REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE GREEN PAPER: NATIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING,
DATED 10 NOVEMBER 2009
1. Introduction
Any
discussion on national planning starts with
The South
African Government has developed policies and frameworks for poverty
alleviation, growth and development of
However, Government
lacks an integrated long-term plan, which outlines in specific terms, the kind
of society and economy that is aimed for in 15 years or more. It was
established that there has not been enough systemic effort to ensure that the
visions and strategies of Departments, sectors and spheres of Government cohere
with one another. Since the Reconstruction and Development Programme, which
galvanised large parts of our society, there has not been a mobilising vision
that is clearly understood by all sectors of society with a commitment to
contribute to its realisation. Efforts to reduce poverty and roll back extreme
inequalities of apartheid had not produced results as expected.
The
following include some of the deficiencies in the current planning system:
·
There is no agreed vision about the
country’s long-term direction, its ideal objective or the end state. No monitoring
and evaluation body is established to monitor the progress towards achieving an
agreed vision, reaching the ideal objective or the ‘end state’.
·
There is a tendency towards ‘short-termism’ and voluntarism that characterised activities of government,
state institutions and entities, business communities and civil society.
·
Government still faces serious
challenges in intergovernmental coordination, despite significant advances over
the past decade.
·
An agency is needed that will authoritatively
drive planning, monitoring and evaluation and institutional improvements. This
mechanism should have the ability to make decisions, where limited resources
and policies are contested.
Policy
imperatives, such as growth and development, strengthening institutions,
nation-building and the establishment of a developmental state are long term
projects. A single term of government is too short a time to complete building
a prosperous, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic
There has
been no agency to drive planning and overall monitoring and evaluation from the
centre of government. Programmes are not articulated within a coherent spatial
frame of reference. This is in marked contrast to those developing countries
that have grown rapidly in the past three decades.
Long term
planning has been the mainstay for the success of several countries in the
international system. Comparative studies from
Most of
these countries took a conscious decision to undertake and implement long-term
strategic planning in order to set a coherent vision, backed by clear and
measurable programmes and targets. The emphasis on long-term planning did not
mean that medium-term and short-term planning were less important. The aim was
to situate the short-term and medium-term plans within a longer term horizon,
of approximately 10 – 30 years.
Critical
lessons from the international experience include the following:
A generic
lesson from studies undertaken is that planning is not a panacea, and does not
by itself guarantee good outcomes. In some countries, planning had resulted in
adverse outcomes.
Good
development planning outcomes require solid institutions, a
highly capable state, strong relationships between the major social
forces, and a clear focus on the strategic objective across the board. It is
critical that the institutions and the systems that support long term planning
should take into consideration the country’s historical, political, social and
economic context. Long term planning will then ensure that society’s
expectations of better service delivery from the state, an effective government
and a better life for all are realised.
2. Parliament’s constitutional
responsibility to consider the Green Paper
Since
Parliament is constitutionally mandated as a forum for public participation on
matters of national interest; the Green Paper: National Strategic Planning
(Green Paper), as a discussion document was considered in a manner that
accommodated public interest and allowed for national consultation. It is
recognised that Parliament is not the author of the Green Paper, and thus
cannot dictate to the Executive the terms of reference. Parliament, in this
instance, is a representative of the people, from whom consultation has been
sought.
2.1 Powers of the Ad Hoc
Committee
The Ad hoc
Committee on the Green Paper was established by resolution of the National
Assembly to consider and report on the Green Paper.
Ad hoc
committees are established by resolution of the Assembly to perform a specific
task. The resolution establishing the committee must specify the task assigned
to the committee, and set time frames for any steps in performing the task, and
the completion of the task (National Assembly rule 214 – 216).
National Assembly
Committees have the following general powers, subject to the Constitution,
Legislation, National Assembly Rule 138 and House resolutions:
The Ad hoc
Committee ceases to exist when it has completed its task and reported to the Assembly.
2.2 Objectives of the Ad Hoc
Committee’s interaction on the Green Paper
The Green
Paper is a draft policy document that the Presidency is consulting stakeholders
on. The objectives of the Ad hoc Committee is to:
2.3 Procedure followed by
the Ad Hoc Committee
The Minister
in the Presidency for the National Planning Commission tabled the Green Paper
in Parliament on 4 September 2009, as a means to consult with Parliament on the
establishment of a National Planning Commission. The Ad Hoc Committee on the
Green Paper on National Strategic Planning was established on 8 September 2009.
The Green Paper was referred to the Ad Hoc Committee for consideration and
report.
The
Committee met on a regular basis in order to meet its reporting directives. The
Committee invited the Minister in the Presidency for National Planning
Commission to brief it on the Green Paper. As a result of far-reaching
proposals made in the Green Paper, the Committee invited submissions from the
Public.
The
Committee received 27 written submissions and requested that the 29 submissions
received by the Presidency be forwarded to it. In total, the Committee
processed 56 written submissions. The Committee then grouped the submissions
according to the sectors they represented, in order to allow for a diverse yet
balanced input from various stakeholders.
The Committee then invited stakeholders from
the various sectors to make an oral submission on the Green Paper. The stakeholders
that were invited to make oral submissions were from the following sectors:
Labour, Business, Mining, Law, Disability, Environment and Rural Development.
The stakeholders invited to make an oral submission were:
The Law
Society was unable to make an oral submission due to time constraints and prior
commitments. The Minister in the Presidency: National Planning Commission was
afforded an opportunity to respond to the submissions the Committee received. The
Committee then consolidated its position on the Green Paper, in preparation for
its report to the National Assembly.
3. Overview of the Green Paper: National Strategic Planning
The Green
Paper identifies a need to develop a vision for
The Green
Paper sets out a draft proposal for the establishment of several bodies that
will work together to formulate long-term plans. These bodies will also play a
role in coordinating government departments, state institutions and bodies,
civil society, business, labour, experts and other stakeholders. They will also
be responsible for formulating measurable indicators for monitoring the
implementation of a long-term plan and allow for public participation in the
planning process.
The Minister
in the Presidency: National Planning Commission will be responsible for
coordinating the planning process and will be politically accountable for
delivering certain outputs. The Ministry in the Presidency (the Planning Ministry)
will contain the secretariat to the National Planning Commission (the
Commission), which will support the Commission’s work and do background work
the Commission needs to fulfil its objectives. The Planning Ministry will also
be responsible for ensuring that the plan is factored into the planning of
departments, spheres of government and relevant state agencies. The Green Paper
is premised on the understanding that long term planning exists within state
departments, spheres of government and entities.
The Planning
Ministry will be tasked with focusing government towards the achievement of
clear goals and ensuring synergy across sectors and spheres. The Planning
Ministry will undertake its mandate in collaboration with the Ministry in the
Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation.
The Green
Paper identified six key functions/requirements of the Planning Ministry. They
are:
The Green Paper
also proposes alternative planning entities that could be considered for establishment.
However, a National Planning Commission located in the Presidency is motivated for,
given the current skills levels in the country, existing research institutions
and bodies; and anticipated costs of establishing alternative planning entities.
The Green Paper
also outlines the function of Cabinet in the planning and implementation
process, the responsibility of other spheres of government in intergovernmental
planning, the role of Parliament and the link of monitoring and evaluation function
in the Presidency. The Green Paper also states that spatial planning will be
undertaken in order to correct imbalances of the past.
4. Issues highlighted from submissions
received by the Committee through its public participation process
4.1. Convergence on
Principles
In all
submissions and oral evidence presented to the Committee, there was an absolute
convergence on the Constitutional imperative for co-ordination,
inter-relatedness and co-operation, as stated in Section 41 (1)(h) of the
Constitution, which states that all spheres of government and organs of state
within each sphere must “co-operate with one another in mutual trust and good
faith by-
(i) fostering friendly relations;
(ii)
assisting and supporting one another;
(iii) informing one another of, and consulting
one another on, matters of common interest;
(iv) co-ordinating their
actions and legislation with one another”
There is
unanimity on the need for long term sustainable planning with a clear framework
against which to measure the performance of the State, and around which to
co-ordinate the myriad of plans, programmes and projects by spheres of
government, state departments, state-owned enterprises, and even society in
general.
There was
agreement that, even though government has successfully established sound and
democratic institutions in the last 15 years, which have created a stable
economic platform to effectively respond to challenges of transformation of the
society, there are still more challenges that require better planning and
coordination of policies and programmes that address unacceptably high levels
of unemployment and retrenchments; high levels of inequality in the society and
skewed economic opportunities, with devastating poverty. Therefore, there is a
need for a coherent and sustainable long-term plan to guide short-term
interventions. It was found that all submissions concurred on the need to
establish a national planning body.
In terms of
collective responsibility there was no dispute that Cabinet remained ultimately
responsible for national planning; and no mechanism for national planning could
override the responsibility of Cabinet.
These areas
of convergence indicate a fundamental agreement on principles in pursuit of our
national ideal for a non-racial, non-sexist prosperous and democratic society.
This agreement is further underpinned by broad agreement on a National Planning
Commission which should produce a programme and plan around which all South
Africans should unify.
4.2. Areas requiring
Clarification
4.2.1 Titles for Minister
Two titles
for the Minister in the Presidency: National Planning Commission are used interchangeably in the Green Paper. They are
‘Minister for National Planning in the Presidency’ and ‘Minister in the
Presidency responsible for National Planning Commission’. The usage of the
titles for the same Minister does create confusion on whether a separate
ministry will be created or whether the Minister will remain within the
Presidency, and be responsible for national planning in a specific capacity, in
relation to other Ministers.
4.2.2 Name of the Commission
The National
Planning Commission is a confusing name for the Ministry in the Presidency that
will be responsible for formulating the national long-term planning. The term ‘commission’
usually is used for a body that is not part of government, an independent body
or a body that is established for a specific purpose/task. After the task is
complete, the Commission will dissolve.
If the Ministry
is based in the Presidency, its name should make reference to the Presidency, as
the Ministry in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation does.
This should clear up confusion about its placement within government, and the
legitimacy of the office.
4.2.3 Appointment of
Commissioners
The Green
Paper also made some indications that there will be appointments of National
Commissioners, but the process which will be followed to appoint Commissioners
has not been outlined clearly. It was an observation of the Committee that most
of the submissions have suggested the involvement of certain individuals from
various sectors which will bring more experience and inputs rather than only
inputs and experience from academics and intellectuals. It is therefore important for the Green Paper
to take into account these factors moving forward.
The Green
Paper is silent about a number of matters regarding Commissioners and their
appointment. These include:
4.2.4. Role of Parliament
Parliament’s
role in the Green Paper is envisioned to be consistent with its current
constitutional role of oversight of the Executive. Parliament also provides,
through the National Assembly, a national platform for matters of national
interest to be considered. Parliament may create a portfolio or joint committee
which would conduct oversight, consider and interrogate long term plans
formulated and the achievement of measurable outcomes of the plan. However, the
placement of the National Planning Commission within the Presidency, or in
Cabinet, or independent of the Executive will have implications for the type of
parliamentary entity that would be established to conduct oversight of the
Commission.
Apart from
Parliament’s oversight and legislative role, it should be noted that Parliament
plays a role in appointment of commissioners to several statutory bodies and
boards. Parliament has received nominations and applications; evaluated and interviewed
short-listed candidates; and made recommendations for the President’s
consideration.
4.2.5. Need for a White Paper
The title of
the Green Paper creates confusion of whether a white paper process will result.
When Government was reconstituted after the national elections of 2009, several
new government departments were created, without a green paper or white paper
process. Some confusion exists as to why the National Planning Commission
requires a green paper process, and whether a white paper process and
legislative establishment of the National Planning Commission will take place.
The Minister
in the Presidency: National Planning Commission has indicated that the green
paper process was undertaken in order to receive submissions on the need for
national planning. The Green Paper is a tool for consultation on the
establishment of a body that should be formed to undertake national planning. It
seems reasonable that given the wide, robust debate enjoyed by the Green Paper,
the purpose of consultation has been achieved.
5. Structural questions to
be answered
5.1 Status of the National
Planning Commission
The Green Paper
is not clear about the establishment of the National Planning Commission (NPC)
as an advisory body or as part of Government. The shape the planning body will
take will have implications for its success, powers and efficacy. Whether it
will be established as a statutory body, an advisory body, a ministry within
the Presidency, a ministry in the Executive, or a constitutionally established
body will bear implications for its powers, legitimacy, responsibilities and
accountability.
From the
Committee’s interactions it emerged that the NPC is proposed as a new entity in
the array of government institutions. It is neither a constitutionally-established
independent institution, nor a government department. Its establishment is meant
to assist government in providing overall integration of planning; but also to
galvanise and unite the nation behind a single vision and long-term plan. In
this respect, Parliament could provide a national platform for public participation
in the formation and support of a national vision and objectives, in-line with
its constitutional responsibility. The Green Paper states that:
“Guided
by a strategic vision and plan, society will more effectively unite in action.
The proposed planning system, processes and structures are meant to help
achieve such united action. Attached to strategic planning, it is argued,
should be principles to guide coordination and integration of government’s work
and indeed the efforts of society at large”.
With the
interplay of these roles, the NPC is at best advisory to the Executive and
consists of the best expertise and experience from society. The NPC should also
create capacity for the state to plan, but will be free of the day-to-day details
and imperatives of the state and political parties. There has been convergence
around the conception that there is need for a National Planning Commission.
5.2 Role of the Ministry
To ensure a
coherent set of products from the NPC, a Minister or Ministry in the
Presidency, with the President as the ultimate custodian of policy, must play a
role in guiding the NPC, since the President is the conveyor of the Executive
mandate, and would be responsible for communication between the Executive and
the NPC. All of these are at the service of the core activity of producing a
national vision and to drive National Planning.
The core
role of the Presidency’s planning function is the preparation of the three key
products of the planning cycle:
Another core
activity will be to initiate focussed reflection by the executive and/or
society at large on major areas of government work. Specific areas of policy
research would be identified – mainly the kinds of issues that are key drivers
to the nation’s development trajectory, that have major macro-social
implications and that are therefore critical for long-term planning. The
Presidency will ensure monitoring of trends in these areas as well as
coordination and leadership in their management.
5.3 Relationship: Planning
and Monitoring and Evaluation
The issue of
monitoring and evaluation as a separate process from planning remains a concern
for the Committee. The Green Paper was tabled separately from the monitoring
and evaluation policy document. Separate public participation was undertaken on
the Green Paper, which excluded the Monitoring and Evaluation policy, yet the
two documents complement each other.
All the
deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee speak not only to the complementarity
of the Planning function and the functions of performance monitoring and
evaluation, but also to the inseparability of the two sets of functions. The
implementations of the NPC, and the brief given to it, must ensure that the
development of a national vision and plan is subject to the imperative of
measurability, in order to facilitate structured interaction between the two Ministers
in the Presidency. Performance monitoring and evaluation must be able to turn
vision and plan into milestones and indicators so that South Africans can experience
a better life, as envisaged in the policy imperatives of government.
5.4 Relationship: Planning
and line-function departments
The Green
Paper should ensure that the roles and responsibilities of the National
Planning Commission in relation to line departments are well defined. The
essence of several submissions received was that the National Planning
Commission would encroach into other line departments’ mandates. Although its
mandate is to ensure the formulation of a plan, coordination and communication
amongst government departments on the national strategic plan; the
implementation of the plans would still be done by line departments, and they
will still be expected to conduct their own planning in line with the national
planning body and its products after acceptance by Cabinet.
5.5 Relationship: NPC, NEDLAC
and other established bodies
NEDLAC has
been regarded as a body that provides a platform for Business, Labour and
Government to discuss and negotiate micro and macro issues. Clarity was
required on the issue of how NEDLAC and other major stakeholders were to play a
role. The establishment of the NPC should not encroach on the responsibilities
of these bodies, but would seek support and consensus on matters related to
long term planning, while bodies like NEDLAC continue their given role.
5.6 Public Consultation
Planning
will require various inputs from various sectors and any perceived exclusion may
imply that various stakeholders, in whose name planning is done, will be
excluded from the process. The views of Labour, Business and other planners
should be taken into account to ensure the balance between all market forces
and government planning.
The Green
Paper suggests the “buy-in” from the public but should be more explicit about
how it will solicit the views of civil society. Parliament could play its role
in providing a platform for society to shape matters of a vision for
5.7 Other Spheres of
Government
The Green
Paper explicitly states that it would not undertake micro-planning. The issue
of implementation of strategic plans remained a challenge in government, and
should be taken into account in ensuring the effective and well co-ordinated
implementation of national planning.
The Green
Paper begins to address the problems of duplication and inefficient services in
government. National government departments will still be expected to conduct
their own planning, in line with the national planning body. Other spheres of
government will also be required to fulfil their constitutional role of
ascribing to the national plan that will be formulated; in a way that allows
unity and coherence across the three spheres of government, as envisioned in
chapter three of the Constitution, 1996.
The
challenge of capacity in local government and at provincial levels was raised
and the need to empower local and provincial government in order to achieve the
goals and objectives was emphasised. The concern was also raised with regard to
the Green Paper being silent about the role of the Department of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs and Municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) which would need to be addressed.
6. Content areas to be
considered
The
Committee received substantial inputs on a variety of content matters, which
supported the need for national planning. These areas included planning for
Climate Change to be factored into the work of all government departments to
anticipate the impact on energy, water, agriculture, the environment, and other
aspects of life in
Other inputs
of content reflected the devastating impact of current global economic
challenges on the
It was not
the primary task of the Ad Hoc Committee to pronounce on matters of content.
However, as the Committee’s public hearings revealed, the need for planning,
integration and co-ordination should take into consideration the allocation of
scarce resources, frugal exercise of choices, and steadfast implementation of
programmes.
All of the
submissions received strengthened the Green Paper’s central thrust, that
7. Developing conceptual
clarity
In the
submissions and presentations to the Ad Hoc Committee, there were some fears
that an absence of conceptual agreement on key concepts that relate to the
planning process – policy, plan, co-ordination, implementation, strategic
objectives, operational work, etc. could lead to undue inter-changeability of
such concepts, and in turn, lead to duplication, usurpation or neglect of tasks
and responsibilities. The Ad Hoc Committee, having examined the usage of these
concepts, believe that the Green Paper can be more consistent in the use of
these concepts and believe that Section 5 of the Green Paper lays the basis for
this, and would eliminate undue fears and suspicions.
The following paragraph from the
Green Paper is particularly useful:
“The
distinction between plans and policies varies in different contexts. In some
contexts, a plan is a detailed account of how to implement a policy – the
latter deriving from electoral mandates and ensuing choices of the Executive
and/or Legislatures. In this context, planning means
translating policies into long-, medium-, and short- term objectives,
prioritizing the objectives, and sequencing implementation”.
This, in the
main, should guide the critical relationships between various concepts.
In addition,
the Green Paper uses of the following metaphor to describe the planning process
and to guide the critical inter-relationships that will make it succeed: “…
Governance consists of a continuum of related activities which feed into one
another:
-
policy development
-
strategic and operational planning
-
resource allocation
-
implementation
-
performance monitoring and
evaluation”
If this
governance continuum is understood and creatively applied, then matters which
may give rise either to fears, suspicion or confusion should be left to the
Executive for resolution. These include the relationship between General
Planning and Economic Planning, areas of possible duplication and overlap of
functions and roles, the final management of trade-offs,
the ultimate influence of experts and the assertion of government’s mandate.
It is in the
exercise of the role of the Executive that the primacy of Cabinet will be
expressed.
8. Evaluation of areas of
convergence and debate
Consensus
was reached by all parties that there is a need for long-term planning. The
Green Paper advocates for the establishment of an entity that would undertake
long-term planning. The Green Paper is also a consultative document, in that it
asks for comment on what it proposes.
The
Committee gave due consideration to the input provided by the Minister in the
Presidency: National Planning Commission, all submissions received on the Green
Paper and the Green Paper itself. There were matters that required further
clarity in the Green Paper, and conceptual areas that required clarity.
Structural questions that will require further engagements and fundamental issues
should be clarified in order to give all stakeholders the same understanding of
the national strategic planning.
The
Committee was pleased with the complete convergence in principle: the need for
national planning through the National Planning Commission would present South
Africans with a vision around which to unite and a plan around which all South
Africans must work.
The
Committee was further pleased with the robust debate of the matters contained
in the Green Paper. The Committee saw its role as being a platform to reconcile
differences, and seek clarity about the strategic objectives set out in the
Green Paper. Where necessary, the Committee also raised areas that the
Executive should address in the implementation of the process outlined in the
Green Paper.
9. Conclusion
The
Committee undertook its constitutional responsibility to provide a national
platform for public participation on the Green Paper, by inviting written and
oral submissions and hosted public hearings. It became clear that there is a
general consensus on the need to establish a unifying planning body which would
coordinate and advance policy direction and priorities of government in the
long term. The concerns raised by the public, organisations
and stakeholders have been taken into consideration during the Committee’s
deliberations on the Green Paper. Some of these matters raised required
clarification.
Although the
paper on Monitoring and Evaluation was tabled separately from the Green Paper
on National Strategic Planning, the two processes proposed could not be
expected to function independent from each other.
A trade-off
existed between meeting short-term requirements for establishing a Commission
and addressing long-term intergenerational and infrastructure challenges.
The
President maintains the prerogative to select the Executive, and create
government departments and structures to support the policy imperatives. The
Committee appreciated the consultation that was sought from Parliament on the
Green Paper. Given the time constraints the Committee had not been able to
exhaust all concerns raised in its public participation process.
10. Recommendations
Based on the
report, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Green Paper for National Strategic Planning
recommends that:
Additionally,
the following recommendations are made to the Executive:
Report to be considered.