Over the more or less twenty four (24) years since the introduction of IDPs (through the Municipal Systems Act, 2000) the turmoil in local government, both in terms of dissatisfaction with service delivery, as well as administrative inefficiencies, has only increased. Is the problem perhaps partly due to the IDP systems and processes?
The idea of a single, integrated plan to guide development in a municipality; aligned with national, - provincial, - and district priorities, is lofty, and in line with international best practices. The concept of a strategic plan that also serves as policy statement for the development agenda of a municipality over a five-year period is in line with other public sector planning and programming systems in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and various other countries; introduced in the late 1990s as part of the sweeping changes in traditional government systems and processes.
There is no doubt that all countries need structured planning systems in government; for two reasons, namely:
1. Accountability: Councillors, communities and funding spheres of government must be informed about the (measurable) planned performance objectives of municipalities; and
2. Performance measurement: In an accountability-centred system (such as democratic governments) there must be a guiding plan that focus and guides the efforts of the officials and enable performance reporting.
However, most medium - and small sized municipalities in South Africa simply do not have the capacity to comply fully with prescribed requirements and translate the IDP into a living, guiding management document. Even for large municipalities (cities and metropolitan areas) this is a challenge.
The process-requirements of an IDP that is a useful governance - and management tool, can be summarise as follow:
1. The Councilors determine what must be achieved over its terms in office (five years, in line with the regularity of local government elections).
2. Management (the Municipal Manager, in collaboration with councilors and senior managers) refine the objectives of the IDP annually to ensure it reflect the demands of government, the capacity of the municipality and (most importantly) the changing needs of the community.
3. The IDP is cascaded down into an Annual Performance Plan (in the South African local government dispensation, this is called a Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan), which operationalise the strategic, long-term objectives of the IDP into operational, short-term actions (and in so-doing guides the implementation of the IDP).
4. The SDBIP is linked to the Municipal Performance Management System, and actual performance is then monitored (monthly) and evaluated (quarterly) against IDP targets (refined through the SDBIP).
The system of Integrated Development Planning prescribed in the South African Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (operationalised by various policies, but specifically the Planning and Performance Management Regulations) require that IDPs to --
-- Integrate development in a municipal area (meaning that development priorities of central, - provincial, - and district government must be included [integrated] in the IDP).
-- A further 'level' of integration is the alignment of the objectives, programmes and strategies of the IDP with sector priorities. (The term 'sectors' refer to the differences 'industries' in government, such as health, education, public works, water, sanitation and finance [to mention only a few]).
-- There is yet another level of integration, namely between municipal priorities with Government's Medium Term Strategic Agenda.
-- IDP priorities must be translated into objectives and strategies, and linked with the municipality's programmes and budgets.
-- The IDP is cascaded down to the SDBIP.
-- The SDBIP is aligned with the municipal performance management system.
-- Performance is evaluated quarterly and reported on to council, provincial - and national government and communities in mid-year and annual intervals.
In theory this is an excellent idea (and model). The problem with it, in practice, is that, in order to comply with all the technical requirements, Integrated Development Plans became complicated documents, and the emphasis is often placed on compliance, rather than to produce working plans that guide development in municipalities.
For an IDP to be a truly useful governance instrument, councilors must be able to use it during council sessions to evaluate progress towards achieving policy priorities, and for management to continuously evaluate progress with municipal programmes and projects against initial plans (and targets). If the IDP became too "bloated" and technically complicated (in the quest for compliance) it start losing its practical value as a governance - and management performance guide.
Currently the focus of IDPs are very broad. Constitutionally municipalities must perform the core functions prescribed in Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution (1996, as amended). However, there is not a single municipality in this country that performs all the prescribed core functions; it is simply impossible for them to do so, because of capacity constraints. Yet, what you will find in IDPs are not only objectives related to these core functions, but also a magnitude of targets dealing with education, health and policing; all functions that Constitutionally refers to matters that are competencies of national and provincial government. A valid argument may be that this is required as part of IDPs integration dimensions, but municipalities are simply not funded to perform these functions. The practical reality is that municipalities’ capacity limitations imply that only a limited number of performance objectives can be identified.
Perhaps a suggestion worth considering is that municipalities must focus its intention on promoting sustainable development; which, in terms of the triple bottom-line approach, implies three elements, namely:
1. To promote social development (including, and focusing on the provision of basic services, such as water, sanitation, housing support and refuse removal).
2. To promote (local) economic development.
3. To promote environmental sustainability.
A fourth can be added, namely Institutional Development. However, in terms of government's outcome-based planning model, organisational transformation, organisational development, financial viability, good governance and public participation are all institutional activities, contributing to the achievement of outcomes (sustainable development). The focus is supposed to be an outcomes (sustainable development), rather than processes (institutional systems and resources). However, considering the priority that governance and transformation enjoy in government's policy framework, it may be added as a separate focus area (key performance area). For me it is nevertheless important that municipalities must not be held accountable for functions outside its Constitutional mandate; it simply do not have the capacity.
I also believe that consideration must be given to prescribe a limited number of predetermined objectives to municipalities against which they will be assessed, according to the capacity (and size) classification of municipalities. The key performance indicator can be prescribed (already in adequately SMART terms) with each municipality completing the associated targets, based on its circumstances and available resources. Metropolitan councils, and even secondary cities, may be allowed to add objectives, because they have the resources to properly fund additional activities. However, small and - medium-size municipalities (the so-called Category B 3 and 4 municipalities) set themselves up for failure by adding a multiple of objectives, programmes and projects to their IDPs that may be a reflection of needs expressed by communities (or requirements of other spheres of government) but for which they do not have money (or other required production enablers).
To some extend this is currently done in terms of Schedule 9 of the Planning and Performance Management Regulations, but needs to be refined.
The integration requirements for IDPs need to be substantially simplified. Central - and provincial government must identify a limited set of key policy priorities that must be included in IDPs, with which local objectives and strategies must be aligned. Again, the key performance indicator for these integration requirements must be prescribed (already in adequately SMART terms), with each municipality completing the associated targets. Municipalities with lower capacity simply cannot afford the cost associated with annual reviews of the multiple of sector plans and related strategies currently required. If they receive clear guidelines (and pro-forma indicators) from other spheres of government, it reduces (in a guided manner) the burden of procuring (or hiring) the (very important) technical expertise required to compile and implement sector plans that deal with a wide range of diverse functional areas, ranging from spatial planning, to transportation, infrastructure and organisational studies.
Another focus area of IDPs that needs reconsideration, is the statistics (and information) requirements. IDPs must contain a wide range of statistics, from the number and percentage of households with access to water, sanitation, electricity, refuse removal and housing, to the number of businesses, employment rates and the social profile of the municipality. The requirement makes sense, because planning must be informed by updated and accurate data.
However, especially smaller municipalities simply do not have the resources to comply with all of these statistical requirements, especially in areas where they do not necessarily maintain detailed records based on the services they are rendering, such as social cohesion and business ownership. There are limited updated information sources available to municipalities; data provided by Statistics South Africa are only updated and current for a year or two after the comprehensive National Census once a decade. Other providers are often expensive, and their statistics also often based on outdated data. For instance, municipalities can granted permission to maintain its own statistical records, as long as the source and credibility of the data contain in it can be adequately verified.
IDPs need to be changed fundamentally to get the planning and policy system in municipalities in line with the country's capacity.
Author: Frans Minnaar
Image source: 123RF
Comments