In chapter 2 Phillips (2004) outlines that the EPWP is cross cutting and should be implemented at all government spheres, the implementation should take place at national departments, Provincial government, Municipalities and state owned enterprises. During the interviews, the DEA officials noted concerns that at policy level institutions are not following EPWP guidelines and not fully participating in the implementation of policies. Achievement of the set targets is not emphasised. At implementation level, there are no proper institutional arrangements in place at provincial departments and municipalities. Roles are not clearly defined which leads to
duplication of roles. The Environment and Culture logframe phase 2 (2010) outlines the roles and coordination of the sector. The success of the sector is dependent on contribution of the national, provincial and local government’s performance. There are sets of accountability structures for all three spheres of government and the political accountability arrangement. Figure 14 below reflects the political accountability arrangements in all spheres of government. Ministers account for the EPWP implementation at a national level, at provincial level the premiers of the province account for the implementation, whilst at municipal level Mayors’ account for EPWP implementation at their irrespective municipalities (EPWP Environment and Culture sector coordination framework, 2011). The protocols agreement signed are aimed at formalising the intentions across all spheres of government.
Source: EPWP Environment and Culture sector coordination framework (2011)
At national level, the sector has a standardised coordination mechanism. The EPWP
Environment and Culture sector coordination framework (2011) outlines the Minister of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) as the political champion of the sector and the Director General (DG) as the administrative champion of the sector. The provincial
departments should mirror the functions and structure of the national department.
Figure 15 demonstrates the institutional arrangement within the lead department, DEA. The minister represents the sector in the cabinet; the DG provides strategic direction to the sector on issues concerning planning, implementation and coordination. The DG signs the sector plan and addresses issues of non-participation by public bodies of the sector. The Deputy Director General (DDG) by delegation represents the DG in the sector forums. The Chief Directorate: IM&SC interfaces with the sector on operational and strategic issues. Whilst the EPWP coordination and reporting Directorate deals with the day-to-day coordination function. The officials interviewed did indicate that the national reporting structure is effective however; challenges are experienced at provincial and municipal level. Their functions are not mirrored to the national functions
Coordinator Minster of NDPW Mayors of Municipalities Premiers of provinces Ministers of National Departments Intergovernmental implementation protocol agreement Provincial implementation protocol agreement National memorandum of understanding
Source: Environment and Culture sector coordination framework
The DEA as a lead Department should play the coordination function for the sector, however the department is not well capacitated to coordinate the sector across all 9 provinces and municipalities. The Directorate is over stretched, the Directorate manages the EPWP data from the entire sector in order to consolidate and report to DPW. The Directorate also serves as a link
Political head Minister of DEA Administrative head DG of DEA Representing the sector DDG of DEA Oversight and support IM&SC CD Coordination interface EPWP coordination and reporting
for the Department on other reporting mandates such as outcomes approach. The Directorate has one Director, two Deputy The guideline of the code of good practice for employment and conditions of work for special Public Works Programme (2009), one for coordination and the other for reporting. There is one assistant Director for coordination and reporting and four data capturers. The eight personnel are responsible for the coordination and reporting for the entire sector. The officials are not fully staffed. The separation of functions amongst the IM&SC, EPIP and the NRM Chief Directorates creates inaccuracies in reporting. To avoid CDs working in silos, all the EPWP implementing and reporting Directorates should fall under the same CD. Information would be coordinated from the same CD and still maintain checks and balances because it would be from different Directorates though under the same CD.
It is indicated in The EPWP Phase 3 sector plan (2014) that at provincial level, the projects are predominantly funded by conditional grants from the national departments. The challenge raised regarding the provincial bodies not emphasising the achievement of the set targets has been noted in phase 3 EPWP E&C sector plan. The EPWP Phase 3 sector plan (2014) indicates that the sector departments with the exception of the Department of Agriculture, do not have a consistent sector projects that can be implemented towards achieving the EPWP targets. There is little evidence that shows that efforts were taken to identify projects from the baseline. Provincial EPWP potential is not fully realised.
The EPWP Phase 3 sector plan (2014) indicates that the drop in phase II performance has been mainly attributed to the reporting challenges. As indicated earlier, the reported data loss is between 5-8% of reported FTEs and work opportunities. The introduction of the system required validation by M&E and in the process losing the reported data. The sector took time to get accustomed to the new reporting system. The multiple cross cutting functions of the officials in the provincial level has been noticeable in the provincial coordination structure. The sector could have dealt swiftly communicated and ensured reporting structures are familiar with the system, this could have saved the lost reported data had proper structures with no duplication of work formed. Reporting structures are not mirrored images of the national reporting structure. The EPWP Environment and Culture sector coordination framework (2011) provides a
structure for reporting, all the spheres of the sector should form structures as per the framework. The National DPW manager for the province works with the provincial DPW sector manager rendering support to the sector coordinator. The implementers at municipal level work with the provincial DPW official rendering support to the provincial sector coordinator. The DEA and
DPW officials are all providing support to the provincial sector coordinator. There is an overall provincial training sector.
Figure 16 below provides a summary of the structure
Source: Environment and Culture sector coordination framework
There are multiple undefined roles. The EPWP Phase 2 sector plan (2009) outlines the roles. DEA is the accounting officer for the sector. As stated, the Minster of DEA reports to the cabinet on behalf of the sector. DPW should provide sector coordination and provincial training support at the provincial level. Municipalities should play an implementing role. The project has not been effectiveness of the project has not been realised. The provincial and municipal spheres institutional arrangements have not been able to mirror that of national departments. The
reporting challenges have compromised the actual performance reporting of the project performances. Department of Public Works Lead sector Department National Department of Public Works Provincial Sector Department Metros, local and district municipalities Provincial Department of Public works Sector Coordinating Support Provincial Training Provincial Sector