30 August 2002
An integrated and accelerated approach to infrastructure development
The apartheid years saw infrastructure development limited to geographical areas of the old South Africa, neglect in townships and informal settlements, and a concentration on the needs of industry and white areas to the almost total exclusion of others. During the emergency period of the State Security Council in the 1980s, some infrastructure projects were initiated as political grease in an attempt to overcome political resistance and struggle. These projects were therefore conducted piecemeal, were not integrated with an overall development strategy, nor were they seen as legitimate by the communities themselves.
Since 1994, the ANC has led the way to provide an integrated, holistic approach to major social and economic questions, including the provision of infrastructure. One of our major tasks when we took government was to conduct a massive survey of infrastructure needs in the face of the obvious backlogs that we faced. That survey covered social and physical infrastructure, its state of maintenance, and an assessment of future needs and addressed questions of implementation agencies and the role of different spheres of action. We found that there was an infrastructure backlog of about R170 billion in our country, across all areas of activity!
- Infrastructure is critical to development in at least three ways:
- it creates favourable conditions for production and consumption;
- it facilitates economic and diversification; and
- because it provides much needed access for people to services, facilities and opportunities. These impacts are directly relevant to the strategic objectives of the National Democratic Revolution that include the need to deepen democracy, expand our peoples well-being and to create a better life for all in an environment of growth and international cooperation.
Even today we have no accurate measure of infrastructure expenditure, but we can estimate that since 1994 the public sector has accounted for about 30% of gross fixed capital formation in South Africa. Of this, about 45% came from extra-budgetary institutions and non-financial public enterprises. The remainder, or about 15% of total fixed capital formation, came from allocations made by government through the Budget.
From 1994 government has concentrated on infrastructure development in a range of areas that has picked up speed as programme management and other elements have improved and developed. Thus, since 1194, 2,8 million phones have been installed, most of which are in previously neglected areas; over 1,4 million housing subsidies have been allocated and over 1,3 million houses built; over 3 million homes have been electrified; since 1997/8 we have spent over R18 billion on roads, with 78% of this spent on provincial and 22% on national roads; rural roads have been built consistently through the CBPWP; since 1997/8 we have also spent over R1, 6 billion on rail infrastructure. The Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme has allocated about R3, 4 billion for sanitation, water, roads, and storm water projects. The infrastructure budgets for education and health facilities have increased dramatically since 1998/99 as well.
However, although we have marked up some major successes, we have also recognized a number of problems in our efforts so far. One issue that has emerged is the question of the fiscal responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of new infrastructure, and the measures that need to be in place to ensure that work skills developed during construction are carried over into the maintenance period. Another issue has become the manner in which particular facilities, such as schools and clinics in rural areas are linked to broader development initiatives such as electrification, water and sanitation, rural access roads, telecommunications and so on.
A critical element of the provision of infrastructure is to ensure that these projects and programmes translate into social transformation. It appears that we have proceeded quite far in our efforts to address the backlogs, but it is clear that more still needs to be done. Since 1998/9 we have begun to reap the benefits of earlier economic decisions and a greater resource base for further infrastructure expenditure is now possible. We believe that we are now in a position to accelerate the provision of infrastructure across South Africa in an integrated and development manner. Our focus should be on improving the implementation of our programmes, and improving the performance of all entities and facilities that are thus provided.
There are two economies in South Africa. The developed economy suffers from a lack of cost competitiveness in relation to the global economy whilst the underdeveloped part of the economy, which represents the experiences of a high proportion of South Africans, is an area where economic potential is not being enabled and harnessed due to backlogs and under-investment in social and productive capital.
The challenges facing us have grown from the outlines of the Freedom Charter through the RDP. These cover issues of democracy and governance, meeting social needs, securing economic transformation, safety and security. Infrastructure as broadly defined seeks to ensure that we meet basic needs through social infrastructure and economic transformation through economic infrastructure. The programme of national democratic transformation challenges us to focus infrastructure development towards achieving the integration of our communities through spatial development and deracialising our country. This includes bridging the technology; production and infrastructure divide between rural and urban areas. It also requires greater coordination and planning for infrastructure to support the growth and development strategy implemented through all spheres of government.
- The global balance of forces has changed remarkably over the last decade and the recent emergence of the AU and NEPAD place further opportunities and challenges before us. South Africa has a role to play in the overall development of our continent, and we believe that the strength of our infrastructure commitment can go a long way to assisting in this development.
Overview of ANC Policy on Infrastructure
The adoption of the RDP in 1994 laid the foundation for all our policies in the period of government. Infrastructure policy was included either implicitly or explicitly in a range of areas that covered electricity provision, housing, health, water and sanitation, telecommunication and information networks, transport, municipal services and public works programmes. We identified South Africa as a development state where we envisaged an active and participatory role for the state, state institutions and enterprises as well as initiating public-private partnerships as a means to mobilizing private sector support and resources in a targeted and development role.
A number of resolutions adopted at the Mafikeng Conference identified specific areas of activity in some detail, including rural development, energy, water, housing and so on. In essence Mafikeng highlighted the need to expand our programmes and to develop better methods of coordination and planning to secure greater community involvement and better use of limited resources. In addition we agreed to establish more effective ANC structures to coordinate our own resources and to secure improved involvement of ANC structures and branches. A central element of all the resolutions in dealing with infrastructure emphasized job creation and skills development.
- The ANC’s NGC in Port Elizabeth addressed itself to identifying further steps to take for the infrastructure sector. These included:
- Long term planning for infrastructure in the context of the MTEF;
- Improving government planning and funding to include SOEs which should coordinate their priorities around infrastructure;
- Promote and sustain partnership with private and community groups including model contracts and guidelines for monitoring and regulation to ensure targets to extend and upgrade infrastructure in underserved areas;
- Standardization of procurement, contracting and payment across all development sectors including those from financial institutions;
- Using public sector funds to leverage private sector funding through Development Challenge programmes;
- Ensure that transformation programmes such as the BEE initiatives and the emerging contractor support programmes are supported and advanced through infrastructure investment and effective coordination of all government programmes.
We have already indicated some of the successes and some of the problems that have emerged as we embarked on delivering better infrastructure. Mafikeng also envisaged an expanded and more wide ranging application of the principles of the National Public Works Programme. We urged that all our programmes should be “visible” in their impact on eradicating poverty in South Africa. It appears that the basic are sound, but that the mechanisms of delivery and the visible impact on poverty are not as clear cut as they could be. Thus we need to consider seriously what measures can be identified that are practical, workable and within our ability, and which are financially sound. We could consider more strategic interventions that aim at better coordination and the integration of programmes that exist at present, creating linkages and improving on operational efficiencies between sectors. As unemployment remains the critical challenge facing us at present, we should consider how best to integrate measures to combat unemployment in all areas of our work, including the development of a major Public Works Programme as an employment creation strategy.
- South Africa aims by 2014 to have a restructured and adaptive economy characterised by growth, employment and equity, built on the full potential of all persons, communities and geographic areas. This would follow the successful implementation of the microeconomic reform strategy and complemented by continued macroeconomic stability and a process of sustainable social development. The requirements to realise this vision include the following:
- A geographic spread of social and productive investment
- An integrated manufacturing economy capable of high degrees of value added
- An extensive ICT and logistics system capable of speed and flexibility
- A high degree of knowledge and technology capacity
- Greater diversity of enterprise type and size
- Skilled, informed and adaptable citizens
- An efficient, strong and responsive state structure.
In order to advance this vision for the transformation of the South African economy, government should continue to focus on microeconomic reform strategies as the majority of the remedies to the factors limiting accelerated growth lie within the micro economy. The challenge is to focus on ensuring that infrastructure supports economic growth sectors, input sectors in the economy and provides for basic needs in marginalized areas. Infrastructure should be focused in growth areas, development corridors, and Spatial Development Initiatives, Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme and Urban Renewal Programme Nodal areas. A labour intensive roll out programme in identified priority areas of the country for the maintenance of infrastructure where lack of further maintenance would mean the loss of that asset.
- The key components of a vision for Infrastructure in our country could be:
- To maintain the competitive advantage created by the modern, high level of infrastructure which characterizes the South African Economy, and retains our competitive advantage in the Continent and the Southern Hemisphere
- To expand infrastructure development to all areas of our country and ensure equitable access to good infrastructure through a clear infrastructure development programme
- Eliminate inequalities and disparities in forward planning for infrastructure and therefore planned capacity, where previous white areas have planned capacity for the next 50 years and black areas do not have adequate capacity to cope with current demand for infrastructure.
- Develop common standards for infrastructure development which is affordable both to government and the citizenry
- Provide basic affordable household infrastructure to every household at standards defined appropriately for each type of human settlement.
- A sufficient network of intermodal transport infrastructure to support economic development and human settlement development.
- High-level maintenance through community development programme using labour intensive methods and encouraging participation of women, youth and unemployed people.
- We need to consider the effectiveness of our multi-layered implementation structures in all spheres of government. Both at national and provincial level, a number of departments have responsibilities that impact on the delivery of social and economic infrastructure . The following factors complicate effective co-ordination of infrastructure:
- At national level, various departments are involved in the determination of policy (norms and standards) and the provision of funding for municipal services including the Department of Housing, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Department of Provincial and Local Government. A large number of national departments are similarly establishing standards and provide funding (albeit indirectly) for the establishment of social infrastructure including the Departments of Education, Health, Safety and Security, etc. Unfortunately the norms and standards do not always match and this creates implementation difficulties at provincial and local tiers of government;
- National and Provincial Departments are not always part of the policy-making and legislative processes of other line-function Departments. Both horizontal and vertical “mismatches” in sectoral policies therefore occur. This problem has, however, diminished over the last few years as a result of cooperative government arrangements, in terms of which cross-functional and inter-functional consultation is effected prior to decision-making;
- The excessively large number of governmental role players that share responsibility for service delivery each within the confines of their defined functional area;
- The inconsistent division of responsibility for services provision among the three spheres of government;
- The absence of a coherent national system of provincial and local strategic planning and development plans to guide integrated service delivery and to inform the budgetary process; and
- In addition the relationships between the different spheres of government differ. In some instances national departments are involved in direct delivery on the ground, others implement their programmes from national, to provincial, to local levels of government. There are some direct relationships between national and local government and in a number of cases the national departments relate differently to parastatals.
There also appears to be a problem of the dysfunctional funding for infrastructure at different levels of government. Thus, the different sectoral programs are not matched at national level in terms of budgets nor are they integrated at the programme level. Provincial problems include structural imbalances that exist in the availability of funds for the different line functionary sectors and give rise to highly fragmented responses towards development projects . At local level, the financial and capacity difficulties of many local authorities create severe impediments to the delivery of a wide range of services .
Another noticeable problem is that, despite valuable efforts by the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), the private sector has yet to enter the infrastructure “market”. Very few municipalities have fully explored the responsibilities of joint ventures or outsourcing of service. This is beginning to improve and a number of local governments are launching initiatives in this regard. Nevertheless, the policies developed by DPLG in relation to partnerships assists in the investment opportunities.
- The impact of these problems has meant that in spatial terms there has been a mismatch of infrastructure provision and needs, that some areas have received very little investment and others high investments creating distorted spatial investment patterns.
Current implementation of infrastructure development programmes is dogged with a myriad of problems such as weak financial and institutional capacity of Local Government as implementers of basic infrastructure services, the reluctance by the private sector to provide finance in areas of greatest need for basic infrastructure investment due to perceived risk and difficult and volatile financial markets, accompanied by high interest rates.
This is further compounded by low level of foreign investment in Africa and South Africa against a background of increasing private capital flows and skills shortages in the areas of project planning and management, financial management, information technology and corporate governance and the major threat of HIV/AIDS to existing and future human capital in these areas.
This has occurred in the context of sound economic, monetary and fiscal policies by government, increased budgetary allocation to provinces and local authorities and increase policy co-ordination at national level and sound regulatory frameworks such as Public Finance Management Act, political stability, decreasing government borrowing and debt level and transformation of local government and promoting of public private partnerships.
Institutional arrangements for implementation require rationalization and more efficient management to achieve our objectives. The role of SOEs remains a critical challenge particular in relation to inadequate mandating mechanisms such as shareholder compacts which would guide their priorities and programmes. However, success in this area must be noted particularly with Eskom, Transnet, Denel and the Independent Development Trust. Specific attention still is needed to ensure maximum utilization of resources available to us as a country, for example deployment of SAND technical capacity to infrastructure development programmes, and minimization of duplication of roles such as Eskom and Local Governments in the provision of electricity.
Because of a lack of uniformity across functional areas, the coordination of strategic planning and the execution of programmes are difficult to achieve. There are few effective mechanisms in place to ensure consistency in the determination and application of national strategic priorities. Because different criteria are used to determine the allocation of funds to provinces, the amounts allocated to related functions do not ensure consistency of outcomes. Moreover, the lack of integrated development plans leads to mismatches of funds at provincial level.
National and provincial development priorities are not necessarily determined jointly, with the result that each line department may channel funds in different directions. Local government strategic planning and prioritization processes may either prove weak due to capacity constraints or may be ignored by other tiers of government and the market. Deficiencies in the current system of infrastructure provision pose the inherent danger of both the under-provision of services or the “duplication” of services and may result in wastage of the country’s limited resources.
Current government initiatives that promote greater infrastructure provisioning integration include the following:
Policy and programme: The Municipal Infrastructure Investment Framework – Department of Provincial and Local Government; Municipal Service Options: A guideline for Local Authorities – Department of Provincial and Local Government; Guidelines for the Provision of Engineering Services Amenities in Residential Townships – The Red Book – developed by the Department of Housing in conjunction with the CSIR, provides guidelines for planning and infrastructure provision in human settlements; White Paper on a National Water Policy for South Africa .The White Paper on Local Government, 1998. The Department of Housing has developed policy for housing development through the “Minimum Norms and Standards in respect of Permanent Residential Structures” which also forms part of the National Housing Code.
Programmes and strategies: Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme (CMIP) – DPLG. Community Water and Sanitation Programme – DWAF.
- Other: A number of National (and Provincial) Departments are directly or indirectly involved in the formulation of policy and strategy and the delivery of infrastructure. These all have an impact on the creation of viable economic and social development and it is important that policies, strategies and delivery programmes are taken into account.
Economic and Social Infrastructure
The provision of economic infrastructure is aimed at lowering the costs of doing business in South Africa. High levels of infrastructure investment particularly in transport, roads, telecommunication, energy, rail, create a competitive edge for the South African economy, and make it more efficient, lowering the cost of production and therefore improving the environment for investment and job creation.
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has revolutionized approaches to cross-border commercial transactions and is a greater part of the global agenda. This includes services that will create a flourishing information society such as the Internet, tele-medicine, tele-agriculture, e-commerce, e-business, e-government, and other convenient measures that will improve the quality of life of our people while contributing to economic growth.
The growth of e-commerce has redefined traditional business methods. In 1991, there were less than 5 million Internet users. Currently there are over 300 million users. With this growth, there are numerous opportunities as e-commerce creates a fiction less economy in which transaction costs and barriers to entry are minimal. The growth of e-commerce presents an opportunity for us to compete directly in high value-added industries.
However the lack of suitably skilled ICT workforce in South Africa is indicative of the education system not meeting the rigorous demands of today’s knowledge-based economy. The demand for technically trained talent in the workplace far exceeds the current supply. If South Africa wants to establish a world-class high technology industry, we must address the establishment of a first rate education system to gain global competitive edge.
- The provision of social infrastructure is key in meeting Government’s objective of redistributing wealth to the poor. The delivery of social infrastructure must seek to break the spatial patterns of apartheid planning and must be targeted at providing basic services to all South Africans and must endeavor to make South African Cities more efficient.
Infrastructure Investment: Current policy
- The ANC’s broad economic and development policy must underpin the decisions related to infrastructure investment. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) stated that the first priority is to begin to meet the basic needs of people i.e. jobs, land, housing, water, electricity, telecommunication, transport etc. Similarly in the Growth and Redistribution Strategy (GEAR), it was anticipated that infrastructure investment would be one of the primary considerations in driving economic development. In addition, there are specific policies covering Municipal Infrastructure investment and sectoral basic needs; the construction industry as a focus for poverty alleviation, job creation and entrepreneurial development; and Municipal Service Partnerships (MSPs).
- It follows, therefore, that the movement must adopt infrastructure investment programmes that strive to achieve the following key development goals:
- To maximize economic development benefits and improve prospects for long-term economic growth by focusing on employment creation in areas where this can be most effectively undertaken;
- To support restructuring where feasible to ensure greater competitiveness and foster development on the basis of local potential;
- Take advantage of areas that are endowed with natural resources, social and institutional resources and historically endowed areas. These areas may be identified at a national or regional level through strategic development initiatives and development corridors, or at a regional or local level through the IDP process;
- To support institutional development to facilitate the provision of basic needs throughout the country and foster the integration of various government programmes for infrastructure delivery with an emphasis on increasing the effectiveness of integrating infrastructure investment. In addition the support for the development of public, private, and civil society institutions to deliver and manage services related capital works becomes one of the important spin-offs for the infrastructure investment programme;
- To review the one-year budget cycle of Municipalities, to identify weaknesses in terms of capacity building and IDP’s and work from a common framework.
- To research the creation of a consolidated data bank to obtain broad information management and monitor quality services and products and formulate appropriate strategies
- To enhance inter-sectoral integration at national government level, intergovernmental integration between National, Provincial and Local Government and to involve parastatals in terms of co-ordination of delivery
From the above it is clear that a broad, integrated policy framework on co-ordination of infrastructure development in South Africa does not exist. The absence of such a framework undermines effective cross-functional co-ordination between and within various spheres of government. In order to promote an integrated and accelerated approach to social and economic development, in both urban and rural areas, Government has made available R6 billion over the next three years (over and above the infrastructure budgets in the various line departments). Spending will focus on increased inter sectoral integration as well as stimulating economic growth in areas with high economic development potential. A phased development approach makes the following assumptions:
- That infrastructure provision must be understood in a broader context to include economic, social, and institutional infrastructure. The implications are that funding will be made available for the development for capital works, institutional development and processes that capture our heritage.
- That government’s role of regulating and facilitating the environment by setting norms and standards adds to its role as public investor. The public investment of R6 billion should trigger private sector and SOE investment, provide public sector investment choices, and promote institutional reform and innovative delivery mechanisms.
- That the basis of public sector investment balances rural and urban needs and appropriate programme responses. The bottom line is that poverty alleviation and economic growth has to be at the center of a public infrastructure investment strategy.
- That infrastructure investment must be built upon the principle of co-operative governance. Project identification should be undertaken at provincial level in consultation with municipalities, on the back of specific efforts directed towards confirming the interim IDP’s in the short term. These project proposals should be prioritized on the basis of existing planning processes and reflect national and provincial development priorities. and phasing of its implementation;
- A framework for monitoring and evaluation, identifying also roles, responsibilities and relevant role players, on the basis of clearly identifiable key performance areas and project deliverables in relation to cost and quality.
The conditions under which municipal, social and economic services are to be provided will depend on the nature of the project. In general, consideration must be given on whether projects are greenfields, upgrading or combination projects.
- The ANC must consider the type of integration forum that should be established to oversee the process of infrastructure provision by government. A number of factors need to be considered by such a forum. These would include:
- Economic Considerations: In order to meet the economic development objectives, projects should: Promote the efficient economic interchange between urban and rural communities based on community centered activities; Unlock under-utilized public resources and infrastructure; Be implementable in the short term; and Be highly visible (geographically and politically).
- Planning and social considerations: In order to promote integrated development, projects should: Take cognisance of, and enhance longer term development goals for the area in which it takes place and be in harmony with any applicable spatial development framework for the area and what government-identified priorities within such frameworks; Promote the integration of previously segregated infrastructure delivery; Promote a balanced access to infrastructure, community facilities, resources and employment opportunities; Integrate land use functions in a manner that builds communities within the context of their development needs and promotes a transition towards urbanisation in the long term; Contribute to community and public sector skills and capacity development. Promote integration and democratisation of local authority structures; and contribute in actual terms to the eradication of existing services backlogs.
- Point of departure for integration: In addition, preference should be given to projects that: Promote integrated economical, social and environmentally sustainable development. Demonstrate maximum local and provincial government and private sector financial gearing; Demonstrate improved or institutionalised line functionary integration at project implementation. Demonstrate high levels of job creation and focused skills transfer, preferably linked to existing programmes for skills transfer and capacity building; maximum use of local contractors and/or service providers based on affirmative procurement practices, maximum use of labour intensive construction methods, preferably linked to a formal public works programme; Demonstrate a holistic approach to community building and sustainability and the impact of the project on the quality of life.
In the absence of integrated planning and budgeting via IDPs, special funding arrangements must be made. In key funding for strategic projects should be top-sliced and provided as a single budget. This obviates the need for complex and time-consuming funding negotiations between multiple parties. This funding should be made available according to a projected project cash flow but must provide flexibility in complex project.
Implementation agencies should be encouraged to gear other sources of funding through innovative financing models developed at project level. The optimised funding mix could result in Municipal Service Partnerships (MSPs), which involve a contractual arrangement with a service provider other than the municipality itself5.
Large and complex infrastructure projects may best be implemented in a turnkey manner. This approach substantially reduces the overall project management burden on the state, but requires considerable intergovernmental co-operation. Provincial governments should therefore become the key co-ordination authorities, facilitating project planning, rollout and capacitating as far as possible at the local level. Where appropriate, systems should be optimized to avoid multi-level procurement and multiple agency involvement within a single location.
A key element of the integration of infrastructure delivery processes involves the alignment of principles and priorities underpinning the various programmes that contribute to the development of integrated economic developments. The concept of functional arrangements along programmatic developmental lines requires fundamental structural change in the delivery of infrastructural services affecting all three spheres of government. The process of restructuring would need to harness the momentum of existing initiatives, such as the proposed system of spatial planning and development (as set out in the Green Paper on Development and Planning) and the Municipal Systems Act, 2000. A carefully planned multi-year programme would be needed to obviate possible disruption. Further research will also be required in order to assess the financial, personnel and other implications of this proposal. While there could be a need for a local government capacity audit, linkages should also be sought with the DPLG’s national capacity building programme. A concerted, systematic transition to the programmatic integration of the delivery of infrastructure is proposed which takes account of the following dimensions.
To ensure consistency of outcomes at the national sphere of government, integrated infrastructural development should occur within the framework of a single uniform system of integrated planning that serves the needs of the country as a whole. The spatial planning and development system and the adoption of legislation advocated in the Green Paper on Planning and Development would appear to answer this need to a significant degree and the adoption of legislation, as recommended in the Green Paper, will form the foundation for future spatial planning. Cognizance should also be taken of numerous crosscutting-planning processes occurring at provincial level . While horizontal co-ordination across sectors is important, it is equally important to consider vertical co-ordination across spheres of government.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, local level Integrated Development Plans which constitute the principal strategic planning instrument to guide and inform planning and development at local level should be afforded priority consideration. The IDP process is key to promoting integrated planning, especially between local and provincial authorities.
Local authorities are primarily responsible for the provision of, especially, but not only, municipal services. They are also responsible for operating and maintaining such services. The ability of municipalities to sustain the capital and operating costs of providing services is accordingly of concern. In some areas it would appear that municipalities set service standards for infrastructure provision at high levels, as higher levels of services (e.g. roads or storm water drainage) usually imply lower maintenance costs that are more affordable to municipalities7. High levels of services, however, lead to high operating costs (such as water-borne sewerage) that may not be affordable to many communities.
A draft report to DPLG, the Revised Municipal Infrastructure Investment Framework estimates the bulk and internal capital cost of delivering municipal services to a basic level per household in urban areas is R10 104, and in rural areas R7 823. The current average monthly operating costs for a basic level of service in urban areas is R113 per household, and R57 per household in rural areas. The cost of providing the five municipal services averages 64% of municipal expenditure in urban areas, but is markedly higher in rural areas.
- In order to ensure national and economic sustainability, uniformity and equity in the provision of municipal, social and economic services, an integrated national policy on norms and standards for housing and related capital services to be funded by the National Treasury has been identified. Responsibility for the development and monitoring of such a policy should be allocated to a single national department through the establishment of a consultative forum.
- Key government programmes for the delivery of municipal, social, economic and institutional infrastructure should be reviewed to ensure consistency. Through this process, the various funding instruments, including the Housing Subsidy Programme, the Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Investment Programme (CMIP), the Water and Sanitation Programme, the Land Reform Programme and the Provincial roads, school-building, hospital, clinic and other social facility building programmes should be consolidated and rationalized to facilitate an integrated application at project in a simple and effective manner. This process should ensure a programmatic review of all government programmes and assess their impact and the extent to which transformational objectives have been achieved and to foster integrated infrastructure development.
Funding co-ordination will be greatly assisted through the IDP process. The problem of private sector investment remains complex. Despite the valuable efforts by the Department of Provincial and Local Government, the private sector has not yet entered the infrastructure “market”. Very few municipalities have dully explored the responsibilities of joint ventures or privatization of service. Similarly the is a need to review the single year budgeting to medium term budgeting already operational at National and Provincial level and to focus funding for infrastructure in rural areas. These aspects need to be addressed in order to enhance the funding which is available for infrastructure investment in an environment of relative scarcity.
- Investment attraction strategies need to be developed to ensure that Government does not continue to be the sole provider of economic infrastructure that benefit mostly business and contributes to economic growth. We must specifically define interventions for raising private sector funds in line with our NGC programmatic tasks.
- Whilst promoting infrastructure investment, care must be taken to enhance institutional capacity to manage, maintain, operate and utilize infrastructure to achieve broad development goals. The role of intermediary organisations (for and non-profit) is very important. Within this context, a greater role must be developed for non-government agencies in order to enhance service delivery. Infrastructure development must also be used to promote economic empowerment of previously disadvantaged groups and to build small and medium enterprises.
Framework for a resolution
As we advance towards integrated infrastructure delivery, we need to re evaluate our policy framework through policy analysis, and work toward establishing a policy and planning framework for integrated infrastructure.
Thorough assessment of impact of infrastructure programme needs to be done against the social transformational objectives as discussed in our Strategy and Tactics document including Black Economic Empowerment, Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises, Women’s’ Co-operatives and Youth Brigades.
Recognising that the key challenges of infrastructure development remain the co-ordination of investment between public sector, public entities and private sector investment. We need to establish an infrastructure Investment Framework in order to more effectively co-ordinate investment to ensure targeted and planned infrastructure programme implementation.
In order to enhance visibility of our delivery programme we need to establish highly visible, targeted delivery programmes in the short term, across all spheres of Government to o be aimed at completion by the beginning of 2004.
- In recognizing the challenge that we face, the following must be considered as specific issues for successful implementation of an infrastructure programme:
- A mindset shift is required with respect to institutional arrangements, recognizing the need for much more focused arrangements with the proposed National Co-coordinating Forum for Infrastructure. This should incorporate National, Provincial, Local Government and Public entities to mobilize other stakeholders.
- Establishment of an infrastructure link to Economic and Spatial Development, Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme and Urban Renewal
- To promote the input sector of the economy through infrastructure provision such as energy, transport and Information Communication Technology
- To actively promote maintenance of infrastructure, promote asset ownership and transfer to our communities, empowerment with participation of women, youth and unemployed through income generating activities
- Develop an Integrated Infrastructure Development Plan and an Inter Ministerial Committee responsible for implementation of programmes including the expanded National Public Works Programme.
- Facilitate ANC Branch level participation on BEE, SMME, Women and Youth through opportunities presented through infrastructure development and maintenance.