District Development Model; NHFC; EAAB & CSOS 2020/21 Annual Performance Plans

This premium content has been made freely available

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

08 May 2020
Chairperson: Ms R Semenya (ANC) and Ms F Muthambi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, 8 May 2020
Audio: District Development Model; NHFC; EAAB & CSOS 2020/21 Annual Performance Plans

Annual Performance Plan (APP) of Government Departments & Entities 20/2021

The District Development Model (DDM) was presented as an integrated planning model for the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA).

Three pilot projects had already been carried out at the time of the meeting, where ultimately 52 spaces were identified in total with an approximate total budget of R71 billion. Topics covered by the Department included budget, major lessons learned, implementation plan of the DDM and how this would be aligned with efforts against COVID-19. An emphasis was made on coordinated efforts between all three spheres of government to produce and capacitate a development state. This was articulated through the phrase: ‘one district, one plan and one budget’. Key elements of the DDM outlined in the presentation included an information system dashboard which used profiles of districts to identified community needs to be targeted for service delivery, along with the coordination and unification of districts and  ‘district champions’.

Members requested clarity from the Department on the budget for the planned pilot projects that were started. Why was OR Tambo the only pilot project whose district municipality contributed a comparatively small amount? It had been eight months since the launch of the projects. COVID-19 needed action in terms of planning. How was the shift of support from planning and implementation being managed in light of COVID-19? The biggest challenge in municipalities was about capacity at a political level. The realities at municipal level included capacity of municipalities and administration, raising caution about the success of implementation of the DDM. How would the model assist municipalities in dealing with certain challenges: inadequate planning; long-term infrastructure investment planning; preventative maintenance planning; renewal of existing infrastructure; and sound repairs and maintenance? Corruption also remained a major concern.

Members also asked how the DDM would change the lives of South Africans on the ground and accelerate the service delivery not made in the last 25 years. The progress that had been made was acknowledged but it needed to be accelerated. What difference would the DDM make in the next two years, especially as there were no indicators or delivery mechanisms in the presentation that could be used to hold CoGTA accountable? One Member said the model was simply a recycled plan under a new name but old methods. How would it differ this time as government had tried this before with little success? How is CoGTA mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on national budget?

As the meeting was cut short, some answers to questions would be delivered to both Committee secretariats. Engagement would continue between the various Members and departments.

 

Meeting report

Co-Chairperson Semenya opened the meeting and invited the presentation from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA). This was about the District Development Model (DDM) which was being rolled out by government.

Presentation by CoGTA

Overview and conceptualisation
The Presidential Coordinating Council had convened the DDM in August 2019, when it was also decided that provinces would be informed on how this model would be implemented. This included the shared services at municipal level which depended on dedicated and capacitated support. It had been agreed that the start that the implementation of the DDM would be piloted in three districts: OR Tambo, eThekwini Metro and Waterberg. Those pilots were recognised in terms of the uniqueness of the spaces: rural district (OR Tambo), mining district (Waterberg) and a metro (eThekwini). The ‘district champions’ would become responsible to oversee the implementation of the DDM.

The DDM provided a vehicle for the three spheres of government and for all stakeholders outside government to be more impact-oriented. Emphasis was made on how planning, budgeting and implementation were addressed across all three spheres. The ultimate intention of this plan was to provide a capacitated developmental state. Priorities were about improving the capacity of local government, improving cooperative constitutional engagements and the provision of service delivery to communities, so that they could experience functional governance.

There were various challenges which were being addressed in the DDM. Examples of such challenges, other than misalignment of government efforts, included the need to build sufficient schools per number of children in districts. Further decisions related to transport and sanitation. The DDM was aligned with the National Development Plan (NDP). The ‘One District, One Plan, One Budget’ was the guiding framework not just for government, but also for the corporate sector and other stakeholders. The element of ‘one plan’ emphasised a collaborative and consultative process, resulting in a shared and common vision. A social contract would be formed with communities to inform individuals and households on government’s plans.

Pilot projects and progress
The pilot projects had been launched between September and November 2019. Comprehensive profiles were made of these spaces by CoGTA, which provided a baseline of the state of development in each space. The profiles included an analysis of poverty levels, education levels, health status of the district, among others. In total, 52 spaces were profiled. The budget of national and municipal was secured for these pilot projects. For example, in OR Tambo project, R5.2 billion was allocated from national government, while R 5.4 billion was allocated from provincial government and R545 million was allocated from municipal government. Overall, there was an R11.2 billion allocated to this project. There was a particular challenge with fund management and audit outcomes in the Waterberg District.

Lessons across all three pilot projects
Lessons were drawn from the three pilot projects. Various factors included: high levels of youth unemployment – with over 80% levels in OR alone; households headed by women and children; disintegration of social fabric – where there were high levels of violence against women, rape, crime; low economic growth and rural to urban migration. There were also six lessons identified at an institutional level. Poor integration and coordination of programmes and projects were witnessed across all three pilot projects. Youth unemployment was targeted in various levels of government, with little coordination. Another problem was that the rationale of projects was unclear. For example, in some villages, state of the art schools had been built but there were no learners attending, while schools in other areas where overcrowded. Implementation of projects had also been a challenge, as Department sectors did not collaborate. Most projects were also not spatially mapped. It was noted that despite these challenges, there was immense untapped potential for agriculture, tourism, and mining potential (Waterberg).

Based on the lessons from the lessons learnt, a five-pronged approach was developed.  This approach had five areas which would be institutionalised in the DDM. This included:

-Providing political leadership capacity
-Addressing issues of intergovernmental planning, implementation and budgeting processes.
-Intergovernmental relations structures for monitoring and reporting on state and district performance
-DDM Information System/Dashboard
-Legal and policy reforms

Providing political leadership referred to the mandating of certain Ministers and Deputy Ministers by the President to champion the implementation of the DDM to each of the 52 districts. This was to ensure ownership and leadership at a political level through collaboration. Issues of intergovernmental planning denoted the need to align the ‘one plan’. This would be informed by IDPs of municipalities and the MTSF plans of government, among others. The district profiles would give a sense of the state of development as well as the needs per community to approach implementation as ‘one government’. The Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) structures, which were already provided for in the IGR Framework Act, would be used for coordinating the implementation of the DDM. This would mean that the President, through the Presidential Coordination Council, would meet with the Premiers who – through the Premier Coordination Council, would communicate with mayors of municipalities. At a district level, the District Mayor would, through the District forum, meet with the mayors of the local municipalities. This was the spine for co-ordinating the implementation of the DDM.

CoGTA was also in the process of establishing district hubs which would establish capacity at a district level as a regional space. All of government’s programmes, particularly districts, would be coordinated in this space. District hubs would work directly with the district municipality. Shared services would also target specific areas of challenges within districts, such as fund management and audit outcomes. The DDM would be anchored by an information system for all 52 districts. This would overlay the COVID-19 hotspots, epicentres, as well as assisting with monitoring and reporting. The information system would also have a ‘dashboard’ capability to enable frequent and accessible monitoring. It would also provide opportunities for transparency and accountability. The policy and legal reform approach also had various implications. The alignment of plans was already legislated. In the process of strengthening legislation, there was a new concerted effort in rationalising the many planning instruments in the system currently and reviewing the planning regime. In some instances, there was some confusion about dispersion of power because of the emphasis on collaboration in the DDM. Clarity was therefore needed in terms of ‘who was responsible for what’ in a more collaborative way.

Alignment of DDM and COVID-19
While the DDM was ideated and launched before the emergence of the COVID-19, the spread of the virus directly implicated how the DDM would be executed and implemented. The DDM would be integrated with the structure for coordinating efforts against COVID-19. The district profiles would also be used to map the spread of the virus and inform the approaches to curb the virus in various areas. The implementation plan would thus be reviewed to also update district COVID-19 plans.

The presenter said COVID-19 would be among CoGTA for the next two years. As such, response plans would be applied through the DDM. Current epicentres would require particular responses different to areas with fewer cases, which would need to be prepared for an eventuality. These contextual differences necessitated a differentiated approach in the implementation of the DDM and COVID-19 responses. Data was being collated to inform evidence-based decision-making. All work, henceforth would be anchored by the DDM to ensure one coordinated programme of government responding to COVID-19 as well as consequential issues such as economic recovery and development. The impact of COVID-19 at a district level was showing increased levels of poverty and unemployment and CoGTA would make sure to respond to that reality. It was emphasised that the efforts during COVID-19 must be sustained and that government had managed to demonstrate that the response could be collaborative and coordinated.

Implementation of DDM
At the time of the meeting, there were certain gains that were noted as work done by CoGTA. These included: the Minister issuing regulations to curb the spread of COVID-19, other coordinating structures that had been established, such as the Coronavirus Command Council (CCC) – at national, provincial and district. These political structures were underpinned by technological and operational support, such as the Disaster Operations Centre (across the three spheres) and NETJOINTS. These structures were also coordinating the COVID-19 response plans.  Other work that had been initiated related to the coordination of service delivery and infrastructure intervention. There were various streams coordinating the response plans. Some of these included the Intelligence Coordinating Committee, the Public Health Infections Containment Work Stream, Economic Work Stream, Legal Work Stream and the Social Impact Work Stream. All of these guided reporting to the CCC across all three spheres. This information was coordinated and COGTA received daily reports of the work done at a district level. These reports were consolidated by provinces and sent to national government, which was ultimately presented at the CCC.

Collaboration with the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation
CoGTA was working closely with the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation (DHS) to determine how the challenges of water infrastructure would be addressed. Budgets were also re-prioritised, along with the Disaster Relief Grant, to ensure that CoGTA to could respond to the urgent and immediate challenges of water and sanitation. An economic strategy had also been developed. This would inform the stimulus package on how the money released by the President would be spent – as per the R20 billion announced. Collaboration would be continued for the drilling of boreholes, tinkering and provision of water storage.  The DDM was a vehicle to ensure collaboration.

Discussion    
Mr X Ngwezi (IFP) thanked all members of the CoGTA for the presentation, and proceeded to ask three questions regarding the allocated budget for the pilot project which was at an approximate total of R 71 billion. Out of the allocated budget per metropolitan municipality, how much has been spent thus far? Secondly, when considering rural municipalities, were the deep rural areas included, specifically? Regarding youth unemployment, were there any quick interventions in the DDM that would address this matter?

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) asked for clarity on two points. She welcomed the DDM as a ‘good attempt’ and noted that it had already manifested in a different framework, IGR. The budget was a critical factor after planning in terms of alignment and misalignment – this was not taking place at the same time between municipalities. How would it be possible to make sure that budgeting took place straight after planning? This would also make sure that various spheres did not attempt to ‘bulldoze’ one another for various projects.

She commended the overall regulation encompassing all powers to become one, especially because every sphere had its own power. How would this model work better than the IGR Framework? How would Members navigate the powers within the spheres of this model?

Mr M Tseki (ANC) noted that the IGR Framework had been continued in the DDM and reckoned that it would be important to avoid duplication.

Mr Tseki raised concerns over the varying interests and timeframes which may hinder the collaborative planning and budgeting envisioned (for example, between municipalities and government). How was this budgeting process being initiated and administered?

He enquired about the deployment of Ministers as custodians of different districts, as per the DDM. Could this be explained further, particularly on how Ministers would account for districts?

He reckoned that the use of consultation processes was usually prolonged and expensive, since the DDM was to bring the local, municipal and national governments together.

Finally, he pointed out an addition error on the presented budget: the Waterberg total should have been R25 billion, though the R71 billion was correct.

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) requested clarity from the DDG on the budget for the planned pilot projects that were started. Why was OR Tambo the only pilot project whose district municipality contributed a comparatively small amount? It had been eight months since the launch of the projects. COVID-19 needed action in terms of planning. How was the shift of support from planning and implementation being managed in light of COVID-19? The biggest challenge in municipalities was about capacity at a political level.

Ms Mkhaliphi asked the DDG to address the realities at municipal level, particularly regarding capacity of municipalities and administration, raising caution about the success of implementation of the DDM. He further commented on the issues of corruption – describing it as another challenge and potential hindrance to realising the DDM vision.

Mr H Hoosen (DA) encouraged colleagues to print the DDM document and hand it to a member of their constituency – suggesting that the ordinary South African would not be able to understand the document. He reckoned that Members would understand it because of their understanding and contexts, but requested that future documents be prepared sans bureaucratic jargon which was inaccessible to members of the public.

If the DDM truly limited duplication, Mr Hoosen expressed his confidence that the document would be effective in reducing expenditure and redirecting funds to what truly mattered. In the past 25 years, many plans had been proposed, yet oversight ‘on the ground’ showed South Africans still living in poverty. How would the DDM change the lives of South Africans on the ground and accelerate the service delivery not made in the last 25 years? The progress that had been made was acknowledged but it needed to be accelerated. What difference would the DDM make in the next two years, especially as there were no indicators or delivery mechanisms in the presentation that could be used to hold CoGTA accountable? If useless people were used to implement a plan, as seen in municipalities, where money was being stolen, what difference would it make?

Mr I Groenewald (FF+) questioned whether the DDM was truly a new plan. In identifying the problems, Auditor-General (AG) reports had shown a lack of political leadership. In terms of cooperative governance, this had not worked – particularly under State Capture, but also at the time with Command Centres. How would CoGTA get municipalities to collaborate on this model, especially factoring ANC infighting and factionalism?

Mr Tseki raised a point of order, requesting Mr Groenewald to withdraw his statement regarding the factions in the ANC. The government issues discussed had nothing to do with the ANC in this particular presentation.

Mr Hoosen commented that there were no rules suggesting that Members may not refer to any party in the Committee. He requested Mr Tseki to withdraw his comment of requesting Mr Groenewald withdraw his statement.

Mr Groenewald maintained the previous statement he made and directed the Members to the AG’s report.

Mr Tseki maintained that the Member was out of order.

Co-Chairperson Muthambi made a ruling that the point of order be sustained, citing the ‘common knowledge’ of factionalism at municipal level amongst Members. Members were then implored to continue with the meeting for the sake of time and progress.

Mr Groenewald continued with a point noting that corruption had not been addressed in the presentation, and asked which efforts would address corruption. He was sceptical that amalgamated municipalities would produce outputs, recalling examples of worse service delivery that had occurred with collapsed infrastructure and municipalities. Billions of Rands were being given to municipalities through grants etc., yet with all this assistance, what would the difference be with the DDM? The problem with municipalities was not money, it was poor management. This was evident through the weak leadership, corruption and infighting. He suggested that the DDM was simply a re-implemented plan under a new name but old methods. How would it differ this time as government had tried this before with little success? How is CoGTA mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on national budget? The DDM was used as part of the ANC’s election campaign for district and municipal elections (as in the Mamusa Municipality), yet it was not included in the presentation. Was this a pilot programme that did not work and was therefore not included or was there not a pilot programme in the Mamusa Municipality?

Co-Chairperson Muthambi protected CoGTA officials from answering political questions. The Minister would need to be asked particular questions pertaining to the ANC. However, the substance of the questions was noted.

Ms R Mohlala (EFF) welcomed the presentation made and raised two further questions. Regarding the issue of a coherent integrated approach in identifying required services in communities, the presentation lacked on information on how StatsSA would be use for planning. Was the potential value of StatsSA on planning been considered? Could the steps taken to ensure consequence management for the DDM be outlined, as it prioritises collaboration and fund management?

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC, Gauteng) welcomed the presentation. Measures for COVID-19 needed to specific regarding the pilot project areas. If there was a lack of specificity, it would be difficult to conduct oversight post-COVID-19. Where implementation would take place should be specific. The people in poorer areas were the victims of the corruption taking place. An example was made of JoJo tanks that had been stolen due to lack of monitoring. Departments should be serious about the people of South Africa, despite their good intentions.

Mr K Ceza (EFF) shared the sentiments of his colleagues because of the urgency indicated by the people on the ground. Changing the lives of people did not seem to be occurring urgently. Gradual changes were needed to not disrupt the system as people were living. There was a clear disparity between urban and rural municipalities, inequalities and spatial development. How would the DDM address this, given the criteria and formula of revenue per area? How would the DDM assist municipalities to give rights to the total collection of revenue? At the time, there were companies contracted by municipalities who did not comply with this. How much money does CoGTA need to implement the DDM across all 42 districts and eight metros? How would CoGTA prioritise the infrastructure from the IGR before houses were erected? Would the DDM assist with this, considering the urgency of the matter?

Co-Chairperson Semenya welcomed the presentation. It was indicated that government had launched IDP, with the role of integrating plans of government which did not work. It was speculated that if models were not refined similar issues may arise. For example, the emphasis on coordination, with only political leadership and no other entities (StatsSA, Human Rights Commission), would prove ineffective if this was not amended. It would fail in the same way as the IDP. Apart from this, the model was commendable.

‘One plan, One Budget’ needed to be understood at a municipal level and required political leadership in the model. If it was not thoroughly planned, StatsSA, the Auditor-General and others, were saying that the model would not bear the fruits intended. Activities had to be regulated, including specificity in analysing the conditional grants. She encouraged the Committee of Human Settlements to continue performing oversight.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) commended the DDM, especially because of its emphasis on integration. Better understanding was required on how the model worked. He congratulated CoGTA for their hard work, but told them to ‘toughen up’ in order to strengthen their awareness in trying to cut information to grassroots level. The DDM model needed to be modified and strengthened if government were to be truly progressive.

Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) asked how the model would assist municipalities in dealing with certain challenges: inadequate planning; long-term infrastructure investment planning; preventative maintenance planning; renewal of existing infrastructure; and sound repairs and maintenance. The community of Mamusa had been experiencing sewer spillages in the streets since 2019. Despite promises from the municipality, the problem had not been solved. Since the DDM envisaged reliable and quality basic services, how will this be addressed? What does peer-review in the process entail? Have peer-review reports been provided?

Co-Chairperson Muthambi asked when the regulations envisaged with the DDM would be released. The IDP experience was likely to reoccur if no changes were made. There was little oversight methods planned, which would be problematic particularly for accounting methods. Consequence management was urgently required.

Responses
The presenter (COGTA DDG) thanked the Members for their questions and comments – these would assist CoGTA in strengthening their implementation and identifying weak areas.

It was very important along to enforce regulation in order to ensure that the envisaged IGR mechanisms were strengthened and that accountability was maintained. The approach of dealing with issues of accountability was dealt with in the ‘one plan’ clause which, for example, would stipulate clear commitments required from municipalities. This also provides a framework of holding people accountable and was conceptualised to provide transparency. This also brought a spotlight to municipalities along with all spheres and would address issues of silos.

The ‘one plan’ also referred to a profile of a comprehensive assessment of the state of development – this was informed by information from StatsSA. It was thus assured that CoGTA was working very closely with StatsSA, who had been able to provide information on all 52 spaces such as information on women-headed households, structure of economy, contribution to GDP, youth unemployment, etc. Institutional capability also included comprehensive reports of work done, which should produce a common and shared plan in each space.

Planning was the most critical input in the DDM, which was a vehicle to enable corporate governance and also impacted budgeting. The profile of each district would be amplified in terms of key challenge. The IDPs were meant to do this but departments were not participating in this and the IDP had failed – which brought about the DDM. Disparities between of urban and rural and how municipalities would be used to address the fiscus were significant, and the profiles on the information system would be used to respond to these realities. This was what was unique to address the urban/rural interface and develop interventions. The 80% youth unemployment in OR Tambo was being addressed through government training, where graduates were given start-up material. These plans were already being implemented by sectors and work was being initiated closely with all departments.

Closing remarks by the Chairperson
Co-Chairperson Muthambi interjected with a reminder about a subsequent meeting that she and CoGTA members had to attend. The outstanding questions should be addressed in writing and submitted to the both Committees by the end of Monday, May 11.

She reiterated the Committees’ general welcoming of the plan, with particular reservations and recommendations regarding implementation. Regulation would improve accountability. Further engagements, final outcomes and conclusion of the meeting would follow from the written responses.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: