2.1… · web view · 2012-11-14a publicly accessible portal of environmental management...

OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP COMMITMENTS:

Republic of South Africa

PROGRESS UPDATE

September 2012

1

OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP COMMITMENTS: PROGRESS UPDATE

Open Government Partnership (OGP) participating countries, such as South Africa, are

required to:

1. Endorse a non-binding Declaration of Principles on Open Government; which South

Africa has done through President JG Zuma on 21 September 2011.

2. Develop country action plans on open government through a multi-stakeholder

participatory process; which South Africa has submitted on 14 September 2011.

3. Commit to scrutiny and verification of progress by a body of independent experts.

4. Contribute to the advancement of open government in other countries through

sharing of best practices, expertise, technical assistance, technologies and

appropriate resources. South Africa is a member of the Learning and Peer Support

(LPS) sub-committee of the OGP through which it is fulfilling this outreach

responsibility.

South Africa`s country action plan was developed in September 2011 in consultation with the

South African NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) – the largest umbrella body of civil society

organisations in South Africa. Substantive inputs to the country action plan were also made

by the South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO), the Centre for Economic

Governance and Aids in Africa (CEGAA) and the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC).

In terms of consultation with Government stakeholders, the Department of Public Service

and Administration (DPSA) engaged the Departments of International Relations and

Cooperation, the Minister for Public Service and Administration, the Minister in the

Presidency for National Planning, the State Security Agency, the Director-General in the

Presidency and the Governance and Administration Cluster.

The South African country action plan highlights the following seven commitments:

1. Develop Citizen Participation guidelines for Government departments

2. Establish Service Delivery Improvements Forums

3. Implement “Know Your Service Rights and Responsibilities” campaign

4. Capacitate the national Anti-corruption Forum and Hotline

5. Strengthen participatory budget processes

6. Implement Public Service guidelines for corruption related cases

7. Develop a portal for environmental management information

What follows is a summary of progress against these seven commitments. Civil society

organisations were also consulted on this draft progress report, and their inputs are attached

as TAG A.

2

South Africa: OGP CommitmentsProgress Report: September 2012

Full description of commitment Who is involved in implementing the commitment

Progress Way Forward Responsible Officials

Formalise partnerships with civil society

organisations in all nine provinces to

establish Service Delivery Improvement Forums (SDIFs) at local level to provide

timely citizen report cards on service delivery

levels at community level, especially in

relation to primary health care, water,

sanitation, environmental management and

housing.

The Departments of Public Service and

Administration (DPSA), Cooperative

Governance; Minerals and Energy.

Municipalities, Provincial Administrations.

SANGOCO and other civil society structures

• Finalised a concept document on the

institutionalisation of the SDIFs which

unpacks the approach; institutional and

governance arrangements; terms of

reference, among others.

• The DPSA engaged all nine provinces and

some national government departments on

the SDIF concept and there is a general

commitment to establish SDIFs as

mechanisms to enhance public service

access and citizen participation in public

service delivery.

• SDIFs have been established in the Eastern

Cape province (Provincial Coordinating and

Monitoring Team, lead by the Office of the

Premier or OTP); KwaZulu-Natal province

(Operation Sukuma Sakhe, lead by the

OTP); Western Cape province (Provincial

Top Management & Human Capital Forums);

and Limpopo province (Executive Mayors`

IGR Forum)

• Provinces consulted

on the establishment

of SDIFs indicated

that they have

Service Delivery

Forums in one form

or the other. The

next steps will be to

align and strengthen

them into SDIFs with

adequate community

representation.

Ms Veronica MotalaneTel: 012 336 1283

Cell: 0825795872

3

Enhance the capacity and capabilities of

communities to access and claim their socio-

economic rights through the roll-out of national public education campaigns,

specifically a public outreach campaign on

Know Your Service Rights and

Responsibilities (KYSR&R) to inform citizens

about their service rights, responsibilities, and

legal mechanisms available to hold

government accountable.

The Government Communication and

Information Services (GCIS), Chapter 9

institutions, the South African NGO Network

portal, community and mainstream media, civil

society constituency based structures. The

Department of Public Service and Administration

will lead the KYSR&R Campaign.

The DPSA has developed a guide that will

be used to mobilize government

departments to participate more actively in

the KYSRR campaign.

In the interim, the DPSA has rolled out the

out KYSSR campaign in schools in the

Limpopo and Eastern Cape provinces where

36 700 “Know Your Service Rights and Responsibilities” booklets were dispatched

to Community Development Worker (CDW)

coordinators for distribution to schools.

In 2012/13, the DPSA

will assist three

provinces to intensify

their participation in

the campaign.

The DPSA will also

intensify the roll-out of

KYSRR Campaign

through community

radio, community

newspapers and

partnerships with

rights-based civil

society organisations.

Ms Florence MalekaTel: 012 336 1259

Cell: 082 808 5620

Mr Daniel MakhethaTel: 012 336 1455

Cell: 082 457 55 91

Enhance national integrity through

institutional capacity-building of National Anti-

Corruption Forum (NACF) and Anti-

Corruption Hotline.

This will include the capacity development of anti-corruption officials and

strengthening the Hotline`s advocacy and

investigation functions.

Department for Public Service and Administration

and civil society organisations on the NACF. The

Public Administration Leadership and

Management Academy. The Department of

justice and the South African Police Service.

The DPSA is implementing the Public Sector Anti-corruption Capacity Building Programme focusing on capacitating three

categories of public service officials, i.e. (1)

anti-corruption practitioners (487 officials

capacitated); (2) law enforcement officials

including investigators, prosecutors and

presiding officers; (3) general public servants

(1531 officials in category 2 and 3

capacitated)

Capacity development

of anti-corruption

practitioners is ongoing

and will end in

December 2012.

Mr Itumeleng MongaleTel: 012 336 1123

Approve guidelines on sanctions for

4

corruption related cases Departments of Public Service and

Administration, and Finance

A generic guideline on discipline in the public

service has been developed by the DPSA

The Deputy Director

General: Governance

within the DPSA have

been tasked to draft a

specific guideline on

sanctions for

corruption related

cases, and will report

on progress in this

regard in October 2012

(see Annexure A)

Mr Thabang MolobelaTel: 012 336 1426

Develop a Citizen Participation guideline for Public Sector departments that would

ensure that every public sector department

across all spheres have a functional,

resourced and capacitated citizen

engagement unit which regularly and

proactively engage with civil society.

Departments of Public Service and

Administration; Cooperative Governance;

Minerals and Energy through consultative

processes with community-based civil society

structures and business.

On 13 October 2011, the DPSA hosted a

roundtable discussion to engage national

and provincial government departments,

including academia, on drafting a generic

Public Participation guideline and to solicit

inputs by stakeholders before the actual

drafting of the guideline.

On 24 November 2011, a first draft of the

Public Participation guideline was presented

at the Community Development Worker

Programme (CDWP) National Task Team,

representing the Public Participation Units of

the Department of Cooperative Governance

in all nine provinces. These stakeholders

made inputs and a second draft was

generated.

In the financial year

period 2012/13, the

DPSA will work with

nine national

departments (three per

quarter) with the aim of

institutionalizing Public

Participation in these

departments.

The DPSA, in

collaboration with

PALAMA, will provide

training for officials in

all departments to

build internal capacity

to successfully

Ms Florence MalekaTel: 012 336 1259

Cell: 082 808 5620

Mr Daniel MakhethaTel: 012 336 1455

Cell: 082 457 55 91

5

The second and final draft of the generic

guideline on Public Participation has been

completed and is awaiting final approval by

the DPSA (see Annexure B)

implement and sustain

Public Participation

activities in their

respective

departments.

Monitoring will be

ongoing; and an

evaluation will be

conducted in after

three years.

Enhance the involvement of civil society at every stage of the budgetary process across all spheres of government to enhance

the progressive realisation of socioeconomic

rights and enable citizens to track public

expenditure.

All public sector departments, Treasury, business

and national constituency-based civil society

structures. The Presidency.

The tabling of the Division of Revenue Bill

(national budget) gives citizens a space to

input on the national budget through their

respective provinces and municipalities.

The Division of Revenue Bill is a Section 76

Bill, as per the Constitution of South Africa.

Thus, in considering the Bill, provincial

legislatures embark on a public participation

drive to solicit public views for further

consideration by Parliament through the

National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

Government departments, before any given

budget cycle, are required to conduct

intensive engagements with civil society and

the public in general through budget road

shows also known as ‘imbizos’. In addition to

this, the Minister of Finance and provincial

To strengthening the

citizen feedback loop

in relation to budgetary

expenditure,

government releases

periodic press

statements that that

highlights progression

expenditure.

After the 2013 State of

the Nation address

and Budget Vote

Speech, government

will host a national

conference to

capacitate Community

Development Workers

6

Members of the Executive Councils (MECs)

solicit inputs from the public via social

media.

At the local government sphere,

municipalities engage the public and civil

society stakeholders through Integrated

Development Plans (IDPs), which links

municipal budgets to projects identified by

local communities.

Reports from the Auditor-General and the

Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC),

statutory bodies supporting democracy, are

taken seriously at all levels in South Africa.

(CDWs) in terms of

Government Priorities,

the national Budget

and its implications for

citizens. CDWs will be

tasked to share this

information with

citizens through their

door-to-door visits in

communities. This will

better equip citizens to

hold government to

account on

expenditure in relation

to priorities.

The Deputy Minister

for Public Service and

Administration will

meet the Minister of

Finance to discuss

progress on this OGP

commitment (see Annexure C)

Develop a comprehensive and publicly accessible portal of environmental management information.

All relevant public service departments. The

State Information Technology Agency;

Departments of Cooperative Governance; Water

Affairs; Environmental Affairs. Statistics South

A publicly accessible portal of environmental

management information is available in the

Gauteng province under the responsibility of

the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and

The CPSI will lead the

national roll-out of the

GARD portal project

From 10-12 October

Mr Pierre SchoonraadCentre For Public

Service Innovation

7

Africa Rural Development (GARD). In 2010, this

project won a Centre for Public Service

Innovation (CPSI) Innovation Award, and in

2011 it won the United Nations Innovation

Award. This best practice will be rolled out

nationally under the leadership of the CPSI.

2012, South Africa will

host a global

conference on best

practices regarding

publicly accessible

portals on government

data through the

United Nations. The

theme of the workshop

is: Next Stage in Open Government Data: Using Data for Transparency, Accountability and Collaboration

The Deputy Minister

for Public Service and

Administration will

meet the Minister of

Water and

Environmental Affairs

to discuss progress on

this commitment (see Annexure D)

Tel: 012 683 2800

8

Annexure A: Communication - Guidelines on Sanctions for Corruption Related Cases

Dr A Mahapa Deputy Director General: Governance BranchDepartment of Public Service and AdministrationPrivate Bag X916PRETORIA0001

19 September 2012

Dear Dr Mahapa

OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP

In July 2011, I was mandated by President Zuma to lead the South African Government`s participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP).

This Partnership is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from 56 governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

In September 2011, President Zuma attended the launch of the OGP in New York where he formally endorsed our Government’s participation in the OGP and expressed support for the seven commitments South Africa made in the context of the OGP Grand Challenge - Improving Public Services.

This endorsement by President Zuma obligates our Government, through the guidance of my Office, to deliver on the following concrete commitments by March 2013:

1. Develop Citizen Participation guidelines for Government departments2. Establish Service Delivery Improvements Forums3. Implement “Know Your Service Rights and Responsibilities” campaign4. Capacitate the national Anti-corruption Forum and Hotline5. Strengthen participatory budget processes6. Implement Public Service guidelines for corruption related cases7. Develop a portal for environmental management information

As OGP commitment 6 falls within the mandate of your Branch, I request that your Branch work with the Branch: Labour Relations and Remuneration Management (LRRM) to finalize a Public Service Guideline for Corruption Related Cases. I am aware that the LRRM Branch has developed Guidelines on Discipline in the Public Service, but what is required is a specific guideline for corruption related matters.

I trust that you will give this matter your urgent attention and that will report on progress to my office during October 2012.

Yours sincerely,

Ayanda Dlodlo - MPDeputy Minister for Public Service and Administration

10

Annexure B: Draft Guideline on Public Participation

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION1 BACKGROUND

In December 2008, the Public Service Commission (PSC) published a research

report entitled “Report on the Assessment of Public Participation Practices in the

Public Service”. In the report it is stated that the main aim of the study was to

assess public participation practices in selected departments in the Public Service.

The specific objectives of the project were to:

• Assess departments’ guidelines or policies for promoting public participation

in order to establish what these guidelines provide for;

• Assess the types of structured methodologies or processes of public

participation used; and

• Identify the weaknesses and strengths of public participation practices in

relation to service delivery within the Public Service.

Some of the key findings of the PSC research may be summarized as follows:

There is an understanding of the process of public participation in

departments although the understanding is not matched with actual

implementation of public participation by departments;

The existence of public participation guidelines/policies is uneven; only 25%

of departments that participated in the study had guidelines/policies on public

participation in place which, as noted by the PSC, suggests that public

participation is not yet institutionalized in many departments;

Approximately 44% of the departments have established public participation

units; however the units concerned were not able to clearly explain how they

ensure that public participation is adequately undertaken by their respective

departments;

No special training on public participation is provided for staff in most of the

departments.

11

In the report, the Public Service Commission (PSC) urges all government departments to take public participation seriously and to develop their own sector-specific guides on public participation. In an effort to assist departments to develop their own guides, the PSC developed a template and process flow to guide departments on this task. See the process flow Figure 1 below. The full template itself is attached as Annexure 1 of this generic guide on public participation. All departments are strongly advised to use the template and, as far as possible, the material in this generic guide when developing their own department-specific public participation guides. The main advantage of using the template is to establish a common approach on public participation by all departments throughout the public service.

12

FIGURE 1: THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS FLOW PROPOSED BY THE PSC

The Department of Public Service and Administration also recommends this

approach to departments since the template by the PSC is simple, practical and

easily customizable to suit department-specific needs. All national and provincial

13

STEP 1: Establish Consensus on the Overall Purpose of Public Participation

STEP 2: Determine the Role Players Involved in the

Department's Public Participation Process

STEP 3: Develop a Public Participation

Plan

STEP 4: Implement Public

Participation Process

STEP: Provide Feedback to Members of the

Public/Stakeholders

STEP 6: Evaluate Public Participation

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

departments are encouraged to follow this pattern and process flow when they

develop their department-specific guidelines on public participation and where

necessary to customize it to suit individual requirements of departments.

2. RATIONALE FOR A GENERIC PUBLIC SERVICE GUIDE

At present there is no generic public service guide on public participation even

though there are ample pieces of legislation calling for the institutionalization of

public participation practices to support the notion of participative governance to

which our democratic dispensation subscribes. As indicated in the PSC report, there

are a few government departments that do have guides or policies on public

participation. However, a snap telephonic survey of 10 national departments

conducted by the DPSA did not yield better results compared to the findings of PSC.

Most departments still do not have coherent and functional guides on public

participation.

In the interests of building capacity for effective and efficient public participation

practices in all government departments, the DPSA has developed this generic guide

which departments should use as an additional resource in the quest to develop their

own guides.

3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE GUIDE

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the guide is to capacitate government institutions in all three spheres

of government to effectively and efficiently carry out public participation activities in

communities. It is essential for government institutions to engage communities on

policies, programmes, projects and any decisions which might affect such

communities either positively or negatively. Engaging communities beforehand to

solicit their views, inputs and concerns paves the way for government to implement

decisions smoothly and to avoid unnecessary public protests which at times become

violent.

14

3.2 Objectives of the Guide

The objectives of the guide are to:

Engender a uniform understanding of public participation in the public sector

and the importance of employing the participatory approach in policy-making

and implementation and evaluation;

Affirm the crucial role of public participation in service delivery promotion and

improvement;

Provide a baseline public participation approach for public institutions to

embrace, implement or emulate;

Serve as a basis to institutionalize and popularize the application of public

participation in the public sector to the extent of having it manifestly integrated

in the work of all public institutions whenever necessary.

4. POINTS TO REMEMBER WHEN USING THIS GUIDE

4.1 This guide is not a panacea for all problems relating to public participation. It

is intended to fill the gap that has already been identified and to encourage

further capacity building in department on public participation;

4.2 Although a uniform approach in conducting public participation is strongly

advocated we must remember that there will always be variances relating to

the context in which public participation is conducted. No two areas will be

the same in terms of social, political, economic, cultural factors and the

approach should be customized to fit the realities on the ground.

4.3 All government department and other relevant institutions are encouraged to

develop sector-specific public participation guides and systems and may use

this guide as a benchmark.

4.4 Public participation is a discipline that requires adequately trained

practitioners; without public officials with requisite skills and and high levels of

commitment, government’s dream of empowering communities will flounder

and conflicts between citizens and state organs might also intensify due to

lack of information and mutual understanding.

15

SECTION 2: DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1 INTRODUCTION

Governments and their agencies all over the world grapple with the problem of how best to involve members of the public in government decisions-making processes including policy formulation, programmes and projects. There is a vast body of literature dealing with this subject of interacting with members of the public to share information with them and to afford them the opportunity to express their views on contemplated policies, programmes and projects. However, there is also a problem of terminology to overcome because in the literature dealing with this subject several terms are used; in some cases some of the terms are even used interchangeably. The most common of these terms are:

Public participation; Citizen participation; Political participation; Public involvement; Citizen engagement; Community participation; and Community engagement.

In his discussion of citizen participation, Brynard D.J. (undated, p.134)1 argues that “citizen participation should be distinguished from similar terms such as political participation and public participation” because these terms are “not necessarily synonymous” even though in many respects they may be almost synonymous.

In his attempt to distinguish between citizen participation and political participation Brynard further states that citizen participation is:

“… distinctive because it lays emphasis on the person rather than the state in the participatory relationship.”

Furthermore, Brynard distinguishes between citizen participation and public participation in the following way:

“Public participation is not synonymous with citizen participation – mainly because the former is a wider concept which may include citizen participation. The reason for this is the fact that the word “public” in public participation refers to all the people, whether or not they possess the rights and obligations of citizenship (cites Langton: 1978:20)”.

1 Brynard, D.J. “Planning: the participatory approach”, in Bekker, K. (ed.), (undated), “Citizen participation in local government”, JL Van Schaick Academic.

16

In the South African context, then, the scope of public participation includes citizens and people who are legally within the borders of the country who may in one way or the other be impacted by decisions and activities of the state.

In a similar way, based on Brynard’s reasoning we can also say that in the term community participation the scope is narrower since the focus may be confined to a specific geographic area on a particular topic that affects them. Public participation thus also encapsulates the notion of community participation and engagement. In this guide we adopt the broader and more inclusive term “Public Participation”.

2. DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In this section we look at some of the definitions of Public Participation from various sources without engaging in an attempt to differentiate between Public Participation and the related terms listed above. However in the glossary attached to this guide the meanings of the other terms are provided. It is notable that from the way all these concepts are defined there is little or no difference between them except emphasis based on the context in which communication and interaction with citizens is taking place.

Generally, public participation seeks and facilitates the involvement of those

potentially affected by or interested in a decision2. The principle of public

participation holds that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be

involved in the decision-making process. Public participation implies that the public's

contribution will influence the decision and as such public participation may be

regarded as a way of empowerment and a vital part of democratic governance.

2.1 Definition 1

Public participation is the process by which an organization consults with interested

or affected individuals, organizations, and government entities before making a

decision. Public participation is two-way communication and collaborative problem

solving with the goal of achieving better and more acceptable decisions. Public

participation prevents or minimizes disputes by creating a process for resolving

issues before they become polarized. Other terms sometimes used are “public

involvement,” “community involvement,” or “stakeholder involvement

Source: http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2008/03/24/what-is-public-participation/

2 Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_participation

17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empowerment

2.2 Definition 2

IAP2 views public participation as any process that involves the public in problem

solving or decision making and uses public input to make decisions. Public

participation includes all aspects of identifying problems and opportunities,

developing alternatives and making decisions. It uses tools and techniques that are

common to a number of dispute resolution and communications fields.

Source: http://www.iap2.org/

2.3 Definition 3

Public participation is the process by which public concerns , needs, and values

are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision-making. It is a two-way

communication and interaction, with the overall goal of better decisions that are

supported by the public.

Source: James L. Creighton (2005: 7)

2.4 Definition 4

Buccus, Hemenson, Hicks and Piper (2007) define public or citizen participation as

a “means to (i) enhance development and service delivery (ii) improve governance

and (iii) deepens democracy. Public participation puts citizens at the center

whereby they are in the position to influence decision-making and other processes

that are core at community level to improve their lives. It also put citizens at the

center of control of resources allocated for development.

Source: James L. Creighton (2005: 7)

3. DECIDING ON A PRACTICAL DEFINITION

18

At this stage we reiterate the advice made earlier in this guide about the importance

of context when planning to conduct a public participation event of whatever type

because context may influence your choice of definition. What is the subject of the

public participation? What are the issues? Where is it taking place? Are there cultural

issues to be taken into account?

The following definition was crafted by the Task Team that was commissioned by the

Joint FAO, ECE and ILO Committee on Forest Technology, Management and

Training to develop a guide on “Public Participation in Forestry in Europe and North

America”:

Public participation is a voluntary process whereby people, individually or through organized groups, can exchange information, express opinions and articulate interests, and have the potential to influence decisions or the outcome of the matter at hand.

Source: Joint FAO/ECE/ILO Committee on Forest Technology, Management And Training “Public Participation in Forestry in Europe And North America”

The definition was decided upon by that Task Team because they felt that it met

their objectives while at the same time it did not stray away from key elements found

in definitions of public participation crafted by recognized authorities such as the

World Bank and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). Based

on this definition the Task Team concluded that public participation is a process that:

is inclusive rather than exclusive;

is voluntary with respect to participation and - except where a legal

requirement specifies otherwise - to the initiation of the process and to the

implementation of its results;

may be a complement to legal requirements, but cannot conflict with legal

provisions in force, in particular with ownership and user rights;

is fair and transparent to all participants and follows agreed basic rules;

is based on participants acting in good faith;

does not guarantee or predetermine what the outcome will be.

19

When using this guide or developing their own sector-specific guides public

institutions and officials are advised to give special attention on how they define

public participation in their own specific contexts or which of the many definitions in

the literature would best suit their circumstances.

4. WHO IS/ARE THE “PUBLIC”?

The “public" may be defined as a vast and heterogeneous group of people or

stakeholders, organized or not, who are concerned by a specific problem or issue

and who should be given the opportunity to take part in discussions and to influence

and/or jointly make decisions regarding the issue at hand.3

The first step in designing a public involvement programme is to stop and think: Who

is the public? Different segments of the public will participate on different issues. For

example, the public for the erection of a transmission line would be the residents a

few hundred yards on each side of the proposed line. "The public” is not a single

entity—many interests, individuals and groups make up the various segments of the

public.

Some of these interests or groups are well organized, such as professional

associations, political parties, churches, and some social groups. They are formed

because their members have a common, continuing interest. Others exist in potential

only. For example, many neighborhoods have little organization for political action,

but the residents can be effectively organized if they perceive a threat to that

neighborhood.

The various segments of the public will have different levels of involvement based on

differences in roles, technical expertise, and willingness to commit time and energy.

Different types of public involvement may be necessary to reach different groups. 3 JOINT FAO/ECE/ILO COMMITTEE ON FOREST TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: “Public Participation in Forestry in Europe and North America”;

20

One way to picture these levels of involvement is to visualize several “orbits” of

activity revolving around the decision makers (see Figure 2-1)4. The actual decision

makers form the nucleus and are usually elected officials, or the heads of

government departments.

Figure 2.1

At the next level of influence are the staff and technical consultants of all these

government departments. The next are the leaders of organized groups or interests,

who often possess considerable technical expertise or influence such organized

trade unions who are also willing to spend the time and energy to attempt to

influence the decision. Further on are active, concerned citizens who have a direct

or indirect interest in decisions or actions of political office bearers or government

institutions. These are ordinary people who are not attached to any organized

group, who choose to participate because they are concerned about a particular

issue of immediate impact on their neighbourhood. The last orbit represents the

general public which watches with interest but chooses not to get involved or

remains totally apathetic about the contentious issues at hand.

4 Source: www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/sites

21

SECTION 3: PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1. INTRODUCTION

The need for and degree of public participation in government decision-making

depends on what we are trying to achieve. The degree of public participation will not

be the same for every situation. How best to involve the community and to what

extent, will largely be influenced by the project or initiative which a state institution

wants to embark upon or the nature and sensitivity of the decision government

needs to make.

1.1 Less involvement is appropriate when:

Interest in the policy issue is vested in one or a few interest groups;

Perspectives are generally well understood and can be taken into

consideration;

The policy issue demands consistency with established professional or

technical standards;

Legislative guidelines define and/or limit the level of public involvement.

1.2 More involvement is appropriate when:

Several groups have an interest in the outcome of the issue;

Consensus among these groups is weak and uncertain;

The policy issue is value based and carries a high need for social acceptance.

2. BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICPATION?

2.1 General benefits of Public Participation

To improve the quality and legitimacy of decisions made by executing

authorities and public officials regarding policy, programmes and projects that

affect or might affect communities;

22

To eliminate or at least drastically reduce polarization between public

agencies and citizens thereby preventing conflicts which sometimes result in

violent protests at local government level in our country;

To afford diverse interest groups including minorities the opportunity to have a

say in crucial matters affecting their lives in the interests of inclusivity;

To build competent, responsible citizens since through public participation,

citizens can acquire useful skills such as active listening, problem solving,

creative thinking etc that they can put to good use in other areas of their lives;

To enhance transparency and accountability in public institutions by

entrenching a culture of openness through public participation thereby

promoting a high quality of democratic governance in the country;

To build broader support, trust and confidence for government decisions,

programmes and initiatives.

3. LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In this section of the guide we present only the main pieces of legislation and white papers that contain sections dealing with public participation or making indirect references to it. National and provincial government departments must take these generic legal documents into account when drafting their own department-specific public participation guides. When departments draft their public participation guides, they should examine their specific mandates and other sector-specific legislation that obligate them to integrate public participation in their work. Key elements of such legislation which is specific to a department on the subject of public participation should be included in department-specific guides on public participation. The generic legal framework on public participation is presented below.

3.1. CONSTITUTION

Chapter two of the Constitution outlines the right of all citizens to have their basic

human needs met. Section 195 (1)(e) further states that “people’s needs must be

responded to, and the public must be encouraged to participate in policy-making”.

This far-reaching statement alone puts a huge obligation on the state to ensure that

members of the public are not left out of the policy formulation and implementation

processes. It is thus essential for all organs of state to comply with this requirement

23

and desist from treating public involvement as merely courtesy by government to the

people. It is a duty commanded by the Constitution.

In terms of the local spheres of government the Constitution states:

Section 151(1)(e). Municipalities are obliged to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in local government.

Section 152. The objects of local government (are) to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.

Section 195 (e). In terms of the basic values and principles governing public

administration – people’s needs must be responded to, and the public must be

encouraged to participate in policy-making.

3.2 THE WHITE PAPER ON TRANSFORMING PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY (BATHO PELE WHITE PAPER) OF 19997

In its “Introduction”, the Batho Pele White Paper states the following:

“A guiding principle of the public service in South Africa will be that of

service to the people”.

Further on it states that “This is because a transformed South African public service

will be judged by one criterion above all: its effectiveness in delivering services which

meet the basic needs of all South African citizens”. Needless to say, the public

ought to be consulted at all times to ensure that government services are indeed of

the type and standards that “meet the basic needs of all South African citizens”. It

should also be noted as stated in the White Paper that “Public services are not a

privilege in a civilized and democratic society: they are a legitimate expectation”.

The citizen must be treated as a “customer”, according to the White Paper. To

treat citizens as “customers” implies:

Listening to their views and taking account of them in making decisions about

what services should be provided;

Treating them with consideration and respect;

24

Making sure that the promised level and quality of service is always of the

highest standard; and

Responding swiftly and sympathetically when standards of service fall below

the promised standard.

The Batho Pele White Paper, proposes eight principles that can objectively guide the

public service institutions, not only on service delivery standards, but on public

participation as well. Notably, the very first principle is “Consultation” which

emphatically puts forward that “Citizens should be consulted…” about services

rendered to them. All the eight principles are briefly explained below.

(a) Consultation

The principle is about engaging citizens on services they want as well as

giving them the opportunity of making inputs on services offered by state

institutions. This is important because it is only through consultation that

citizens can identify their needs and contribute to find ways through which

these need could be satisfied.

(b) Service Standards

It is about telling citizens about the level and quality of services rendered

by government in order to create awareness on the part of citizens about

this matter. By so doing, citizens know what to expect from government

and by when that service will be delivered and channels to be taken where

there are complaints in relation to the service.

(c) Access

Citizen should have equal access to services rendered by government and

they should be assisted by various machineries of government to have

swift and equal access always.

(d) Courtesy

It is about citizens being treated with respect and consideration when they

interact with government officials for purpose of accessing services.

(e) Information

25

The principle is about citizens being given information that is accurate

about government services that they are entitled to as this will in turn

enable citizens to make informed choices about services they require.

(f) Openness and Transparency

This principle is about informing citizens on how national and provincial

departments are run, how much it costs government to run services and

who is given the responsibility of running which government department.

This also means that citizens are important stakeholders in this regard

since the resources of government belong to citizens and government is

the structure put in place to use these resources on behalf of people in

order to improve their standard of living.

(g) Redress

The principle is very important and encourages government officials to

provide an apology to citizens and explanation where lack or poor service

delivery is experienced. It will mean that urgent and effective remedies

should be put in place under such circumstances.

(h) Value for Money

It is about delivering services that are economical and efficient ensuring

that there is value for money in every expenditure incurred by government.

It is also ensuring that there is proper queue management systems in

government, proper complaint management and required facilities that will

ensure that citizens do not experience unnecessary difficulties and waste

of time in accessing government services.

3.4 MUNICIPAL STRUCTURES ACT, 1998

Chapter 2 (section 19) of the Municipal Structures Act states that a municipality must

develop mechanisms to consult with communities and community organisations in

executing its functions and exercising its powers. It also states that the needs of the

community, municipal priorities and strategies for meeting those needs, should be

reviewed annually. Emphasis is placed on involving communities in municipal

processes.

26

3.5. MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT, 2000

Chapter 4 of the Municipal Systems Act, in its entirety is devoted to public

participation. According to section 16(1) of that Act, “A municipality must develop a

culture of municipal governance that complements formal representative government

with a system of participatory governance…” and to:

Encourage, and create conditions for the local community to participate in the

affairs of the municipality;

Contribute to building the capacity of the local community, councilors and staff

to foster community participation; and to

Use its resources, and annually allocate funds in its budget for the purpose of

achieving these goals to entrench public participation in the governance of the

municipality.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, spell out specific mechanisms that must be put in

place by municipalities to ensure a favourable environment for public participation

and to build a strong and lasting culture of public participation.

27

SECTION 4: DEVELOPING A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTION PLAN

1 INTRODUCTION

Successful public involvement requires careful planning, implementation and

evaluation. This section of the guidelines provides some information that will help

government departments and other public entities in all three spheres of government

to develop their own effective public participation plans. But, even with the best

crafted plans, it is important to remember you may want to adjust the process to

better able to meet the objectives and unique context of your entity (government

department, municipality, etc). Flexibility in this process is necessary to meet the

desired goals.

2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS5

The figure below illustrates a four-step approach for public participation. Some

questions are raised in each step to guide departments and other entities on critical

issues to consider in each step. The questions are not necessarily exhaustive; each

department may add or amend to suit their different environments.

5 : Steps are adapted from “Public Policy and Public Participation Engaging Citizens and Community in the Development of Public Policy” (http://www.phac-spc.gc.ca/canada/regions/atlantic/pdf/pub_policy_partic_e.pdf)

28

Preliminary Design

Developing the Plan

Implementation

Feedback

3 STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

3.1. Preliminary Design

Building a preliminary plan requires that we think about analyzing the situation, details of the decision process, what major issues might be encountered during the process, what information is required from the public and at what points in the decision process, which publics the information is required from, the composition of a planning team, and how to get the go-ahead from the organization.

3.1.1 Situation analysis

Which circumstances led to the need for a decision that requires public participation?Is this a policy question, new legislation or regulation, programme or project development, problem to be solved, or a legislated requirement?Can any major issues be anticipated regarding socioeconomic and political factors, public perception, related issues, active consultations?What are the community profiles, cultural and geographic boundaries?

3.1.2 Decision process

What is the purpose of the process?What discreet steps comprise the decision process?Estimate time frame for decision process and public participation.Estimate fiscal and human resource needs.

3.1.3 Information exchange . source, content and time of information flow

29

Is information required from the participants?What information?At what point(s) in the process?Will information be required by the participants?What information?At what point(s) in the process?How will feedback be handled?

3.1.4 Public and stakeholders

Which stakeholders/public can provide the needed information?Which stakeholders/public should be included?What criteria should be used to select participants?How soon should key stakeholders be involved?If ”now” establish a stakeholder advisory committee to help design (and perhaps implement) the process.

3.1.5 Planning team

Include the right people: functional area; capacity and skills, i.e., planning, interpersonal, communications, facilitation, etc.; knowledge of issues or stakeholders; and experience with public consultations.

3.1.6 Approvals

What approval is required to commit the organization to this process?

3.2. Developing the Plan

Development of a public consultation plan involves the following considerations: understanding the objectives for the decision process and development of supporting objectives for the consultation process;

30

ensuring that major issues are recognized and considered; clarifying how stakeholders will be selected, what stakeholders will be involved and at what point; when and how will the public be involved; consultation techniques chosen to meet process and stakeholder needs; thought given to the format in which information is received; outlining the flow of the process on a critical path; budget, staff and other logistical needs; and preparation to facilitate feedback to and from stakeholders.

3.2.1 Establish objectives

overview of the decision process;What are the desired results of public consultation?What information, at what points?develop a clear problem/issue statement.

b) Identify and address major issues

As determined in the design phase situation analysis, with additional information provided by a stakeholder advisory committee, if one is formed.

c) Identify and involve the stakeholders

develop a profile for each stakeholder (where feasible)use profile information to identify and select, considering such factors as impacted/interested, social and economic inclusion, balance, resources, representation, capacity, and history.Stakeholders can be identified and chosen in three ways: by staff of the sponsoring organization, by third parties, or by themselves.

d) Choose techniques

31

achieve specific objectives at key points in the decision processselect techniques that best serve both the decision objective and the needs of stakeholders.A common format for public consultation includes:public input into problem definition; what is going on here?What are my issues? What would I like to see happen?Sponsor does options paper using stakeholder input, and asks .Which of these options do you prefer and why?.Sponsor does a draft final paper or action plan and goes back to the public one more time for review and comment.A technique that works for one group may not work for another.

e) Prepare to provide and receive information

What information do you want to communicate to the participants? In what form? How does it fit within the decision process?Ask participants for the information you need:select a format that aids analysisanalysis should help sponsor understand why stakeholders and the public think and feel as they do (determine interests)Good analysis creates information which can then be evaluated.Categories for information analysis should be anticipated based on previous knowledge and experience:categories can be modified based on actual resultsThis is more art than science.

f) Develop a critical path

A chronology of steps provides a map of the process.A critical path outline will contain some of the following categories with dates, locations, costs, staff responsibilities.

32

3. Implementation

In many ways, the hard part is done. The hours of work invested in careful and detailed planning now pay off as the implementation team carries out the following four steps:

a) Follow the critical path

This is the map for implementation of the process. It dictates how steps follow each other, how they are linked, and how specific needs of different stakeholder groups and the public are met.

b) Apply techniques

implemented in sequence, with monitoring and evaluation built in;may need to adapt if planned actions do not achieve desired results.

c) Receive and provide information

organize and analyze; evaluate and incorporate information into next steps; feedback to participants; be prepared to modify analytical format based on content of actual stakeholder communications

d) Monitor the process

this must be continuousmake sure that the process is achieving stated objectives, including the right publics and being implemented in keeping with the principles of fairness, openness, inclusiveness, etc.

33

use an end-of-process survey to gauge the depth of public/stakeholder satisfaction with the process, as well as with the final outcomesWe plan going into a process, and we learn coming out!

4. Feedback

The final steps in the process are to report to the decision makers on the outcome of the consultation; to provide feedback and communicate appreciation to stakeholders for their involvement; and to evaluate the process and ensure that the team learns from the experience.

a) Report to decision makers

stakeholder views are summarized for the various input points and reported to decision makers within predetermined format, i.e., options, recommended action, etc.senior managers may want to know:what stakeholders participated?what their key issues and preferred options werehow satisfied stakeholders were with the process (result of ending survey)

b) Report to participants

express appreciation to those who took part in the processprovide a final report on the process outlining the results achieveddirectly contact the groups who put in special effort, were extremely collaborative or deserve personal contact for other reasons

34

may want to use targeted feedback to specific individuals and groupsmay want to make reference to specific input and show how it was used or explain why it was not included in the final report

c) Evaluate the overall process

The public consultation team evaluates the process from start to finish for:public satisfaction;public support for decisions;public understanding of situation;department satisfaction, andteam learning.

4 WHO ARE YOUR STAKEHOLDERS?

Who you encourage to participate depends on your project parameters. Consider

how and why you will involve stakeholders. Time is valuable and in short supply for

many, so ensure stakeholders’ time is well spent by giving them the opportunity to

have a meaningful impact on your project. Potential stakeholders may include:

Community associations and organizations;

Special interest groups;

Chairs of advisory committees or entire advisory committees (e.g. ward

committees, school governing bodies);

Ward Councillors;

Civic organizations;

Political leaders;

Non-government organizations;

Charities;

Sport and recreation groups;

Businesses and business associations;

Professional associations;

35

Landowners and residents;

Churches and religious groups;

Local schools/educational institutions;

Internal stakeholders.

Once you are satisfied who the relevant stakeholders are in any given project the

next thing to is to do a stakeholder analysis (See Appendix for a template of a

Stakeholder Analysis Matrix). A stakeholder analysis is always linked to the policy,

project or programme on which public participation is to be conducted with the view

to making decisions that are influenced by inputs made by members of the public.

As indicated in the template, the analysis is made in terms of a set of variable which

may differ from project to project or from policy to policy. In our example the

following variables are included:

Name of stakeholder or stakeholder group;

Interest(s) of stakeholder in the policy/project;

Effect of the interest(s) on the project;

Importance of stakeholder for project success;

Degree of influence of the stakeholder.

Public involvement activities are much more effective if efforts are targeted toward

people who will actively contribute to the development and decision‐making

processes surrounding transportation improvement projects. Every effort must be

made to encourage the participation of those citizens and/or groups that accurately

represent the full range of issues and opinions. Settling for only those who are willing

to actively participate may give undue influence to a potentially small segment of the

affected community.t critical to the

Generally, there are six (6) reasons why people choose to participate in a public

involvement activity.

(a) Proximity:

36

People who live in the immediate area of a project or must travel through an area to

work or shop. Participation will be based on a perceived benefit or challenge

presented by the project.

(b) Economy:

If groups of people perceive they have a strong economic interest in the outcome of

a decision, they are likely to participate. For example, if a transportation project

affects the entrance to a shopping center, expect strong participation from the

owners, as well as shopkeepers who lease space in the facility.

(c) Utility:

People who frequently use a road or intersection to be constructed or improved will

likely participate to stay informed of the project schedule.

(d) Society:

If a sector of the public is interested in protecting a historic site, maintaining access

to specific services or preserving a community resource, participation is likely. The

same applies if they perceive a project to have environmental or health effects.

(e) Propriety:

Sometimes people will participate simply out of their own sense of decency because

they feel it is the right thing to do.

(f) Legality:

37

Government agencies have statutory requirements. One agency may be concerned

about air quality, another about wildlife resources, and another about wetlands.

Providing effective ways for government agencies to participate is as crucial as

creating ways for the average citizen to participate.

38

SECTION 5: PROMOTING AND INSTITUTIONALIZING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1. INTRODUCTION

In the “Report on the Assessment of Public Participation Practices in the Public Service” (2008:34), the PSC make some important recommendations that should be taken into account for the institutionalization of public participation in the country. These recommendations are presented in Box 5.1 below.

Box 5.1: PSC Recommendations.

39

1. Guidelines/policies on public participation:Departments should develop guidelines/policies on public participation to inform and manage critical engagement with citizens. The guidelines/policies on public participation should clearly articulate the objectives of public participation and the process to be followed during engagement with citizens. During the development of such guidelines/policies, departments should ensure that the views and inputs of stakeholders are solicited.2. Institutionalisation of public participation:Departments at both national and provincial governments, should institutionalise public participation as a service delivery and good governance mechanism. In order to institutionalise public participation, departments should ensure that public participation units are established and have the necessary financial and human resources to support critical citizen engagement.3. Departments to familiarise themselves with Citizens Forums Toolkit:Departments in both provincial and national governments need to familiarise themselves with the PSC’s Citizens Forums Toolkit as a public participation practice. The Citizens Forum Toolkit allows departments and citizens to find solutions to programme specific issues, rather than focusing on department’s issues in its entirety. For technical support with application of the Citizens Forums, departments can approach the PSC for assistance.4. Use of findings contained in Citizen Satisfaction SurveysDepartments need to make use of findings contained in reports on Citizen Satisfaction Surveys as a measure to gauge the level of citizens’ satisfaction or lack thereof on services they provide. Such finding will pro-actively assist departments to engage with citizens and address their concerns. It is during such engagement on the findings of the reports where potential service delivery protests can be averted.5. Training of officials involved in public participationThere is a need for departments to ensure that officials involved in public participation are adequately trained to engage with citizens. Departments need to ensure that officials acquire the necessary skills, especially in the areas such as conflict management, negotiations and understanding community dynamics. Trained officials in public participation will ensure that public participation initiatives in the respective departments are not only led by the elected officials, but are also initiated and led by officials.

One of the recommendations of the OPSC in the “Report on the Assessment of Public Participation Practices in the Public Service” (2008:34) is on institutionalizing public participation and reads as follows:

40

“Departments at both national and provincial governments, should

institutionalise public participation as a service delivery and good

governance mechanism. In order to institutionalise public

participation, departments should ensure that public participation

units are established and have the necessary financial and human

resources to support critical citizen engagement.”

Government has a major obligation to ensure that the notion of involving the public in

matters affecting their lives is not merely given lip service. The goal should be to

vigorously promote public participation among the public and to put in place

meaningful and enforceable institutional mechanisms to ensure that public

participation becomes the norm in the public service extending to the general public

in the country.

2. OBSTACLES THAT CAN IMPEDE MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?

2.1 Internal Obstacles

2.1.1 Lack of resources, both financial and human resources;

2.1.2 Lack of support from top management (DGs, HoDs) in departments as well as

ministers and other political office bearers;

2.1.3 Lack of time due to compressed schedules;

2.1.4 Aligning with the priorities of elected officials;

2.1.5 Lack of public participation training/skills among staff;

2.1.6 Difficulty coordinating between various departments/ agencies;

2.1.7 Legislative obstacles.

41

2.2 External Obstacles

2.2.1 The public may be cynical and/or distrustful of the planning process.

Cynicism and distrust may arise from a feeling that authorities have already

made decisions and the granting of the opportunity for public input is merely

to give the decision a semblance of credibility and respectability.

2.2.2 Language and cultural barriers deter participation in some communities.

Some may have limited English proficiency thus necessitating the translation

of materials into other languages and running meetings and other public

participation events in the language widely used by relevant people.

2.2.3 The public may be uninterested in the planning process.

Lack of interest may emanate from poor understanding of the issues including

processes and how and where to participate.

2.2.4 Locations of meetings may not be accessible enough for, especially,

disadvantaged communities.

2.2.5 Work, household or other personal obligations may deter participation.

2.2.6 The public aware or does not understand the planning process.

2.2.7 The public does not have sufficient ways (methods, places, times) to provide

inputs.

2.2.8 The mass media which may in some cases be partisan.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation is currently taking place in the public service in an uncoordinated

way without a dedicated institutional arrangement to popularize it within and outside

government so all stakeholders can appreciate its full benefits and potential to

promote sustainable community development in the country. With the exception of a

42

few departments where specific legislation demands public hearings, public

participation is generally not seen as a mechanism to promote development and

ethical conduct by other government departments even though the Constitution

strongly advocates public participation in public policy formation and implementation.

According to Turnbull and Aucoin6 there are four key criteria for successful

institutionalization of public participation:

(a) Public participation is a core element embedded in the policy process: Rather than remaining an occasional project, public participation needs

to be incorporated in policy development. Greater trust can be built in

the policy process if members of the public do not perceive these

efforts to occur only when it is convenient and instrumental to a larger

political agenda.

(b) Public input is given substantial weight in policy development processes; it cannot be a “token” effort, in perception or reality:Faith in consultative processes is often eroded because citizens feel

that their voices are not heard, that their opinions are sought after a

decision has been made or that the consultation is in place simply to

appease the public.

(c) The commitment to institutionalized public participation should be government-wide as opposed to being concentrated in certain departments only:The entire public service ought to be mobilized to take public

participation seriously and to dispel the myth that citizens cannot grasp

complex scientific and social problems, and that they are unconcerned

with matters that do not directly affect them.

(d) The effort to institutionalize public participation includes the public service and parliament:Both the public service and parliament have different but

complementary roles to play in institutionalizing public participation.

MPs could use public participation as a tool to maintain contact with 6 Cited in : Sheedy, A. (2008) “Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation”, Canadian Policy Research Networks.

43

their constituents, to better inform them of emerging policies and to

better equip themselves to debate policy issues. For the public service

public participation is essential throughout all steps in the policy

process.

3.1 Structures

3.1.1. A section on Public Participation should be included in the Public Service

Regulations to establish and overarching and autonomous structure/body to

oversee, support and monitor public participation and report to parliament on

public participation activities in the public service.

3.1.2 Public participation should be a compulsory key result area for all heads of

departments in national and provincial departments compelling departments

to put in place mechanisms (e.g. a public participation component) to inform

and involve the public about the work of such departments and what benefits

the public can derive from the work of such departments and how. This

engagement with the public should be continuous and reported annually to

the overarching structure/body which in turn will prepare a consolidated report

to parliament.

3.1.3 All the other recommendations of the PSC should also be taken into account

and implemented as far as possible under the umbrella of the new public

participation agency. See the box below for all recommendations of the PSC.

3.2 Promoting public participation

In addition to the above the established overarching public participation body should

take cognizance of the following:

3.2.1 Cultivating a sense of duty among public participation practitioners, CDWs,

political office bearers etc;

3.2.2 Improved civic education in communities including schools and religious

bodies;

3.2.3 Ensuring a large role for political parties in encouraging citizen engagement;

44

3.2.4 Reducing cultural barriers to institutionalization;

3.2.5 Reducing any other structural barriers to public participation.

45

SECTION 6: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS

1. INTRODUCTION

In the Annexures section of this guide we provide an analysis of some of the most common methods that are used globally for public participation in public sectors. Departments are encouraged to determine what works best for them at any given time.As soon as you are clear that your project requires public involvement you have to

decide how much involvement is required. How much involvement is required

depends on the issue and your desired outcomes. It’s important to remember the

methods do not always work independently – combined approaches will often yield

better results.

The following factors can help public participation practitioners to decide the degree

of involvement that is required and what the appropriate public participation method

could be:

Policy/statutory requirements;

Nature, complexity and risk associated with issues;

Timelines;

Financial implications;

In-house expertise;

Level of support/consensus from stakeholders/partners

Level of influence the participants expect to have

Level of support from departmental and political decision-makers

2. CURRENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPROACHES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

2.1 Izimbizo

Izimbizo have been by far the most popular method which politicians in the country

have utilized over the years to communicate with the public on policy issues and

government programmes. The word “imbizo” is an African word which refers to a

46

special meeting usually convened by someone in authority such as a traditional

leader. Over the years, especially since the advent of democracy in 1994, it has

become synonymous with interaction with communities to advance democratic

principles.

As stated on one of the government websites7 the concept “Imbizo” gives further

effect and concrete expression to participatory democracy so that communities can

exercise their rights to be heard, and assist with the national effort to build a better

life for all.

Government launched the Izimbizo programme in 2001 as a period of intensified

activity where all spheres of government - national, provincial and local - interact with

the people across the country. The Izimbizo initiative plays an important role as an

interactive style of governance, which creates more space for public participation

and involvement around interactive implementation of government's Programme of

Action.

Imbizo is about unmediated communication between government and its people. It is

a forum for enhancing dialogue and interaction between senior government

executives and ordinary people. Izimbizo provide an opportunity for government to

communicate its action programme and progress directly to the people. Izimbizo also

promote participation of the public in the programmes to improve their lives.

Interaction through Izimbizo highlights particular problems needing attention,

blockages in implementation of policy, or policy areas that may need review. It draws

public input into how best to tackle challenges. It gives the President and others

direct access to what people say and feel about government and service delivery, to

listen to their concerns, their grievances and advice about the pace and direction of

government's work.

The use of izimbizo is now fairly entrenched in the South African political scene and

can thus be regarded as a legitimate method or technique of public participation

especially where the intention is to communicate with hundreds or even thousands of

7 http://www.info.gov.za/issues/imbizo/index.html#background

47

citizens in an area at one sitting on one or more crucial policy or service delivery

issues.

2.2 Public HearingsApart from izimbizo, some government departments have been conducting public

hearings under specific legislation that prescribe that public hearing should be

conducted before major policies or infrastructure projects can be started. The most

recent example that was very much in the news was the environment impact

assessment hearings before the building of the Gautrain project.

2.3 Ward Committees and CDWs

At present, ward committees also serve as forums to facilitate public participation at

ward level in all municipalities. Community Development Workers (CDWs) work very

closely with the ward committees to convey important information between the public

and government institutions.

This guide is intended to build on the wealth of experience on public participation

that already exists in the public service and to encourage deeper engagement using

some of the methods which are outlined in the annexures..

2.3 Conclusion

The methods of public participation included in this guide serve as an example of

how public participation may be conducted. The list is by no means exhaustive;

departments are encouraged to consult other sources should their needs exceed

what has been included in the guide. However, if rigorously utilized these methods

can enable departments to achieve their objectives regarding public participation in

whatever area of need in their departments be it policy and implementation,

programmes or projects. Needless to say, the successful implementation of this

guide will depend mainly on availability of capacity in the respective departments as

well political and top management commitment and support.

Finally, the guide must be regarded as a living document. Suggestions and inputs

on how to improve future editions of the guide should be submitted to the DPSA on a

48

continuous basis during its implementation especially the tools that could be included

to assist departments.

49

Annexure C: COMMUNICATION ON OGP – MINISTER OF FINANCE

Honourable PJ Gordhan Minister of FinancePrivate Bag X115PRETORIA0001

Fax: 012-323 326227 August 2012

Dear Minister Gordhan







As OGP commitment 5 falls within the mandate of the Department of Finance, I wish to meet with you to discuss the background to the OGP and the particulars of this important commitment, but also if there is work that is already done by your department It will be appreciated if that work can be shared with me on or before our meeting.

Ms. Tsholo Mathabathe from my Office will communicate with your Office to determine a suitable date and time for our meeting. Her contact details are: [email protected] or telephone 012-441 6101.

Your support and co-operation is appreciated.

Yours sincerely,


50

mailto:[email protected]

Annexure D: COMMUNICATION ON OGP – MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Honourable BE Molewa Minister of Water and Environmental AffairsPrivate Bag X313PRETORIA0001

Fax: 012-336 781727 August 2012

Dear Minister Molewa







As OGP commitment 7 falls within the mandate of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, I wish to meet with you to discuss the background to the OGP and the particulars of this important commitment, but in the meantime if there is work that is already done by your department it will be appreciated if that work can be shared with me on or before our meeting.

Ms. Tsholo Mathabathe from my Office will communicate with your Office to determine a suitable date and time for our meeting. Her contact details are: [email protected] or telephone 012 441 6101.

Your support and co-operation is appreciated.

Yours sincerely,


51

mailto:[email protected]

TAG A: CIVIL SOCIETY INPUTS TO PROGRESS REPORT

RECEIVED FROM: OPEN DEMOCRACY ADVICE CENTRE

OGP E-Consultation:

South Africa

Comments prepared by Gabriella Razzano of the Open Democracy Advice Centre

Outline

Introduction Comments on the OGP Strategic Plan Comments on the African Regional Engagement Comments on the OGP Independent Experts Comments on Alignment of APRM and OGP Comments on the SA Country Plan Progress Report

IntroductionOn 14 September, the Open Democracy Advice Centre received an invitation from the Department of Public Services and Administration to make comments as part of an e-consultation process on 17-18 September 2012. In furtherance of this call, we have prepared the following document. We thank the Department for its invitation and made contributions as part of the first round on 18 September.

However, further documents were then distributed on 17 September 2012 and we have decided to make the necessary adjustments to our comments in light of these last minute changes. The most significant addition was the APRM Plan. Not a lot was able to be added to the Progress Report – but we would like to reiterate at the start our deep distress both at the significant time restriction allowed for comment; and the inability of the Department to provide the relevant attached Guidelines by which we would have been able to assess the actual progress made.

OGP Strategic PlanODAC has prepared some comments on the OGP plan, which will form the basis of their own submission to the OGP’s open call for comments. For ease of reference, I have organized comments under their relevant sub-paragraphs. However, at the outset, we wish to note the positive example given by the OGP in preparing a principle-based strategic plan, which could easily be adjusted and incorporated by governments in their own plans moving forward.

52

Measures of SuccessODAC would like to note in particular the indicator, within changes to political will, which looks to countries taking active steps toward OGP eligibility. Within the African context, this is particularly important – with only ten countries having access to information laws, it is vital to use the impetus of this measure to advance the pursuit of access to information laws across the continent alongside the African Platform on Access to Information. It also is a further encouragement for the South African government to lead on promoting OGP within the region, identifying an attainable goal of eligibility even if the legal contexts do not yet exist.

II A) Deepening EngagementA significant problem in regard to the strategic plan for deepening engagement is a failure to address how the OGP will facilitate government/civil society engagement. This should be soon as an important aspect of the OGP imperative. For instance, will they host side meetings between relevant government and civil society groups at OGP meetings? Direct discussions between the two stakeholders are a priority in order for the OGP to be able to reach its indicators.

II C) Peer LearningODAC is encouraged by the suggestion of a “buddy system” on peer learning. However, we think their needs to be adequate consideration of how to allocate partners given socio-political circumstance, but also to ensure that such learning exchanges are mutually beneficial in order to make sure such a process does not hinder any of the government’s national progress.

II D) Promoting AccountabilityIt is worth noting that, as considered in the strategic plan, ODAC will be participating as an additional monitoring outside of the government self-assessments and IPRM processes. It should be noted by the South African government as well that time is running out for them to consider the functioning of their self-assessment plan (due in December 2012, and this perhaps should eb an additional area of discussion in public consultation.

II E) Communications/BrandODAC notes with the support that the OGP website will offer tools online for manipulating and visualizing OGP-related data, but wish to bring to their attention that such a site should also provide an interface for uploading and downloading directly the data sets, even if it would be required to be approved by an OGP administrator first. This will ensure independent monitoring sites will also be able to ensure their oversight is able to contribute to international monitoring.

III A) International EngagementODAC would like to support in particular OGP’s standing as an international umbrella platform that promotes other open government institutions. In this regard, we believe the South African government

53

should reiterate in their submission the existence of the APRM as such an initiative.

III B) Policy InnovationWe would like to contend, in contradiction to the position taken in the strategic plan, which we in fact believe the OGP would be well-placed to start developing minimum standard, as a reflection of the work being done under the OGP, which relate in particular to open government portals. If, however, they remain resilient to such initiatives, it is hoped they will support civil society-led initiatives to do so based on data coming from the national initiatives.

III C) Iterative and Future PlansODAC would like to note in particular the positive position taken in the description of the Commitments as a “living document”. We would like to propose that the South African government consider the example of the Mexican government that, in consultation with civil society after fuller public engagement, submitted an expanded Action Plan and consider doing the same.

ConclusionIn consideration of the Strategic Plan within the South African context, ODAC would suggest to the South African government that they look to the plan for guidance in attempting to operationalize their own strategic plan more fully. If a more detailed implementation for the South African Action Plan does exist, we have not been privy to it as yet.

OGP African Regional EngagementIn relation to African regional engagement, ODAC would support a South African-led meeting for early 2013 which brings together partners (both government and civil society) from around the continent. This should include not only OGP-eligible candidates, but those that have expressed interest in fulfilling eligibility, or even just have significant potential in raising their eligibility.

Civil society would be at hand to directly support the meeting as needed.

We would like to therefore note that ODAC will be present at a meeting in Zanzibar in October which will be an Open African round table on the regional open data movement. At this meeting, we will be happy to discuss with our civil society partners ideas and suggestions about the organisation of a regional OGP meeting.

OGP Independent ExpertsOur Executive Director, Alison Tilley, has already made oral suggestions in this regard. We are glad to see the Department was able to make a suggestion in time, of former South African First Lady, Ms Graca Machel – but would have hoped for more detailed considerations of further possible research experts.

54

Alignment of APRM and OGPWhile we note the similarities and differences in the OGP and APRM reporting structures as outlined in the Departments PowerPoint, we need to see how the APRM has been implemented in South Africa. Obviously, the purview of the OGP monitoring is far narrower – largely dealing with only one of the four areas reviewed by the APRM questionnaire. What the true core of the question is is how will SA be able to feed their APRM process that should have already been established, into the implementation of the OGP process which still needs to be done?

The APRM, though, cannot subsume the OGP IRM process totally, however, given the specific feedback that must be provided in relation to the Commitments that were tabled.

We note with concern that the Department has still not yet made a proposal as to how the processes will coexist, though the similarities are clear, and note that in order to do so we need more clarity of where we are in terms of our APRM process.

The Country Action Plan Progress ReportODAC will now turn to providing feedback on the submitted progress report. From the outset, we would have hoped to see addressed how far the department is in relation to obtaining Cabinet approval of the Action Plan, given the focus that was placed on this at the previous World Bank meeting.

Further, the guidelines that have so far been developed as part of the Action Plan were not attached and would have been useful for gaining full and considered public opinion on current progress.

ODAC is concerned that there does not seem to have been engagement with other government departments in establishing progress on the Commitments, though this can be rectified moving forward.

We would also like to note from the outset that the OGP call is for a “stretch [of] government practice beyond its current baseline” in relation to the Commitments made. Such a stretch we do not believe has been reflected in a consideration of the current Progress Report.

Importantly as well, there are eight commitments tabled at the OGP. Progress report only reports on seven, failing to address at all the commitment to “Develop and implement an accountability/consequences management framework for public servants”, the outcome of which was to have a framework in place and implemented in the public service.

Below, we have tabled some general comments on the specific progress indicators.

Full Progress Way Forward Comment

55

description of commitment Formalise partnerships with civil society organisations in all nine provinces to establish Service Delivery Improvement Forums (SDIFs) at local level to provide timely citizen report cards on service delivery levels at community level, especially in relation to primary health care, water, sanitation, environmental management and housing.

Finalised a concept document on the institutionalisation of the SDIFs which unpacks the approach; institutional and governance arrangements; terms of reference, among others.The DPSA engaged all nine provinces and some national government departments on the SDIF concept and there is a general commitment to establish SDIFs as mechanisms to enhance public service access and citizen participation in public service delivery.SDIFs have been established in the Eastern Cape province (Provincial Coordinating and Monitoring Team, lead by the Office of the Premier or OTP); KwaZulu-Natal

Provinces consulted on the establishment of SDIFs indicated that they have Service Delivery Forums in one form or the other. The next steps will be to align and strengthen them into SDIFs with adequate community representation.

ODAC would submit that something more innovative is needed as a way forward. This project has been a core project of the Department of Public Services and Administration since 2010. There is thus no development of the current 2010-2014 Strategic Plan and for real OGP progress something more innovative should be pursued to realize success – such as the use of ICT’s in coordinating provincial forums and displaying report cards centrally so that the information gathered can be used by national civil society groups to facilitate monitoring with innovative monitoring tools.

56

province (Operation Sukuma Sakhe, lead by the OTP); Western Cape province (Provincial Top Management & Human Capital Forums); and Limpopo province (Executive Mayors` IGR Forum)

Enhance the capacity and capabilities of communities to access and claim their socio-economic rights through the roll-out of national public education campaigns, specifically a public outreach campaign on Know Your Service Rights and Responsibilities (KYSR&R) to inform citizens about their service rights, responsibilities, and legal mechanisms available to hold government accountable.

The DPSA has developed a guide that will be used to mobilize government departments to participate more actively in the KYSRR campaign.In the interim, the DPSA has rolled out the out KYSSR campaign in schools in the Limpopo and Eastern Cape provinces where 36 700 “Know Your Service Rights and Responsibilities” booklets were dispatched to Community Development Worker (CDW) coordinators for

In 2012/13, the DPSA will assist three provinces to intensify their participation in the campaign.The DPSA will also intensify the roll-out of KYSRR Campaign through community radio, community newspapers and partnerships with rights-based civil society organisations, Florence?)

As far as we are aware, there was already a guide available, which we commented on.

57

distribution to schools.

Enhance national integrity through institutional capacity-building of National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF) and Anti-Corruption Hotline.This will include the capacity development of anti-corruption officials and strengthening the Hotline`s advocacy and investigation functions.

The DPSA is implementing the Public Sector Anti-corruption Capacity Building Programme focusing on capacitating three categories of public service officials, i.e. (1) anti-corruption practitioners (487 officials capacitated); (2) law enforcement officials including investigators, prosecutors and presiding officers; (3) general public servants (1531 officials in category 2 and 3 capacitated)

Capacity development of anti-corruption practitioners is ongoing and will end in December 2012.

In order to assess progress, ODAC would suggest that a report on the numbers reached and distribution must be included to be measurable. Further, it should be explained how these results distinguish themselves from the normal DPSA targets?

Approve guidelines on sanctions for corruption related cases

A generic guideline on discipline in the public service has been developed by the DPSA (see attached Guideline)

A generic guideline on discipline in the public service has been developed by the DPSA

ODAC would query whether there are going to be a public comment procedures, in line with the spirit of the OGP? Further, how will the department expand on this Commitment moving forward?

Develop a Citizen Participation guideline for

On 13 October 2011, the DPSA hosted a roundtable

In the financial year period 2012/13, the DPSA will

ODAC would like to note that, according to the PSC, most departments already

58

Public Sector departments that would ensure that every public sector department across all spheres have a functional, resourced and capacitated citizen engagement unit which regularly and proactively engage with civil society.

discussion to engage national and provincial government departments, including academia, on drafting a generic Public Participation guideline and to solicit inputs by stakeholders before the actual drafting of the guideline.On 24 November 2011, a first draft of the Public Participation guideline was presented at the Community Development Worker Programme (CDWP) National Task Team, representing the Public Participation Units of the Department of Cooperative Governance in all nine provinces. These stakeholders made inputs and a second draft was generated.The second and final draft of the generic

work with nine national departments (three per quarter) with the aim of institutionalizing Public Participation in these departments.The DPSA, in collaboration with PALAMA, will provide training for officials in all departments to build internal capacity to successfully implement and sustain Public Participation activities in their respective departments.Monitoring will be ongoing; and an evaluation will be conducted in after three years.

have their own such guidelines – the report does not reflect on how the PSC will be included in the pursuit of this Commitment. Further, it should be clear what further steps are needed to be taken for the DPSA to approve the Guidelines?

59

guideline on Public Participation has been completed and is awaiting final approval by the DPSA (see attached Guideline on Public Participation)

Enhance the involvement of civil society at every stage of the budgetary process across all spheres of government to enhance the progressive realisation of socioeconomic rights and enable citizens to track public expenditure.

Awaiting feedback from Department of Finance

Awaiting feedback from Department of Finance

As a general reflection (in spite of no progress being reported) in 2008 a PSC study specifically recommended that Departments should be assisted in ensuring all sectors had such (the PSC already has a guide on facilitating citizen forums in place from 2005). Thus, moving forward, the Department must consider how you will work with PSC to expand on efforts already done. It is not clear either what consultation was done with Finance, or why this is necessary in order to make any traction into this particular Commitment.

Develop a comprehensive and publicly accessible portal of environmental

Awaiting feedback from the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs

Awaiting feedback from the Department of Water and Environmental

The details of such discussions with Environment should be registered alongside consideration of

60

management information.

Affairs Cabinet approval. Further, we should address how civil society can help in progressing the Commitment. This would be a particularly useful Commitment for discussing expansion – given that the feasibility is fairly definite given international initiatives.

In terms of more general reflections on the progress report, the dates of when tasks and actions must be included to reflect on any patterns for monitoring and reporting purposes.

ODAC notes the inclusion of description of responsible officers for most of the Commitments. This raises two issues. The first is that the Department should make clear how these officers can be engaged with by civil society in forwarding our own monitoring efforts. Secondly, within any progress report and plan, the Department should for each Commitment be addressing directly how inter-sectoral collaboration will be necessary, and will be forwarded, in pursuit of achievement in relation to that Commitment.

We would also like to raise the issue of how progress will be reported on in future to the public and how ODAC can assist in this regard.

61

2.1… · web view · 2012-11-14a publicly accessible portal of environmental management...

Documents