SALGA( South African Local Government Association )
BRIEFING DOCUMENT ON MEETING WITH SELECT COMMITTEE
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION -_

1. INTRODUCTION

The Select Committee has requested a meeting with a SALGA delegation to reflect and discuss four distinct but interrelated issues. These are:

I State of governance in municipalities;
2. intergovernmental relations;
3. Legislative processes; and
4. Role of SALGA in the Provinces and the NCOP.

The SALGA National General Council (NGC) has made specific resolutions in respect of these matters. The resolutions have been incorporated into this discussion document.

2. BACKGROUND

There seems to be a lack of common understanding within the sector, other spheres of government and social actors about what developmental local government means in practice. In some instances this has given rise to intergovernmental tensions as municipalities feel pressured by other spheres to deliver certain services which they regard as outside their core business. It also has resulted in a lack of policy coherence in certain areas e.g. the lack of co-ordination between the DWAF water transfer process and DPLG's authorization of water-related powers and functions. This section seeks to assess whether this problem is definitional or whether it is, in truth, symptomatic of other structural or systemic factors.

Being developmental means that local authorities need to shift from a focus on infrastructural services to also incorporate social and economic development. It means a shift from an emphasis on service delivery outputs to also assessing the impact of those outputs on the quality of life of communities' i.e. developmental outcomes Hence, service delivery outputs can no longer be assessed on an individual or functional basis but

must be assessed in terms of how they collectively coalesce to result in a particular set of developmental outcomes This integrated approach to development necessitates the formulation of a corporate development strategy that is not just the sum of the service delivery objectives of individual functions but which represents a set of decisions or choices about what interventions need to be made within the municipality's external environment to produce the desired developmental impact. This not only necessitates an understanding of socio-economic trends but also of the nature and possible impact of other interventions being made within the municipal area by other parties and so leads to the need to co-ordinate the activities of the municipality with that of other agencies e.g. other spheres of government, donor agencies, the private sector, organised civil society etc. Therefore, municipalities can no longer think of themselves as just service providers but must also see themselves as development facilitators and agents in building partnerships and networks to drive local development.

Developmentalism not only relates to what you do but also how you do it. It involves a shift from treating communities as passive recipients of services to treating them as active agents partners in their own development. It involves an honest and constant commitment to building the knowledge and skills of communities and the general public -particularly women, youth and other historically disadvantaged groups - to enable them to actively participate in and influence municipal affairs as well as those of internal stakeholders who have a crucial role to play as the agents and implementers of change. Lastly, developmentalism involves a process of constant reflection, review and modification as a municipality seeks to learn from its own and other's successes and failures, and works towards the creation of a learning organization in a learning society

The White Paper on Local Government articulates three inter-related approaches to assist municipalities to become more developmental:

· Integrated development planning and budgeting
· Performance management; and
Working with local citizens and partners.


The Constitution further instructs municipalities to structure and manage their administrative budgeting and planning processes to prioritise the basic needs of the community.

However, the challenge over the past five years at local level has been how to close the gap between policy, budgeting and planning processes.

Whilst almost all municipalities now comply with the policy requirement to develop IDP's, and there has been extensive capacity building and support instruments established (e.g. the IDP guidelines produced by SALGA as well as DPLG, training workshops and PIMS centers), major challenges still remain. Some of these include:

· In many cases, IDP's are produced mechanistically to meet the deadlines and/or slavishly follow the Guide Pack rather than working as a strategic planning tool. Some provincial governments' insistence on deadlines and not quality of input does not assist in this regard.

· IDPs often do not reflect an understanding of the implications of rural or urban economic trends whilst vital baseline information is not available, or are either inaccurate or inconsistent.
· There are no clear economic recovery plans or measures to attract investment and no clear understanding of the relationship between infrastructure expenditure and growth.

· LED projects are often not sufficiently targeted and consist of the 'usual suspects' e.g. tourism, SMME's, capital intensive agriculture, etc.

· The principle of interdepartmental project management has not been adopted. The planning of IDP's is still, in the majority of cases, a line function of town planning departments, who have limited or no authority to instruct other departments, or in smaller municipalities, they simply outsourced to consultants rather than being imbedded in the municipal planning process.


· IDPs are still not concretely linked to budgets, performance and operations. Many capital projects are forced into the IDP due to their multi-year nature. A lack of experience and knowledge in performance management means that performance measures are not worked through in most areas whilst the lack of institutionalization of the IDP means that many municipalities have no delivery or monitoring mechanisms.

· Many municipalities lack skills in project initiation, management and phasing.

Ownership of IDP's by the municipal bureaucracy is sometimes weak.

· Community participation in IDPs is often not sufficiently targeted or goal directed.

· Lack of clarity regarding powers and functions as well as the problems experienced by cross-boundary municipalities is proving a serious impediment.

· The national and provincial government's ownership of IDP's as a planning tool has been lacking with the consequence that local IDPs often have little bearing or consequence for other sectoral departments. It is difficult to get provincial and national sector departments to respond to local IDP processes, often due to the limited number of senior officials available for the task.

· The fact that the majority of municipalities missed the first deadline for submission of IDPs - i.e. 31st March 2002 - also compromised inter-sphere co-ordination since this deadline was set to enable IDPs to inform provincial and national budgets. However, for municipalities to produce IDPs that are concretely linked to budgets and operational plans by the end of March would have been virtually impossible in terms of current municipal planning and budgeting processes and cycles.

· The technical assessments of IDP's have in many cases been weak and superficial. This calls into question provincial governments' technical capacity to play a meaningful role in the determination of planning priorities. Some provinces have argued that the 30-day assessment period is inadequate for them to deal effectively with IDPs across their area.

· The lack of certainty regarding the availability and flow of funds from national grants also impedes effective planning and implementation at a local level.

· Whilst PIMS centers have provided some assistance to municipalities, their impact has been limited due to the limited experience of staff and the overwhelming demand.

These continuing challenges would suggest that the current support framework for IDPs is insufficient and is likely to require the deployment of more hands-on, better skilled technical expertise. However, the level of need for such interventions would result in prohibitive costs and will thus need to be complemented by other support mechanisms such as learning networks.

The inadequacy of many IDP's makes it difficult to convince national and provincial departments that IDP's should be the basis for inter-sphere planning, despite the PCC resolution on this matter. Nevertheless, a positive development is that the Budget Forum recently agreed to promote the establishment of multi-sectoral teams at provincial level to promote greater inter-sphere planning and integration. However, the ability of IDPs to inform the priorities of other spheres of government will continue to be limited until there is a re-alignment of planning and budgeting processes across all spheres.

Clearly, there is also a need to critically assess the ability of provincial governments to adequately support the development of quality IDPs at a local level whilst inefficiencies in the intergovernmental grants system will need to be addressed. These matters are dealt with in more detail in the relevant sections below.


RECOMMENDATIONS

· SALGA should develop effective and cost-efficient ways of deploying hands-on expert technical assistance to municipalities to assist them with the development and implementation of their IDPs which should also result in the development of internal institutional capacity and skills to develop credible and quality IDPs.
· SALGA should explore the establishment of a learning network around effective strategies to operationalise IDPs.
· SALGA should develop mechanisms to support environmental analyses and data-gathering processes at a municipal level.
· SALGA should develop a training programme to build strategic and project management skills at local level in order to improve IDP implementation.
· SALGA should engage with DPLG and National Treasury to create one centre for reporting so as to enhance our ability to assess and evaluate implementation that would be managed in partnership with the 3 parties i.e. SALGA, DPLG and National Treasury
· The integration of planning and budgeting cycles across the 3 spheres needs to be explored.

3. STATE GOVERNANCE IN MUNICIPALITIES

The NGC has identified a number of governance related matters and has resolved as follows:

· SALGA should continue in its endeavours to ensure that National
Government makes provision for an equitable and fair remuneration for all councillors.

· SALGA should conduct a survey to assess current levels of support being given to Mayors, Speakers and Executive Members to assist them in their new role and, depending on the outcome, develop guidelines for municipalities in this regard.

· SALGA should affirm and promote the role of Executive Mayors/Mayors as the public face of municipalities and their centrality in inter-governmental relations.

· The role of Speakers is that of facilitating and focusing on municipalities' legislative functions whilst playing an overseeing role on executive performance.

· The guidelines for political office-bearers need to be finalized as a matter of urgency and communicated to all councilors.

· SALGA should develop guidelines regarding how to optimize the political/administrative interface.

· Political and Administrative Leadership Peer Support Programmes need to put in place to promote good governance at municipality.

· Local government legislation be reviewed to give more clarity on the differentiation of roles and responsibilities of key functionaries within municipalities.

· The term of ward committees be extended to be equivalent to the term of ward councilors.

SALGA has a very particular role to play insofar as capacity building with regard to governance matters is concerned. In this regard, we have built into our business plan the production of policy guidelines for municipalities. We will also embark upon a needs assessment to identify further policy gaps in relation to governance matters so that we produce further guidelines to assist municipalities.

3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

The NGC took a critical look at the intergovernmental relations framework and made the following resolutions in respect thereof:

· SALGA should look at all legislative implications before exploring the possibility of full time councillors who could play an active and consistent role in representing SALGA in key IOR structures (including
NCOP).
· Inadequate human resources and infrastructure both in Pretoria and Cape Town;
· Lack of dedicated political representatives;
· High costs associated with travel, subsistence and accommodation. Lack of targeted budgeting for SALGA from Parliament.

SALGA's participation in the activities of Parliament for 2002 and 2003 is evident from the annexure.

Within the Provincial Legislatures, SALGA has a role to play in the deliberations of key Standing Committees where matters affecting local government are debated. The participation of SALGA in the provincial legislatures is non-existent.

Factors inhibiting SALGA's participation in the provincial legislatures are:

· Lack of provincial regulation for participation;
· Lack of human resources and infrastructure in provincial offices/associations;
· Lack of dedicated political representatives; Lack of policy development for/at provincial level.

5. CONCLUSION

SALGA has a very clear role to play in the legislative arena. In order to play its role to the full, it needs adequate resources, both human and financial, so that the voice of local government can be heard within the national and provincial spheres of government.

SALGA also has a very clear role to play in terms of capacitating municipalities to fully engage the legislation that underpin our system of local government. In this regard, its role must be understood and accepted by the other spheres of government so that organised local government becomes the entry point for all national and provincial capacity building programmes.


· Organised Local Government (OLO) must continue to strive for observer status in all provincial legislatures and must play a prominent role in the provincial intergovernmental relations system.

· Provincial Government, in consultation with SALGA must intervene at a municipal level to promote good governance, without overlooking the constitutional obligation of the provincial government.

· All municipalities should establish intergovernmental forums at local level for co-ordination of activities.

· SALGA must be capacitated to assist municipalities to build meaningful relationships with other cities (Inter Municipal Co-operation).

· Inter Provincial Committees have to be strengthened to be able to deal with cross border challenges.
· Municipalities should establish Intergovernmental units (with
International Relations Desk) in order to focus fully on
Intergovernmental Relations issues (e.g. Alignment of Planning
process, appropriation of funds, etc.

· Inter-sphere IDP Forums should be established where all three spheres of government will be involved in the conceptualization and joint implementation of IDP's thereby avoiding the current disjuncture in priorities, planning and implementation.

· Inter sphere planning forums must be established to handle planning issues on IDP's, and planning units established by Premiers must be encouraged.

· SALGA should find a way of managing relationships between Category B and C municipalities.
Part of the SALGA business plan is the development of an intergovernmental relations strategy that will, among others, focus on the management of the relations between all the role players in this area.

SALGA participates in the national process, currently in its infancy, to bring about national legislation in terms of section 41 of the Constitution. Such legislation will govern intergovernmental relations and cooperative governance in the country.

4. LEGISLATIVE AND PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES AT NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL LEVELS

Within the National Assembly, SALGA has a role to play in the deliberations of key portfolio committee meetings where matters affecting local government are debated. Such committees will include those dealing with Provincial and Local Government, Health, Housing, Transport, Environmental Affairs, Tourism, Water Affairs, Minerals and Energy. On occasion, the following committees may be relevant - Justice and Constitutional Development, Safety and Security, Trade and Industry, Finance, and Land Affairs. Attendance of the ANC study groups of these committees is also of critical importance.

Within the NCOP, SALGA has a role to play in the deliberations of key
Select Committees where matters affecting local government are debated.
Such committees will include Local Government and Administration,
Agriculture and Land Affairs, Economic and Foreign Affairs, Social
Services, and Public Services. On occasion, the following committees
may be relevant - Security and Constitutional Affairs, Finance, Labour and
Public Enterprises, and Education and Recreation. Attendance of the
ANC study groups of these committees is also of critical importance.

Factors inhibiting SALGA's effective participation in Parliament (National Assembly and National Council of Provinces) include: