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 government’s 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