31.12.2013 Views

Business Case forthe Pongola-Umzimkulu Catchment Management ...

Business Case forthe Pongola-Umzimkulu Catchment Management ...

Business Case forthe Pongola-Umzimkulu Catchment Management ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Business</strong> <strong>Case</strong> for the <strong>Pongola</strong>-<strong>Umzimkulu</strong> <strong>Catchment</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Agency<br />

3. Public-interest operating subsidy: DWA transfer for functions performed by the CMA<br />

that are in the public interest, rather than for direct water user benefit.<br />

In all of the scenarios, the CMA costs were fixed (at 2012/13 prices) as was the estimate of<br />

registered water use. The former provides a current day indication of charges and subsidies<br />

that may simply be escalated by an assumed inflation rate. The latter assumption is<br />

conservative, but was partially opposed by the assumption that recovery rates would<br />

approach 100% within five years of CMA establishment.<br />

No financial support: Water use charges<br />

The registered water use for urban (domestic-industrial), agriculture (irrigation) and forestry<br />

(streamflow reduction activities) totals 1917 million m 3 / annum and excludes a transfer out<br />

of the WMA of 297 million m 3 / annum. The volumes per sector are shown inTable 5.<br />

Table 5: Water use volumes per sector (million m 3 )<br />

Water Use<br />

Name TOTAL Urban Agriculture Forestry<br />

<strong>Pongola</strong>-UMzimkhulu 1917 940 813 163<br />

The Table 6 below indicates the total costs and the user charges required for full cost<br />

recovery within the CMA. While it is possible to have the CMA fully self-sufficient, it is an<br />

unlikely scenario due to a number of reasons. The first is that the CMA would not be able to<br />

collect 100% of the charges, especially from year 1 and therefore requires an establishment<br />

subsidy to cover the first 2 years of costs. This timeframe also allows for the collection<br />

system to be updated and passed to the CMA to ensure more effective collection of<br />

charges. Since current collection is between 40-80% of charges, a reasonable assumption<br />

can be made that collection of charges shall never exceed 90%. The second is that there is<br />

currently an agricultural cap of 2c/kl, and the current charges when the system stabilises is<br />

more than double the cap amount.<br />

Table 6: Full cost recovery and user charges<br />

Full cost recovery through charges<br />

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6<br />

Total CMA costs 13 826 31 792 46 813 59 492 70 561 84 349<br />

(R’000)<br />

WRM charges (c/kl) 0.72 1.66 2.44 3.10 3.68 4.40<br />

The Table 7 below represents the implications of maintaining the WRM charge cap on<br />

agriculture and forestry, which is set at 2c/kl for the 2012/13 financial year (increasing by<br />

CPI). The analysis is based on including the establishment grant and water use charges for<br />

full cost recovery, except that there is a need for a charge-capping subsidy to be transferred<br />

to the CMA upon delegation of the charge collection function. The basis of the cap is that<br />

this is an affordability issue that must be addressed through fiscal support (not crosssubsidisation<br />

from domestic and industrial users) and that domestic and industrial users do<br />

not generally have an affordability challenge. This scenario partially addresses the<br />

affordability issue for agriculture and forestry, but would need to be implemented<br />

Department of Water Affairs 49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!