South Africa s Intergovernmental Fiscal system. 22 June 2007

Transcription

1 South Africa s Intergovernmental Fiscal system 22 June 2007

2 South Africa: Are these really perceptions??? Federal/Central View: Giving money and power to sub-national governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers. Provincial and Local View: We need more grant monies to demonstrate that money does not buy anything. Citizens: The magical art of passing money from one government to another and seeing it vanish in thin air. 2

3 The Legal Framework (1) The Constitution, 1996 Establishes three spheres National, 9 provinces and 283 municipalities & assigns functions (Schedules 4 &5) some functions are concurrent, others are exclusive Although spheres are distinctive Constitution prescribes cooperative governance S(40 & 41) sharing of revenue raised nationally There is provision for different forms of intervention Sections (100 for provinces & 139 for Local Gov) 3

4 The Legal Framework (2) Intergovernmental Fiscal relations Act, 1997 Establishes Budget Council Comprising Min of Fin and 9 MECs for Finance Also establishes Budget Forum Which is the BC extended to include organised LG The two are used for consultation on financial & fiscal matters legislation &/or policy with financial implications matters pertaining to financial mgt & monitoring 4

5 The Legal Framework (3) The Financial & Fiscal Commission Act, 1997 sets out functions of the FFC, which include acting as a consultative body for, and making recommendations and giving advice to, organs of state on financial & fiscal matters Also assess fiscal impact of changes in powers and functions The Public Finance Management Act, 1999 Financial management Procedures relating to budgeting, budget formats & financial management & reporting The Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 Sets the legal framework for financial management, budgeting, expenditure management, procurement, reporting, roles of administrators led by accounting officer vs roles of political office bearers led by mayor 5

6 The Legal Framework (4) The DOR Act Required by the Constitution Divides nationally raised revenues Municipal Structures Act Provides for categorisation of municipalities Broad framework for the assignment of powers and functions Municipal Systems Act Framework for core processes of planning. Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act Regulates intergovernmental institutions Municipal Property Rates Act 6

7 Key institutions Legislatures - national & provincial, Councils Cabinet & Excos Ministers Committee on the Budget Budget Council/Budget Forum Technical Committees national & provincial intergovernmental 7

8 Financial & fiscal matters Features of SA system fiscal imbalance & inequity (historical) Revenue raising power rest with national gov. Provinces raise only 4% of total revenue Local Government about 92% bulk of public services delivery by provinces education, health, welfare & housing but there are moves to expand fiscal capacity of provinces Provincial Tax Regulations Process Act 8

9 Division of nationally raised revenue Table E.3 Division of revenue between spheres of government, 2003/ / / / / / / / /10 R m illion Outcom e Revised Medium-term estim ates National departments 148, , , , , , ,333 Provinces 122, , , , , , ,444 Equitable share 107, , , , , , ,784 Conditional grants 15,135 16,951 18,490 27,134 31,494 35,822 38,660 Local government 11,521 13,808 16,682 27,079 34,311 41,843 45,608 Equitable share 6,350 7,678 9,643 18,058 20,676 23,775 29,444 Conditional grants 5,171 6,131 7,038 9,021 13,636 18,069 16,164 Non-interest allocatio 282, , , , , , ,386 Percentage increase 13.2% 14.4% 14.4% 14.2% 11.6% 10.0% State debt cost 46,313 48,851 50,912 52,178 52,916 52,967 50,915 Contingency reserve 3,000 8,000 13,000 Main budget expendi 328, , , , , , ,301 Percentage increase #DIV/0! 12.1% 13.1% 12.9% 13.4% 11.3% 9.4% Percentage shares National departments 52.5% 52.6% 53.4% 51.0% 50.4% 49.2% 48.8% Provinces 43.4% 43.1% 42.0% 42.5% 42.4% 43.0% 43.4% Local government 4.1% 4.3% 4.6% 6.5% 7.2% 7.8% 7.8% 9

10 The Provincial Equitable Share Formula

11 Background Joint effort between Treasury & FFC Has explicit components for social services which make the bulk of provincial expenditure Reviewed annually by Budget Council, and based on FFC s recommendations Formula is redistributive 11

12 Structure and weights of the provincial formula Education Health Basic Poverty Economic Activity Institutional Target shares Weighting Eastern Cape Free State Gauteng Kw azulu-natal Limpopo Mpumalanga Northern Cape North West Western Cape Total

13 Data used in the Formula Equitable share component Education (51%) Health (26%) Data used Source Year of data Total enrolment numbers (1) School-age cohort (6-17 years) (2) Population with (1)and without medical aid support(4) National Department of Education: Enrolment figures Stats SA Stats SA: 2005GHS 2006 enrolment 2001 Census 2005 OHS Basic Share (14%) Population per province Stats SA Population per province GHS 2005 GHS Institutional (5%) Poverty (3%) Independent of data Income IES Survey 2000 Basic component share Stats SA: 2005 GHS 2005 GHS Economic activity (1%) Gross geographic Stats SA: GGP 2003 GGP product 13

14 Conditional grants Table E.19 Conditional grants to provinces, 2006/ /10 R million 2006/ / / /10 Agriculture Agricultural disaster management grant 45 Comprehensive agricultural support programme grant Land care programme grant: poverty relief and infrastructure development Arts and Culture Community library services grant Education 1,713 1,906 2,201 1,501 Further education and training college sector recapitalisation grant HIV and Aids (life skills education) grant National school nutrition programme grant 1,098 1,153 1, ,324

15 Conditional grants Table E.19 Conditional grants to provinces, 2006/ /10 R million 2006/ / / /10 Health 10,207 11,321 12,543 13,726 Comprehensive HIV and Aids grant 1,616 1,946 2,235 2,676 Forensic pathology services grant Health professions training and development grant 1,520 1,596 1,676 1,760 Hospital revitalisation grant 1,527 1,907 2,283 2,582 National tertiary services grant 4,981 5,321 5,882 6,286 Housing 6,404 8,238 9,853 11,531 Integrated housing and human settlement 6,404 8,238 9,853 11,531 development grant National Treasury 4,983 6,164 6,847 7,997 Infrastructure grant to provinces 4,983 6,164 6,847 7,997 Sport and Recreation South Africa Mass sport and recreation participation programme grant Transport 3,241 3,029 3,266 2,507 Gautrain rapid rail link grant 3,241 3,029 3,266 2,507 Total 27,134 31,494 35,822 38,660 15

16 Provinces and the MTEF Get baseline allocations 3 year allocations equitable share conditional grants Revisions to baselines made annually informed by policy changes health,education,social development,housing etc changes in macroeconomic environment wage agreements/personnel bargaining chamber Allocation letters three years adjustments to budgets during the year 16

17 Provinces and the MTEF Provinces submit their budgets to NT credibility checks done try and influence provinces where there are risks Budgets tabled within 2 weeks after tabling of national budget legislatures table strategic plans as well one year operational plan hearings which lead to approval of budget first year voted for 17

18 Provinces and the MTEF Implementation of budget budget loaded onto system before expenditure commences Reporting monitoring during the year prov. depart. report to provincial treasury monthly provincial treasuries report to national treasury State of provincial finances reported on quarterly financial statements compiled within 2 months after the end of financial year annual reports within 5 months after the end of financial year 18

19 Overview of LG in SA There are 3 categories of municipalities Category A - Big cities/metropolitan areas Category B - Local municipalities Category C Combinations of Bs Powers and functions 19

20 Service delivery responsibilities of LG Core/essential services supporting residents Water and sanitation Electricity/Energy Refuse removal Firefighting Stormwater mngt in built-up areas Cemetries Cleansing Local amenities and sport facilities Municipal parks and recreation Street lighting Municipal roads Traffic and parking Developmental services supporting business Most of residential services Municipal planning Building regulations Trading regulations Licensing and control of undertakings that sell food and liquor to public Environmental health Markets and municipal abattoirs Local tourism Municipal public transport Air pollution Billboards 20

21 Categorisation of municipalities Local Government consist of Category A municipality has exclusive municipal executive and legislative authority in its areas (x6) densely populated (ave 2.5m people), economic hubs, self reliant, large budgets up to R20b A Category B municipality shares municipal executive and legislative authority in its area with a category C municipality within whose area it falls (x231) Varying population sizes and budgets B C Category C municipality has municipal executive and legislative authority in an area that includes more than one municipality (x46) Approx. 5 locals in each district B B B B B B C 21

22 Division of powers and functions Allocation of own resources Property taxes allocated to categories A and B User charges i.t.o municipality authorised for services Equitable Share and conditional grants (incl infrastructure) Aligned to functional division i.r.o water, sanitation, electricity, refuse removal, municipal roads and environmental health Some mismatches remain between services and fiscal division Category B munies allocated limited functions receive property rates Category C munies with substantial functional responsibilities mainly reliant on grant financing 22

23 Progress in service delivery Population of 44,8m (2001 Census) Population grew by 10,4% from 1996 to 2001 Highest population growths in urban areas Municipalities responsible to address historical backlogs as well as service delivery needs due to an increasing population Access to services 70% of households had access to electricity in 2001 (58% in 96 Census) 72% of HHs had access to water in 2001 (70% in 96 Census) 54% of HHs had access to flush or chemical toilet (50% in 96 Census) 55% of HHs had access to refuse removal (51% in 96 Census) Target is to address water backlogs by 2008, electricity by 2010, sanitation by 2013, and remainder by 2013 Poor households to receive Free Basic Services Varying progress by municipalities 23

24 Evolvement of LG fiscal system Various reforms to LG fiscal system Reforms to both equitable share and infrastructure grants Substantial increases made to transfers in acknowledgement of local government s large service delivery responsibilities Reforms to own resources The aggregate size of municipal budgets have doubled over the past five years, from R64b in 01/02 to R132b in 06/07 Large variances in budgets of the 283 municipalities Metro Size of metro budgets range between R3b and R18b Average of 2,4 million people per metro ( HHs) A third of population resides in metros (which increases to half the population if Top 21 municipalities are included) Limited reliance on transfers Local municipalities Budgets range from very small (below R10m) to substantial (R2b) Populations also vary substantially from just below households per municipality to households per municipality Reliance on transfers vary District municipalities Budgets range between just below R10m to approx. R400m Reliance on transfers vary 24

25 Trends in transfers to LG National transfers to local government, 2003/ / / / / / / / /10 Outcome Revised Medium-term estimates R million estimate Equitable share and related 6,623 7,811 9,808 18,358 21,226 24,375 29,906 Infrastructure 5,715 6,936 8,053 9,265 14,303 19,550 18,266 Capacity building transfers Total 13,194 15,515 18,515 28,466 36,278 44,325 48,572 Growth rates Equitable share and related 17.9% 25.6% 87.2% 15.6% 14.8% 22.7% Infrastructure 21.4% 16.1% 15.0% 54.4% 36.7% -6.6% Capacity building transfers -10.3% -14.8% 29.1% -11.3% -46.6% 0.0% 25

26 Transfers vs total mun budgets Transfers vs total budgets 200,000 Rm 150, ,000 50,000 Total Trans fers Total budget / / / / /07 without rsc Financial year FY 2002/ / / / /07 without RSC % grants to budget 12% 18% 19% 22% 30% 24% % increase transfers 67% 24% 37% 54% 28% % increase in budgets 14% 13% 18% 14% 20% Note: NT LG Budget Database (transfers include rollovers from previous years) 26

27 Municipal financial mngt and reforms Municipal budget reforms introduced under the Municipal Finance Management Act from 1 July 2004, based on following principles Promoting sound financial governance by clarifying roles and responsibilities of council and officials Ensuring a strategic approach to budgeting Modernisation of financial management Promoting co-operative and consultative governance Promoting sustainable local government MFMA s financial and fiscal reforms include New budget standards and formats (the objective is to achieve qaulity and credible multi-year budgets) The establishment of audit committees and internal controls Improvements to procurement and supply chain management processes Performance measurement and reporting Staff competency levels Mechanisms to resolve financial problems Procedures to determine and manage misconduct 27

28 Future issues / Way forward LG fiscal framework to be reviewed and updated to account for Current financial position and service delivery capabilities of various categories and types of municipalities Alignment between functional and fiscal division of powers and functions between category A and B municipalities Permanent replacement options for RSC and JSB levies that were abolished 1 July 2006 Funding of district municipalities Continued review of the LG equitable share formula Capital finance and borrowing issues, including role of MIG Proper alignment between cross-cutting functions required, including priority setting, resource allocation and implementation of services (housing, public transport, health, libraries, etc) Sector reforms impacting on municipal finances (electricity and water) When Municipal Fiscal Powers and Functions legislation is enacted Setting norms and standards i.r.o. municipal surcharges Evaluate requests for new municipal taxes 28

29 Structure of Formula The LG formula has the following components: Grant = Basic Services (BS) + Development (D) + Institutional Support (I) - Revenue Raising (RRC) +/- Stabilisation Constraint (C) D will be set at zero for now 29

30 Some remaining challenges IGR system Coordination in respect of concurrent functions Tension between cooperative relations vs legislated relations Division of powers and functions may require minor adjustments Very wide variations among our municipalities pose challenges for policy development and resource allocation Implementation of certain programmes is slow, often due to inadequate capacity Output or performance information is not readily available, thus affecting: Policy making, planning and resource allocation Assessment of progress with policy implementation and the impact of policies 30

31 Key priorities under provincial sphere Reduce poverty and unemployment Skills development Better national health Economic priorities: Growth Second economy Welfare services +EPWP+ housing GET+FET Strengthening of health sector Planning + Public investment + execution Roads + other projects EPWP + BBBEE 31

32 What is at issue here? The debate on coordination/cooperative relations is about: what the law prescribes and allows Legal authority to make decisions Boundaries and limitations what amount of choices are allowed to provinces what choices do they make what effect do provincial choices have on attainment of national objectives/priorities what tools can national use to influence provincial choices 32

33 Types of decisions and degree of provincial choice and discretion National decides policies and funding mechanism The nature of decision and funding mechanism determine degree of provincial choice/discretion Statutory expenditure and CG funding leave little choice/discretion for provinces ES and non-statutory expenditure leaves lot of room for provincial choices, discretion and risk of deviation from national goals 33

34 The nature of the problem National government makes the ff charges: Provincial budgets fail to give effect to national priorities that inform the DOR Consequently: Insistence on CGs Calls for broader curtailment of provincial choices and discretion Assertions that cooperative governance does not work Etc 34

35 Provincial counterarguments National priorities: Ignore province-specific circumstances Do not accommodate non-social services Policy disagreement Past funding levels and expenditure trends Capacity constraints and readiness to spend Do not provide for full cost of policies Disagreements on appropriate funding level 35

36 Where can things go wrong? Within the sector Poor policy processes Between line departments and treasuries Within provincial executives Between national and provinces Vertical division of revenue Inadequate resources for non-social service Insufficient funds for a given priority 36

37 Possible solutions Deepening of policy making process Including coordination between Cabinet and EXCOs Protocol for communicating national policies with funding implications for provinces Formal discussion of policies at PCC and Makgotla preceded by in-depth discussion in provinces Strengthening of budget processes Costing of policies must be mandatory Creation of space for bottom up identification of priorities Adherence to spirit of cooperative governance Reviewing the intergovernmental system Less provinces Greater implementation role for national government? Municipalities 37