Revised Municipal Accreditation Framework 2023 Overview
The Revised Municipal Accreditation Framework 2023 presentation discusses the purpose, MINMEC resolutions, legislative framework, and recommendations related to enabling municipalities to administer national housing programs. It outlines the progressive process of capacitation through accreditation to enhance municipal delivery capacity without compromising functionality. The framework also addresses lessons from the 2012 framework, legal mandates, policy shifts, and a programmatic approach for integrated human settlements delivery.
Revised Municipal Accreditation Framework 2023 Overview
PowerPoint presentation about 'Revised Municipal Accreditation Framework 2023 Overview'. This presentation describes the topic on The Revised Municipal Accreditation Framework 2023 presentation discusses the purpose, MINMEC resolutions, legislative framework, and recommendations related to enabling municipalities to administer national housing programs. It outlines the progressive process of capacitation through accreditation to enhance municipal delivery capacity without compromising functionality. The framework also addresses lessons from the 2012 framework, legal mandates, policy shifts, and a programmatic approach for integrated human settlements delivery.. Download this presentation absolutely free.
Presentation Transcript
REVISED MUNICIPAL ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK 2023 PRESENTATION TO THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
Contents Purpose of the Accreditation Framework MINMEC Resolutions on Accreditation Legislative Framework Implementation of 2012 Accreditation Framework Accreditation Framework of 2023 Recommendations 2
Purpose of the Accreditation Framework The Municipalities Programmes (2023) provides the guideline for enabling the administration of national housing programmes by municipalities. This 2023 Revised Accreditation Framework is responsive to MINMEC s directives and resolutions undertaken. Revised Accreditation to Administer Framework National for Housing In mechanism considered given the fact that it is not in the Housing Act. Accreditation process is therefore defined as a progressive process of capacitation, evaluated against pre-determined National Minister), which does not lead to eventual assignment of functions related to the administration of national housing programmes this Revised of Framework, assignment the not is criteria(by Accreditation has been introduced as an instrument to ensure the progressive municipalities in order for them to perform the delegated function without compromising delivery capacity in the short term capacitation of 3
MINMEC Resolutions on Accreditation The Accreditation and Assignment Framework for Municipalities to Administer National Housing Programmes was adopted by MINMEC in 2012. Identify lessons that have emerged from the implementation of the 2012 Framework by provinces and municipalities identifying critical success factors and delivery blockages Provide clarity on the legal mandate and role of provinces, and provincial MECs responsible for housing, in the accreditation of municipalities Identify legislative and policy shifts within the housing and broader urban, human settlements and local government context that impact on the Framework; Propose a shift to a programmatic approach towards accreditation that responds to the re-design and complexity of national housing programmes Place a stronger focus on an integrated, outcomes-based and demand-driven approach to integrated human settlements delivery. In 2014 MINMEC took a decision that the 2012 Framework should be reviewed in terms of: MINMEC of 11 May 2023 has resolved that a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the accreditation programme be undertaken and that a revised accreditation framework be developed and be submitted back for approval 4
Legislative Framework Division of Revenue Act Housing Act (1997) Constitution (1996) Section 3 - National determines policy, set targets, provide funding, M&E, and build capacity for delivery, engage on housing development, among other roles. Section 26(1) ,Schedule 4 Part A Housing is a concurrent national and provincial legislative competence Section 12(6a) of the current edition of the DoRA provides that HoDs must, in consultation with the DG and after consultation accredited municipality, publish in the Gazette, expenditure from the HSDG, over MTEF in line with level one or level two accreditation status. with Section 7 - Provinces promote & facilitate the provision of adequate housing, coordinate housing development, administer programmes, among other roles. As such Provinces serve as DEVELOPERS in Human Settlements Programmes. Section application principles wherein administration of a matter can be ceded from one sphere of government to another if certain conditions capacity and effectiveness. 156 - Provides the for the the planned of subsidiarity Section determines criteria for accreditation in consultation with MECs and if the MEC is satisfied that the municipality which made an application complies with the criteria, must accredit that municipality 10 (2)(a) - Minister are met, viz: Section 10 gives effect to the subsidiarity principle of the Constitution which allows municipalities to take on the DEVELOPERS status conditions are met. role when certain 5
Implementation of 2012 Accreditation Framework - Programme Performance - Status of Implementation Protocols - Lessons Learnt and Critical Success Factors 6
Programme Performance 35 Municipalities are accredited at level 1 and 2 to date .27 of which were delivered through the Outcome 8 of 2009 - 2014(5yr). From 2015 to date (8 yrs) only 8 Municipalities were accredited. Implementation of the 2012 Accreditation Framework has not led to much success as the programme has encountered various implementation challenges in some of the provinces some of which are outlined below: Implementation protocols in various provinces were unsigned and not renewed Lack of accreditation dedicated units in provinces Breakdown in established accreditation governance structures Instabilities in various municipalities made the accreditation process difficult Poor expenditure of OPSCAP funds Lack of provincial capacity Funds not gazetted Funds allocated and gazetted but could not be transferred as IPs are unsigned Poor provincial support of municipalities Constant provincial management changes negatively affected programme implementation Lack of political consensus and support on assignment 7
Assessment of Implementation Protocols Programme Implementation Status of Implementation Protocols 26% 37% Active Implementation Protocols 40% Municipality Performs Accredited Functions Expired Implementation Protocols Municipality Partly Performs Accredited Functions 63% Implementation Protocols Never Signed 34% Provincial Breakdown: Expired and Unsigned Implementation Protocols Number of Municipalities not Fully Performing the Accredited Functions NORTHERN CAPE 1 WESTERN CAPE 1 NORTHERN CAPE 4 NORTH WEST 2 NORTH WEST 2 MPUMALANGA 4 MPUMALANGA 4 LIMPOPO 7 LIMPOPO 7 KWAZULU-NATAL 1 1 KWAZULU-NATAL GAUTENG 3 3 GAUTENG 1 FREE STATE 1 FREE STATE 0 EASTERN CAPE EASTERN CAPE 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8
Assessment of Implementation Protocols Province Mpumalanga Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Steve Tshwete Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Govan Mbeki Local Municipality JB Marks Local Municipality Rustenburg Local Municipality IP Status (Year Signed) 2013 No 21 No 1 Province Eastern Cape Municipality Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality City of Johannesburg City of Tshwane City of Ekurhuleni eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality Ray Nkonyeni Local Municipality Newcastle Local Municipality Alfred Duma Local Municipality Kwadukuza Local Municipality Umhlathuze Local Municipality Msunduzi Local Municipality Musina Local Municipality Thulamela Local Municipality Bela-Bela Local Municipality Lephalale Local Municipality Polokwane Local Municipality IP Not Signed Greater Tzaneen Local Municipality Makhado Local Municipality IP Status (Year Signed) 2013 2013 22 2 2013 2015 23 3 Free State 2016 2014 24 4 5 6 7 Gauteng 2012 2012 2012 2023,2020, 2013 North West IP Not Signed 25 Kwazulu-Natal IP Not Signed 26 Northern Cape Frances Baard District Municipality Namakwa District Municipality ZF Mgcawu District Municipality David Kruiper District Municipality John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality Sol Plaatjie Local Municipality Emthanjeni District Municipality Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality Western Cape City of Cape Town 2012 27 8 2023,2020 2022 28 9 10 2023,2020, 2013 2020 2022 29 11 2023,2020, 2013 2022 30 12 2020, 2013 2022, 2012 31 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2023,2020, 2013 IP Not Signed IP Not Signed IP Not Signed IP Not Signed 2022, 2012 32 Limpopo 2022, 2012 33 2022, 2013 34 2021, 2017 35 IP Not Signed Only KZN and Northern Cape & Western Cape Municipalities have active Implementation Protocols 20 IP Not Signed 9
Lessons Learnt Political consensus and support between provinces and municipalities Accreditation IGR structures in place (e.g., steering committees established within municipalities) IPs signed and reviewed every three (3) years Funds are gazette and transferred to municipalities Provincial support visible and instrumental Stable and low to medium risk classified municipalities are an ingredient for success The provinces that performed better displayed the following: 10
Critical Success Factors Planning Implementation Protocols Implementation Processes Land Acquisition Financing Monitoring Support The following factors are critical to the success of the accreditation programme: 11
6 Thrust of the Revised Accreditation Framework Programme Based Incremental Approach to Accreditation Strengthening Provincial & Municipal Accreditation Capacity A Focus on Intermediate Cities Streamlined Accreditation Process Financial Resourcing Accountability 13
Thrust 1: Programme Based Incremental Approach The capacity of a municipality will also determine the range of national housing programmes that the municipality may include within its HSSP. Accreditation is directly linked to the national housing programmes that the municipality requests to administer as part of its HSSP. This means that a municipality will not be accredited for all national housing programmes, but only those that are relevant to it and contained within its HSSP. This will both enable progressive capacity building within the municipality and incentivize a municipality to be more responsive and demand-driven in terms of community accessing and administering a broader range of national housing programmes. Municipalities are to be accredited for implementing a programme or mixture of programmes that are relevant to their capacity and priority needs. The decision on what national housing programmes to accredit a municipality for will be linked to the municipality s Human Settlements Sector Plan (HSSP). A municipality must analyse its local housing demand, and then identify the relevant national housing programmes that will assist in addressing this demand. needs through 14
Thrust 2: Role of Intermediate City Municipalities Intermediate City Municipalities in the country are experiencing challenges such as: inadequate capacity to manage rapid urbanization which mushrooming of informal settlements , Secondary Municipalities are seen as important catalysts for more balanced and dispersed growth across the country. As alternative urban centres, they relieve pressure from the country s primate cities, which is especially important in countries demographic and economic activity has historically occurred in just one city. Many governments have designed specific national policies aimed secondary/intermediate cities cities / Intermediate City manifested by where most inadequate and aging infrastructure and limited sources of revenue inadequate planning, enforcement of by-laws, capacity land in spatial and at nurturing management Secondary Municipalities are today seen as the principal drivers of global economic growth, with the fastest population and economic growth. Cities/ Intermediate City governance through undesirable audit opinions, poor revenue collection etc. challenges manifesting 15
Intermediate City Municipalities and Accreditation Status 16
Recommended Accreditation Intervention for Intermediate Cities It is imperative that the Intermediate City Municipalities be prioritised, capacitated, funded, supported and accredited to successfully undertake human settlements programmes thereby addressing the various challenges faced by communities at a local level. Two intervention mechanisms are proposed. Intervention 1: Accreditation Drive for Intermediate Cities. The National Department of Human Settlements shall facilitate the accreditation Municipalities. The department shall identify and prioritise Intermediate City Municipalities Furthermore, the National Department shall put in place and implement a rapid capacitation programme for accreditation of current Level 1 accredited secondary cities to achieve Level 2 accreditation. The MECs are therefore responsible to accredit the municipalities in line with the Housing Act Intervention Capacity Support Programme. The National Department shall provide pre-accreditation support, accreditation implementation support and ongoing accreditation intermediate cities 2: Human Settlements Cities of Intermediate City for accreditation. support to 17
Key Intervention 1: Accreditation Drive For Intermediate City Municipalities (ICMs) Status of ICMs Accreditation Non Accredited ICMs (21), Level 1 Accredited ICMs (10) & Level 2 Accredited ICMs (8). Total = 39 ICMs with high prevalence of informal settlements should be prioritised - Number of informal settlements in non-accredited ICMs (415), Number of informal settlements in Level 1 Accredited ICMs (303), Number of informal settlements in Level 2 Accredited ICMs (129). The estimated total number of informal settlements in ICMs is 847. Mining Towns - 6x ICMs are not accredited (Matjhaneng, Madibeng, Rand West, Merafong, Greater Tubatse / Fetakgomo and Ba-Phalaborwa) while 2x ICMs are accredited at level 1 (Lephalale & Emalahleni). Other criteria such as low GVA and high population density, manufacturing ICMs, large and semi-diverse and service centre ICMs 18
Prioritisation: Intermediate City Municipalities (ICMs) and the Number of Informal Settlements (BC) Non-Accredited Emfuleni (33) Matjhabeng (28) Madibeng (31) Rand West (14) Merafong (33) Greater Tubatse / Fetakgomo (7) Ba-Phalaborwa (1) Mogale City (89) Drakenstein (36) Metsimaholo (4) Stellenbosch (21) Matlosana (5) Non-Accredited Maluti-a-Phofung (4) Nkomazi (6) Mogalakwena (5) George (56) Greater Giyani (5) Bushbuck Ridge (TBC) Mahikeng (5) Enoch Mgijima (20) King Sabata Dalindyebo (12) Level 1 Accredited Msunduzi (83) Mbombela (49) Emalahleni (72) Lephalale (3) Govan Mbeki (42) JB Marks (14) Ray Nkonyeni (5) Greater Tzannen (9) Thulamela (3) Makhado (3) Level 2 Accredited Polokwane (5) Rustenburg (23) Steve Tshwete (30) Newcastle (9) Umhlathuze (7) KwaDukuza (20) Alfred Duma (6) Sol Plaatjie (29) 415 303 129 19
Low - Medium Risk Level 2 Accredited ICMs Rustenburg (Low Risk Classified Level 2 Accredited) Steve Tshwete (Low Risk Classified Level 2 Accredited) Umhlathuze (Low Risk Classified - Level 2 Accredited) KwaDukuza (Low Risk Classified Level 2 Accredited) Polokwane (Medium Risk Classified Level 2 Accredited) Alfred Duma (Medium Risk Classified Level 2 Accredited) 20
Key Intervention 2: Capacity & Support Programme for Intermediate City Municipalities (ICMs) Municipal Human Settlement Plans Accreditation Business Plans Pre-Accreditation Support Technical Support Municipal Assessment & Drafting of Individual Municipal Capacity Programme Deployment of resources (secondment etc.) Deployment of Professional Resources Teams Non- Dysfunctional Municipalities Accredited Municipalities Level 1 Accredited Municipalities Level 2 Accredited Municipalities Preparation and Submission of Business Plans, Review of HSSP Deployment of Professional Resources Team for implementation and ongoing support Municipal Human Settlements Plans Accreditation Business Plans Level 2 Accreditation Support Technical Support 21
Thrust 3: Streamlined Accreditation Process - Accreditation levels - Criteria for accreditation - Accreditation Process 22
Accreditation Levels Accreditation Level One (1): Subsidy Budget Planning, submission of identified Housing Projects and Programmes to the MEC for approval, Beneficiary Management, Housing Subsidy Registration, Subsidy Management, Accreditation Reporting and Document Management. Accreditation Level Two (2): Subsidy Budget Planning, submission of identified Housing Projects and Programmes to the MEC for approval, Beneficiary Management, Housing Subsidy Registration, Subsidy Management, Accreditation Reporting and Document Management, Procurement and appointment of Implementing Agents, Project/ Programme management, Contract Administration, Technical Quality Assurance and Budget Management. 23
Criteria for Accreditation Criteria Performance Areas Integrated Sustainable Human Settlements Planning Sound Municipal Governance and Administration Functions Applicable Level 1 & 2 Human Settlements Sector Planning Credible HSSP Capital Investment Framework Adoption of HSSP by council Municipality demonstrate good governance through regular executive and council meetings, senior management appointed, low vacancy rates, internal audit capacity, positive audit outcomes Human Settlements Management and Oversight 1 & 2 Housing Programme Administration Capacitated Housing Unit Municipality demonstrates capacity through existence of Human Settlements Unit or administrative capacity. Human resources and organogram to perform housing programme administration Municipality demonstrates capacity to: identify, develop and evaluate projects, contract management, land assembly, register projects with NHBRC, technical quality control, design and budget for projects, transparent & efficient procurement Municipality demonstrates capacity to: operate the HSS, interface positively with community & beneficiaries, allocate subsidies fairly and transparently, process title deeds and enter into agreements, Link to National Housing Needs Register Municipality demonstrates capacity to: comply with legislated financial and technical reporting requirements. Monitoring systems project, programme, opex and capex Capacity to manage budget through operating a legally compliant financial management system 1 & 2 Programme & Project Planning, Development and Management Beneficiary Management 2 1 & 2 Reporting 1 & 2 Subsidy Budget Planning & Allocation 2 24
Accreditation Process Adoption of HSSP and approval of ABP are key as they determine the programme / programmes to be accredited for. Human Settlements Sector Plan adoption by Council Times frames from application process to signing of implementation protocol stipulated Accreditation Business Plan Preparation Municipal assessment is the responsibility of the national department to ensure better coordination and uniformity across all provinces Formal Accreditation Application Municipal Assessment by National Department (30 days) Assessment of the municipality shall be undertaken by an independent Assessment Technical team appointed by the National department. Accreditation is formalized through the conclusion of the IP between delegating authority and Municipality over MTSF period 5 Years. MEC's Consultations (30 days) Compliance Certification Issued by MEC (21 days) IP performance review process to be conducted 3 months before the expiry of the IP by the National department through the Independent Technical Team . Appeal Process (if required) The results of IP performance review process will be used either the signing of the new IP, re- assessment of the Municipality or capacitation of the municipality, at worst claw back. Signing of an Implementation Protocol: HOD and Municipal Manager (30 days) 26
Thrust 4: Financial Resourcing It is critical that the Human Settlements Sector Plan contains a budgetary requirement component over the MTEF period. Adequate capital grant and operational funding must be provided by the accrediting authority for the municipality to perform. The HSDG is the primary grant addressing access to adequate housing, and whilst the USDG and MIG are linked to the provision of basic services and ISUPG addresses informal settlements. Further operational funding should be determined in terms of the percentage of the gazetted HSDG /ISUPG transferred allocation to the municipality. In terms current guidelines 3 - 5 percent of the HSDG/ISUPG is allowed for provinces. Financial principles shall apply municipalities including creation of a separate bank account for accreditation funds No transfer of Human settlements funds for programme implementation should flow to the municipalities unless when a municipality is Level 2 Accredited. 27
Thrust 5: Strengthening Provincial and Municipal Accreditation Capacity Capacitation of accreditation units at provincial department level should be prioritized. Strengthen capacity building stages pre-accreditation support, accreditation implementation support and on-going accreditation support National Department of Human Settlements Accreditation Unit is responsible for the Revised Accreditation Framework and putting in place monitoring and support systems for provinces and municipalities in terms of the framework The NDoHS is responsible to ensure that the municipalities have the required access to full functionality of the HSS and receives adequate financial and non-financial resources and capacity to perform the administration of the national housing programmes for which it has been accredited. Capacity and Support Plan for the municipality based on the institutional support needs identified in the ABP and from the recommendations of the accreditation assessment process should be agreed upon, funded and be part of the IP signed between the delegating authority and the municipality 28
Thrust 6: Accountability - Institutional arrangements Reporting & Performance Monitoring - Remedial Actions 29
Institutional Arrangements The roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government depending on the level of accreditation achieved by a particular municipality. In terms of non-accredited municipalities, housing subsidy funding is allocated to the provincial departments by the NDoHS, on the basis of a formula, articulated in the annual DORA. The interaction of the various governmental spheres and the various levels of accreditation is illustrated by the figure on the right. The figure illustrates the reporting, financing and accountability lines through Accreditation Levels 1 and 2 as well as Accreditation Level 2 for Intermediate/Secondary Cities . The thick, coloured lines represent funding flows; while the thin dotted lines represent changing lines of reporting, oversight and accountability. change 30
Reporting and Performance Monitoring Clear legal mandate in terms of the Housing Act Statutory LG reporting requirements: Housing Act, Municipal Systems Act, MFMA, SPLUMA, DoRA Existing M&E frameworks: NDHS s Monitoring Evaluation And Impact Assessment Framework MTSF Framework Government s Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) Municipal performance Government Management (LGMIN), B2B & Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent IPs must stipulate what and how provinces will monitor municipalities National to use provincial reporting instruments: MYHSP, APP, MTSF & Management Performance Assessment Tool National to report ITO MTSF outcomes & committees National minister to monitor the performance of provinces and municipalities against housing delivery & budget goals MEC required municipalities MEC to obtain reports from municipalities in relation to administration housing programmes Municipalities failing to perform a delegated results in a function clawed back to monitor assessment Improvement tools: Local Model of national function will 31
Remedial actions and Appeals Mechanism APPEALS MECHANISM If material disputes arise in the process (either during application, assessment, outcome, implementation) performance by provinces/ Municipalities: First-level: letter between NDoHS & PDHS Accreditation Managers requesting corrective action within specified time-frames. Second-level: letter between NDoHS & PDHS HoDs Third-level: letter from Minister to MEC. Fourth-level: Appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Chapter 4 of the IGRA Fifth-Level: Appointment of an Administrator I.t.o S139 of the Constitution REMEDIAL ACTIONS Progressive responses for non- Parties are encouraged to make every reasonable effort to resolve the dispute with 30 days. Failure of which the matter shall be referred to the MEC responsible for human settlements, who should settle the matter with 30 days. If the Municipality is aggrieved by the decision of the MEC, then the Municipality can appeal to the National Minister for Human settlements. The National Minister shall make the decision to the aggrieved parties within 30 days of receiving the appeal. If any party is aggrieved by the decision of the Minister, the dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in Chapter 4 of the IGRF Act, 13 of 2005 will apply (including declaration of a formal intergovernmental dispute 32
Conditions for Withdrawal of Accreditation Conditions for withdrawal of accreditation to a municipality The following condition/s provides grounds for the MEC to consider withdrawal of accreditation granted to a municipality: Consistence failure to meet agreed targets (delivery and expenditure) stipulated in the Implementation Protocols Consistence failure to comply to reporting and policy/ legislative requirements Regress or failure to capacitate the Human Settlements Unit as per the Accreditation Business Plan Mismanagement and misuse of the grants allocated to the municipality When Section 139 Intervention is Invoked. 33
Process of Withdrawal Process of withdrawal of accreditation i. The Provincial Department of Human Settlements shall submit written motivation to the National Department of Human Settlements outlining the condition/s for recommending the withdrawal of accreditation to a specific municipality. ii. The Minister shall within 30 days appoint an independent assessment panel to prepare a report in order to determine whether the recommendation to withdraw the accreditation is justified. iii. The Independent Panel shall submit the report for consideration by the National Minister within 7 days of conducting the assessment. iv. If any party is aggrieved by the decision of the Minister, shall within 30 days make an appeal to the Minister. v. The dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in Chapter 4 of the IGRF Act, 13 of 2005 will apply (including declaration of a formal intergovernmental dispute) 34
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF THE REVISED ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK Approved by HS MINMEC on 15 September 2023 Implementation and application from 1 October 2023 Consultative Workshop with Provinces and ICMs/Secondary Cities - 24 October 2023 Approved by Cabinet 29 November 2023 Consultation through the National Accreditation Task Team (NATT) 07 December 2023 Consultation with CoGTA and National Treasury - 12 December 2023 Draft Municipal Accreditation Capacity and Capability Building initiative is under development 9 February 2024 Application received from EC for Buffalo City Municipality Level 2 Accreditation - 1st pre- assessment session held on 15 January 2024 Garden Route Municipality preparing an application - 1st Pre- assessment held on 29 November 2023 ROADSHOWS Started in January 2024 and scheduled until March 2024. Gauteng and Eastern Cape done Targeting officials and politicians 35
Recommendations That HS Portfolio Committee notes : 1. The Revised Accreditation Framework (2023) was approved by MINMEC on the 15th September and its implementation became effective from the 1st October 2023. 36
Thank you 37
