Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the...
-
Upload
morgan-taylor -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the...
![Page 1: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Green Paper on National Strategic Planning
Responses to inputs to Parliament
Minister in the Presidency
![Page 2: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview
Process followed Highlights of the inputs Clarification of pertinent issues Discussion of options in relations to
proposals Way forward
![Page 3: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Green Paper on National Strategic Planning Responses to inputs to Parliament Minister in the Presidency.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072016/56649ef25503460f94c03e14/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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