Independent Evaluation of the Built Environment ...

Independent Evaluation of the

Built Environment Performance Plans

(BEPPs) and Longer-Term Metropolitan

Plans 2020/21 MTREF

Consolidated Report

Prepared and Submitted by

R H Monare & Associates (Pty) Ltd

10 November 2020

Page 2 of 17

Contents Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................ ... 4

Background ................................................................................................................... 4

Methodology: BEPP Evaluation ...................................................................................... 5

Methodology: Evaluation of Other Metropolitan Plans …………………………………………….. 5

BEPP Section Evaluation .............................................................................................. 6

BEPP Preparation/Process…................................................................................ 6

Section A: Introduction ................................................................................. 7

Section B: Spatial Planning and Targeting ......................................................... 8

Section C: Catalytic Urban Development Programme and Preparation............ 9

Section D: Catalytic Urban Development Programme Resourcing ................... 10

Section E: Implementation .................................................................................. 11

Section F: Urban Management ...................................................................... 11

Section G: Reporting and Evaluation ................................................................. 11

BEPP Support ..................................................................................................... 12

Component Evaluation …..…………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Evaluation of Other Metropolitan Plans ……………………………………………………………… 13

Evaluation Summary .................................................................................................... 15

Cross-Cutting Recommendations from Lessons Learned ....................................... 15

Page 3 of 17

Acronyms

BEPP Built Environment Performance Plan

BEVC Built Environment Value Chain

BMSTT BEPP Multi-Sectoral Task Team

BRT Bus-Rapid Transit

CDS City Development Strategy

CIF Capital Investment Framework

CLDP Catalytic Land Development Programme

CSIP Capacity Support Implementation Plan

CSP City Support Programme

CIDMS City Infrastructure Delivery and Management System

ELIDZ East London Industrial Development Zone

EPMO Enterprise Project Management Office

GDS Growth and Development Strategy

IDM BOK Infrastructure Delivery Management Body of Knowledge

IDMS Infrastructure Delivery Management System

IDP Integrated Development Plan

IPTN Integrated Public Transport Network

IZ Integration Zone

JPBRRSC Joint Planning, Budgeting and Reporting Reforms Steering Committee

LTFS Longer Term Financial Strategy

MTREF Medium Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework

mSCOA Municipal Standard Chart of Accounts

MSDF Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework

SCM Supply Chain Management

SDBIP Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan

SDF Spatial Development Framework

SIP Strategic Infrastructure Project

SIPDM Standard for Infrastructure Procurement and Delivery Management

SNDB Sub-National doing Business

SOE State Owned Enterprise

SRA Special Ratings Area

Page 4 of 17

Introduction

RH Monare & Associates was appointed to carry out an independent technical evaluation of

the Approved Built Environment Performance Plans (BEPPs), as well as the longer-term

metropolitan plans for the 2020/21 MTREF. The main objectives of the technical

assessments were and are to:

Evaluate the approved BEPPs for the 2020/21 MTREF for six metropolitan

municipalities (excluding Cities of Johannesburg and Cape Town).

Evaluate the approved IDP, SDF, SDBIP, GDS/CDS, and Infrastructure Plans of all eight

metropolitan municipalities for the 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 MTREFs.

Evaluate any Tabled or Approved Plans or Reports other than those mentioned

above that the CSP or Joint Planning, Budgeting and Reporting Reforms Steering

Committee (JPBRRSC) may request.

The entire BEPPs were evaluated for each of the six metropolitan municipalities (excluding

the Cities of Johannesburg and Cape Town, which were exempted from preparing and

submitting BEPPs for the 2020/21 BEPPs), using the Progression Model developed by the

CSP for the 2020/21 MTREF.

There was also an evaluation of the extent to which the approach and content of the

planning reform and BEPPs, appears in key metropolitan plans such as the IDP, SDF, SDBIP,

and GDS/CDS, for all eight metropolitan municipalities, in terms of the assessment criteria

set by the JPBRRSC.

Background

The 2020/21 BEPPs are the last, in a series that started in the 2014/15 MTREF. The BEPP as

a plan has now been terminated. However, the use of the BEPP planning approach and

practice are being retained going forward.

From the 2021/22 MTREF, BEPPs and the outcomes-led planning approach, including the

related intergovernmental planning process, will be used to provide practical and tested

planning reforms for reforming city development strategies/growth and development

strategies, IDPs and SDFs, with a conscious and practical way of directly linking planning,

budgeting, implementation, monitoring and reporting to achieve the outcomes of spatial

transformation.

The Cities will now transition out of BEPPs and planning reforms, into the institutionalisation

of some of the reforms. In this regard, focus will be more and more on using the BEPP

planning content, process, practice and approaches to strengthen the long-term city

frameworks, strategies and plans, particularly the IDP and MSDF, but including other metro

plans such as the Growth and Development Strategy, City Infrastructure Delivery and

Management System (the CIDMS) and the Longer-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS).

Page 5 of 17

Methodology: BEPP Evaluation

The assessment of BEPPs involved a full analysis of each of the six BEPPs, according to key

criteria developed by the CSP. A progression model was used, to determine progression by

metros along the Built Environment Value Chain, using a set of criteria which measure the

progressive improvements within the Cities’ built environments, through the setting of, and reporting against, measurable targets.

The BEPPs were evaluated in terms of the five components and corresponding thematic

areas of focus of the CSP:

Core Governance (Planning Reforms including outcomes-led planning, strategy-led

budgeting, intergovernmental planning and budgeting, reporting reforms in terms

of built environment indicators and pipeline of catalytic land development

programmes (CLDPs).

Human Settlements (City-Wide Informal Settlements);

Public Transport (Transit-Oriented Development).

Climate Resilience.

Economic Development.

Progression by metros along the BEVC was evaluated, from Spatial Targeting, to the formulation of a Catalytic Land Development Programme, Resourcing, Implementation, Urban Management and Reporting & Evaluation, all of which represent key BEPP performance indicators.

By fully analysing nine BEPP Component Areas, guided and supplemented by 61 Questions,

and using a system of weighted scoring, the independent team was able to determine final

scores for each City.

Qualitative comments, as well as support requirements where necessary, were provided for each of the cities.

Moderation of results was undertaken to ensure fair scoring.

Annexure 1 gives an indication of the weighting that was attached to each BEPP Component Area.

Methodology: Evaluation of Other Metropolitan Plans

To evaluate longer-term frameworks and strategies as well as the IDP and related processes of planning, the following criteria were used:

Theory of Change for City Transformation

Outcomes-Led Planning and Spatial Transformation

Strategy-Led Budgeting Alignment of Public Infrastructure Investment in Spatially Targeted areas in metros –

process and outputs

Page 6 of 17

Adoption of spatial planning, prioritisation and budgeting tools

Whether the city has longer-term frameworks and strategies in comparison to the term of office plan (IDP) or five-year plans.

BEPP Section Evaluation

Overall, scores for Section A (on BEPP Introduction), Section F (on Urban Management) and

BEPP Support, were good, with the weakest being Section G (on Reporting and Evaluation).

The BEPPs were stronger in some areas and weaker in others to varying degrees, as outlined

in Annexure 2.

The overall performance of Cities for each BEPP Section, is depicted in Annexure 3.

Annexures 4 and 5 provide a comparative representation of progression by cities with

respect to the different BEPP Sections.

Annexure 6 provides a representation of total scores per municipality, and the contribution

of each BEPP Section to the total score of each municipality.

Annexure 7 provides a comparison between the 2019 and the 2020 total scores. Buffalo

City is the most progressed of the six cities that were required to submit BEPPs for 2020/21

MTREF.

BEPP Preparation/Process

With respect to the BEPP Preparation section, there was evidence of generally good

institutional measures to ensure collaboration within the Cities, as well as a generally good

display of leadership in the BEPP Preparation Process. What remains poor or lacking

however, is the participation of other spheres of government, including SOEs, in the

process.

Also, Covid-19 slowed down the adoption of many BEPPs.

The most common weaknesses in the BEPP preparation process across the cities were:

Little or no evidence or indication of actual management or political structures in place, and

exactly how the internal collaborative processes are set up, and how they work together to

prepare the BEPP.

Lack of clear and precise indication of a programme of action and process, and how it all

unfolds to develop a credible BEPP.

On public sector inclusiveness, mostly a listing of government departments, but with little or

no information on how they were engaged with the BEPP;

With respect to process compliance, little or no information to show that deadlines for all

BEPP requirements and submissions were met. Mostly only the date of BEPP adoption is

provided;

The Cities that undertook robust BEPP processes included:

Page 7 of 17

Buffalo City: The BEPP Task Team of inter-departmental representatives from all sectors of

the city; attendance registers indicating generally good meeting attendance from city

planning, transport planning, human settlements and other city departments; the EPMO

convening and serving as secretariat to the BEPP Task Team; Provincial SDF and Eastern

Cape Vision document been used in the development of the plan; a BEPP oriented technical

Inter- Governmental Task Team which includes representation from National and Provincial

departments, as well as SOEs.

Nelson Mandela Bay: A Strategic Planning Steering Committee politically led by the Deputy

Executive Mayor and including the Mayor’s Office, City Manager, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, members of the Mayoral Committee, all Executive Directors and

other relevant officials responsible for the City Manager’s Office and Strategic Planning. Terms of Reference of this Committee to facilitate greater strategic alignment and the

role of the BEPP. Whilst due to governance and other issues this committee has not met as

frequently as it should, the mere establishment of such a committee is an important step in

the right direction.

BEPP Multi-Sectoral Task Team (BMSTT) – Transversal Arrangements, chaired by the Senior

Director: Strategic Planning and Coordination in the Office of the Chief Operating Officer.

eThekwini: BEPP prepared by the City Support Programme Collaboration Forum and its

Secretariat. Forum chaired by the Chief Strategy Officer and represents a collective of key

municipal departments. A number of engagements between municipal line departments

and national/ provincial sectors to foster inclusiveness. List of milestones and dates.

Section A: Introduction

With respect to Section A, there was evidence of good alignment with other metro plans, as

well as good institutional consolidation to facilitate collaboration on the BEPP.

However, many metros did not provide evidence of inclusivity in the BEPP development

process.

The most common weaknesses in Section A across the cities were:

Council Resolution adopting the BEPP not included.

No clear and precise outline of the planning, budgeting, implementation and back to

planning interaction between the BEPP and other metropolitan plans. How the BEPP

informs the IDP, SDF, Capital Investment Framework (CIF) and the SDBIP not shown.

No summary of key areas of alignment between the BEPP and other Metro Plans, in

respect of the spatially targeted areas and CLDPs.

The Cities that presented good Section A’s included:

Nelson Mandela Bay: Clear resolution adopting the BEPP attached. Key areas of alignment

between the BEPP and other Plans. Established institutional vehicle to facilitate

collaboration on the BEPP.

Page 8 of 17

eThekwini: Clear resolution adopting the BEPP attached. Key areas of alignment between

the BEPP and other Plans. Established institutional vehicle to facilitate collaboration on the

BEPP.

Ekurhuleni: Clear resolution adopting the BEPP attached. Key areas of alignment between

the BEPP and other Plans. Established institutional vehicle to facilitate collaboration on the

BEPP.

Section B: Spatial Planning and Targeting

On Spatial Planning and Targeting, we found evidence of clear understanding and good

progress with spatial targeting. Alignment of planned housing projects with Integration

Zones has generally been well done.

However, participation by provincial and national government departments and SOEs

remains at very low levels. There is a general lack of demand projections for housing and

public transport in the cities.

Also, many cities do not have informal settlement upgrading strategies, and transversal

institutional mechanisms for planning and implementation in spatial targeting categories,

are limited.

The most common weaknesses in Spatial Planning and Targeting across the cities were:

Little or no evidence of consultation or co-planning with relevant provincial, national and

SOE sectors.

No human settlements and public transport demand projections.

Spatial logic for prioritisation of economic nodes outside of IZ(s) not explained

No evidence of a strategy in place or under development, for the development of

economic nodes.

The Cities that provided evidence of robust spatial planning and targeting included:

Buffalo City: Clear Maps showing spatial targeting and spatial prioritisation, and location of

informal settlements. Prioritised Precinct Plans, and evidence of commitment by relevant

provincial, national and SOE sectors. Institutional Consolidation and Institutional

Progression.

Ekurhuleni: Clear Maps showing spatial targeting and spatial prioritisation, and location of

informal settlements. Prioritised Precinct Plans, and evidence of commitment by relevant

provincial, national and SOE sectors. Institutional Consolidation and Institutional

Progression.

eThekwini: Clear Maps showing spatial targeting and spatial prioritisation, and location of

informal settlements. Responses to marginalised areas, and prioritised Precinct Plans, and

evidence of commitment by relevant provincial, national and SOE sectors. Institutional

Consolidation and Institutional Progression.

Page 9 of 17

Nelson Mandela Bay: Clear Maps showing spatial targeting and spatial prioritisation, and

location of informal settlements. Prioritised Precinct Plans, and evidence of commitment by

relevant provincial, national and SOE sectors. Institutional Consolidation and Institutional

Progression.

Section C: Catalytic Urban Development Programme & Preparation

With respect to Section C, there has been good progress with the Catalytic Urban

Development Programmes for priority Integration Zones. Presentation of the IGR Project

Pipeline in Annexure 1 has been well done.

However, many of the cities do not have implementation agreements with other spheres of

government, and consequently, there is limited evidence of progress evaluation of these.

The most common weaknesses in the catalytic urban development programme &

preparation across the cities were:

No clear line of sight is evident from the integration of spatial targeting, public transport

and human settlements planning to the catalytic urban development programme(s) and

intergovernmental project pipeline.

No demonstrable joint planning and budgeting alignment with national and provincial

government and SOE's.

No implementation agreements between Metro and relevant national and provincial

government and SOE's.

No progress evaluation of implementation agreements, highlighting programme/ project

specific expectations of relevant national and provincial government and SOE's.

The Cities that undertook good CLDP preparation processes included:

Buffalo City: A well thought through line of sight, from the integration of spatial targeting,

public transport and human settlements planning to the catalytic urban development

programme(s) and intergovernmental project pipeline. City’s projects in the context of

national and provincial government. MOU between the Transnet National Ports Authority,

the City and the ELIDZ. Also an MOU between the National Department of Public Works

(NDPW) and the City (though not yet signed).

Nelson Mandela Bay: Clear line of sight, from the integration of spatial targeting, public

transport and human settlements planning to the catalytic urban development

programme(s) and intergovernmental project pipeline. City’s projects in the context of national and provincial government. Catalytic Urban Development Programmes for priority

IZ(s) and priority precincts identified.

eThekwini: infrastructure Delivery Management System (IDMS) in the City incorporating the

CIDMS and IDM BOK, and linked to the Standard for Infrastructure Procurement and

Delivery Management (SIPDM). Catalytic Urban Development Programmes for priority IZ(s)

and priority precincts identified. Thorough method being followed in the programme

Page 10 of 17

preparation process including leadership oversight, coordination within the municipality and

risk mitigation strategies identified

Section D: Catalytic Urban Development Resourcing

With Catalytic Urban Development Resourcing, we found evidence of strategy led

budgeting, and spatial budgeting mix, though details were thin on exactly how this strategy

led budgeting and budgeting mix is guided.

Most cities have developed their resourcing plans for catalytic programmes. Once again,

joint budgeting and alignment with other spheres is weak.

The most common weaknesses in the Catalytic urban development resourcing across the

cities were:

No evidence of a long term financing/ investment strategy for the catalytic urban

development programme(s) or the timeframes given for the preparation of such as

strategy.

No evidence of a strategy leading the budgeting process and the process followed to

ensure that strategy led budgeting takes place.

The Cities that provided evidence of effective resourcing, or plans thereof, included:

Buffalo City: There has been consideration, at a high level of allocating budget to strategic

priorities. 44% of the capital budget allocated to catalytic programmes. Showing of how the

catalytic urban programmes are resourced. Showing of the source of funding and

programme status per integration zone and catalytic programme. Showing of which

projects have no funding. Long term financial sustainability based on receiving grants and

spending the funding in line with the grant requirements. A proactive infrastructure

maintenance plan being developed. Allocation of budget according to the municipal

strategy.

Nelson Mandela Bay: High level allocation of capital budget to each of the three spatial

targeting areas, in the context of the Metro's total capital budget. Resourcing plan (capital

and operational) for the prioritised catalytic urban development programmes for each

phase of the project preparation process and funding sources provided over the MTREF.

Working with NT on Long-term Financial Planning Model. Challenges with mSCOA. Strategy

leading the budgeting process provided and process followed to ensure that strategy led

budgeting takes place. Demonstration of how the budget content and processes between

metros, national and provincial government and SOEs will be aligned to BEPP content and

process. How this will be monitored in terms of priority projects in the Inter-Governmental

project pipeline. Breaking down of the current expenditure in each prioritised Integration

Zone into IZ-wide projects and prioritised IZ precinct projects.

Ekurhuleni: Confirmation and overview of long-term financing/ investment strategy for the

catalytic urban development programme(s) provided. Capital prioritisation model process.

Breaking down of the current expenditure in each prioritised Integration Zone into IZ-wide

projects and prioritised IZ precinct projects.

Page 11 of 17

eThekwini: SCM stage of projects within each of the integration zones for Capital Projects

year 2020/21. Project Funding per priority shown. Resourcing plan (capital and operational)

for the prioritised catalytic urban development programmes for each phase of the project

preparation process and funding sources provided over the MTREF. The Durban Invest

Promotion Strategy. Sub-National doing Business (SNDB) in South Africa initiatives by the

eThekwini Municipality is aimed at reducing the cost and enhancing the ease of doing

business. Economic development incentives In order to enhance the growth of the local

economy. The City has identified financial incentives in the form of a property rates rebate

for new investment in the City. Provincial Infrastructure Reporting Model (IRM) &

Infrastructure Master Plan. Model implemented by the KZN Provincial Treasury, and has the

potential for significant integration of provincial budgets to achieve provincial outcomes.

Section E: Implementation

Most of the cities provided Annexures 1. However, there was very little shown in terms of

implementation for the catalytic urban development programmes and the priority precinct inter-governmental project pipelines within them.

There was also for some of the Cities, little to no evidence of land release strategies, as well

as incentive schemes to encourage and facilitate private sector participation. Cities like

Nelson Mandela Bay, eThekwini, and Buffalo City did, however, show an existence of land

release strategies and incentive schemes, at differing levels of development.

In some cases the National Treasury website does not contain all of the Annexures, whilst

the city websites do contain this information. It is suggested that National Treasury work on

a protocol to ensure that all information available at a city level is also available on the

National Treasury website.

Section F: Urban Management

With respect to Section F, there was evidence of good work on precinct management plans,

and the development of urban management strategies.

However, mainstreaming of precinct management planning throughout the Cities, has not

happened adequately yet.

Section G: Reporting and Evaluation

On Reporting and Evaluation, there has been mixed progress on consolidating BEPP sections into a clear Theory of Change. Most metros have adopted the outcome indicators, but not all are populated and in very few of the cities is there an integration of these and other data into the BEPP programmes to ensure a more evidence-based approach..

Also, there seems to have been some confusion on when the self- evaluations needed to be done and many did not attach them to the BEPPs.

Page 12 of 17

BEPP Support

On BEPP Support, there has been good progress generally.

There are comprehensive CSIPs in place in most metros, and there is a close match between

gaps in the BEPP and Support Projects that have been requested by Metros, or CSIP projects

that are offered to the metros.

Component Evaluations

Core Governance

In terms of Core Governance, there has been significant progress with metros adopting

good planning practices. Intergovernmental planning and budgeting, remains a difficult area.

Although there were instances of good strategy-led budgeting, there have also been some problems, particularly where there is political interference. Equally, some metros have found it difficult to focus and prioritize, with the overwhelming needs of the different areas.

Human Settlements

There was evidence of good alignment between human settlements and transport planning where Transport Oriented Development (TOD) and transport plans are used to link outlying settlements to the central areas. However the links are in some cases weaker.

There has been focus on nodes near intermodal transport facilities or on BRT routes, and we found evidence of strategies to address human settlement issues in marginalised areas.

Public Transport

With respect to public transport in the Cities, concerns have been raised in some instances, of insufficient attention to operations and maintenance for public transport vehicles and facilities. Many BRT systems that are operational are fairly limited in coverage.

There was a difficulty encountered in getting an understanding of the distances between Public Transport and housing, because maps provided were without scale. Interface between different modes of transport is mostly weak, and interface and engagement with national SOE’s is often weak.

Climate Resilience

There were creditable efforts in some metros, to establish institutional arrangements for

mainstreaming climate resilience, though mainstreaming is still relatively weak at this stage.

There has been some good analysis of risks involved if climate resilience is not given

adequate attention, but there was little in terms of action to mitigate the risks at this stage.

Page 13 of 17

Economic Development

With respect to economic development, findings were that investment support and facilitation is still weak in many areas, and effective urban management of key economic areas must still take off. There were a number of economic development initiatives mentioned in the BEPPs, but an integrated approach to economic development issues is often missing.

But there has generally been good identification of economic nodes, though detailed analyses of the role they play and the diversity of the economic activities in them, is weak.

Evaluation of Other Metropolitan Plans

As the Cities transition out of BEPPs and planning reforms, into the institutionalisation of

some of the reforms, focus will be more and more on using the BEPP planning content,

process, practice and approaches to strengthen the long-term city frameworks, strategies

and plans, particularly the IDP and MSDF, but including other metro plans such as the

Growth and Development Strategy, City Infrastructure Delivery and Management System

(the CIDMS) and the Longer Term Financial Strategy (LTFS).

For the 2020/21 MTREF, the independent team of assessors evaluated the longer term

frameworks and strategies as well as the IDP and related processes of planning, using the six

criteria for the assessment of metropolitan plans, which are:

1. Theory of Change for City Transformation

2. Outcomes-Led Planning and Spatial Targeting

3. Strategy-Led Budgeting

4. Alignment of Public Infrastructure Investment in spatially targeted areas in metros

5. Adoption of spatial planning, prioritisation and budgeting tools

6. Longer-term frameworks and strategies in comparison to the IDP or 5 year plans

Theory of Change for City Transformation and Outcomes-Led Planning

City Planning Frameworks & Strategies should be informed by a Theory of Change with

clear, measurable outcomes and the desired impacts. Also, the planning approach should be

outcomes-led.

Page 14 of 17

What the independent team found is that:

In most Metros the Theory of Change is not as explicit in other plans as it is in the BEPP. We did however find in some instances that, while theory of change has not been explicit, programmes and projects listed talked to an overall concept of change.

But outcomes-led planning is evident in almost all metro’s – especially around city transformation, though the strategic outcomes listed in IDPs and MSDFs, do not completely align with those in the BEPPs.

Circular 88 has been adopted across the board, and spatial targeting has been addressed, though not at the same level as in the BEPPs.

Some of the other Metro Plans tended to be broader, and not as focused as the BEPPs.

Strategy-Led Budgeting and IGR Alignment

Planning, budgeting and reporting reforms are inter-connected and thus need to be aligned.

Also, it is generally understood and accepted in the development planning discourse that,

improved planning by itself will not result in spatial, economic and social transformation in

cities. Strengthening the link between intergovernmental spatial planning and

intergovernmental budgeting via an intergovernmental project pipeline is more likely to

deliver the outcomes we seek.

The urban spatial perspective in the budgeting process needs to be refined and

institutionalised, and budget information needs to be requested, collated and analysed in a

way that promotes the allocation of funding against plans that contributes directly to the

spatial transformation of the Cities.

What the independent team found is that:

Many Cities mention longer term funding strategies, but details often not clear or could not be found;

Budgets in many of the cities were broken down into regions/ areas;

For most cities the IDP’s and SDF’s identified strategic projects.

There is evidence of some Intergovernmental stakeholder interaction and most metro’s have indicated some provincial, national or SOE projects, but this is not comprehensive in all instances.

The team found very little evidence of joint planning – there was however more disclosure.

Page 15 of 17

Prioritisation Tools and Long-Term Strategies

We found evidence of tools being used for prioritization and budgeting. However most metro’s have mechanisms to over-ride these where required.

Most metros have MSDFs and Growth and Development Strategies. Many are currently being updated as they are seen as being out of date, an indication that even long-term plans are subject to term of office changes.

The team found that many of the longer-term plans were not spatialized. The team also found some misalignment between the various sector plans.

Evaluation Summary

From the 2014/15 to 2020/21 MTREFs, Metropolitan Municipalities have been required to

submit a BEPP, as a means to, inter alia, support them and to monitor their progression

along a BEVC, using as criteria a set of measurable indicators.

With all eight of the cities, there has been some progression along the BEVC, with some

cities still needing to do more to reach the satisfactory level that are required, to instil

confidence that they are ready to transition out of BEPPs. This means that such Cities will

need more support in the institutionalisation phase, from 2021/22 MTREF going forward.

The Cities must now transition out of BEPPs and planning reforms, into the

institutionalisation of the Planning, Budgeting and Reporting reforms. In the post-BEPP era,

focus will be more and more on using the BEPP planning content, process, practice and

approaches to strengthen and institutionalise the long-term city frameworks, strategies and

plans, particularly the IDP and MSDF, but including other metro plans such as the Growth

and Development Strategy, City Infrastructure Delivery and Management System (the

CIDMS) and the Longer-Term Financial Strategy (LTFS).

Two of the Cities, Cape Town and Johannesburg, who transitioned out of BEPPs earlier than

the other six cities, have taken a lead in the institutionalisation of the reforms, and are being

used to provide benchmarks and lessons for other Cities going forward.

From the 2021/22 MTREF, in the absence of BEPPs, Cities will be evaluated more intensively,

on the longer-term frameworks and strategies as well as the IDP and related processes of

planning, using the six criteria for the assessment of metropolitan plans.

Cross-Cutting Recommendations from Lessons Learned

Cities are now expected to institutionalise the Planning, Budgeting and Reporting Reforms,

which for the past seven years have been held together and facilitated by the BEPP as an

instrument of change, to ensure incremental improvement by the Cities. For the

institutionalisation to be successful in the post-BEPP era, it will have to be firmly anchored

on the deliberate and systematic institutionalisation of the following:

Page 16 of 17

1. A firm institutional vehicle within the City to drive, align and coordinate all planning in the City, and to drive Catalytic Land Development Programmes (CLDPs)

2. A dynamic Intergovernmental Structure, to decisively facilitate intergovernmental project pipeline and joint planning. A good practice for the Cities would be the establishment of Political and Technical Hubs, to provide a platform for collaboration with other spheres of government (IGR). In this way different spheres of government would have the opportunity to discuss, debate and collaborate.

3. An active Capital Prioritisation Structure, to ensure a uniform approach to developmental project prioritisation in a City.

4. Complete alignment with a dynamic theory of change for city transformation, to help keep in focus key thematic areas in the City, such as e.g. Good Governance, Transversal Management and a stronger City economy, and to develop associated strategies to achieve the thematic areas.

5. Circular 88 Reforms and Outcomes-Led Planning, to deal decisively with demand and

supply for the Catalytic Land Development Programmes.

6. Long-Term Development Strategies, including the Spatial Transformation Strategy or

Spatial Development Framework, City Infrastructure Development Management

Strategy/System (CIDMS) and Longer-Term Financial Strategy.

7. A dynamic and well-supported Land Release Strategy.

8. An expert-led strategy office to lead strategy-led budgeting process and quality assurance on project feasibility studies. Such an office would also constantly look at reforms processes in the City to stimulate investments.

9. Facilitation of Commercial and mixed-use special rating areas (SRAs) or Urban Improvement Precincts, or Area Based Management Areas, as good practice, to assist in urban management in the inner city areas and identified precincts.

10. Extensive use of consultants in plan preparation is not a good practice, because it compromises levels of ownership by the municipality that is so critical, particularly with implementation.

11. Political and Administrative Instability compromise planning and implementation. Plans must be crafted and implemented in line with the uniform approach to developmental project prioritisation in a City, and not in line with political interests.

12. Climate Resilience & Responsiveness. Given that the impacts of and response to climate

change has a bearing on departments across the Cities, effectively addressing climate

change requires that climate change is strategically and transversally institutionalised within

the Metropolitan Municipality.

Page 17 of 17

13. Continued Support from the CSP to the Cities, who continue to face huge developmental challenges, and challenges to progress along the BEVC. Metropolitan Municipalities

account for nearly half of South Africa’s population, and serve as hubs for economic activity and

employment. They command substantial budgets, have developed advanced bureaucracies and

administrative systems and possess capacities that are not yet found elsewhere across local

government. It is therefore critical that they continue to receive support to can effectively pilot

and institutionalise planning and reporting reforms, to provide a strategic foothold for broader

expansion across local government.

Annexure 1: BEPP Weighted Scoring

Annexure 2: Weaker and Stronger Areas

WEAKER AREAS BEPP

SECTION

STRONGER AREAS BEPP

SECTION

Evaluation: Self-Assessment undertaken in terms of this evaluation

framework.

G Planned Housing Projects in relation to Integration Zones B

Reporting: Adoption and Measurement of city reported outcome

indicators: if required, the proposed approach and timelines for the

population of outstanding indicators.

G Precinct Management Planning F

Institutional Coordination: Progress Evaluation of implementation

agreements

C Catalytic Urban Development Programme Implementation E

Institutional Coordination: Implementation agreements between

Metro and relevant national and provincial government and SOEs.

C Programme Resourcing: Resourcing plan (capital and operational)

for the prioritised catalytic urban development programmes

D

Capital Budget: Demonstration of how the budget content and

processes between metros, national and provincial government and

SOEs will be aligned to BEPP.

D Intergovernmental Project Pipeline C

Transversal Institutional mechanisms in place for planning and

implementation

B Catalytic Urban Development Programme: Catalytic Urban

Development Programmes for priority IZ(s) and priority precincts

identified.

C

Private Sector Investment: Incentive Schemes. E Prioritised Precinct Plan/Concept mapped and prioritised precinct

interventions identified.

B

Reporting: Adoption and Measurement of city reported outcome

indicators.

G Urban network and IZ planning and prioritisation. B

Process Compliance BEPP

Prep.

Annexure 3: Overall Performance by BEPP Section

Annexure 4: Comparative Performance-BEPP Preparation/Process, Section A-C, BEPP Support

Annexure 5: Comparative Performance- BEPP Section D-G

Annexure 6: Total Scores & BEPP Section Contribution to Total Score

Annexure 7: Comparison of Scores 2019 to 2020