Page 176 - UGU Dstrct Mun IDP Report '21-22

Strengths
Weaknesses
• Strategically located – gateway to Eastern Cape
• Wall – Wall Schemes
• Geographic Information’s Systems
• Well-developed strategic development documents
• Environmental By-laws in place
• A Disaster Management Centre facility is available, and it is functional.
• This facility is being upgraded and equipped to be utilized as a fully operational Disaster Management Centre which integrates multiple role players and agencies as well as an information management and communication system.
• A fully functional District Disaster Management Advisory Forum (DDMAF) and Practitioners Forum are well established in the Ugu Municipality. All major role players are represented in this forum and attend regular meetings where inputs are provided from all line function departments.
• Training and Development
• Functional Employee Assistance Programme
• Highly qualified and committed staff compliment
• Regular Driver training and testing
• Sound municipal systems in place (policies, fleet, auxiliary
etc.)
• Functional Organisational Performance Management System
• Individual Performance Management System in place
• All section 54 / 56 post are filled
• Staffretention
• The coastal strip has good access to basic services
• Infrastructure Grant Expenditure availability to speed up
backlog eradication
• Availability of freshwater resources (plans to undertake/
implement regional schemes)
• Good road infrastructure already in place
• Even spread of community facilities (reasonable access across
the district)
• Functional programmes with particular focus to Vulnerable
Groups
• Adequate access to social facilities
• Good Community interventions
• Established NGOs with a focus on social development
• Stability of Budget and Treasury Office
• Financial management turnaround strategy in place.
• Critical managerial posts have been filled
• Development of strategies and plans.
• Public participation Mechanisms
• Transparency
• Governance Structures are functional (Audit Committee,
Council and Portfolio Committees etc).
• Political leadership and buy in
• Topography
• Limited land for development
• Limited rural development
• Settlement sprawl
• Implementation of strategic documents
• Lack of land use management mechanisms
• Biodiversity and Protected Areas
• Environmental degradation
• National norm of 1:10 000 people not adhered to
• IDP credibility declining
• Lack of cooperation towards development (internally and
externally)
• Non-completion of environmental management strategic tools
• Lack of capacity for disaster
• Management at a local municipal level which provides
constraints to the district for the implementation of disaster
management programs.
• Disaster management plans drafted by the local municipalities
are not being implemented
• Staff capacity against the extent of disasters in our District
e.g. fire services –the areas to vast to cover with the resources
available
• Lack of Communication Management within the local
municipalities
• Ageing vehicle fleet assets
• Fleet management system
• Employer – Employee Relations (Labour Unrest)
• Misplacement of Skills
• Understanding of Organisational Culture
• Understanding of Individual Performance Management System
• Enforcement of disciplinary and consequent management
• Document and records management
• Printing cost
• Disciplinary processes taking too long
• Unclear delegation of authority / power
• Succession planning
• Inadequate maintenance of infrastructure (reservoirs)
• Aged water and sanitation infrastructure
• Outdated Water and Sanitation Masterplan
• Lack of capacity of key treatment plants
• Historic haphazard infrastructure development in rural areas
• Basic services backlog concentration in the rural areas
• Below minimum standards No, Blue, and Green Drop scores
• Poorly organised waste minimisation and lack of integrated
recycling system
• Limited access to public transport
• Outdated Integrated Transport Plan
• Limited telecommunications data for analysis
• Informal settlements
• Illegal Connections
• Social Development not given special priority in terms of
resource allocation.
• Limited partnership with private sector
• Limited partnership with internal stakeholders
• Limited social programmes
• Non-compliance with MFMA – Policies and procedures
• Not fully MSCOA compliant
174 UGU DISCTRICT MUNICIPALITY