations’ planning and budgeting are structured and managed.

Section 156(5) highlights that a Municipality has the right to exercise any power concerning a matter reasonably necessary for, or incidental to, the effective performance of its functions.
Municipal by-laws may not conflict with either National or Provincial legislation.129 An example of municipal legislation includes the Cemetery and Crematoria By-laws for the City of Johannesburg, that covers the disposal of bodies, coffins and graves, funerals, re- opening of graves and exhumations, care of graves, memorials and inscriptions, cremations and memorial work in crematoria, indigent persons, and prohibited acts.130 Section 227 of the Constitution specifies that Local Government is entitled to an equitable share of nationally raised revenue to enable it to provide basic services and perform its allocated functions.
The Local Government Equitable Share is an unconditional transfer that supplements the revenue that Municipalities can raise themselves (including revenue raised through property rates and service charges).
The equitable share provides funding for Municipalities to deliver free basic services to poor households and subsidises the cost of administration and other core services for those Municipalities with the least potential to cover these costs from their own revenues.131 129 National Treasury (2011), p. 33.

130 JCPZ (2023), p. 1.

131 National Treasury (2023), p. 96.


44 The largest infrastructure transfer to Municipalities is made through the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG), which supports Government’s aim to expand service delivery and alleviate poverty.
The grant funds the provision of infrastructure for basic services, roads and social infrastructure for poor households in all non-metropolitan municipalities.132 The MIG formula is outlined as follows:133 Municipal Infrastructure Grant = C + B + E + N C Constant to ensure a minimum allocation for small Municipalities (this allocation is made to all Municipalities) B Basic residential infrastructure (proportional allocations for water supply and sanitation, roads, and other services, such as street lighting and solid waste removal) P Public municipal service infrastructure (including sport infrastructure) E Allocation for social institutions and micro-enterprise infrastructure N Allocation to the 27 priority districts identified by Government From the above, the MIG infrastructure transfer to Municipalities includes dedicated funds for water and sanitation, roads, other and sports.
However, it is unclear if the Grant provides for cemeteries.

There is no clear line item presented, as it simply notes that Municipalities are also encouraged to increase their investment in other community infrastructure, including cemeteries, community centres, taxi ranks, and marketplaces.134 While the MIG funds may be used under Category 2, for public municipal facilities such as cemeteries, funeral parlours, and crematoria, these funds are discretionary and not ringfenced.135 4.
SECTOR CHALLENGES This section will provide a select overview of challenges identified in the sector as it relates to Cemeteries and Council Parks/ Recreation facilities.

4.1.

Cemeteries The City of Mbombela (Mpumalanga province) notes that cemeteries are not only regarded as areas of remembrance to honour the deceased but also provide opportunities to create green footprints within urban landscapes.

There are public and private cemeteries, commercial cemeteries, and national cemeteries for veterans.
According to the Municipality, when purchasing a cemetery plot, persons are to consider the location of the cemetery and whether it meets the requirements of a family's religion.
Other considerations include: what, if any, restrictions the cemetery places on burial vaults purchased elsewhere, the type of monuments or memorials it allows, and whether flowers or other remembrances may be placed on graves.136 The longstanding burial practices in South Africa mean that the country also comprises of older burial sites, which are designated as heritage cemeteries.

Examples of heritage 132 National Treasury (2023), p. 104.

133 National Treasury (2023), p. 105.


134 National Treasury (2023), p. 106.

135 Department of Provincial and Local Government (n.d.), p. 8.

136 Mbombela Local Municipality (2020), p.1.

45 cemeteries include the Kenilworth and Gladstone Cemeteries in Kimberley (Northern Cape province).137 According to an early study conducted by SALGA in 2016, municipalities in South Africa are faced with a number of challenges in the management of cemeteries.
These challenges are grouped into the following categories:138 • Shortage of land for cemeteries.

• Cemeteries located on unsuitable land: planners are generally faced with the challenge of finding suitable land for cemeteries since land use for residential and commercial areas takes precedence over cemeteries.

Insufficient budgets for cemetery management and purchase of new land.

• The main challenge facing cemetery managers in South Africa is the lack of adequate land for burials.
SALGA reported that all the centrally located cemeteries in the City of Johannesburg are full and that only seven active cemeteries of 35 remain.

These are situated on the northern and southern peripheries of the City.

On the other hand, the City of Ekurhuleni has 63 cemeteries, of which 42 are inactive; with the remaining 21 active cemeteries nearing full capacity.139 The filling of cemeteries is not only confined to use, i.e., the actual burial of the deceased at the specified gravesites.
The City of Ekurhuleni found that some cemeteries were “artificially or technically full”, due to the practice of reserving a grave, i.e., once a person was buried, the living spouse was allowed to reserve the grave next to the departed in anticipation of one day being buried next to their partner.140 It was found that there were many instances in which a reserved burial site was not used, due to several factors, such as the living spouse having remarried or moved to another place.
However, the graves remained reserved on the City’s books and therefore could not be used by anyone else.141 In February 2022, the City of Ekurhuleni highlighted that it was unable to properly maintain the Primrose Cemetery, due to a lack of funding, as well as the required staff.

The municipality reported that while the cemeteries are maintained by contractors, there is a shortage of funding and staff.
At the same time, the municipality’s internal teams responsible for burial services and functions are being used in place of the contractors but are only able to cut the grass in one cycle.
The result is that the graves are overgrown by grass and weeds, as well as trees, making it difficult for the communities to find the resting places of their relatives in the cemetery.142 The Emalahleni Local Municipality in Mpumalanga reported that its Cemeteries, Parks and Open Space Management Department operates and manages seven non-active cemeteries with a total size of 36.7 hectares and six active cemeteries with a total size of 81.1 hectares.
The municipality has one new cemetery under development and a crematorium that is externally operated.143 137 Kemp, C. (2023), p. 2.

138 SALGA (2016), p. 4.

139 SALGA (2016), p. 16.

140 SALGA (2016), p. 17.

141 SALGA (2016), p. 17.

142 Mkhabela, O. pp, 1-2.

143 Emalahleni Local Municipality (n.d.), p. 1.

46 The above Department noted that the Emalahleni Local Municipality struggles with competing demands for space for new developments and space for cemeteries.
These competing requirements mean that alternative burial methods have to be explored, and included in the municipal planning space.

Vandalism and a lack of security at cemeteries have become an increasing concern, with some of the damage occurring from roaming wildlife.144 As noted above, older cemeteries, also known as heritage cemeteries as they contain the remains of prominent persons or veterans from wars dating back to 1899, are vulnerable to destruction due to neglect, theft, and vandalism.
The Gladstone Cemetery, in Kimberley, created in the 1800s, faces challenges of soil erosion; the theft of valuable granite and marble headstones, as well as vandalism of the metal railing and crosses that are sold to scrap yards.145 Apart from the lack of maintenance that resulted in overgrown gravesites and illegal dumping, and the physical destruction of the burial sites due to theft and vandalism, there is an overarching challenge of a lack of security at these cemeteries.
There are 35 cemeteries and two crematoria under the custodianship of the Johannesburg City Parks.

As the city continues to develop and grow, so does the pressure on burial space, and, in 2006, the City of Johannesburg set aside R20-million for the development of new cemeteries.146 The City of Johannesburg noted an additional challenge includes heavy rains that may cause the soil covering the grave to be waterlogged and heavy, resulting in the grave sinking into the ground.147 4.2.
Municipal Parks and Recreation Sustainable Development Goal (Target 11.7): ‘By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities’.

A park is any piece of land controlled and maintained by a municipal council for public use.
The two broad definitions of parks are: (a) Any land, square, camping site, swimming, bath, beach, bathing area, sports fields, public resorts, public open space, recreation site, river, nature reserve, hiking trail, including any portion thereof, any facility or apparatus therein or thereon but excluding any public road or street.
(b) Any building, structure, hall, room, or office including any part thereof and any facility or apparatus therein which is the property of or is possessed, controlled, or leased by a municipal council and to which the general public has access, whether on payment of admission fees or not.

144 Emalahleni Local Municipality (n.d.), p. 1.

145 Kemp, C. (2023), p. 3.

146 JCPZ (2023c), p. 1.

147 JCPZ (2023a), p. 1.


47 The following are some of the general challenges encountered in the development and management of parks and recreation facilities by municipalities.

4.2.1 Existing infrastructure • Social spaces are often not accessible (inadequate lighting) or unsafe to use.

Many parks and public open spaces are characterised by vandalism, neglect, litter, and criminal and illegal activities, including drinking and smoking narcotics in public, and illegal gambling.
• The City of Johannesburg highlights the long-term imbalance and clash of policy agendas between the green agenda and the growth of the City.

Other socio-economic priorities take precedence over tourism and recreation.

This has resulted in the need to ‘champion’ environmental open space and the conservation agenda.

• Some municipalities do not have strategies for recreation provision at the local government level.
• Budgets for recreation in local governments are limited, which results in little or no financial aid to recreation bodies, a lack of full-time personnel, and the absence of volunteers.

Municipalities also have limited programmes for various target groups such as the youth, and the elderly.

• A major frustration experienced by municipalities is that even after investing significantly in upgrading parks and public open spaces, the same maintenance and operational challenges persist.
• Although public parks are integral parts of the urban residential areas in most of the country’s cities, they are highly underutilised, thus, limiting future investments and development for these facilities.

• Some urban areas experience strain on the development and maintenance of open spaces and eco-environments as a result of ongoing urbanisation, migration, and densification.
In-migration is a challenge for municipalities where as a result of adjacent municipalities’ environments being degraded; people from those wards utilise other parks’ facilities.

This results in resources being outpaced by demands on these facilities.

• • Municipalities need an innovative solution to the challenge of homeless people utilising parks and open spaces to live.

• Neglect in the management of open spaces in impoverished areas has resulted in an increase in dump sites.
• The City of Johannesburg highlights the lack of collaboration between different law enforcement agencies, such as the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD), South African Police Service (SAPS), and Park Rangers, in ensuring the safety of residents in parks.

These partnerships are not formalised, either through resources or training.

• Another challenge is the inadequate capacity of Park Rangers to enforce compliance of safety and other by-laws at these facilities.
• Communities also have a role to play in the upkeep of parks.

However, there is inadequate community involvement in safeguarding parks and other designated public open spaces.

The parks are used infrequently by many communities due to inadequate safety provisions in these public spaces.

Some community members do not comply with by-laws relating to illegal dumping.

• Significant maintenance funding is required to upgrade and keep parks, cemeteries, and nature reserves safe and secure for residents.
48 • • Historically disadvantaged communities expect rapid development of parks, whilst more affluent areas expect maintenance and enhancement of established facilities.

In Bloemfontein, the challenge of underutilised parks has been highlighted.
Insufficient illumination in public parks during evening hours deters people from visiting the parks or staying for longer durations.148 In Johannesburg, JCPZ states that beyond the public open spaces and conservation areas designated to it, green services within the City are not centralised and coordinated as they reside at various entities and departments which creates service delivery challenges to residents.
• • While JCPZ has done well in providing horticultural service to the various COJ entities and departments through service level agreements, the service remains limited and does not adequately cover the full portfolio of green open spaces within the City, as this is largely dependent on the extent to which the City’s entities and departments are able and willing to prioritise green services maintenance by making available the requisite budget timeously within a financial year period.
4.2.2 Building new infrastructure • Funds allocated to community services are redirected by municipalities to other priorities seen as more important.

An example is Dikgatlong Local Municipality in the Northern Cape, which used grant money to fund its operations because of cash-flow constraints.

• There tends to be a shortage of open spaces in some towns, thus limiting municipalities’ ability to provide adequate social open spaces to residents.
• Some municipalities are faced with the challenge of having to choose between either developing open land or providing it as an open space or area for recreation.

• Municipalities highlight the limited budgets available for parks and how this causes a strain on infrastructure growth and development.

• Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo highlights budget limitations and the mismatch between Capex (capital) and Opex (operational) spending that requires resolution for the efficient management of its resources.
5.

PROGRESS 5.1.

Cemeteries In addition to the challenges identified above, SALGA suggests that the following issues require innovation and intervention at the municipal level:149 • Shortage of burial space.

• Cemetery records management.

• Costing and pricing.

• Informal cemeteries.

• Re-use of older cemeteries.

• Vandalism and theft.

148 Das, D. & Honiball, J.

(2016).

149 SALGA (2016), p. 4.


49 In addressing the challenges identified above, SALGA further commissioned a study that aimed at addressing the impact of cemeteries on water and geographic information system (GIS) planning.

The focus of the study include the following:150 • The impact of cemeteries on water.

• GIS planning (site suitability).

• Lessons for replications.


• Changing mindsets (citizen science).151 • Integrated Development Planning (IDP), and cities’ expansion plans in relation to other development priorities.

• Effective use of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) for cemeteries.
Addressing some of the challenges, especially regarding the shortage of land for burials, some municipalities have implemented the following measures:152 • The City of Ekurhuleni, having identified the practice of grave reservation as one of the causes of existing cemeteries that were technically full and yet had unused spaces, decided to end the practice of grave reservation.

• Unlike Ekurhuleni, the City of Johannesburg still allows and encourages the practice of grave reservation.
The municipality encourages families of the deceased to plan for multiple use of one grave by family members.

• The City of Johannesburg has also pioneered the use of reduction burial in terms of which a body, once buried, is later exhumed and reinterred in a smaller casket, allowing for the burial of more family members in the same grave.

• The City of Johannesburg highlights a trend in recent years for the provision of private cemeteries.
The Fourways Memorial Park, which includes landscaped gardens, differs considerably from many other cemeteries in Johannesburg.

Security and maintenance were major factors in the design of the park, as have the careful planting of trees, shrubs and the installation of computerised administration systems.153 In more recent times, many churches have relaxed their views on cremation.

Over time, buried bodies eventually become almost exactly the same as cremated ashes.
However, the process during the cremation only lasts about 90 minutes, while burial takes many years.154 • The shortage of available burial spaces also requires that municipalities open new cemeteries.

The City of Johannesburg, for example, opened the following cemeteries from 2006:155 Waterval Cemetery in Midrand opened in 2006, the first new burial ground opened in Johannesburg for nearly a quarter of a century.
In Johannesburg’s Region 1, the 200-hectare cemetery has space for 720 000 burials and is estimated to provide burial space for about 50 years.

150 SALGA (2016), p. 4.

151 Citizen science is a concept that comprises of projects in which volunteers and scientists work together to answer real- world questions and gather data.

152 SALGA (2016), p. 17.

153 JCPZ (2023), p. 1.

154 JCPZ (2023b), p. 1.

155 JCPZ (2023c), p. 1.


50 Diepsloot Memorial Park – opened in April 2007, providing space for 120 000 burials.

The park provides for South Africans as people with diverse cultures and beliefs and breaks away from the Eurocentric models favoured in the past.

Heritage elements, such as indigenous flora and the existing habitat, are naturally linked to fulfil a dual purpose as a cemetery and an environmental conservation area.
Olifantsvlei Cemetery – covers 400-hectares, capable of holding 800 000 initial burials.

Olifantsvlei is situated on the Golden Highway in the South of the City, opposite Bush Koppies Township, and has the hallmarks of a Nature Conservation area and Cemetery in one.

The design includes bio-diversity i.e., a stream passing by, and a Wall that includes a dedicated opening at the bottom to accommodate the movement of small animals found in the area.
The Cemetery has been classified as a Berm Cemetery i.e., it only accommodates the erection of Head Stones as memorial stones, for improved aesthetics for the maintenance of the Cemetery.

The City of Johannesburg proposed alternative burial practices that include: mass-grave Gardens of Remembrance and surface grave units that are similar to the Mausoleum concept.

These concepts are designed to be constructed at the sides of existing cemeteries for economy of land.
They are also able to be built on stony or hilly ground or even at worked-out stone quarries.

Surface grave units are manufactured from concrete, are neat, durable and will last indefinitely.

Even the utilisation of old, hardened mine dumps as mass gravesites has been proposed.156 5.2.

Municipal Parks and Recreation This section provides a limited outline, as information on progress was not readily available at the time of writing.
The ability to obtain detailed information on these facilities differs across municipalities.

As a priority 3 function, municipal parks are not as extensively reported on as priority 1 functions.

In addition, the use of the word recreation sees reporting being more detailed on sports and recreation than recreation facilities and parks, unless a municipality has an agency specifically dedicated to the task of parks and recreation facilities.
Johannesburg157 The management of parks and recreation facilities is mandated by the Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ), which is a non-profit legal entity wholly owned by the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (COJ).

It was established as a Municipal Owned Entity (MOE) mandated to develop, maintain and conserve the green open spaces and manage cemeteries in Johannesburg, as well as the Johannesburg Zoo.
The Company has a portfolio in excess of 20 000 hectares of public green open spaces including parks, cemeteries, nature reserves, and approximately 3.2 million trees.

According to the entity, R53 160 million is required to fully maintain JRA’s green areas.

However, for the 2020/21 financial year, only R5 million was allocated, which is inadequate to achieve the required service standards as part of the acceleration of service delivery.
JCPZ states that a different approach towards funding is required to carry out the City’s green services and the 156 JCPZ (2023), p. 1.

157 JHB City Parks and Zoo Business Plan (2021).

51 centralisation of the green services budget in JCPZ’s subsidy will assist the organisation in the execution of its green mandate citywide.

An outline of all the different parks that will be upgraded, including the new ones to be developed, is provided in the 2022/27 IDP of the City of Johannesburg.
Service Delivery Blitz Campaign158 This campaign was introduced by JCPZ in an effort to catch up on the backlog of maintenance in and around the city.

The initiative is aimed at keeping both parks and open spaces clean by cutting grass, litter picking, cutting down alien vegetation, and addressing urban decay among others.

The campaign seeks to attend to the pleas from communities for well-maintained open spaces and visible service delivery.
Bloemfontein There are numerous organised open spaces in the city with a well-distributed network of public parks in all the residential areas.

There are about 202 public parks in the city, covering an area of 167 km², which means that for every square kilometre of the city, there are on average 1.2 public parks.159 The Sub-Directorate Parks and Cemeteries is responsible for the maintenance of these spaces in the city.
The objective of the Parks Division is to ensure and provide a sustainable clean, green, and healthy environment to the residents of Mangaung through a process of effective, efficient, and sustainable service delivery.

The Division is responsible for the horticultural maintenance and development of open spaces (parks), traffic islands, buffer zones, sports fields, street trees, city gardens, and fire belts.
A technical maintenance service contributes to the effectiveness of the service with reference to water network maintenance (irrigation systems), and mechanical maintenance of small equipment such as lawnmowers, water pumps, parks buildings, and fences.160 Adopt-a-Park Policy (2020)161 • In 2020, the Mangaung Metro Municipality introduced a policy aimed at involving communities to protect and maintain its parks and open spaces.
• The programme allows a group of individuals (six in a group) from the community to adopt a specific park or specified location in a larger park to clean up.

• The Sub-Directorate Parks and Cemeteries will identify specific parks that will be part of the programme and provide rubbish bags and the collection of litter bags after the clean-up.

A sign will be erected recognising the adoptive group at the park.
• Several city parks may be excluded from this list by the Sub- Directorate due to safety, economics, logistics, or other issues specific to park properties, including undeveloped parks.

Large parks may have specific areas designated for clean-up efforts.

Emalahleni Local Municipality The Cemeteries, Parks and Open Space Management Department manages and maintains 69 developed municipal parks with a total size of 1598.9; 72 undeveloped parks with a total 158 Sandton Chronicle (2021).
159 Das, D. & Honiball, J.

(2016).

160 Mangaung Metro Municipality (2023).

161 Mangaung Metro Municipality (2020).

52 size of 982.9ha; 860 hectares of public open spaces; and all municipal buildings, substations, and reservoirs.

The Witbank Dam, Klipfontein Dams, King George Park, the municipal civic centre garden, and Lynnville Park are recreational facilities that are regularly frequented by the public and are also maintained regularly.
The municipality is also looking into converting illegal dumping sites into recreation parks.162 6.

SUGGESTED ISSUES FOR OVERSIGHT The following issues are suggested for consideration in terms of the oversight of Cemeteries: • Review how spatial planning is implemented and where the spaces are made available for either burials or cremation practices.
• Proper record-keeping, and digitisation of paper records, as well as the use of GIS mapping systems are proposed to address proactive planning and management of cemeteries.

• Reports have highlighted the future challenges posed by existing cemeteries reaching practical capacity, resulting in the requirement of new burial spaces.

However, this need competes with the social development requirement of housing; water safety; food security, and green spaces.
• Consider Remembrance Gardens as an option, in place of physical burials.

• Address the longstanding feature of physical burials, forming part of religious and cultural practice in South Africa, to having communities consider alternative practices, such as cremation.

• The lack of proactive maintenance of some cemeteries, resulting in soil erosion, damaged and overgrown gravesites must be addressed.
• Beneficiaries of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) have been employed to clean and maintain the cemeteries.

This programme should be broadened to assist existing staff to both maintain and provide a constant presence in these spaces, that can ensure better safety.

• The shortage of staff and budgets to adequately maintain cemeteries, and to ensure safety • is a crucial challenge.
Increases in the population, migration, and higher numbers of deaths have also been identified as challenges that require attention.

The following issues are suggested for consideration in terms of the oversight of Parks and Recreation facilities: • Whether park designs and facilities consider physical accessibility.

Physical access includes users being able to reach the park either on foot or by taxis.
Barriers such as fencing around the park, unattractive facilities, or the feeling of being insecure can compromise accessibility.

• The degree to which community participation is integrated into the design of community parks.

The design, location, and amenities play an essential role in attracting park users.

Residents should therefore be consulted during the design process, as such consultation enhances their sense of ownership of the spaces.
• Whether municipalities have safety plans and staff for both parks and open spaces.

• Ensuring that open spaces are connected to each other, where possible and feasible, linking social to ecological spaces to provide increased benefits and linkages.

162 Emalahleni Local Municipality (2023).

53 • Establish if parks are centrally located, easily accessed, and entrances are easily identifiable, have adequate lighting and landscape does not create unsafe corners.
Inclusion of universal access in park design, to ensure that these facilities are user- friendly for people with disabilities.

• • Municipal spending on community services over the past few years and availed budget for maintenance of facilities and spaces.

Establish if recreation policies and budgets are in place for parks and open space development and maintenance.

• The employment of park wardens and security patrols for public open spaces.

• The inclusion of environmental threats/hazards (e.g.
floods) in planning for parks to mitigate possible impacts and respond accordingly to such.

• The scope of the EPWP should be broadened to provide dedicated personnel to assist existing or supplement where no staff are available, in the maintenance and provision of safety at the parks and recreational spaces.

REFERENCES Auditor-General South Africa (2023).

MFMA 2021/22, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.agsa.co.za/Reporting/MFMAReports/MFMA2021-2022.aspx >, Accessed: 05 July 2023.
City of Johannesburg (2004).

Public Open Spaces By-Laws, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.joburg.org.za/documents_/Documents/By-Laws/prom%20public%20open%20spaces%20by-laws.pdf >, Accessed: 05 July 2023.

City of Johannesburg (2022).

City of Johannesburg Draft Integrated Development Plan, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.joburg.org.za/documents_/Pages/Key%20Documents/2022-27%20Draft%20IDP/2022-27-Draft- IDP.aspx >, Accessed: 05 July 2023.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

Das, D. and Honiball, J.

(2016).

Evaluation of Accessibility Challenges of Public Parks in Residential Areas of South African Cities – A Case Study of Bloemfontein City, Internet.

Available from: < https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/222967364.pdf >, Accessed: 05 July 2023.

Department of Provincial and Local Government (n.d.).

The Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) 2004-2007: From programme to projects to sustainable services, Internet.
Available from: < https://www.cogta.gov.za/mig/docs/3.pdf >, Accessed: 07 July 2023.

Emalahleni Local Municipality (n.d.).

Cemeteries, Parks and Open Space Management Department, Internet.

Available from: < https://emalahleni.gov.za/v2/environmental-and-waste-management/cemeteries-parks-and- open-space >, Accessed: 03 July 2023.

Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (2021).

2021-22 Business Plan, Internet.


Available from: <https://www.joburg.org.za/documents_/Documents/Entities%20Business%20Plans/Annexure%20_A7_2021- 22_JCPZ%20final%20Draft%20Business%20Plan-19%20March.pdf >, Accessed: 05 July 2023.

JSPZ (2023).

Burial Trends and Traditions, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.jhbcityparksandzoo.com/services-facilities/cemeteries/burial-trends-traditions >, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ), Accessed: 04 July 2023.

54 JSPZ (2023a).
54 JSPZ (2023a).

Graves could cave-in during the heavy rains, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.jhbcityparksandzoo.com/services-facilities/cemeteries/sunken-graves >, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ), Accessed: 04 July 2023.

JSPZ (2023b).

Resources, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.jhbcityparksandzoo.com/services- facilities/cemeteries/resources >, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ), Accessed: 04 July 2023.

JSPZ (2023c).

Joburg Cemeteries, Internet.


Available from: < https://www.jhbcityparksandzoo.com/services- facilities/cemeteries/joburg-cemeteries>, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ), Accessed: 04 July 2023.

Kemp, C. (2023).

‘Heritage cemeteries rated as ‘most vandalised in South Africa’’, Internet.

Available from < https://www.news24.com/news24/community-newspaper/noordkaapbulletin/heritage-cemeteries-rated-as-most- vandalised-in-south-africa-20230629 >, News 24, 29 June, Accessed: 04 July 2023.
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (2020).

Adopt a Park Policy and Application Form, Internet.

Available from: http://www.bloemfontein.co.za/2020/11/19/adopt-a-park-policy-and-application-form-2/ Accessed: 09 July 2023.

Mbombela Local Municipality (2020).

What are cemeteries?, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.mbombela.gov.za/cemserv.html >, City of Mbombela, Accessed: 04 July 2023.

MKhabela, O.

(2022).

‘No budget for cemetery maintenance’, Internet.


Available from: < https://germistoncitynews.co.za/285895/no-budget-for-cemetery-maintenance/ >, Germiston City News, 4 February, Accessed: 03 July 2023.

National Treasury (2011).

Chapter 3: Intergovernmental Relations and the Local Government Fiscal framework, Local Government Budgets and Expenditure Review.

National Treasury (2023).

Division of Revenue Bill [B2 -2023].

SALGA (2016).
SALGA (2016).

Good Practices in Cemeteries Management: Building Local Government Capacity in Cemeteries Management, Internet.

Available from: < https://www.salga.org.za/Documents/Documents%20and%20Publications/Publications/Final%20- %20Good%20Practices%20in%20Cemetry%20Management%20(05-09-2016)%20Final.pdf >, South African Local Government Association.

Accessed: 03 July 2023.

Sandton Chronicle (2021).

City Parks service delivery blitz hits Marlboro, Internet.
Available from: https://sandtonchronicle.co.za/291089/city-parks-service-delivery-blitz-hits-marlboro/ Accessed: 07 July 2023.

55 5.

SPORT 1.

INTRODUCTION163 Schedule 5B of the Constitution requires municipalities to provide physical sporting facilities in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding a constitutional obligation to provide sporting facilities in their communities and the inclusion of mandatory allocation of funds to spend these facilities in MIG, there has been a poor delivery of sport facilities virtually in all parts of the country.

Amongst others, justification for poor delivery is prioritisation of municipal basic infrastructure for provision of basic services, and sport infrastructure is not recognised as such.
164 Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that the people in their localities receive at least the basic level of services.
There are a range of service options and levels of service that can be provided, of which the most immediate needs in terms of rel ated national targets and universal access include water supply, sanitation, health centers, electricity or alternative energy sources, roads and stormwater drainage, solid waste disposal, and sports facilities.165 When providing services that require infrastructure, municipalities may choose one of several options to meet the service needs of communities in their areas as quickly and effectively as possible, without compromising the quality or sustainability related to the service.
The focus has shifted from the provision of basic services to the provision of sustainable services, which ensures growth and development of communities, both in terms of economical- and quality of living parameters.

Funding and financing of infrastructure relate to the entire life cycle of infrastructure development and to the life expectancy of infrastructure durability.
For this reason, the Industry Guide considers and addresses all major types of municipal infrastructure, beyond the ambit of the convent ional “basic levels” of infrastructure.

MIG (which is one form of the infrastructure funding), in its current maturity, can be viewed as the ‘steppingstone’ from basic infrastructure planning, funding, and financing to comprehensive integrated capital investment and infrastructure planning, development and management.166 2.
WHITE PAPER ON SPORT AND RECREATION The South African White Paper on Sport and Recreation (2013) outlines the following Strategic Objectives of sport and recreation in South Africa.

167 163 Researcher: Solomon Mthombeni 164 Cogta (2010) 165 Ibid 166 Ibid 167 White Paper (2013) 56 • Contribute to a healthy nation by increasing the number of participants.

• Provide and facilitate access and opportunities in the delivery of sport and recreation programmes.
• Facilitate education and training opportunities for athletes and sports administrators, coaches, and technical officials.

• Develop and sustain infrastructure for the delivery of sport and recreation.

• Enhance sport development and transformation at all levels of participation.

• Ensure that talent identification and development programmes are in place and well- coordinated.
• Ensure that South African athletes at all levels of the integrated development continuum receive support services that will maximise performance.

• Support the participation of South African athletes and teams at national and international levels.

• Contribute to the economic growth of the country.

• Ensure effective programme implementation through monitoring and evaluation.
Strategic objective 9 on the National Sport and Recreation Plan (2011) is to ensure that South African sport and recreation is supported by adequate and well-maintained facilities.

If the building of sport and recreation facilities is neglected, it will ha ve serious consequences for the building of a better South Africa and especially for the development of our young people.
If the backlogs are not addressed it will be very difficult for South Africa to achieve its transformation, sport development and incr eased participation objectives.

The provision and maintenance of facilities forms the foundation for the entire sport and recreation system.

Within this context, facilities encompass the provision of the equipment as well as the provision of basic services required for the facility to be fully functional.
The purpose of this report is to inform the members on the state of sport infrastructure within municipalities in preparation for the 2023 National Council of Provinces Provincial week.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 9 OF 3.

PROVISION OF ADEQUATE AND WELL-MAINTAINED SPORT FACILITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE NSRP (2011) The implementation plan for provision of sport facilities is highlighted in Table 1.

168 Table 1: Implementation plan for sport infrastructure as outlined in the NSRP (2011).
Output National facilities audit Key activities Conduct and verify sport and recreation facility audits per province.

These audits must include municipal, private, and school based facilities and produce a clear analysis of needs.
Responsibility Provincial Government 168 National Sport and Recreation Plan (2011) 57 National Facilities Plan Lease agreements Norms and standards for sport and recreation facilities Sport facilities included in new building projects Facility maintenance Facility management training Establish a GIS detailing the location of all sport and recreation facilities.

Update and maintain the National Facilities Database.

the the National Facilities Plan based on Finalize provincial facilities audit.
Implement the National Facilities Plan which should also address the important issues of venues, multi-use and facilities and including types of unused/abandoned buildings as well as the accessibility for people with a disability.

Consider regulating access to municipal facilities.

facilities, indoor is the into Influence local government to ensure that the National Facilities Plan Integrated incorporated Development Plan (IDP).

Review the facility lease agreements.


Develop and issue guidelines with respect to the lease arrangements of sport fields and facilities and maximize access to facilities without lowering maintenance standards.

Communicate the national norms and standards developed for the provision of sport and recreation facilities.

Consider developing national facility templates to minimize project costs.

Include school sport and recreation facilities in the national facilities norms and standards.
Establish a grading system for sport facilities according to national standardized norms which are internationally compatible.

Lobby for a prototype plan for schools so that they have sporting facilities (No school building plan to be approved without a sports facility plan).

Engage stakeholders in the planning and construction of new facilities.

Lobby for the inclusion of sport and recreation facilities in spatial planning.
Contribute to youth development through the building of multi-sport combination facilities.

Consider making provision for meeting rooms and basic club offices to promote good governance when building multi-sport facilities.

Lobby Department of Public Works and infrastructurto assist with the maintenance of sport and recreation facilities.

Ensure that facility management training manuals are updated and available Identify and appoint accredited service providers.
National Government National Government National Government Local Government Local Government National Government National Government National Government National Government National Government National Government National Government Local Government Provincial and Local Government National, Provincial and Local Government National, Provincial and Local Government National Government 58 training Develop and programmes with a special focus on the management and maintenance of sport facilities.
implement a schedule of Coordinate and monitor the venue management of major sport venues.

National, Provincial and Local Government National, Provincial and Local Government 2010 FIFA World Cup stadia fully utilised.

It is important that the NCOP to engage with stakeholders on the status of the sport infrastructure implementation plan outlined in the National Sport and Recreation Plan as well as the White Paper on Sport and Recreation.

OVERVIEW OF DYSFUNCTIONALITY WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES AND 4.
THEIR INABILITY TO DELIVER SPORT FACILITIES.

In South Africa, local government is responsible for the provision of community sports facilities, with National government allocating funds to municipalities under the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) and the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDP) to run the projects.

One of the overarching challenges in terms of poor provision of sporting facilities is the failure of the municipalities to deliver or complete the projects.
The South African Auditor General in the 2020/21 local government audit outcomes reported that out of 257 South African municipalities, only 16% attained unqualified audits with no material findings, 38% attained unqualified audits with material findings and the remaining 46% were given qualified audits with adverse, disclaimer op inions, and some had outstanding audits.

A total of 64 municipalities were assessed as dysfunctional.
These findings have implications for the delivery of sport facilities as this indicates that 84% of the municipalities may be incurring irregular (not using funds for their intended purpose or failure to follow proper supply chain processes), as well as fr uitless and wasteful expenditure, because of fraud, corruption, and maladministration.

Therefore, national government must hold municipalities to account for non-delivery of sport facilities within communities.
Further, bylaws must be implemented, and if necessary, amended to ensure that sport facilities may not be used for activities other than their intended purpose.

There are also insufficient audits on the sport facilities that are functional and well-maintained within South African communities within local government.
In addition to insufficient sport facilities in historically disadvant aged areas (HDAs), public schools in low rural provinces have similar challenges in terms of provision of sport infrastructure for learners.
According to the National Education Infrastructure Management System Report (2021), 10 038 out of 23 276 (two out of every five) South African public schools do not have sports facilities at all, and the predominantly rural provinces of Eastern Cape, Limpopo and Kwa-Zulu Natal ranking lower than the national average, with 80% being no-fee paying schools in poor areas.
Schools in predominantly urban provinces such as Gauteng and Western Province had facilities (National Education than national average availability of sport higher Infrastructure Management System Report, 2021).

This important implications regarding access to facilities in rural areas and continues to be a hindrance finding has 59 towards sport participation and development in historically disadvantaged areas (HDAs).169 5.
BUDGET RINGFENCED FOR SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE The allocation of funds since inception of the MIG ring-fencing intervention was as follows (See Appendices):170 • 2016/17 – 30 municipalities = R300 000 000 • 2017/18 – 34 municipalities = R300 000 000 • 2018/19 – 30 municipalities (2 repeats: Gamagara and Lekwa) = R273 000 000 • 2019/20 – 22 municipalities (1 repeat: Kamiesberg returned) = R266 000 000 • 2020/21 – 23 municipalities (3 repeats: Masilonyana, Polokwane & Mahikeng) = R255 000 000.
• 2021/22 – 29 municipalities (2 repeats: Polokwane and Mahikeng) = R255 000 000 • 2022/23 – 27 municipalities (9 repeats: Emthanjeni, Mahikeng, Magareng, Umsobomvu, • Tokologo, Masilonyane, Mantsopa and Emalahleni) = R252 858 000 Of the 205 local municipalities, 193 had received allocations by 2022/23 and the estimated total amount allocated over the past seven years amounted to R1 901 858 000.

The number of beneficiary municipalities were 178, while 27 were outstanding.
A complete audit of all the funded sports infrastructure between 2016/17 – 2022/23 are attached in the appendices.171 Table 2: Summary of the complete vs incomplete MIG projects for sport infrastructure in municipalities according to the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture172 169 Mthombeni (2022) 170 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) 171 Ibid 172 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) 60 YEAR OF NO.
PROJECTS ALLOCATED COMPLETED PROJECTS INCOMPLETE BUT PROGRESS ON INCOMPLETE AND CANCELLED STOPPED/ % OF COMPLETIONS 2016/17 30 26 1 (Kokstad) 2017/18 34 27 2 (Mbizana and Walter Sisulu) 27 15 15 2018/19 30 2019/20 22 2020/21 (subtract 23 mutl-year projects: Polokwne Mahikeng) and 3 (Engcobo & Khai- – Stopped) Ma (Kamiesberg – Cancelled) (Raymond 5 Mhlaba Kopanog, Emfuleni – Stopped) (Siyancuma Langeberg Cancelled) & – 86% 80% 90% 68% 2021/22 29 1 25 (Matjhabeng/ and 3 Siyancuma Richtersvekd) 2022/23 27 n/a n/a n/a (Mahikeng Polokwne 71% and not factored) 3% 0% 61 6.
CHALLENGES The following challenges were noted by the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture in terms of MIG funds for Sports Infrastructure: • Ring-fenced MIG funds are being used for other priorities impacted the timeous delivery of the sports infrastructure projects.

• There’s poor construction contract management in municipalities compromising the effective monitoring and management of resolution of contractual disputes and timeous completions.
• DSAC is disempowered to impose any penalties (withholding of tranches in instances of non-compliance by municipalities) because of the nature, conditions, and governance of MIG.

• There is a loss of significant funds allocated during stopping and reallocation process by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA).
The sports infrastructure funds lost during this process are not reallocated to other performing sports infrastructure projects, instead funds are reallocated to other uses elsewhere.
• There is a rejection of registration of some projects on the basis that MIG cannot be used to build sports facilities on sites owned by public schools - even where there is a consensus among affected communities, municipalities, and schools through Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) to ensure such facilities will be accessible to all (EPG report recommends focus on delivering sport facilities in schools as well as the bedrock of the sport and recreation system).
• There is a rejection of registration of some projects (e.g., Langeberg) on the basis that site identified is accessible to both non-poor and poor households, and MIG, even for sport facilities, is restricted to only poor households, otherwise municipalities must counter-fund if non-poor households were to benefit.
DSAC holds a different view on this matter but also this reasoning defeats its mandate of promoting Social Cohesion through creating spaces that facilitate interaction and integration among different races, genders, and classes.

• The decrease of budget from R300 million compromises supply of sports facilities to meet facility demand to support transformation targets in various sporting codes (e.g.

swimming).
swimming).

• There is inadequate technical capacity in provincial departments of sport to ensure adequate support and monitoring of the sport infrastructure projects.

• There is poor alignment of supply of facilities to sport development programmes/plans in provinces, leading to non-use or opening of completed facilities.

• There is lack of enforcement of 5% earmarked for sports infrastructure to ensure adequate supply and maintenance of sports infrastructure.

7.
7.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Important issues for consideration to ensure effective provision of sports i nfrastructure in municipalities include: • There needs to be a finalisation of the draft MoA between CoGTA and DSAC to facilitate mechanisms of recourse where municipalities do not comply and ensure DSAC plays a role in reallocation of funds stopped from sports infrastructure projects.
• There’s a need for amendment of provisions in the MIG Conditional Framework that prevents delivery of sports facilities in school sites and “social cohesion sites” where such sites make spatial, developmental, social transformation and financial sense.

• There is a need to increase the ring-fenced MIG sports infrastructure budget to a minimum of R400 million from the earmarked 5%, as much of the latter is, in any case, not used for the intended purpose of sports facilities by municipalities.
• There must be enforcement of the use of 5% for the intended sports facilities’ purpose by CoGTA through decline of any municipalities’ Project Implementation Plans (PIPs) that do not allocate such 5% to sports infrastructure projects.

• There must be an enforcement of the use of 5% by SALGA by making delivery of sports facilities by local government, in line with Schedule 5B of the Constitution, a standing item of some of its oversight meetings.
• There’s a need for built environment capacity by provincial departments responsible for sports in line with their responsibilities imposed by the MIG Conditional Framework.

REFERENCES local General Consolidated Auditor on 2020-21.

Republic https://www.agsa.co.za/Portals/0/Reports/MFMA/2020-21/MFMA%20GR%202020- 21%20General%20Report%20interactive.pdf?ver=2022-06-15-090741-193.

Africa.

outcomes MFMA government (2022).

South audit of general report of South Africa.


Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

(2010).

Municipal infrastructure: An industry guide to infrastructure service delivery levels and unit costs.

Pretoria, South Africa.

[Accessed: 06 2023].

July https://www.cogta.gov.za/mig/docs/Industry_Guide_Infrastructure_Service_Delivery_Level_and_Unit_Cos t_Final.pdf.

Mthombeni, S.K.

(2022).


Elite athletes from historically disadvantaged areas representing South Africa at the summer Olympic Games: an exploration of support systems.

Research Dissertation.

University of Johannesburg.

https://hdl.handle.net/10210/502979.

Parliament Monitoring Group.

(2022).

Municipal Infrastructure Grant for Sport: progress report with Deputy Minister.

Cape Town, South Africa.

[Accessed: 06 July 2023].

https://pmg.org.za/committee- meeting/35587/.


Sport and Recreation South Africa.

(2011).

Nationl Sport and Recreation Plan.

Pretoria, South Africa.

[Accessed: 06 July 2023].

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/nasional-sport- and-recretion-plan-draft-200.pdf.

Sport and Recreation South Africa.

(2013).

White Paper on Sport and Recreation.

Pretoria, South Africa.

[Accessed: 05 July 2023].


https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/white -paper-sport- and-recreation-june-201110.pdf.
APPENDICES Table 3: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2016/17 financial year 173 MUNICIPALITY CODE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY BUDGET ALLOCATED PROJECT NAME MUNICIPALITY STATUS EC104 EC137 EC157 EC444 FS163 FS182 GT485 KZN227 KZN262 KZN433 LIM331 LIM335 LIM353 LIM472 MP302 MP305 MP302 MP311 MP312 NC064 NC067 NC072 Makana Local Municipality Engcobo Local Municipality King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality Ntabankulu Local Municipality Mohokare Local Municipality Tokologo Local Municipality Phongola Local Municipality Greater Kokstad Local Municipality Sarah Baartman Upgrading of Joza indoor facility Chris Hani Upgrading of Ngcobo sport field O.R Tambo Upgrading of Ngangelizwe sportfield Complete Stopped at 60% R13 000 000,00 R13 661 000,00 R10 000 000,00 Alfred Nzo Xhariep Construction of Ntabankulu Sport ground Zastron/Itumeleng: Upgrading of Sports facility Zastron/Itumeleng Lejweleputswa Upgrading of Tshwaraganang community stadium R10 000 000,00 R10 000 000,00 R10 000 000,00 Randfontein Municipality West Rand Construction of Badirile Sport ground within Rand Local Municipality R10 000 000,00 Richmond Local Municipality uMgungundlovu Construction of Richmond indoor sport ground Zululand Construction of Phongola Sport Field R15 000 000,00 R15 000 000,00 Sisonke Construction of Kokstad Sports Field R15 000 000,00 95% completion Greater Giyani Local Municipality Mopani Construction of 3 sites within Greater Giyani Local Municipality R15 000 000,00 Maruleng Local Municipality Molemole Local
 Municipality Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality Lekwa Local Municipality Msukaligwa Local Municipality Mopani Construction of a multi purpose facility in Finale Balloon Village R4 000 000,00 Sekhukhune Construction of a multi purpose sport facility in Ramokgopa R9 000 000,00 Sekhukhune Gert Sibande Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality - Upgrading of Hlogotlou Stadium R10 000 000,00 Construction of the Silobela multi purpose facility R7 232 000,00 Gert Sibande
 Refurbishment of Sakhile ground Gert Sibande Refurbishment ofMpumalanga sport ground R11 500 000,00 R10 128 000,00 Victor Khanye Local Municipality Nkangala Construction of Sport field within Dipaleseng Municipality R6 600 000,00 Emalahleni Local Municipality Kamiesberg Local Municipality Khai Ma Local Municipality Umsobomvu Local Municipality Nkangala Construction of multi-purpose sports field R8 000 000,00 Namakwa Construction of Sports field R1 200 000,00 Namakwa Construction of Poffadder multi- purpose sport field R8 000 000,00 Pixley ka Seme construction of Noupoort Community Indoor Gym R6 500 000,00 Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete complete Complete Cancelled- Registration declined stopped 173 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) NC453 WC012 WC034 WC053 NW381 NW383 NW293 NW396 Gamagara Local Municipality Cederberg Local Municipality Taolo Gatsewe Contruction of Kathu multi-purpose sport facility R10 000 000,00 West Coast Upgrading of Clanwilliam sport fields R7 679 000,00 Swellendam Local Municipality Eden Municipalities Upgrading of Railton sport facility R7 000 000,00 Beaufort West Local Munipacility Central Karoo Municipalities Upgrading of Merweville Sport Grounds Ratlou Local Municipality Ngaka Modiri Molema Upgrading of the Setlagole multi purpose sport facility R12 500 000,00 R15 000 000,00 Mafikeng Local Municipility Ngaka Modiri Moleme Mamusa
 Local Municipality Lekwa Teamane Municipality Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati Construction of Lotlhakane multi purpose sport field and construction of a multi purpose sport field in Montshiwa Upgrading of Itelegeng sport facility R5 000 000,00 R12 000 000,00 Upgrade of Cristiana multi purpose facility R11 500 000,00 Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Table 4: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2017/18 financial year 174
 MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY PROJECT NAME BUDGET ALLOCATED STATUS EC129 Raymond Mhlaba Local Amathole Municipality Upgrading of Sportfield within Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality R5 000 000,00 Project stopped at , 25% EC138 Sakhisizwe Local Chris Hani Municipality Upgrading of sports field within Sakhisizwe Local Municipality R12 500 000,00 Complete EC145 Walter Sisulu Local Municipality Joe Gqabi Upgrading of sports field within Walter Sisulu Local Municipality R10 821 000,00 Construction, 80% EC443 Mbizana Local Alfred Nzo Municipality Construction of Sport facility within Mbizana Local Municipality R12 000 000,00 90% complete FS162 Kopanong Municipality Xhariep Construction of Spoprts field within Kopanong Local Municipality R9 200 000,00 Project stopped at 50% FS185 Nala Local Municipality Lejweleputswa Upgrading of sports facility within Nala Local Municipality R4 373 000,00 FS195 Phumelela Local Municipality Thabo Mofutsanyana Upgrading of Sport field withim Phumelela Local Municipality R9 604 000,00 FS203 Ngwathe Local Fezile Dabi Municipality Construction of a sport field within Ngwathe Local Municipality R7 412 000,00 FS205 Mafube Local Fezile Dabi Municipality Upgrading of a sport field within Mafube Local Municipality R4 308 000,00 GT421 Emfuleni Local Sedibeng Municipality Upgrading of Swimming pool within Emfuleni Local Municipality R9 593 000,00 GT423 Lesedi Local Municipality Sedibeng GT485 Westonaria Local West Rand Municipality/Rand West City
 Construction of Sport Field within Lesedi Local Municipality R15 108 000,00 Construction of Multi-purpose centre within Westonaria Local Municipality R8 172 000,00 Complete Complete Complete Complete Stopped Complete Complete 174 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) KZN221 Umshwati Local Municipality KZN242 Nquthu Local Municipality uMgungundlovu Construction of Umshwati Local Municipality Construction of Sports Field within Nquthu Local Municipality uMzinyathi R11 000 000,00 R11 000 000,00 KZN265 Nongoma
 Local Zululand Municipality Construction of Sports Fields within Nongoma Local Municipality R11 000 000,00 KZN293 Ndwedwe Local iLembe Municipality Construction of Sports Field within Ndwedwe Local Municipality R11 000 000,00 LIM32 Greater Letaba Local Municipality Mopani Construction of stadium within Greater Letaba Local Municipality R2 564 000,00 LIM334 Ba-phalabrowa Local Municiapality Mopani Construction of stadium within Ba- phalaborwa Local Municipality R7 084 000,00 LIM354 Polokwane Local Capricon Municipality Construction of Sports Complex within Polokwane Local Municipality R7 764 000,00 LIM355 Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality Capricon Construction of stadium within Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality R5 137 000,00 LIM471 Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality Sekhukhuni Construction of stadium within Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality R10 832 000,00 MP303 Mkhondo Local Gert Sibande Municipality Refurbishment of Sports Complex within Mkondo Local Municipality R2 500 000,00 MP304 Dr Pixley Ka Seme Local Gert Sibande Construction of combi courts R2 500 000,00 Municipality MP315 Thembisile Hani Local Municipality Nkangala Construction of multi-purpose centre R5 904 000,00 MP324 Nkomazi Local Ehlanzeni Construction of Sport field R4 654 000,00 MP325 Bushbuckridge Local Municipality Ehlanzeni Sonstruction of sports field R13 096 000,00 Complete Complete Complete complete Complete Complete Completed completed Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete R6 866
 588,00 Construction of Sports field, Calviania, Neuwoudvlle, Loeriesfontein and Brandvlei Construction of Kemble Sport field R6 866 588,00 Cancelled = Funds taken back Complete NC065 Hantam Local Namakwa Municipality NC078 Siyancuma Local Municipality Dr. Pixley Ka Seme NC091 Sol Plaaitjie Local Municipality Francis Baard NW Taung Local Municipality Dr. Ruth NW371 Moretele Local Segomotsi Mompati Bojanala Platinum Construction of sport facility Construction of Sport field Florinaville swimming pool,
 Galeshewe stadium and De Beers stadum Construction of a sport facility R6 866 588,00 R15 000 000,00 R15 000 000,00 NW385 Ramotshere Molloa Local Upgrading of multi-purpose stadium R7 274 000,00 Municipality Ngaka Modiri Moleme WC047 Bitou Local Municipality Garden Route Construction of a sports ground R13 000 000,00 Langeberg Local Municipality Upgrading of sport facilities and multi-purpose courts R15 000 000 Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Cancelled - Registration Declined Table 5: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2018/19 financial year 175 MUNICIPALITY CODE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY BUDGET ALLOCATED PROJECT NAME MUNICIPALITY STATUS EC121 EC136 EC153 EC441 FS161 FS183 FS191 FS196 Mbashe Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Ingquza Hill Local Municipality Matatiele Local Municipality Letsemeng Local Municipality Tswelopele Local Municipality Amathole Upgrading of Ngumbela Sports Facility R11 400 000,00 Chris Hani Construction of Indwe Sport Ground R11 000 000,00 Practical completion Procument of contractor OR Tambo Construction of ward 3 Multi purpose Sport Field R8 550 000,00 Construction, Alfred Nzo Construction of Cedarville Sport Center R11 400 000,00 Xhariep Upgrading of stadium in Sonwabile R12 065 Complete 000,00 Lejweleputswa Construction of a cricket pitch and a clubhouse R7 600 000,00 Complete 85% Complete Setsoto Local Municipality Thabo Mofutsanyana Upgrading of Moemang Sport and Recreation Facility R9 500
 000,00 Complete Mantsopa Local Municipality Thabo Mofutsanyana Construction of Hobhouse Sport facillities R11 115 000,00 Complete GT481 Mogale City West Rand Upgrading of Rietvallei 2 & 3 Sport Complex R3 659 000,00 Complete KZN238 KZN241 KZN284 KZN286 LIM LIM343 LIM366 LIM473 MP305 Alfred Duma Local Municipality uThukela Construction of Accacciaville Sportfield R9 500 000,00 Complete eDumbe Local Municipality Umlalazi Local Municipality Zululand Construction o Bilanyoni Sportfield R9 500 000,00 Complete King
 Cetshwayo Construction of Basamlilo Sportfield R9 500 000,00 Complete Nkandla Local Municipality King Cetshwayo Construction of Nkungumathe Sportfield R9 500 000,00 Complete Collins Chabane Local Municipality Vhembe Construction of a combi-court in Mulamula R1 500 000,00 Complete Thulamela Local Municipality Vhembe Upgrading of Makwarela Stadium R15 500 000,00 Complete Bela-Bela Local Municipality Waterberg Construction of Moloto Street Stadium R12 075 000,00 completed Makhuduthamaga Local Municipality Sekhukhuni Construction of Moroangoato Sport Ground R5 125 000,00 Complete Lekwa Local Municipality Gert Sibande Upgrading of courts at Sakhile stadium R1 710 000,00 Complete 175 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) MP306 MP321 MP326 NC064 NC094 NC452 NC453 NW372 NW382 NW392 WC013 WC044 Dipaleseng Local Municipality Thaba Chweu Local Municipality Mbombela Municipality Gert Sibande Upgrading of Siyathemba Stadium R13 864 Stopped 904,00 Ehlanzeni Upgrading of Mashakeng stadium R9 000 000,00 Complete Ehlanzeni Construction of Masoyi Stadium R10 400 000,00 Construction, 60% Kamiesberg Local Municipality Namakwa Upgrading of Kharkama Sport Facility R4 370 000,00 Complete Phokwane Local Municipality Francis Baard Upgrading of Ganspan Sports Complex R11 290 750,00 Gasegonyane Local Municipality John Taole- Gaetsewe Upgrading of Mothibastad Sports Complex R10 545 000,00 Stopped IStopped Gamagara Local Municipality John Taole- Gaetsewe Construction of Kathu Sport Complex
 R2 009 250,00 Complete Madibeng Local Municipality Bojanala Platinum Construction of Maboloka Sports R9 500 000,00 Complete Facility Tswaing Local Municipality Ngaka Modiri Moleme Refurbishment of Agisanang Sport Facility R8 550 000,00 Complete Naledi Local Municipality Dr. Ruth Mompati Segomotsi Construction of Huhudi Sports Facility R9 500 000,00 Complete Bergrivier Local Municipality West Coast George Local Municipality Garden Route Upgrading of existing Eric Goldschmidt Sports Ground, Velddrift,
 Eendkuil, Pelia Park Sports Grounds in Porterville Upgrading of Sport facilities in Rosemore with a Tartan track R5 415 000,00 Complete R8 550 000,00 Cancelled Table 6: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2019/20 financial year 176 MUNICIPALITY CODE MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT PROJECT NAME BUDGET ALLOCATED STATUS EC108 Kouga Local Municipality Sarah Baartman Upgrading of Sportfield in R6 225 000,00 Complete KwaNomzamo EC124 Amahlathi Local Municipality Amathole Construction of the Multi- Purpose Sport Facility in Mlungisi (phase2) Construction, 60% R12 000 000,00 176 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) EC156 Mhlontlo Local Municipality OR Tambo Upgrading of Mvumelwano Sportfield (phase2) Construction, 85% R11 000 000,00 FS181 FS193 FS204 Masilonyana Local Municipality Lejweleputswa Construction of Sport Center at Tshepong /Verkeerdevlei R9 000 000,00 Complete Nketoane Local Municipality Thabo Mofutsanyana Construction of the Lindley/Ntha sport facility stadium Complete R13 000 000,00 Metsimaholo Local Municipality Fezile Dabi Construction of Refengkgotso sports complex R7 000 000,00 Phase 1 completed and phase to commence in 2022/23 GT422 Midvaal Local Municipality Sidebeng Upgrading of Lakeside Sport Complex P1-Complete R10 000 000,00 KZN222 uMngeni Local Municipality uMgungundlovu Upgrading of Mpophomeni stadium Complete R11 000 000,00 KZN244 Msinga Local Municipality uMzinyathi Construction of Gxushaneni Sport Facility Complete R12 000 000,00
 KZN435 Umzimkhulu Local Municipality Harry Gwala Construction of Umzimkhulu Centre R12 000 000,00 Phase 1 complete- multi year LIM345 Colins Chabane Local Municipality Vhembe Construction of Davhana Stadium phase1 Complete R12 000 000,00 LIM354 MP307 MP314 NC073 NC087 NC093 Polokwane municipality Local Capricon Govan Mbeki Local Municipality Gert Sibande Construction National Softball Stadium and Moletjie Soccer Pitch (3 Year Project) Upgrading stadium in Leandra Lebohang of R30 000 000,00 multi year R11 000
 000,00 Complete Emakhazeni Local Municipality Nkangala Upgrading of Siyathuthuka Stadium R11 000 000,00 Complete Emthanjeni Municipality Local Pixley Ka Seme Upgrading of Khwezi Sport R11 941 000,00 Complete Grounds Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality ZF Mgcawu The development of sports ground in Rosedale R9 000 000,00 Complete Magareng Municipality Local Francis Baard Upgrading stadium of Ikhutseng R8 000 000,00 Complete NW383 NW397 NW405 WC032 WC052 Mafikeng Municipality Local Ngaka Molema Kagisano Molopo Local Municipality Dr. Segomotsi Mompati Modiri Ruth Upgrading of Mahikeng Tennis Precinct into National Tennis Precinct (3 Year Project) Construction of Peterplessis sports facilities R20 000 000,00 Phase 1 and 2 complete R9 500 000,00 50% complete JB Marks Municipality Local Dr. Kaunda Overstrand Municipality Local Overberg Kenneth Upgrading of Ikageng sports facility R12 000 000,00 Complete Upgrading of Sport Ground in Overstrand the Hawston R10 000 000,00 Complete Prince Albert Local Municipality Central Karoo Construction of sport fields and sport town of facilities Prince Albert (phase 1) for R11 000 000,00 Funds were returned Table 7: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2020/21 financial year177 MUNICIPALITY CODE MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT PROJECT NAME BUDGET ALLOCATED STATUS EC442 EC135 EC105 MP FS181 FS201 FS192 Umzimvubu Local Municipality Alfred Ndzo Construction of Phepheni sport ground R 10 000 000,00 Complete Intsika Yethu Local
 Municipality Chris Hani Upgrading of Magwala Sport Ground R 10 000 000,00 Complete Ndlambe Local Municipality Sarah Baartman Upgrading of Marselle Sports field Kenton on Sea Phase 2 R 9 400 000,00 Complete Steve Tshwete Local Municipality Nkangala Construction of Kwazamokuhle Stadium R 10 000 000.00 Complete Masilonyana Local Municipality Lejweleputswa Construction of Winnie Mandela Sport Facility R 6 728 000,00 Complete Moqhaka Local Municipality Fezile Dabi Construction of Refengkgotso sports complex R 10 000
 000,00 Construction,80% Dihlabeng Local Municipality Thabo Mofutsanyana Construction of Fateng Tse Ntso Sport facility R 9 000 000,00 Complete NC062 Nama Khoi LM Namakwa Bergsig Sport Facility R 7 500 000,00 Allocation returned to NT NC075 Renosterberg LM Pixley Ka Seme Upgrading of Vanderkloof Sport Facility.
NC076 Thembelihle LM Pixley Ka Seme Development of Steynville Sport R 11 000,00 R 11 000,00 500 Complete 500 Complete Facility 177 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) NC084 Khei LM ZF Mgcawu Development Sport Facility.
of Grootdrink R 9 330 000,00 Complete KZN281 Umfolozi King Cetshwayo Construction of the Dondotha R 13 000 000,00 Complete Sports field KZN272 Jozini uMkhanyakudi Construction of Ndumo Sport Complex phase 4 R 9 600 000,00 Construction, 76% KZN235 Okhahlamba uThukela Construction of Khethani Sports Field - Ward 01 R 10 000 000,00 Complete KZN237 Inkosi libalele iLanga uThukela Upgrade of Wembezi Sports Field Ward 9 R 10 000 000,00 Complete NW384 Ditsobotla Ngaka Modiri Molema Refurbishment of Itekeng Sports Facility R 10 300 000,00 Construction, 95% NW374 Kgetleng Revier Bojanala Refurbishment of Reagile Sports Facility R 10 000 000,00 Complete NW383 Mahikeng Ngaka Modiri Construction of Tennis Courts at R 20 000 000,00 Multi-year and ongoing Mmabatho Stadium LIP361 Thabazimbi Waterberg LIP341 Musina Vhembe LIP354 Polokwane LM Capricorn of sports Upgrading and recreation facilities in Raphuti (ward 4) Completion of Harper Sport Facility Construction of Moletjie and Softball field field R 11 000 000,00 85% Completion R 5 000 000,00 Complete R 30 000 000,00 Multi year project at 65% completion WC043 Mosselbay LM Garden Route New soccer facility for R 9 000 000,00 Complete Wolwadans WC011 Matzikama LM West coast Upgrading of existing and construction sport of facilities in Klawer (Ward 6) new R 10 000 000,00 95% completion Table 8: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2021/22 financial year 178 MUNICIPALITY CODE PROJECT NAME MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT STATUS EC121 Mbashe Amathole EC142 Senqu Joe
 Gqabi Upgrading of Ngumbela sports facility ward 2 Construction of sport facility in Bluegums village Ward 11 BUDGET ALLOCATED R4 000 000,00 Complete R8 000 000,00 Aappointment of contractor EC155 EC101 Nyandeni Local Municipality OR Tambo Construction of sport facility in Nyandeni local Municipality R9 000 000,00 Construction, 20% Dr. Bayer Naude Local Municupality Sarah Baartman Upgrading of the collie koeberg sport complex R7 000 000,00 Phase 1- complete.
Phase 2- Construction 45% 178 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) EC106 Sunday River Valley Sarah Baartman Construction of Sport facility in R8 000 000,00 Construction, 20% FS FS Matjhabeng Sunday’s River Valley Local Municipality Lejweleputswa Construction of a sportfield in Matjhabeng R7 000 000,00 Construction, 5% Maluti-a- Phofung Thabo Mofutsanyana Construction of a sport field in Maluti-a-Phofung R10 000 000,00 Construction, 90% KZN254 Dannhauser Amajuba KZN436 Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma Harry Gwala KZN294 Maphumolo Ilembe Construction of Danncol sport centre Construction of Creighton sport field Construction of Sakuyaze sport field R8 000 000,00 Construction, 55% R8 000 000,00 90% completion R8 000 000,00 Procurement KZN214 Umuziwabantu Ugu Construction of a sport field R8 000 000,00 80% , Complete KZN224 Impendle Umgungundlovu Construction of sport field in Impendle R8 000 000,00 85% Construction KZN226 Mkhambathini Umgungundlovu Upgarding of Banqobile sport R8 000 000,00 55% Completion field KZN245 Umvoti uMzinyathi Construction of Khandabathule sport field R10 000 000,00 45% construction LIM351 Blouberg Capricorn LIP354 Polokwane Capricorn indigenous of Construction games platforms and outdoor gyms Construction of Polokwane Soft ball stadium R10 000 000,00 85%, Construction R15 000 000,00 Multi year and at 73% LIM476 Fetakgomo Tubatse Waterberg Construction of sport facility in Fetakgomo Tubatse R10 000 000,00 90% construction LIM LIM NC NC NC NC NC Musina Vhembhe Upgrading Manyathela stadium of
 Lesley R6 500 000,00 53% completion Thulamela Vhembhe Dikgatlong Francis Baard Richtersveld Namakwa Construction indigenous of games platforms and outdoor gyms Construction of sport facility in Dikgatlong Construction of sport facility in Richtersveld R6 000 000,00 Procurement R8 000 000,00 Construction 20% R7 000 000,00 Allocation returned to NT Siyancuma Pixley Ka Seme Construction of sport facility in R7 000 000,00 Allocation returned Siyancuma to NT Kgatelopele ZF Mgcawu Construction of sport facility in
 Kgatelopele R12 000 000,00 Construction,68% Tsantsabane ZF Mgcawu Construction of sport facility in Tsantsabane R12 000 000,00 Construction,66% NW375 Moses Kotane Bojanala Platinum Upgrading of Madikwe sport facility R9 000 000,00 73% Construction NW404 Maquassi Hills Dr Kaunda Kenneth Construction of Wolmaranstad ext 13 sports ground R10 000 000,00 45% construction NW383 Mahikeng Ngaka Modiri Construcrion tennis stadium phase 3 of Mmabatho R20 000 000,00 completed phase 1 and 2 WC022 Witzenberg Cape Winelands Construction of a sport field in Witzenberg R1 500 000,00 Construction 50% WC031 Theewaterskloof Overberg Upgrading of pineview sport facility Grabouw R7 858 000,00 Procurement Table 9: MIG sport infrastructure Budget Allocation per Province in 2022/23 financial year 179 MUNICIPALITY CODE MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT PROJECT NAME BUDGET ALLOCATED STATUS EC109 EC126 EC123 EC136 FS181 FS182 FS196 GT484 KZN212 KZN292 KZN266 KZN285 of of Kou-kama LM Sarah District Baartman Upgrading of Krakeel sportfield (ward 2) R 8 000 000,00 Procurement contractor Ngqushwa LM Amathole District Great Kei LM Amathole District Rehabilitation of new creation sportfield R 10 000 000,00 Procurement contractor Construction of a sportfield in Komga - Ward 7 R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Emalahleni LM Chris Hani District upgrading of Indwe Sport Field R 10 000 000,00 Procurement contractor of Masilonyana LM Lejweleputswa District Construction of Netball courts at Winnie Mandela Museum R
 2 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Tokologo LM Lejweleputswa District construction community stadium of Malebogo R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Mantsopa LM Thabo Mofutsanyana District Merafong LM West Rand District Umdoni LM Ugu District Kwadukuza LM iLembe District Ulundi LM Zululand District construction of multi- sport facility in Mahlatswetsa R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Construction of sport field within Merafong Local Municipality R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Upgrading
 of uMzinto sportfield (Phase 3) R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Construction Market Sportfield - Ward 10 of Groutville R 10 000 000,00 Procurement contractor of Construction of Ezihlabeni sport field R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design Mthonjaneni LM King District Cetshwayo Construction of Sportfield Ward 7 Kwesezulu R 10 000 000,00 Procurement and Design 179 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2022) LIM333 Greater Tzaneen LM Mopani District Construction of Leretjeng Sport Ground (Ward11) R11 000 000.00 Procurement and Design LIM354 Polokwane LM Capricorn District Construction of a Softball R10 000 000.00 Construction multi- Stadium in Polokwane year project LIM362 Lephalale LM Waterberg District Construction of Marapong Sport R10 000 000.00 Procurement and Centre (Phase 2) Design MP316 Dr JS Moroka LM Nkangala District Construction of a sport field R10 058 000.00 Procurement and within Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality Design NC066 NC072 NC073 NC074 Karoo Hoogland LM Umsobomvu LM Pixley Ka Seme Namakwa District Upgrading of Willistone Sport Facility Upgrading of Kuyasa Sport Ground in Colesberg District R9 000 000.00 Procurement and Design R9 500 000.00 Procurement and Design Emthanjeni LM Pixley Ka Seme Kareeberg LM District Pixley Ka Seme District Upgrading of Nonzwakazi Stadium Upgrading of Sport Facility in Carnarvon R9 500 000.00 Procurement and Design R11 000 000.00 Procurement and Design NC093 Magareng LM Francis Baard District Upgrading of Ikhutseng
 Sport Facilty (Phase 2) R 6 500 000.00 Procurement and Design NW383 WC045 WC025 WC015 WC042 WC048 Mafikeng LM Ngaka Modiri Molema District Upgrading Mmabatho Tennis stadium R 10 300 000.00 Procurement of contractor Oudtshoorn LM Garden route District Upgrading of Bongolethu sport ground R 10 000 000.00 Procurement and Design Breede Valley LM Cape winelands District Upgrading of Dewel and Rawsonville sport grounds R 6 000 000.00 Procurement and Design Swartland LM Hessequa LM Knysna LM West Coast District
 upgrading of Sarling and Chartsworth sport fields R 10 000 000.00 Project to be implement 23/24 Garden route District Garden route District Construction of new cricket and soccer facility in Heidelberg Construction of sport field and sport facilities in Bongani (Phase 2) R 9 000 000.00 Procurement and Design R 11 000 000.00 Procurement and Design 6.
LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS SECTION 3: MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE TRENDS 7.

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE TRENDS OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, AND CONDITITIONAL GRANTS 1.

INTRODUCTION180 Municipalities are failing to fulfil their mandate of providing basic services to communities as is attested by media reports of community service delivery protests and as reported by the Auditor General of South Africa (AG).

At the heart of this failure to provide basic services is deteriorating municipal infrastructure.
The AG stated the following when addressing reporters on the recent Municipal Audit Report: ““The financial health, income statements, balance sheets and cash flows of municipalities are in a very poor state and that has a detrimental impact on current services being provided, but will also have a negative impact on future services if the situation is not corrected.”181 A municipality’s ability to deliver basic services is dependent on the availability and operability of its infrastructure.
In turn the availability and operability of basic service infrastructure is a function of how well a municipality manages its finances.

Infrastructure has both capital budget and operating budget components, for example: - The development, construction and rehabilitation of municipal infrastructure mainly falls under the municipal capital budgets, which is mainly funded from national and provincial transfers (i.e., conditional infrastructure grants), municipal borrowings and own revenues.
- While the repairs and maintenance of infrastructure falls under the municipal operating budget.

Repairs and maintenance encompass all activities related to maintaining or restoring the operability of the infrastructure asset, which are recurring activities.

It excludes improvements which extend the useful life of the infrastructure asset, which is a once-off activity.
Given that it is reported that municipal infrastructure is deteriorating, this brief will focus on municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure which is aimed at preventing service delivery breakdowns and maintaining the operability of the infrastructure asset.

Secondly the brief will focus on municipal conditional infrastructure grant expenditure as municipal infrastructure in South Africa is largely funded through national and provincial conditional transfers.
180 Researcher: Yolanda Brown 181 A. Makinana (2023).

The sections that follow provides an overview of trends in repairs and maintenance expenditure and conditional infrastructure grant expenditure.

2.

REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE TRENDS Repairs and maintenance play an important role in maintaining the operability of the infrastructure asset and preventing the deterioration of an infrastructure asset.
Hence, sound financial management would include the provision of repairs and maintenance budgets and ensuring that repairs and maintenance takes place according to the Repairs and Maintenance Plans (i.e., approved plan that entail a needs analysis, budgets, implementation schedules etc.).

Simply put, municipalities should make provision for repairs and maintenance of its infrastructure assets, by including it in annual approved Budget.
National Treasury stated in the Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA) Circular No.

71, that, municipalities shall budget for maintenance and repair an annual sum equivalent to 8% of the “carrying value” of “property, plants and equipment and investment property”.

Whether municipalities abide by this 8% budgetary norm cannot be gleaned from the MFMA Section 71 Reports, as in its current form it does not include a line item for repairs and maintenance.
Note: Municipalities are required to submit their MFMA Section 71 Reports (i.e., budgetary information related to both the operating and capital budgets) on a monthly basis to National Treasury.

Municipalities are guided by the Section 71 Report template and in its current form it does not include a line item for repairs and maintenance.

However, the National Treasury MFMA website does provide information on municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure.
The repairs and maintenance expenditure published on the National Treasury website has not been audited and therefore not verified for accuracy.

Figure 1 provides a national overview of municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure trends for the period 2018 to 2022.

It shows that municipal repairs and maintenance budgets were overspent by a significant amount in the first two years of the review period and thereafter expenditure declines and registers under-expenditure.
Figure 1: Municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure Source: National Treasury (2018-2022) The municipal repairs and maintenance budgets in 2018 and 2019 were reduced significantly in the adjustments process, however municipalities continued to spend far above the reduced budgets, and this is the reason for the significant overspending observed in 2018 and 2019.
Table 2 provides a provincial overview of municipal repair and maintenance expenditure as a percentage of Adjusted repairs and maintenance budgets.
Table 2: Provincial breakdown of municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure Source: National Treasury (2018-2022) 20182019202020212022Eastern Cape172,6%183,3%61,0%83,8%81,8%Free State123,5%109,1%73,4%89,3%96,2%Gauteng171,1%152,1%74,6%88,7%83,7%Kwazulu-Natal338,2%108,9%77,5%117,1%93,9%Limpopo253,3%186,6%69,3%87,1%87,7%Mpumalanga742,5%344,4%76,8%83,1%100,8%North West117,1%65,3%76,6%72,4%82,8%Northern Cape114,2%250,2%75,8%76,6%85,1%Western Cape848,7%259,3%45,6%48,1%47,1%Total National306,4%171,6%67,3%83,3%79,0%Local Government % Actual Spent of Repairs and Maintenance Adjusted Budget 306,4%171,6%67,3%83,3%79,0%0,0%50,0%100,0%150,0%200,0%250,0%300,0%350,0%20182019202020212022% Actual Spent of Repairs and Maintenance Adjusted BudgetLocal Government Repairs and Maintennace Expenditure (% Actual of Adjusted Budget)Total National As noted above the repairs and maintenance data has not been verified for accuracy and the reported expenditure may be over-stated by some municipalities, particularly in 2018 and 2019.
When excluding the data for 2018 and 2019, municipalities across the nine provinces spend on average between 47 per cent and 96.1 per cent of their Adjusted repairs and municipal budgets over the period 2020 to 2022.

See Annexure A for a provincial breakdown of municipal repairs and maintenance budget allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.
The repairs and maintenance data fails to provide insight as to what kind of repairs and maintenance activities are taking place and which infrastructure assets are benefiting from these budgets and expenditure.

Despite the limitations on the published municipal repairs and maintenance data, the analysis of the data show that municipalities do have repairs and maintenance budgets and that these budgets are being spent.
Metropolitan municipalities (Metros) account for the largest share of the municipal repairs and maintenance budgets and the expenditure thereof, which could be attributed to Metros having larger budgets and a larger number of infrastructure assets compared to non-metro municipalities.
Lastly given that non-metro municipalities in particular rely on national and provincial condition transfers to fund their capital budgets, are non-metro municipalities also in need of financial support to fund their repairs and maintenance budgets?

3.

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS This section focuses on select Municipal conditional infrastructure grants based on availability of data, Rand value of the Grant, direct transfers182 and its contribution to the development of basic service infrastructure.
Figure 2 provides a national overview of municipal conditional infrastructure grant expenditure trends for the period 2020 to 2022.
Figure 2: Municipal conditional infrastructure grants expenditure 182 Direct grant transfers are allocated directly transferred to municipalities, whereas indirect grant transfers are held by the national department responsible for administering the grant and undertakes to implement the grant allocation on behalf of the municipalities that do not have the capacity to implement.
Source: National Treasury (2018-2022) Figure 2 shows that on average, the Municipal Infrastructure Grant allocations is spent in full by municipalities for the period under review.
While the spending of the other conditional infrastructure grant allocations is generally under-spent for the period under review as follows: - Municipalities on average spend 81.3 per cent of the Water Services and Infrastructure Grant allocation, that is, under-expenditure of 18.7 per cent on average; - The Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant registered an average under-expenditure of 32.3 per cent; - The Public Transport Network Grant registered an average under-expenditure of 39.2 per cent; - The Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant registered an average under-expenditure of 42.8 per cent; - The Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant registered an average under- expenditure of 54.6 per cent; and - The Integrated Urban Development Grant registered the highest under-expenditure at an average of 68.9 per cent for the period under review.
See Annexure B for a provincial breakdown of municipal conditional infrastructure grant allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.

This perennial underspending of municipal conditional infrastructure grant allocations is indicative of the poor financial management of municipalities in South Africa.
Poor financial management is but one of the many reasons for the underspending of conditional grant funding, which at the crux includes poor planning in the development of infrastructure projects, poor infrastructure project management, poor procurement practices, a lack of skilled personnel capacity and a lack of good governance (i.e., accountability and leadership).
45,4%31,1%60,8%67,7%57,2%81,3%104,5%0,0%20,0%40,0%60,0%80,0%100,0%120,0%140,0%NeighbourhoodDevelopmentPartnership Grant(Schedule 5B)Integrated UrbanDevelopment GrantPublic TransportNetwork GrantIntegrated NationalElectrificationProgramme(Municipal) GrantRegional BulkInfrastructure Grant(Schedule 5B)Water ServicesInfrastructure Grant(Schedule 5B)MunicipalInfrastructure GrantLG Infrastructure Grant Expenditure as a % Spent of the Adjusted Budget% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2020% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2021% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2022% Average Spent (2020-2022) Municipal infrastructure development is also supported by Provincial conditional infrastructure grants that also aim to deliver services to municipal communities.
Figure 3 provides a national overview of select183 provincial conditional infrastructure grant expenditure trends for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23.

Figure 3: Provincial conditional infrastructure grants expenditure Source: National Treasury (2021-2023) Figure 3 shows that conditional infrastructure grant allocations are also be underspent by the provinces; however, not to the extent at which municipal conditional infrastructure grant allocations are under-spent by municipalities.
The average expenditure of provincial conditional infrastructure grant allocations range between a low of 60.8 per cent to a high of 97.0 per cent for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23.

See Annexure C provides a table showing the provincial conditional infrastructure grant allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.

4.
4.

CONCLUSION The analysis of municipal repairs and maintenance expenditure and conditional infrastructure grant expenditure shows that municipalities are under-spending these budgetary allocations on recurring basis.

This recurring trend of under-expenditure not only impacts existing municipal infrastructure capability but is also detrimental to future service delivery needs.
183 The selection of the Provincial conditional infrastructure grant reported here is based on availability of expenditure data and whether it wholly or partially contributes to the development of infrastructure assets.
84,7%97,0%72,6%89,7%95,4%60,8%91,7%86,5%0,0%20,0%40,0%60,0%80,0%100,0%120,0%ComprehensiveAgricultural SupportProgramme GrantLand Care ProgrammeGrant: Poverty Relief andInfrastructure GrantEarly ChildhoodDevelopment GrantHealth FacilityRevitalisation GrantHuman SettlementsDevelopment GrantInformal SettlementsUpgrading PartnershipGrantCommunity LibraryServices GrantMass Participation andSport DevelopmentGrantProvincial Infrastructure Grant Exependiture as a % of Total Availbale Funds% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2020-21% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2021-22% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget 2022-23% Average Spent (2020-21/-2022-23) Municipal Councils and leaders need to show greater accountability to their communities by ensuring that existing municipal infrastructure assets are maintained, not only to prevent service delivery breakdowns but also to prevent financial loss184 due to negligent management of municipal infrastructure assets.
Key issues for the consideration of Parliament: • National Treasury to undertake a review of the current status of municipal repair and maintenance activities that includes: o Do municipalities abide by the 8 per cent budgetary norm for repairs and maintenance budgets; o What kind of repairs and maintenance activities are taking place?

o What municipal from maintenance?


infrastructure assets are benefitting repairs and o Do all municipalities have approved repairs and maintenance plans for the municipal infrastructure assets under their custodianship?

o Do non-metro municipalities require financial support to fund their repairs and maintenance budgets beyond the existing repairs and maintenance component in the Municipal Infrastructure Grant?

o MFMA Section 71 Report template to include a line item for repairs and maintenance.
• The last published review of Local Government Infrastructure Grants is dated 2014 on National Treasury’s MFMA website.

Underspending of infrastructure grants is a perennial issue.

o The Financial and Fiscal Commission in its 2023 Division of Revenue Submission called for the review of municipal capacity-building and infrastructure grants.
The review should consider that capacity-building efforts are comprehensively consulted with and agreed to with a Municipality; it should link capacity-building actions to a Municipality’s specific diagnosis of capacity challenges or deficits.

It should further consider the consolidation of Local Conditional Grants into an integrated financial flow.

o Parliament should consider supporting the call for the review of municipal capacity- building and infrastructure grants.

REFERENCES A. Makinana.

(2023).


Municipal infrastructure deteriorating due to poor financial management.

Politics: Timelive, dated 23 June 2023.

[Internet].

Available online: https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2022-06-23-municipal- infrastructure-deteriorating-due-to-poor-financial-management.

[Accessed on 23 June 2023].

National Treasury.

(2023).

Provinces Fourth Quarter 2022/23 – Section 32 of the PFMA.

[Internet].
[Internet].

Available online: https://www.treasury.gov.za/publications/PiP/2022_23/Q4/default.aspx [Accessed on 04 May 2023].

184 Financing of an infrastructure asset is an investment and thus the return of the investment needs to be safe guarded in order for municipal communities to benefit thereof.

National Treasury.

(2022).

Provinces Fourth Quarter 2021/22 – Section 32 of the PFMA.

[Internet].

Available online: http://www.treasury.gov.za/comm_media/press/monthly/monthly_2022.aspx.
[Accessed on 25 May 2022].

National Treasury.

(2021), Provinces Fourth Quarter 2020/21 – Section 32 of the PFMA.

[Internet].

Available online: http://www.treasury.gov.za/publications/PiP/2020_21/Q4/default.aspx.

[Accessed on: 07 June 2021].

National Treasury.

(2018 -2022).

MFMA Section 71 Reports.

[Internet].

Available online: http://mfma.treasury.gov.za/Media_Releases/s71/Pages/default.aspx.

[Accessed on: 04 July 2023].

National Treasury.

(2014).


Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA) Circular No.

71.

[Internet].

Available online: http://splshortcourses.co.za/available-courses/diploma-in-public-accountability-i-2016/07.-public-financial- accounting-1/additional- documents/MFMA%20Circular%20No%2071%20Financial%20Ratios%20and%20Norms%20%20- %2017%20January%202014.pdf.

[Accessed on: 04 July 2023].


ANNEXURE A: Provincial breakdown of municipal repairs and maintenance budget allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.

ANNEXURE B: Provincial breakdown of municipal conditional infrastructure grant allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.
Eastern Cape 1 Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD ActualOriginal BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD ActualOriginal BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD ActualOriginal BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD ActualOriginal BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD ActualEastern Cape1 Free State1 Gauteng9 Kwazulu-Natal6 Limpopo1 Mpumalanga1 North West550 Northern Cape324 311 259 520 296 366 285 809 134 613 336 813 380 934 374 200 283 611 508 656 524 775 402 150 527 817 572 862 487 615 Western Cape4 640
701 5 814 730 5 601 531 2 556 795 6 150 625 5 640 542 2 712 313 5 959 593 6 381 784 3 007 746 Total National25 2022Local Government Repairs and Maintenance Budget (R '000)2018201920202021Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted
 Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 37 500 35 000 2 354 6,7% 53 000 25 000 9 942 39,8% 32 700 72 862 12 529 17,2%21,2%Integrated Urban Development Grant- - - - - - - - 172 468 212 630 86 156 40,5%13,5%Public Transport Network Grant532 609 532 609 346 542 65,1% 316 207 349 386 - 0,0% 285 087 218 487 - 0,0%21,7%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant387 708 355 387 223 785 63,0% 313 359 230 075 246 646 107,2% 314 162 313 321 298 878 95,4%88,5%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 351 727 315 027 153 563 48,7% 477 011 419 263 317 154 75,6% 481 329 341 602 238 846 69,9%64,8%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 520 461 520 461 536 387 103,1% 486 950 453 950 487 240 107,3% 527 000 592 000 243 232 41,1%83,8%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 3 045 340 3 060 840 2 184 705 71,4% 3 025 069 2 866 318 3 404 568 118,8% 3 226 154 3 150 667 2 475 063 78,6%89,6%Total National4 837 845 4 784 324 3 444 982 72,0% 4 618 596 4 318 992 4 455 608 103,2% 5 006 200 4 828 707 3 342 176 69,2%81,5%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022) Free State Gauteng 2 Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 28 000 10 000 87 0,9% 10 000 4 405 4
 405 100,0% 10 000 30 738 18 638 60,6%53,8%Integrated Urban Development Grant- - - - - - - - 74 434 95 172 46 359 48,7%16,2%Public Transport Network Grant229 596 229 596 119 832 52,2% 242 210 192 433 231 022 120,1% 223 648 223 648 116 331 52,0%74,8%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant89 531 96 544 54 946 56,9% 119 437 80 935 40 870 50,5% 108 119 125 789 84 572 67,2%58,2%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 143 121 160 621 108 216 67,4% 219 608 249 608 157 965 63,3% 213
 921 213 921 97 863 45,7%58,8%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 307 323 279 823 (10 898)-3,9% 415 636 409 386 203 651 49,7% 374 617 350 867 100 712 28,7%24,9%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 754 107 770 107 1 564 414 203,1% 746 257 797 376 613 318 76,9% 781 076 779 352 293 567 37,7%105,9%Total National1 523 678 1 536 691 1 836 510 119,5% 1 743 148 1 729 738 1 246 826 72,1% 1 775 815 1 788 749 739 404 41,3%77,6%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022)Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 182 000 185 360 10 229 5,5% 155 406 150 994 137 174 90,8% 155 569 442 500 107 843 24,4%40,2%Integrated Urban Development Grant120 599 120 599 - 0,0% 119 766 118 293 109 418 92,5% 418 890 729 821 159 626 21,9%38,1%Public Transport Network Grant2 598 422 2 406 495 643 745 26,8% 2 539 938 1 856 211 1 569 315 84,5% 2 368 874 2 198 721 812 363 36,9%49,4%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant110 358 117 108 105 250 89,9% 155 989 114 743 72 133 62,9% 130 148 135 248 77 481 57,3%70,0%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) - - - - - - - - 437 407 1 189 276 - 0,0%0,0%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 184 891 169 891 107 809 63,5% 165 060
 165 060 119 478 72,4% 172 000 215 000 32 755 15,2%50,4%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 394 587 394 587 136 825 34,7% 381 994 349 140 246 287 70,5% 406 652 281 652 88 445 31,4%45,5%Total National3 408 857 3 208 680 993 629 31,0% 3 362 747 2 603 447 2 116 631 81,3% 3 933 971 4 749 718 1 170 670 24,6%45,6%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022) KwaZulu-Natal Limpopo 3 Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original
 BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 138 059 92 000 66 260 72,0% 110 000 119 000 68 262 57,4% 160 744 406 429 76 173 18,7%49,4%Integrated Urban Development Grant210 783 210 783 - 0,0% 227 268 224 472 216 843 96,6% 362 913 608 598 164 735 27,1%41,2%Public Transport Network Grant1 035 214 992 014 683 756 68,9% 783 643 756 595 1 257 777 166,2% 772 712 784 612 102 788 13,1%82,8%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant410 867 419 655 336 882 80,3% 348 131 259 364 (1 238)-0,5% 447 466 449 535 303 657 67,5%49,1%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 340 293 340 293 282 085 82,9% 180 572 219 725 192 720 87,7% 238 621 242 531 180 818 74,6%81,7%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 903 374 872 374 1 365 952 156,6% 831 390 811 061 887 035 109,4% 897 050 932 050 635 563 68,2%111,4%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 3 208 816 3 208 816 11 426 950 356,1% 3 195 369 3 158 316 5 916 593 187,3% 3 410 925 3 585 280 2 731 091 76,2%206,5%Total National6 109 347 6 043 935 14 095 626 233,2% 5 566 373 5 429 533 8 469 730 156,0% 6 129 687 6 602 606 4 118 652 62,4%150,5%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022)Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent
 of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 40 613 42 813 47 608 111,2% 35 000 22 751 21 333 93,8% 35 000 48 000 21 946 45,7%83,6%Integrated Urban Development Grant378 290 378 290 - 0,0% 350 966 346 648 - 0,0% 107 517 120 517 74 135 61,5%20,5%Public Transport Network Grant179 433 332 433 217 513 65,4% 189 292 147 323 133 156 90,4% 178 544 178 544 107 278 60,1%72,0%Integrated National Electrification
 Programme (Municipal) Grant246 548 238 843 144 427 60,5% 263 272 189 452 212 345 112,1% 298 164 299 834 121 795 40,6%71,1%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 630 998 630 998 535 296 84,8% 361 157 328 223 292 091 89,0% 218 806 218 806 202 002 92,3%88,7%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 506 650 546 650 641 787 117,4% 397 746 357 746 749 208 209,4% 315 449 305 449 255 688 83,7%136,8%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 2 924 637 2 944 637 2 384 416 81,0% 2 933 539 2 977 399 2 769 830 93,0% 3 116 210 3 100 822 1 773 743 57,2%77,1%Total National4 866 556 5 071 851 3 923 439 77,4% 4 495 972 4 346 791 4 156 630 95,6% 4 234 690 4 223 972 2 534 641 60,0%77,7%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022) Mpumalanga Northern Cape 4 Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 30 000 19 200 - 0,0% 2 500 22 521 12 395 55,0% 30 000 11 153 7 662 68,7%41,2%Integrated Urban Development Grant- - - - 92 937 91 794 94 343 102,8% 134 410 115 563 47 864 41,4%48,1%Public Transport Network Grant198 919 198 919 170 213 85,6% - 20 000 61 304 306,5% - 198 256 32 551 16,4%136,2%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant193 232 193 232 165 477 85,6% 211 755 160 731
 127 135 79,1% 275 381 275 320 147 031 53,4%72,7%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 370 000 361 300 34 391 9,5% 478 407 494 407 322 597 65,2% 411 080 561 080 332 010 59,2%44,6%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 510 000 508 000 676 633 133,2% 402 375 402 375 294 544 73,2% 571 000 535 000 273 112 51,0%85,8%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 1 813 621 1 813 621 1 318 315 72,7% 1 729 920 1 698 153 1 438 552 84,7% 1 843 894 1 889 630 1 184 622 62,7%73,4%Total National3 085 772 3 075 072 2
 365 029 76,9% 2 915 394 2 867 460 2 338 476 81,6% 3 235 765 3 574 849 2 017 191 56,4%71,6%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022)Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 40 000 86 499 53 574 61,9% 40 000 30 000 21 787 72,6% 19 598 47 346 35 462 74,9%69,8%Integrated Urban Development Grant51 287 51 287 - 0,0% 50 955 50 328 44 435 88,3% 108 653 136 401 78 368 57,5%48,6%Public Transport Network Grant- - - - - - - - - - - - 0,0%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant172 205 200 092 78 620 39,3% 179 085 125 911 127 268 101,1% 170 366 166 466 89 875 54,0%64,8%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 89 057 116 957 83 996 71,8% 98 651 93 651 45 257 48,3% 106 289 146 289 39 059 26,7%48,9%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 308 620 319 620 104 713 32,8% 300 743 333 692 244 153 73,2% 284 138 293 551 136 759 46,6%50,8%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 443 541 457 801 280 733 61,3% 441 859 452 552 388 931 85,9% 467 148 472 148 265 274 56,2%67,8%Total National1 064 710 1 145 757 548 062 47,8% 1 071 293 1 056 134 850 045 80,5% 1 136 594 1 214 855 609 335 50,2%59,5%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average
 Spent (2020-2022) North West Western Cape 5 Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 75 000 60 800 18 120 29,8% 52 000 54 000 46 831 86,7% 53 000 67 184 58 555 87,2%67,9%Integrated Urban Development Grant- - - - - - - - 113 600 127 784 81 376 63,7%21,2%Public Transport
 Network Grant218 911 218 911 158 616 72,5% 230 939 164 282 135 970 82,8% 213 649 213 649 151 275 70,8%75,3%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant102 948 92 348 21 125 22,9% 100 534 73 725 40 321 54,7% 86 780 48 073 13 715 28,5%35,4%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 121 693 121 693 5 512 4,5% 170 728 190 728 (115 092)-60,3% 458 318 404 135 - 0,0%-18,6%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 328 000 328 000 143 847 43,9% 308 265 318 265 20 529 6,5% 350 073 270 910 124 251 45,9%32,1%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 1 787 741 1 797 741 1 124 030 62,5% 1 774 671 1 754 813 1 025 418 58,4% 1 886 261 1 878 769 504 824 26,9%49,3%Total National2 559 293 2 558 693 1 453 130 56,8% 2 585 137 2 501 813 1 107 146 44,3% 3 108 681 2 943 320 875 441 29,7%43,6%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022)Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Original BudgetAdjusted BudgetYTD Actual% Actual Spent of Adjusted Budget Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (Schedule 5B) 50 000 70 000 23 724 33,9% 101 536 50 746 21 994 43,3% 70 000 191 399 24 792 13,0%30,1%Integrated Urban Development Grant95 936 95 936 - 0,0% 106 139 104 833 94 844 90,5% 213 071 334 470 89 686 26,8%39,1%Public Transport Network Grant1 475 144 1 557 271 251 008 16,1% 2 143 619 902 840 1 033 756 114,5% 2 472
 019 1 158 616 830 871 71,7%67,4%Integrated National Electrification Programme (Municipal) Grant149 931 150 119 128 631 85,7% 167 190 123 816 130 285 105,2% 172 571 189 571 112 206 59,2%83,4%Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 19 471 19 471 204 1,0% 19 471 10 000 - 0,0% 27 661 109 006 96 338 88,4%29,8%Water Services Infrastructure Grant (Schedule 5B) 100 000 124 500 59 807 48,0% 137 000 116 022 66 735 57,5% 129 000 125 500 146 788 117,0%74,2%Municipal Infrastructure Grant 443 713 442 698 323 547
 73,1% 442 423 436 998 416 024 95,2% 454 428 454 428 398 859 87,8%85,4%Total National2 284 195 2 389 995 763 197 31,9% 3 015 842 1 694 509 1 741 644 102,8% 3 468 750 2 371 591 1 674 748 70,6%68,4%Local Government Municipal Infrastructure Grant (R '000)202020212022% Average Spent (2020-2022) ANNEXURE C: Provincial conditional infrastructure grant allocations and expenditure figures in Rand value.
6 Total AvailableActual spending as at 31 Mar % Actual Spent of Total AvailableTotal AvailableActual spending as at 31 Mar % Actual Spent of Total AvailableTotal AvailableActual spending as at 31 Mar % Actual Spent of Total AvailableComprehensive Agricultural Support Programme Grant1 279 0811 042 37081,5%1 632 6381 382 67284,7%1 680 2361 478 15388,0%Land Care Programme Grant: Poverty Relief and Infrastructure Grant81 77698 262120,2%89 85874 25482,6%88 22577 81888,2%Early Childhood Development Grant1 417 381864 49861,0%1 600 4151 161 06772,5%1 383 2951 166 60084,3%Health Facility Revitalisation Grant6 501 1946 051 31593,1%6 898 2346 168 51389,4%7 406 7246 417 59886,6%Human Settlements Development Grant15 268 17914 742 20196,6%13 846 75813 329 86696,3%14 570 74813 596 98893,3%Informal Settlements Upgrading Partnership Grant---3 950 9823 551 09389,9%4 243 9823 928 46492,6%Community Library Services Grant1 205 3851 147 88895,2%1 547 6761 379 83089,2%1 641 0001 490 65590,8%Mass Participation and Sport Development Grant369 806272 35173,6%595 844538 21590,3%607 080579 33095,4%Total26 122 80224 218 88573,6%30 162 40527 585 50990,3%31 621 29028 735 60695,4%Provincial Infrastructure Grants - Schedule 5 (R'thousand)2020-212021-222022-23