Green Paper on National Strategic Planning

1
Green Paper on National Strategic Planning

• Responses to inputs to Parliament

Minister in the Presidency
2
Overview

• Process followed
• Highlights of the inputs
• Clarification of pertinent issues
• Discussion of options in relations to proposals
• Way forward

3
Process for taking on board inputs

• The Green Paper was published as a platform to
  test ideas, to consult the public, to broaden the
  debate and build consensus.
• Parliament, through an ad-hoc committee has
  facilitated the process whereby the public can
  input into the process
• Many of the ideas presented are useful and many
  will be taken on board as the work proceeds
• Many of the issues are complex and government
  does not pretend to have all the answers in
  some cases, we will have to cross the river by
  feeling the stones
• At this stage, we will not respond to the various
  inputs on content issues for a national plan

4
Points that (almost) all submissions agreed with

• South Africa needs a long term plan to help guide
  shorter term trade-offs
• We need better planning in general, throughout
  government, at all levels
• There is an inter-relationship between policy,
  planning, monitoring and evaluation
• Our institutional design for planning must take
  on board international experience but it has to
  be based on our own history and institutional
  set-up

5
Clarifying some conceptual issues about the
institutions of government

• In our system of government, Cabinet is
  collectively responsible for all major policy
  choices and decisions
• Any national plan, vision, medium term plan or
  programme of action has to be approved by cabinet
• We do not have a super-cabinet, all cabinet
  ministers are equal and have clearly defined
  roles and responsibilities, with cross cutting
  roles managed through cooperation and
  collegiality
• Ministerial and Cabinet committees play a
  coordinating role but do not take decisions on
  behalf of Cabinet
• The Presidency plays an important role in
  managing government through
• Ensuring policy coherence
• Enhancing coordination
• Driving performance
• Communicating clearly

6
Clarifying some conceptual issues about the
institutions of government

• All departments (and entities) have to have
  planning capacity to be able to deliver on
  governments objectives in many cases this
  capacity needs to be strengthened
• There are different roles and process for the
  long term plan and vision on the one hand and the
  development of five yearly medium term strategic
  plans and the annual programme of action
• In general, the former is dealt with based on
  advice of a Commission while the later is a
  process for the executive managed by the
  Ministerial Committee

7
Clarifying some conceptual issues about vision,
plan and policy

• The Green paper uses the term long term plan and
  vision interchangeably
• Most long term plans (for example in Korea and
  Malaysia) have the term vision in the title
• South Korea Vision 2030, Malaysia Towards 2020
  Vision
• Many inputs have raised questions about the
  relationship between policy-making and planning
• In practice, these are dynamic processes that
  have different linkages in different contexts
• The GP states unequivocally that Cabinet is the
  centre of policy-making
• Cabinet takes decisions about policies
• However, one of the objectives of a long term
  vision is to align policies around a coherent
  vision
• For example, if Cabinet approves a long term
  vision that provides a framework for balancing
  the requirements of small scale fishermen, large
  scale fishermen and the long term sustainability
  of our fish stocks, then over time, policy would
  have to adapt to achieve that objective
• It is unrealistic to draw a firm line for all
  cases of what is policy and what is planning
• We would have to feel our way in this regard

8
Inputs in relation to the status, role and
composition of the NPC

• The GP proposes an NPC comprising of external
  stakeholders that would advise government on its
  long term plans
• Cabinet would still have to take any decisions
  arising out of the recommendations of the NPC
• Several submissions are critical of this
  approach, even referring to it as outsourcing
  development planning

9
Inputs in relation to the status, role and
composition of the NPC

• There are several models which Cabinet considered
• One option is a Planning Commission consisting of
  Cabinet ministers
• Another option is to have the plan developed by
  wise people outside of government
• A third option might be to do away with the
  Commission but to have the plan developed
  inside government through a consultative process
  and then taken to Cabinet
• All the above options have their advantages and
  disadvantages
• Would a ministerial Planning Commission evolve
  into a super-Cabinet? Would we want this?
• Is it ever possible for a group of wise people
  outside of government to draw up a plan for
  government?
• The approach adopted attempts to balance these
  various views and concerns by having an expert
  panel of outsiders while creating a Ministerial
  Committee to provide political oversight, and of
  course still retaining the right of Cabinet to
  accept, reject or modify any plan

10
What type on Commissioners?Experts or
representatives

• Experts - has the advantage that we can get the
  best people in their respective fields but it
  runs the risk that the Commission would lack
  political legitimacy
• Representatives has the advantage that it
  would be easier to get national buy in but it
  runs the risk that the development of a long term
  plan becomes a negotiation process and hence the
  plan loses its coherence
• In appointing Commissioners, the President would
  have to consider these factors

11
Experts or reps

• Most national plans fail for one of two reasons
• The plan is sharp, coherent, evidence-based and
  makes tough trade-offs but not everyone buys into
  the plan and so implementation fails
• The plan is broad and consensual but lacks the
  courage to make tough trade-offs and so is
  largely useless in driving a long term agenda
• We would have to avoid both of these potential
  risks
• Government is open to ideas and again, we will
  have to feel our way in avoiding these two
  outcomes
• If something is not working, lets review and
  change

12
Relationships with departments/ministries/clusters

• Planning has to be an iterative process, both top
  down and bottom up
• Departments, ministers and clusters will be key
  in providing input into the plan
• Similarly, the plans of departments should take
  account of an agreed plan for the country
• It is impossible to have a national plan or a
  long term vision without dealing with
  development, economic growth path, human
  resources strategies, environmental
  sustainability, health profile, rural development
  and spatial development frameworks
• The role of the plan is not to elevate one set of
  processes above other processes, it is to provide
  policy consistency across sectors and develop a
  coherent set of objectives which will shape the
  allocation of resources and within which should
  the need arise, trade-offs have to be made
• The President and Cabinet collectively would have
  to avoid the risk where government becomes a
  confederation of independent departments.
  Similarly, our system of government does not
  create a hierarchy in government.
• Only through collective decision-making and
  ownership in Cabinet can these risks be mitigated

13
Structures and processes for social dialogue

• Key principles
• Without broad buy in, a plan is not worth the
  paper its written on
• Similarly, a long term plan cannot be negotiated
  at large open forums
• A balance needs to be struck in constructing
  appropriate avenues for dialogue while still
  ensuring that the plan is coherent and consistent
• In general, existing forums such as NEDLAC are
  critical for ensuring that stakeholders can be
  part of the process
• Parliament too has an important role in
  facilitating broad input and engagement to inform
  the plan and to ensure that government delivers
  on the plan

14
Way forward

• Government will take on board the ideas and
  suggestions made by various parties, groupings
  and individuals
• We welcome the positive and constructive dialogue
  that Parliament has facilitated in this regard
• As government begins to set up the structures and
  systems, develop the plan and build the capacity
  for integrated planning, Cabinet is obliged to
  consider the proposals put forward
• These are complex processes, there are no right
  and wrong answers, government needs to be given
  the space to implement, to experiment, to fail
  and when it fails to change
• Parliament needs to be vigilant, to ensure that
  the objectives set by the President for National
  Strategic Planning are being met and when we are
  not meeting this mandate, to pull us into line