PROGRESS ON ALIGNMENT OF NSDP, PGDS AND IDPs AS WELL AS GOVERNMNET WIDE M&E Kefiloe Masiteng Presidency

Alignment of NSDP, PGDS AND IDPs Over the last five years the gaps in intergovernmental integration, co-ordination and alignment, as well as the underlying reasons and challenges for this state of affairs, have been explored in a number of studies, assessments and projects, as well as in research commissioned for the Ten Year Review. This has led to the realisation that merely focusing on integration and coordination procedures will not have the desired results. Increasingly so a consensus-position is developing, which holds that coordinated government priority setting, resource allocation and implementation Alignment of strategic development priorities and approaches in all planning and budgeting processes; A shared agreement on the nature and characteristics of the space economy; Strategic principles for infrastructure investment and development spending.

What does alignment build upon? The shared and common platform critical to alignment is made possible through a coherent set of national spatial guidelines based on the twin concepts of development potential and need. The normative principles and guidelines embodied in the National Spatial Development Perspective provide the central organising concept for facilitating alignment and serve as the concrete mechanisms and basic platform for better coordination and alignment of government programmes. The spatial perspective is at the centre of our view of alignment and coordination and is directed at facilitating discussions on the development potential of the space economy and serving as a frame of reference for guiding government actions.

Understanding the policy implications of the macro-social trends (increase in number of households, growth in economically active, socio-economic dualism, social consequences of changes) The quality and effectiveness of government action in responding to these trends is important and requires that we build a developmental state capable of directing the growth and development trajectory Developmental state should achieve greater alignment through a structured and systematic process that will facilitate coordinated and integrated action across the various organs of government in support of government’s growth and development objectives. Alignment of this nature implies processes by which various organs of government become focused and decisive, possess the will to weigh trade- offs and make strategic choices and develop and implement consistent strategies and programmes that reinforce and complement each other. Through the various consultative workshops a number of key issues pertaining to the alignment of IDPs, PGDs and the NSDP in line with this perspective emerged. These can be summarised as follows:

Coordination among all the key actors and role players in each province with a view to developing a shared understanding of the distribution and location of development potential and need using the NSDP as an initial interpretation. Thus, NSDP principles will be applied within the province and in the districts. Coordination among the different spheres and sectors ensuring that national sector department plans, provincial sector department plans and municipal plans reflect the provincial spatial perspective, i.e. the shared understanding about the distribution and location of development potential and need Complex task of achieving alignment and integration of the different plans and strategies in point two above within defined jurisdictions. The appropriate jurisdictional level proposed for this type of coordination is the district /metropolitan level. Monitoring and assessment of these processes will be coordinated and reported on. Definition of development potential per district or metro should be robust. Ongoing elaboration, refinement and revision should take into account, the dynamic nature of the space economy and settlement processes arising from decentralised definition of potential and need. Four modes or dimensions of coordination will have to be invoked to give effect to alignment based on a spatial perspective. These are:

(a)National level potential analysis and prioritisation, managed by the Presidency takes place. This task includes integrating across the clusters and managing alignment between national and provincial policies/priorities; (b) Provincial governments, in collaboration with the National sphere of Government, municipalities in the respective provinces and all other stakeholders in the province, must deliberate and reach a shared understanding and agreement on the nature of the provincial economy in terms of poverty/need and development potentials (as defined in the NSDP) down to a district/metro level. (c)The Premier’s Offices in each of the nine provinces need to ensure that Provincial Growth and Development Strategies (PGDSs) are prepared and continually updated. These should provide guidance for, and co-ordinate, provincial and national sector plans and municipal IDPs and sector plans; RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD: six interventions

d) Similar to the provincial agreements, district and metropolitan-wide agreements need to be reached on the district space economy in terms of need/poverty and development potential in each district/metro area, down to at least local municipal level in the case of districts. (e)The Municipal Manager’s Offices in each of the district and metropolitan areas need to ensure that strategic District and Metropolitan IDPs, which are able to provide guidance for, and co-ordinate, municipal IDPs and sector plans, and provincial and national sector plans, are prepared and continually updated. These should also help inform national and provincial sector plans for the respective shared areas of intervention; and (f)A Mutual Assessment Framework should be used to monitor the nature of and extent to which such agreements are reached, the strategic planning instruments and agreements are used to guide infrastructure investment and development spending in all three spheres of Government, as well as the impact of these instruments, agreements and investment and spending decisions and actions. RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD: six interventions

Government wide monitoring and evaluation project The exact approach followed was based on discussions with other stakeholders and the activities undertaken for the delivery of each result are as follows: RESULT ONE: Review of existing systems –Desk based survey of all existing systems using a standard questionnaire followed up with individual meetings with departments and provinces if needed for verification or clarification purposes. – Report has been developed as part of the proposal RESULT TWO: Needs analysis –Desk based survey of all of the public service’s reporting and M&E needs, looking at all relevant legislation, policy, prescripts etc. Also thorough literature review on related matters. –Report has been developed as part of the proposal

Government wide monitoring and evaluation project RESULT THREE: Central M&E Systems –Consultations with coordinating departments to define central M&E themes and allocate responsibilities and then to help define assessment frameworks. Also working closely with responsible departments to support them in the consolidation of systems or their creation if necessary. Report has been developed as part of the proposal RESULT FOUR: Provincial and FOSAD consultations –Comprehensive consultations based on workshops with all the necessary bodies. –Report has been developed as part of the proposal RESULT FIVE: Logic model and framework architecture –International best practice review, formulation of initial proposals that are then refined through consultations and then presented and then-amended based on feedback. Report has been developed as part of the proposal Overall result, A PROPOSAL TO CABINET ON HOW TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT STATUS OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION, IMPROVE INFORMATION AND DATA COLLECTION MECHANISMS, ALIGN PLANNIN G WITH MONITORING AND EVALAUTION