DSAC MIG: SPORT AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Description: DSAC MIG: SPORT AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SPORT, ARTS AND CULTURE FEBRUARY 2025 PURPOSE To apprise Portfolio of Sport, Arts and Culture about ring-fence MIG for sport infrastructure
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"DSAC MIG: SPORT AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. DSAC MIG: SPORT AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SPORT, ARTS AND CULTURE
FEBRUARY 2025<br>
slide2. PURPOSE To apprise Portfolio of Sport, Arts and Culture about ring-fence MIG for sport infrastructure with reference to the following:
- historical background and rationale of the ring-fencing of the 5% of the MIG meant for sport infrastructure
- high level account of the performance of the ring-fenced MIG for sport infrastructure since inception in 2016/17
- provincial performance per province and indication of poor performing municipalities
- project based performance (list of projects for all financial years attached as Annexure A)<br>
slide3. BACKGROUND In 2015/16 DSAC (then Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA)) approached COGTA and National Treasury for a transfer of 5% of the MIG meant for sport infrastructure to SRSA
The main reason for this proposal was influx of requests from local municipalities for funding to build sport facilities due to level of demand
Department noted that such request were not only an evidence of the extent of demand for sport facilities but also a reflection that funds already allocated to same municipalities through MIG are not used for the intended purpose.
In some instances municipalities confirmed that it was impossible to build any sport facility, including minimum facility like a multi-purpose court, because 5% of their baseline was very little to do any sport projects<br>
slide4. BACKGROUND A compromise resolution was that only R300 million from the 5% (which was R745 million in 2016/17)
Remainder of the R445 million was to be transferred as the part of the normal baseline MIG, still for expenditure on sport facilities.
DSAC made observation that many municipalities continued with the pattern of not using the remainder of this 5%, allocated annually, towards sport facilities
With exception of the FS province, this phenomenon was also exacerbated by lack of enforcement by COGTA to ensure inclusion of sport facilities project in the Project Implementation Plans before approval
To ensure more funds in the 5% are used for sport facilities, COGTA increased the ring-fenced with additional R200 million to R452 million for sport infrastructure , which increased allocations from average of 25 sport infrastructure projects to approximately 50.<br>
slide5. ALLOCATIONS MADE SINCE 2016/17 FROM THE RING-FENCED MIG FOR SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE<br>
slide6. ALLOCATIONS MADE BY DSAC SINCE INCEPTION OF RING-FENCED FUNDING Since inception of the ring-fencing intervention, DSAC has so far made the following allocations:
ALLOCATION OF THE RINGFENCED SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
2016/17 – 30 municipalities = R 300 000 000
2017/18 – 34 municipalities = R300 000 000
2018/19 – 30 municipalities (2 repeats: Gamagara and Lekwa) = R 273 000 000
2019/20 – 22 municipalities (1 repeat: Kamiesberg r) = R266 000 000
2020/21 – 23 municipalities (3 repeats: Masilonyana, Polokwane & Mahikeng)= R 255 000 000
2021/22 – 29 municipalities (2 repeats: Polokwane and Mahikeng) = R255 000 000
2022/23 – 27 municipalities (9 repeats: Emthanjeni, Mahikeng, Magareng, Umsobomvu, Tokologo, Masilonyane, Mantsopa and Emalahleni) = R252 858 000 [205 local municipalities allocated]
2023/24 – 29 municipalities
2024/25 – 52 municipalities = R452 000 000
NUMBER OF ALLOCATIONS SO FAR = 274
TOTAL AMOUNT ALLOCATED = R 2 606 716 000<br>
slide7. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE OF RING-FENCED MIG FOR SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE<br>
slide8. PROVINCIAL PERFOMANCE BREAKDOWN<br>
slide9. SUMMARY OF 2016/17 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide10. SUMMARY OF 2016/17 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide11. SUMMARY OF 2017/18 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide12. SUMMARY OF 2017/18 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide13. SUMMARY OF 2018/19 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide14. SUMMARY OF 2018/19 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide15. SUMMARY OF 2019/20 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide16. SUMMARY OF 2019/20 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide17. SUMMARY OF 2020/21 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide18. SUMMARY OF 2020/21 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide19. SUMMARY OF 2021/22 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide20. SUMMARY OF 2021/22 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide21. SUMMARY OF 2022/23 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide22. SUMMARY OF 2022/23 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide23. SUMMARY OF 2023/24 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide24. SUMMARY OF 2023/24 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide25. ALLOCATION FOR 2024/25 In this financial year, DSAC was allocated R200 million following engagement with COGTA
The number of projects allocated increased from an average of 25 projects to 52 projects due to this additional funding
The year is current and projects active and at different stages in terms of progress. The list showing the details of 2024/25 per municipality is attached.<br>
slide26. COMMENTS Since introduction of the ring-fenced MIG for sport infrastructure, there has been an increase in the supply of sport facilities
However, utilisation, accessibility and maintenance still remain a challenge in significant number of municipalities as communities, in particular sport clubs do not have adequate access.
DSAC has encouraged involvement of sport councils, as representatives of clubs, in identification, planning and monitoring of the projects, but these structures are not existent in many municipalities or at times their legitimacy is challenged. [RECOMMENDATION: Provinces must develop clear guidelines in collaboration with SALGA and Provincial Confederations to establish legitimate Local Sport Councils]
MIG does not currently fund sport infrastructure in schools and demand is significantly high to support school sport as the bedrock of the entire sport system of the country. [PLANNED ACTION: DSAC to engage COGTA to change the MIG Conditional Framework or Policy to allow investment in schools from 2026/27]<br>
slide27. THE END THANK YOU<br>
slide28. LIST OF ALL PROJECTS FUNDED SINCE 2016/17 AND THEIR STATUS (ANNEXURE A)<br>
slide29. 2016/2017 FINANCIAL YEAR 4<br>
slide30. 2016/2017 FINANCIAL YEAR … 5<br>
slide31. 2017/2018 FINANCIAL YEAR 6<br>
slide32. 2017/2018 FINANCIAL YEAR… 7<br>
slide33. 2018/2019 FINANCIAL YEAR 8<br>
slide34. 2018/2019 FINANCIAL YEAR… 9<br>
slide35. 2019/2020 FINANCIAL YEAR 10<br>
slide36. 2019/2020 FINANCIAL YEAR… 11<br>
slide37. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR 12<br>
slide38. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR… 13<br>
slide39. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR… 14<br>
slide40. 2021/2022 FINANCIAL YEAR 15<br>
slide41. 2021/2022 FINANCIAL YEAR… 16<br>
slide42. 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR 16<br>
slide43. 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide44. 2023/2024 FINANCIAL YEAR 16<br>
slide45. 2023/2024 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide46. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide47. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide48. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide49. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
FEBRUARY 2025<br>
slide2. PURPOSE To apprise Portfolio of Sport, Arts and Culture about ring-fence MIG for sport infrastructure with reference to the following:
- historical background and rationale of the ring-fencing of the 5% of the MIG meant for sport infrastructure
- high level account of the performance of the ring-fenced MIG for sport infrastructure since inception in 2016/17
- provincial performance per province and indication of poor performing municipalities
- project based performance (list of projects for all financial years attached as Annexure A)<br>
slide3. BACKGROUND In 2015/16 DSAC (then Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA)) approached COGTA and National Treasury for a transfer of 5% of the MIG meant for sport infrastructure to SRSA
The main reason for this proposal was influx of requests from local municipalities for funding to build sport facilities due to level of demand
Department noted that such request were not only an evidence of the extent of demand for sport facilities but also a reflection that funds already allocated to same municipalities through MIG are not used for the intended purpose.
In some instances municipalities confirmed that it was impossible to build any sport facility, including minimum facility like a multi-purpose court, because 5% of their baseline was very little to do any sport projects<br>
slide4. BACKGROUND A compromise resolution was that only R300 million from the 5% (which was R745 million in 2016/17)
Remainder of the R445 million was to be transferred as the part of the normal baseline MIG, still for expenditure on sport facilities.
DSAC made observation that many municipalities continued with the pattern of not using the remainder of this 5%, allocated annually, towards sport facilities
With exception of the FS province, this phenomenon was also exacerbated by lack of enforcement by COGTA to ensure inclusion of sport facilities project in the Project Implementation Plans before approval
To ensure more funds in the 5% are used for sport facilities, COGTA increased the ring-fenced with additional R200 million to R452 million for sport infrastructure , which increased allocations from average of 25 sport infrastructure projects to approximately 50.<br>
slide5. ALLOCATIONS MADE SINCE 2016/17 FROM THE RING-FENCED MIG FOR SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE<br>
slide6. ALLOCATIONS MADE BY DSAC SINCE INCEPTION OF RING-FENCED FUNDING Since inception of the ring-fencing intervention, DSAC has so far made the following allocations:
ALLOCATION OF THE RINGFENCED SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
2016/17 – 30 municipalities = R 300 000 000
2017/18 – 34 municipalities = R300 000 000
2018/19 – 30 municipalities (2 repeats: Gamagara and Lekwa) = R 273 000 000
2019/20 – 22 municipalities (1 repeat: Kamiesberg r) = R266 000 000
2020/21 – 23 municipalities (3 repeats: Masilonyana, Polokwane & Mahikeng)= R 255 000 000
2021/22 – 29 municipalities (2 repeats: Polokwane and Mahikeng) = R255 000 000
2022/23 – 27 municipalities (9 repeats: Emthanjeni, Mahikeng, Magareng, Umsobomvu, Tokologo, Masilonyane, Mantsopa and Emalahleni) = R252 858 000 [205 local municipalities allocated]
2023/24 – 29 municipalities
2024/25 – 52 municipalities = R452 000 000
NUMBER OF ALLOCATIONS SO FAR = 274
TOTAL AMOUNT ALLOCATED = R 2 606 716 000<br>
slide7. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE OF RING-FENCED MIG FOR SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE<br>
slide8. PROVINCIAL PERFOMANCE BREAKDOWN<br>
slide9. SUMMARY OF 2016/17 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide10. SUMMARY OF 2016/17 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide11. SUMMARY OF 2017/18 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide12. SUMMARY OF 2017/18 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide13. SUMMARY OF 2018/19 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide14. SUMMARY OF 2018/19 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide15. SUMMARY OF 2019/20 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide16. SUMMARY OF 2019/20 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide17. SUMMARY OF 2020/21 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide18. SUMMARY OF 2020/21 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide19. SUMMARY OF 2021/22 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide20. SUMMARY OF 2021/22 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide21. SUMMARY OF 2022/23 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide22. SUMMARY OF 2022/23 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide23. SUMMARY OF 2023/24 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide24. SUMMARY OF 2023/24 ALLOCATIONS<br>
slide25. ALLOCATION FOR 2024/25 In this financial year, DSAC was allocated R200 million following engagement with COGTA
The number of projects allocated increased from an average of 25 projects to 52 projects due to this additional funding
The year is current and projects active and at different stages in terms of progress. The list showing the details of 2024/25 per municipality is attached.<br>
slide26. COMMENTS Since introduction of the ring-fenced MIG for sport infrastructure, there has been an increase in the supply of sport facilities
However, utilisation, accessibility and maintenance still remain a challenge in significant number of municipalities as communities, in particular sport clubs do not have adequate access.
DSAC has encouraged involvement of sport councils, as representatives of clubs, in identification, planning and monitoring of the projects, but these structures are not existent in many municipalities or at times their legitimacy is challenged. [RECOMMENDATION: Provinces must develop clear guidelines in collaboration with SALGA and Provincial Confederations to establish legitimate Local Sport Councils]
MIG does not currently fund sport infrastructure in schools and demand is significantly high to support school sport as the bedrock of the entire sport system of the country. [PLANNED ACTION: DSAC to engage COGTA to change the MIG Conditional Framework or Policy to allow investment in schools from 2026/27]<br>
slide27. THE END THANK YOU<br>
slide28. LIST OF ALL PROJECTS FUNDED SINCE 2016/17 AND THEIR STATUS (ANNEXURE A)<br>
slide29. 2016/2017 FINANCIAL YEAR 4<br>
slide30. 2016/2017 FINANCIAL YEAR … 5<br>
slide31. 2017/2018 FINANCIAL YEAR 6<br>
slide32. 2017/2018 FINANCIAL YEAR… 7<br>
slide33. 2018/2019 FINANCIAL YEAR 8<br>
slide34. 2018/2019 FINANCIAL YEAR… 9<br>
slide35. 2019/2020 FINANCIAL YEAR 10<br>
slide36. 2019/2020 FINANCIAL YEAR… 11<br>
slide37. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR 12<br>
slide38. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR… 13<br>
slide39. 2020/2021 FINANCIAL YEAR… 14<br>
slide40. 2021/2022 FINANCIAL YEAR 15<br>
slide41. 2021/2022 FINANCIAL YEAR… 16<br>
slide42. 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR 16<br>
slide43. 2022/2023 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide44. 2023/2024 FINANCIAL YEAR 16<br>
slide45. 2023/2024 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide46. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide47. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide48. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>
slide49. 2024/2025 FINANCIAL YEAR … 16<br>