Lessons Learned

Project Preparation is neglected

Project preparation is neglected: There continues to be insufficient focus on the preparation phase of developmental projects and insufficient financial and other resources available to undertake preparation properly. Most funders and spheres of government are over-focused on the implementation phase of projects, but many projects fail because they were not adequately conceptualized and planned. The situation is made worse because the timeframes for project preparation and implementation are typically under- estimated. Weak project preparation typically results in projects which encounter difficulties in implementation, are poorly integrated and are unsustainable. The neglect of project preparation leaves funders and spheres of government with projects which often cannot be implemented and therefore with a recurring yearly pressure to rapidly dispose of funding due to under-spending. The solution lies in a combination of:

• Making sufficient financial and human resources available to adequately prepare projects (conceptualise and plan them).
• Multi-year budgeting which is linked to project preparation processes (i.e. informed by adequate information as to the concepts, viability and costs of planned projects).
• A better understanding of the actual timeframes necessary to prepare and implement different types of projects (i.e. typically this cannot be achieved in a period of only a few months as per ‘political expectation’).

Better integrated development:

Greater co-operation is required between different spheres of government (co- operative governance) as well as between government and non-governmental and civil society organizations and the private sector. Capacity constraints within government pose a major constraint in this regard. The lack of integration is evident at both the project and spatial planning levels.

• At the project level there is typically a focus on particular on developmental issues (e.g. housing and infrastructure) without taking into consideration the overall developmental context (e.g. livelihoods and economic development).
• At the spatial planning level, there is a critical lack of practical and participative local spatial plans (precinct or area level). Existing spatial plans such as IDP’s (Integrated Development Plans) are ‘broad-brush’. Whilst they provide good overall strategic direction, they do not provide an adequate basis for identifying appropriate specific developmental responses or projects. Additional spatial planning work at the local level is therefore required, especially in rural areas. Such planning needs to be kept simple and practical. It needs to prioritise the main developmental responses and investments required and ensure linkages to existing and broader plans such as IDP’s. It also needs to facilitate the meaningful participation of communities as well as a range of government departments and civil society / non governmental organizations.

Whether within government, communities or grassroots organizations, capacity is the key limitation to achieving more effective development. It can be argued that we do not have a lack of development funding, but rather a lack of expertise as to how that funding can best be used. The development of this capacity at all levels, whether in government managers or grassroots social workers, must remain a top priority.

Capacity constraints within government:

This is a critical and multi-faceted challenge which runs to the heart of processes of development and democratization in South Africa. The conglomeration of a range of issues make up what is often sweepingly referred to as ‘capacity constraints’. These constraints are so all-pervasive, that they cannot be sidestepped in the process of preparing and delivering development projects. Capacity constraints are made up of a combination of the following key elements, all of which massively and negatively impact on the ability of the State to bring about change:

• Management: There are serious constraints within top and senior management, characterized by such issues as failures to delegate, failures for those in responsible positions be held accountable, tendencies to over-centralize decision making, failures to respond to important written correspondence, failures to hold regular management and committee meetings, and extremely slow turnaround times in terms of decision making.
• Skills: There are significant skills deficits in general management, project management and in specific technical spheres.
• Corruption: There are widespread reports of corruption including in relation to procurement, the taking of bribes and un-declared or inappropriate conflicts of interests / vested interests. At the project level, those disadvantaged by corrupt procurement are afraid to speak out for fear of discrimination and retribution, whilst those within the state structures are either implicated or they realize that the problem will be politically costly to address. 
• Motivation and low work ethic: Levels of motivation are generally low and many personnel barely perform their duties (dereliction of duty) or are apparently engaged on other income generating ventures. The level of motivation and work ethic are probably adversely affected by ongoing staffing changes and re-deployments which de-stabilise management structures and create uncertainty. It is unusual to encounter personnel with true passion and commitment to transformation of South Africa and to addressing the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. Personnel are more often concerned either with procurement or other regulations (e.g. PFMA, MFMA, DORA) or with ensuring their own financial advantage (e.g. by positioning themselves for promotion, pursuing parallel businesses interests, or by direct kick backs).
• A lack of predictable approval and decision making processes which are widely understood and adhered to, as well as a tendency for such processes to become personalized. Typically incoming senior management develops new methods, criteria and processes for approving projects and making other key decisions. These processes typically change with changing management regimes and are usually built around personal styles and aspirations as opposed to good practices. The failure to stick to standard processes which are predictably applied, creates uncertainty and un-predictability, making it difficult for other stakeholders such as other spheres of government, NGO’s or the private sector, to engage effectively or establish effective partnerships.

Participative / people-driven development:

A tendency for the politicization of developmental processes and a blurring of the respective roles of State and Civil Society have contributed to weak community participation in developmental projects. There is also a lack of sufficient professional facilitator skills to undertake participative processes. Effective facilitation requires specialist, professional skills and should not be left to the most junior and inexperienced personnel without adequate support and training. The end result is that projects tend to be planned with insufficient understanding of community expectations, needs, vulnerabilities and assets. Processes are often either politically or technically driven. This results in problems such as community dissatisfaction and poor community care of infrastructure and other local investments. Participative community action planning is one practical way to increase meaningful participation and improve co-operation between communities and government around practical developmental responses (click here for more)

More flexible funding is required to accommodate specific local needs:

Most funding is linked to a specific sector and has strict predetermined criteria for its release. As a result development usually has to be made to fit into the available funding rather than the funding being adapted to the needs on the ground. In part this results from most policies being made at a level that is far removed from communities on the ground. As local municipalities develop it is expected that they will acquire greater control over how development funding is allocated and utilized in their areas. Hopefully this will facilitate a more flexible funding regime, which can adapt better to specific and varying local needs.

Physical development alone is not enough:

Physical development such as infrastructure and buildings must be accompanied by the development of people. The latter element of development is however often under-resourced or neglected. For example, significant capital funding is available for housing and infrastructure development, yet limited funding is available for participative community planning and engagement, livelihoods skills development, community social workers, and informal enterprise mentorship and support. In the case of economic development, the emphasis tends to be on capital investment yet projects typically encounter difficulties when they are not built on a sufficient platform of economic literacy and entrepreneurship. This implies a need for a greater focus on education, literacy, capacity building and effective community participation. This can best be achieved when undertaken in relation to specific developmental projects and initiatives.

Need for better review / impact evaluation of development programmes:

In a 2008 published paper on Cato Manor (click here for more), PPT determined that one of the key differences between the main donor funded programs and those of government was that the donor funders are more systematic in reviewing their programs to determine effectiveness. It is evident that review of both a quantitative and qualitative nature, is necessary to enable improvements in delivery and funding methods. This is a key area where government funded programmes can benefit.

Masakhane has not been embraced:

The spirit of Masakhane (“let's help each other”) has not yet been widely embraced, despite its promotion by government. A culture of expecting handouts and other outside support as well as a pervasive mentality of passivity, are serious threats to sustainable development. Government programmes tend to be supply-driven with politicized decision making, patronage and weak community participation pervasive. The true spirit of Masakhane needs to be rekindled. Government and other support needs to be matched by energy, participation and determination on behalf of the communities set to benefit.