Review of Guidelines for Longer-Term Planning Instruments, National Treasury Cities Support Programme
DBSA RFP070/2020
Planning Alignment Task Team
4 November 2020
Content
o Existing Guidelines for CDS and MSDF
o Review of Guidelines
o Key inputs from Metropolitan Municipalities on Longer-Term Planning
o Points for Discussion
2
Phase 1:
Review of
Guidelines
Framework for Review
Theory of Change for City
Transformation Evidence of a clear TOC to address city transformation in line with national policy (SPLUMA &
IUDF)
Evidence of alignment with TOC in all plans and budget
Outcomes-Led Planning and
Spatial Targeting Have outcome statements been used to directly influence planning?
Has the circle been closed by adopting the Circular 88 indicators?
Are the spatially targeted areas clearly evident from frameworks through to strategies and implementation plans?
Strategy-Led Budgeting Is there a longer term financing strategy to resource the CIDMS?
Is the budget spatialized?
Has MSCOA been implemented?
Alignment of Public
Infrastructure Investment in spatially targeted areas in metros (Annexure 2 and Part C of BEPPs) – process and outputs
Has the city managed to get intergovernmental stakeholders to disclose their Programmes and related Budgets?
Is there evidence that the is a move from disclosure to joint planning?
What is the extent of alignment of intergovernmental planning and budgeting?
Adoption of spatial planning, prioritisation and budgeting tools
Does the city have a process or system/tool in place to filter programmes and projects submitted for approval?
What criteria does the city use to approve projects for funding and Implementation?
Does the city distinguish between priority programmes and projects?
Do priority programmes and projects have a greater weighting than others?
Does the city have longer term frameworks and strategies in comparison to the term-of-Office plan (IDP) or 5 year plans?
Does the city have an SDF? CDS/GDS?
Are there longer term sector strategies for Human Settlements, Public Transport, Economic Development, Climate Resilience, Financial Sustainability, Infrastructure Asset Management Source: National Treasury. Guideline for Transitioning out of Planning Reforms and BEPPs to Sharpen the Planning Tools
o Basis on which plans, strategies and guidelines will be reviewed and revised
o Criteria to be straightforward and simple
o Additional criteria could be added if necessary
4
Four Foundational Concepts
o Outcomes-led planning: clear
articulation of desired outcomes and impacts
o Practical measurement indices and coherent reporting
o A Theory of Change pathway
o Deliberate focus of particular actions on a particular geographic area
o Objective is spatial transformation
o Urban Network Strategy
o Focus for intergovernmental investment
Outcomes and Theory of Change Spatial Targeting
o Budget (and by definition the term-of- office plan) must be driven by a long- term development strategy
o Clearly mapped-out path that links implementation with outcomes (and impacts)
o Must be supported by a long-term financial strategy
o Alignment between long-term strategies and plans
o Alignment between long-term strategies and term-of-office plan
o Planning, budgeting and reporting alignment between municipalities and other government stakeholders
(implementation agencies)
Strategy-Led Budgeting Alignment and Integration
5
Timeline
6
Review of CDS Guidelines (SACN, 2018)
Purpose of City Development Strategies:
o “a means to …think through and ultimately address key challenges facing cities that will take a long time to address…” (from Cities Alliance) (SACN p.5)
o “…CDS as a means of grounding medium term plans (e.g.
Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs”) (SACN p.4)
o “A critical piece in the puzzle in realizing ‘Livable, safe, resource efficient cities and town that are socially integrated,
economically inclusive and globally competitive, where residents actively participate in urban life. (IUDF Vision) (SACN p.13)
o “The seed of a city development strategy begins with the
question, “What are the immediate, medium and long term growth and development imperatives of a given municipal jurisdiction?” (SACN p.14)
Although not explicitly stated, in the context of Results-Based/Outcomes-Based 7
Planning, these can be interpreted as the Impacts and Outcomes that the
municipality want to achieve
Review of CDS Guidelines (SACN, 2018)
Analysis Scenarios
Growth and Development Imperatives Vision
Objectives Strategies
Prioritisation of Strategies 10-Year Budget for Strategies
Roles and Responsibilities
Monitor & Evaluate (Long Term Change)
Link Implementation to IDP and Budget
1. Where are we now?
2. Where are we going?
3. How are we going to get there?
4. How do we implement and measure we are on track?
S u st a in a b le , In cl u si v e , P ro d u ct iv e a n d W e ll- g o v e rn e d C it y
CDS is not a legislative requirement
Does not prescribe a document structure, rather a four-phase process
Methodology is not definitive (SACN p.4) 1. How is the city
impacting on the limited reserve of non-renewable resources?
2. Do residents have the opportunities and capacities to share equitably in the benefits of city life?
3. Can the local economy provide the majority of residents with opportunities to make a reasonable living?
4. Is the political and
institutional content
stable, open and
dynamic enough?
Review of CDS Guidelines (SACN, 2018)
Relationship to other municipal plans:
o SDF
• Relationship to SDF:
• “CDS as a means of grounding medium terms plans (e.g. Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs))” (SACN, p.4)
• “In relation to the SDF, the CDS needs to be the link between the SDF which is a medium- term plan and the long term spatial plans of the provincial and national spatial
development frameworks” (SACN, p.22)
• Ambiguous statement about whether there should be a spatial component in the CDS
• “A means of making the consensus process more accessible to parties is to relate
discussions to geographical locations (e.g. What will you want the central business district of your city to be like in 20 years’ time). Providing a spatial frame for the CDS will assist in the review of the municipal spatial development framework, and will provide a more
detailed long-term vision that the city can use to relate to the national and provincial spatial development frameworks respectively.” (SACN p.19)
o IDP
• Alignment with other policy (especially IDP, SDBIP and budgets)
• Alignment of CDS process with IDP process
• Must inform (or relate to) the programmes and projects outlined in the IDP and SDF
o Sector Strategies
• Integrating the different strategic development plans of the city
• Include key outcomes of municipal long-term sector plans
9 Significant
emphasis on integration/
alignment between plans, but vague on the hierarchy of plans and clear linkages
between plans
Review of CDS Guidelines (SACN, 2018)
Transitioning from BEPP
In
Guideline? Comments
Theory of Change
No • Requires clear long term development vision and immediate, medium and long-term growth and development imperatives for the city but does not specify a ToC
• Largely based on vision, objectives, strategies approach
• Some of the elements could be interpreted as Results-Based, but not explicitly stated Outcomes-
Based
Partially • Requires clear strategies that will enable the municipality to achieve the vision, but not Outcome Statements
• Productive, Inclusive, Sustainable and Well-Governed City (and the four related “questions”
(p.14) can be seen as outcomes but it is not clearly stated as such in the guideline Circular 88
Indicators
Partially • Realisation of CDS needs to be tied to the measurement of the extent to which the IDP, SDF and the budget are being realised
• CDS is a long-term perspective, measuring the aggregate of outcome indicators
• Refer to a number of indicators that are available to municipalities, including BEPP indicators Spatial
Targeting
No • The guideline is weak on the role of a spatial component in a CDS
• No reference to spatial targeting as part of CDS Long Term
Financial Strategy
Partially • A 10-year budget for implementation that should consider long term infrastructure capital requirements, as well as an annual total budget requirement for operations
Spatialised Budget
No • Not specified that budget must be spatialised
Inter-
governmental alignment
Partially • Multiple statements regarding alignment and integration made throughout guideline, but not a specific focus area in the guidelines
• “Coordinated cross-sector, multi-issue development of an urban jurisdiction”
• Limited reference to intergovernmental alignment, “…will require coordinated intervention across government and across the key sectors in the Cities”
Project Prioritisation
No • Very brief mention of prioritisation in a graphic but not in text
• No proposals or criteria for a prioritisation framework or system
• Only refers to projects “required to affect the vision”
Review of CDS Guidelines (SACN, 2018)
11
Useful diagram to illustrate
interrelationships for
Results-Based Planning
Review of MSDF Guidelines (DRDLR 2017)
Purpose of MSDF
o An explicit spatial restructuring strategy which must include the identification of priority precincts for spatial restructuring
o The MSDF serves to give spatial direction to the IDP, and provide a common spatial agenda for diverse sector plans (e.g. Human
Settlement Plan (HSP), Infrastructure Plan, etc).
o The guidelines:
• Aim to incorporate SPLUMA’s founding spatial principles into the SDF preparation process
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities of government spheres in preparing SDFs at provincial, regional, municipal and local scales
• Influence the spatial distribution of current and future land uses
o MSDF interprets chapters 5, 6 and 8 of the NDP 2030 and Chapter 4 Section 12 of SPLUMA, the MSA and SPLUMA 5 founding principles
o Municipal…SDFs are translated into ‘spatial contracts that are
binding across national, provincial and local governments’ 12
Review of MSDF Guidelines (DRDLR 2017)
Spatial directives from spheres of government Vision Directive / Vision Statement
Spatial Proposals and Focus Areas Policies supportive of MSDF proposals Guidelines [LUMS, Inclusionary
Housing]
Capital Investment /Expenditure Framework
Set M&E targets
Delineate precinct planning area
in te g ra ti n g , co o rd in a ti n g , a lig n in g & e x p re ss in g d e v e lo p m e n t p o lic ie s fr o m t h e v a ri o u s se ct o rs & sp h e re s o f g o v e rn m e n t
Guidelines describe a document structure
Spatial Challenges and Opportunities
Alignment with Sector Plans
Policy Context
Analysis
Implementation Framework (Input into IDP and Budget)
Monitoring and Evaluation Draft MSDF
Proposals to be reflected in IDP
Review of MSDF Guidelines (DRDLR 2017)
Relationship to other municipal plans:
o CDS
• No reference to a municipal CDS/GDS
• Reference made to provincial GDS
o IDP
• The municipal Integrated Development Plan (IDP) serves to provide strategic direction and align the efforts of all government spheres.
• The MSDF serves to give spatial direction to the IDP and provide a common spatial agenda for diverse sector plans
o Sector Strategies
• “A municipal spatial development framework must assist in
integrating, coordinating, aligning and expressing development
policies and plans emanating from the various sectors of the spheres of government as they apply within the municipal area”
• The alignment output of the MSDF is viewed as further discussion with various sectors to ensure MSDF proposals are incorporated in sector
strategies (p. 77: P5.2). 14
Review of MSDF Guidelines (DRDLR 2017)
Transitioning from BEPP
In
Guideline? Comments
Theory of Change
No • The SDF guidelines do not make reference to a Theory of Change, a long term CDS/GDS, and instead reference the IDP as the “long term” strategy
• The guidelines seek to realize the alignment of the SDF to sector plans and IDP, and ultimately representing these spatially
Outcomes- Based
Partially • Setting out outcomes that include implementation targets and monitoring indicators into a capital expenditure framework
Circular 88 Indicators
No • No reference to Circular 88 indicators
Spatial Targeting
Partially • Main objective of MSDF is spatial transformation
• Spatial proposals and focus areas
• Identification of areas for further precinct planning
• UNS is listed in the glossary but not part of guidelines Long Term
Financial Strategy
Partially • Only CIF/CEF
• Requires specific projects/programmes linked to a short-term implementation plan
Spatialised Budget
Yes • Requires spatial mapping of projects
Inter-
governmental alignment
Partially • The guidelines focus on coordinating municipal departments’ efforts and not so much on an intergovernmental project pipeline and spatially representing these
• A requirement to outline the institutional arrangements, and where necessary partnership arrangements, for implementing MSDF interventions
• No clear indication of links between MSDF and GDS/CDS, only IDP Project
Prioritisation
No • Prioritization and related criteria are for precincts and local area plans (not for MSDF)
Conclusion: Observations on Guidelines
Gaps
o Does not incorporate Theory of Change thinking
o Mostly Output-Based as opposed to Results-Based (Outcomes-Based)
o CDS Guidelines weak on spatial component
o Weak focus on importance of intergovernmental project pipeline/intergovernmental alignment
o MSDF prescribe document content; No Theory of Change
o MSDF only linked to IDP and not a long-term development strategy
o Weak on targets, indicators, prioritization and finance/budget
o No common “thinking” or “story-line” between CDS and MSDF guidelines that can result in consistency and alignment of plans
Similarities
o Strong focus on integration and alignment amongst municipal departments and between municipal plans
o Some mention of intergovernmental planning and alignment that can be
strengthened 16
Summary of Inputs from
Metros to Date
17
Metros Consulted to Date
o City of Tshwane
o Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
o eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality
o City of Cape Town
Impact of BEPPs
Improved results seen by metros:
o Transversal planning and implementation
• Showed the importance of integrating planning in the metros
• Showed different departments where they fit in and how everything fits together
• esp. Planning, Treasury and Infrastructure
o Provided a more detailed focus for the Municipal Spatial Development Framework
o Improved alignment between IDP/SDF and BEPP outcomes
o Focused infrastructure investment and budget alignment in spatially targeted areas
19
Key Perspectives on Long-Term Planning (1)
Long-term planning is important:
o Holistic, long-term planning is important to direct the development of the metro and serve as basis for all other planning
o CDS/GDS must show how metro is going to contribute to the achievement of NDP targets
o CDS/GDS must be supported by “all-of-society” and “all-of- government”
o Mainstreaming of climate change and city resilience in longer term plans
Different Long-Term Plans have different functions:
o It is necessary to look at the hierarchy of plans and ask what each of these plans are doing
o Role of longer-term strategies seen as: (1) CDS provide high level
direction, (2) MSDF zooms into a specific space and (3) sectors unpack their strategies for those spaces
o The MSDF must be the anchor point for all the sector strategies 20
Key Perspectives on Long-Term Planning (2)
Plans should be aligned and integrated:
o Clearly distinguish between long-term and term of office planning (no blurry lines)
o Proper alignment between the different plans and strategies (no mixed messages)
o Effective communication is critical, and different departments (municipal and government) must talk to each other
The integrity of M&E is important:
o There has to be consistency with the indicators used in all plans and all departments
o Accountability of indicator regime is very important
21
Key Perspectives on Long-Term Planning (3)
Long-term planning must be based on long-term financial sustainability for implementation:
o CDS/GDS must include a Long-Term Financial Strategy (or go with a LTFS)
o Long-term perspective must be packaged into 5-year, 3-year and 1-year plans
o Long Term Financial models must determine the affordability of CAPEX over a 10-year period
o It is critical to consider the full lifecycle cost of projects, including long term operational cost
Prioritisation:
o Environmental scanning must be added to a metro’s prioritization model
o Introduce stage-gates during prioritisation process to ensure implementable programmes
22
Issues/Challenges Identified by Metros
1. Unclear hierarchy of plans. Current legislative setup results in each of the different plans trying to supersede each other
2. Political change and the demand for a new long-term strategy makes long-term planning difficult
3. Political pressure that changes priorities and spending in the short term makes long-term planning difficult
4. Many metros have systems in place to ensure transversal alignment, but it is not necessarily reflected in the municipal plans
5. Metros have not been properly exposed to a Theory of Change planning process, and require support for capacity building
6. Getting information from government departments (and getting it in time) is a consistent struggle. Projects from government departments are also not necessarily aligned with municipal plans
7. The multitude of national and provincial plans/guidelines/reporting etc.
that municipalities have to comply with
8. Lack of consistency in terminology and language used in different plans, strategies/guidelines
23
Preliminary Views on Re-Organisation and Rationalisation of Plans
o General support for the idea of rationalising plans
o Challenges:
• It will be very difficult to develop one long-term plan
• The time that it will take to develop such a plan
• The plan(s) may become very complicated and long
• Will need to ensure that the remaining plans complement each other
• Where will the authority for the development of such a plan rest, who will have the authority to dictate to sector departments?
• Sector strategies and plans go beyond strategic planning, and require detailed proposals. This makes integrating various sector strategies into a single long term plan challenging
• Will need short, medium and long-term implementation plans
o Should there be only one plan, then the basis for that should be the MSDF
• Important for longer-term planning component and non-spatial
strategies, especially economic development, to be incorporated into the MSDF
24
Revised
Guidelines:
Discussion Points
25
Discussion Points (1)
Guidelines in general:
o Do metros find existing guidelines useful? Should metros have unique guidelines for long-term plans?
o What should be in the guidelines to assist metros? What level of detail? How prescriptive?
Planning reform:
o Was the BEPP fit for purpose as an instrument for changing planning?
o Is there clarity on how Theory of Change and Outcomes-Based Planning should be incorporated into municipal planning?
o Is there value in having alignment between metros’ impact and outcome statements so that metros work from the same basis and it is possible to compare results?
Longer-Term Planning vs Term-of-Office Planning:
o How should we quantify the term “long term planning”
o What is/should be the difference between longer-term planning and term-of-office planning?
o Where do integrated outcome indicators fit better, in long term plans or IDP?
o What is the role of the MSDF in longer term planning?
o Where do sector strategies fit in? Longer-term, term-of-office or both?
26
Discussion Points (2)
GDS/CDS:
o CDS/GDS is voluntary and not legislated; is there a need to legislate it?
o Should the CDS/GDS include a spatial interpretation?
Financial Sustainability:
o How do we afford the type of development that we want?
o Where does the Long-Term Financial Strategy fit in? With the CDS/GDS?
o What should the CEF/CIF look like? What should it contain and what is the relationship to the CIDMS and Long-Term Financial Strategy?
Re-organisation and Rationalisation of Plans:
o Why do we have/need so many planning instruments? Where do planning instruments fail in ensuring alignment?
o Do some of these plans overlap/contradict each other or are they all complimentary? (e.g. are there overlaps between the IDP and CIF?)
o How should the different planning instruments relate to each other?
o Is there any merit in combining long-term plans into a single plan? (i.e. if there is one term-of- office plan, why not one long-term plan?)
o Rationalisation of national and provincial government plans, which of the plans/reporting requirements are duplication/superfluous?
27
Sp at al Tr an sf o rm at o n
Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim Outcomes
Basic Municipal Theory of Change
Reduce Poverty
Reduce Inequality
Reduce Unemployme
nt
Reflect
National Policy
Capable
Cities Delivering Cities
Compact, Inclusive, Connected
Cities
Productive
Cities Sustainable Cities
C le a r A ss u m p ti o n s a n d C a u sa l R e la ti o n sh ip s R e su lt s (T a rg e ts , In d ic a to rs , M e a su ra b le O u tc o m e S ta te m e n ts )
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Precondition s
Sector 5
Precondition s
Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs
Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities
Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs
If we do A, B and C, we will achieve D, E and F, which will change G and H
Impact
What we aim to change?
Integrated Outcomes What should be achieved?
Functional Outcomes What should be achieved?
Outputs
What we deliver?
Activities / Processes What we do?
Inputs Resources Interim Outcomes What should be achieved?
Sp at al Tr an sf o rm at o n
Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim Outcomes
Where is the Line?
Reduce Poverty
Reduce Inequality
Reduce Unemployme
nt
Reflect
National Policy
Capable
Cities Delivering Cities
Compact, Inclusive, Connected
Cities
Productive
Cities Sustainable Cities
C le a r A ss u m p ti o n s a n d C a u sa l R e la ti o n sh ip s R e su lt s (T a rg e ts , In d ic a to rs , M e a su ra b le O u tc o m e S ta te m e n ts )
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Precondition s
Sector 5
Precondition s
Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs
Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities
Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs
If we do A, B and C, we will achieve D, E and F, which will change G and H
Impact
What we aim to change?
Integrated Outcomes What should be achieved?
Functional Outcomes What should be achieved?
Outputs
What we deliver?
Activities / Processes What we do?
Inputs Resources Interim Outcomes What should be achieved?
Long Term Planning
Term of Office Planning
Sp at al Tr an sf o rm at o n
Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim Outcomes
Where is the Line?
Reduce Poverty
Reduce Inequality
Reduce Unemployme
nt
Reflect
National Policy
Capable
Cities Delivering Cities
Compact, Inclusive, Connected
Cities
Productive
Cities Sustainable Cities
C le a r A ss u m p ti o n s a n d C a u sa l R e la ti o n sh ip s R e su lt s (T a rg e ts , In d ic a to rs , M e a su ra b le O u tc o m e S ta te m e n ts )
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Precondition s
Sector 5
Precondition s
Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs
Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities
Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs
If we do A, B and C, we will achieve D, E and F, which will change G and H
Impact
What we aim to change?
Integrated Outcomes What should be achieved?
Functional Outcomes What should be achieved?
Outputs
What we deliver?
Activities / Processes What we do?
Inputs Resources Interim Outcomes What should be achieved?
Long Term Planning
Term of Office Planning
Sp at al Tr an sf o rm at o n
Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim
Outcomes Interim Outcomes
Where is the Line?
Reduce Poverty
Reduce Inequality
Reduce Unemployme
nt
Reflect
National Policy
Capable
Cities Delivering Cities
Compact, Inclusive, Connected
Cities
Productive
Cities Sustainable Cities
C le a r A ss u m p ti o n s a n d C a u sa l R e la ti o n sh ip s R e su lt s (T a rg e ts , In d ic a to rs , M e a su ra b le O u tc o m e S ta te m e n ts )
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5
Precondition
s Precondition
s Precondition
s
Precondition s
Precondition s
Sector 5
Precondition s
Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs Outputs
Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities
Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs
If we do A, B and C, we will achieve D, E and F, which will change G and H
Impact
What we aim to change?
Integrated Outcomes What should be achieved?
Functional Outcomes What should be achieved?
Outputs
What we deliver?
Activities / Processes What we do?
Inputs Resources Interim Outcomes What should be achieved?
