by Nontando Guwa

The South African government is faced with a huge infrastructure backlog due to poorly directed development which excluded huge segments of the South African population during the apartheid era.

In an effort to address this backlog, government introduced the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) in April 2004. The MIG is a conditional grant meant to support municipal capital budgets to fund municipal infrastructure and to upgrade existing infrastructure, primarily benefiting poor households.

Cabinet decided to establish a single consolidated funding mechanism to aid infrastructure development rather than use its various existing support systems that were neither co-ordinated nor integrated. The MIG was set up to merge the following funding programmes:

• Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme, in support of internal bulk, connector infrastructure and community facilities to poor households;

• Water Service Capital Fund, in support of bulk, connector and internal infrastructure for water services at a basic level;

• Community-based Expanded Public Works Programme, in support of the creation of community assets in rural, historically disadvantaged communities;

• Local Economic Development Fund, in support of planning, and implementation of job creation and poverty alleviation;

• Building support for Sport and Recreational Programme to sustain sport and recreation facilities within disadvantaged communities; and

• Electrification funding in support of addressing the electrification backlog of permanently occupied residential dwellings that are situated in historically under-supplied areas.

The MIG is geared towards making the system of transfers to municipalities simpler and more direct. Its conditions are more flexible, designed to support the capital budgets of municipalities, and to facilitate integrated development planning. It also aims to:

• Alleviate poverty
• Promote economic development
• Create employment
• Empower municipalities
• Decentralise service delivery
• Consolidate funding arrangements

MIG funds are determined by a formula, and are paid into the bank account of the municipality according to the MIG schedule agreed on with the municipality concerned. This means that municipalities are not required to make an application for the funds. The amount each municipality receives from MIG is published in the Division of Revenue Act.

MIG projects are identified in the IDP process, which means that service provisions need to reflect the needs and preferences of the community. If the community does not participate in the planning of the project, the services may not be responsive to the real needs of the community.

It has been reported that a new regulation has been approved by the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) concerning MIG. The provision allows for local municipalities to utilise some of the MIG funds for capacity-building purposes, particularly the capacity building of ward committees.

Most local municipalities have felt the capacity challenges of ward committees, and have for a long time struggled to raise the budget required for capacitating these structures. Ward committees are a crucial structure in our system of local government whose core function is to link local citizens with their municipality. When this structure fails to do its duties or does not know how to effectively play its role and function, the entire system of a participatory local government is jeopardised.

In view of this, most local municipalities welcomed with excitement these new provisions in the MIG. On the other hand, ward committees in most local municipalities have been asking for assistance from their local municipalities to cover their out-of-pocket expenses; and due to budget constraints most municipalities have not been able to reimburse ward committee members. The new provisions in the MIG come as an answer for most local municipalities which for a long time struggled to come up with funds to meet these out-of-pocket expenses.

A scary discovery is that since DPLG notified local municipalities of the new provisions in the MIG, most municipalities started promising their ward committee members some re-imbursement and motivation in the form of stipends. At a recent ward committee meeting a ward councillor notified his ward committee members of the R50-a-month stipend that they were now going to receive from the local municipality for attending meetings. This was meant to cover out-of-pocket (travel) costs and food, since there was no catering arranged at the meetings. With members paying at most R10 for a return taxi trip to the venue, and the meeting lasting only two hours, one may ask why the municipality was giving them R50, and the answer would simply be “the MIG is available, so why not spend it”.

It would appear that the DPLG’s good intentions to provide assistance to local municipalities by capacitating ward committee members is about to become disastrous. A key point missing from the provisions in the MIG is a stipulation or clause stating that about 80% of the MIG allocation allowed for capacity building of ward committees should be used for just that – capacity building and training – and that the other 20% could be used for out-of-pocket expenses.

If the DPLG does not regulate this process, the noble intention of capacitating ward committees will remain just that: a noble intention.

References:
http://www.mvula.co.za
http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/yourgovernment
http://www.dplg.gov.za/docs

Transformer Vol. 14 No. 5 Oct-Nov 2008