Over the past few years the momentum around infrastructure delivery has been mounting, much has been achieved but equally many challenges remain unresolved.

The establishment of the PICC, together with the SIPs were crucial interventions in this process. This is now being reinforced and given further impetus through the promulgation of dedicated infrastructure legislation – the Infrastructure Bill currently being finalised for approval by Parliament. The purpose of this Infrastructure Dialogue was to reflect on and provide insights into the rationale for the legislation, what it hopes to achieve as well as offer supporting, alternative or contrasting views and through all of this to add constructively to the discussion. The Minister of COGTA provided the background. He highlighted and emphasised the fact that because infrastructure delivery appeared not to be receiving the urgent attention it demanded, the President had intervened and created the President’s Infrastructure Coordinating Commission to drive accelerated delivery.

The purpose of the Infrastructure Bill is to further reinforce the momentum, to formalise positive lessons already learnt and to introduce an institutional structure which will enable improved coordination across and within government spheres and in general enhance good governance practice. It provides the environment to drive public sector project management and closes loop holes to ensure value for money is obtained. The 650 national infrastructure projects that have been prioritised and rationalised into the 18 Strategic Integrated Projects are all crucial to achieving the developmental goals of the National Development Plan. In short there is now a unitary focus on what is to be achieved and coherence on how it is to be attained. The infrastructure programme is a massive socio-economic opportunity – there has been R1 trillion in public spend over the past five years and the SIPs now provide direction and content to a pipeline of projects for the next 5 to 10 years.  This level of certainty will give comfort to and encourage other stakeholders to plan, and commit to taking advantage of these infrastructural investment opportunities.

Unlocking the Northern Mineral Belt with Waterberg as the Catalyst – is being used as an experiment. The private business sector has been engaging with the PICC in the planning and preparation for implementation of the SIP. Lessons from this engagement as well as other interactions have influenced the need for and scope of the legislation. Issues raised by the panellists, and reinforced and expanded upon by delegates, mainly revolved around inter-governmental relations and the necessity for new legislation – there was argument that there is already legislation with processes, procedures and regulations in place which with amendments would probably suffice to serve the stated purpose of improving inter-governmental relations and delivery, be it through coercion or cooperation. A second set of issues focused on engagement with stakeholders and in particular the role private sector could and should be playing. Timing of the involvement was seen as crucial.

In concluding it was agreed the dialogue had met expectations, that it was a productive interaction and that there was commitment to accelerated delivery. Never the less an implied thread running through the discussions was that communication and transparency, although improved, still needs to be further enhanced – thus again reinforcing the importance of the Infrastructure Dialogues.

SESSION ONE: PRESENTATIONS
LECHESA TSENOLI: MINISTER OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE & TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS (COGTA)
The Minister provided background to and articulated the Government’s position on the Infrastructure Bill.
What is the problem?
In introducing his overview of the Infrastructure Bill the Minister asked rhetorically: what is the problem, what is it that the Bill needs to address?  His answer was that the State President who attended many meetings with respect to public projects had no-where seen or heard that implementation of infrastructure was given the impetus or afforded the urgency it demanded; in short he was not aware of any sense of urgency. The President therefore identified the need for an intervention which, where necessary, would create momentum and add urgency to the delivery of infrastructure. The Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission is the intervention.

Growth Drivers
The New Growth Path had already identified infrastructure as one of six drivers necessary for achieving economic growth.  However, growth previously clearly had not been shared equally amongst all South Africans.  The benefits tended to accrue and be felt where infrastructure already was in place. Thus although infrastructure is an important driver of growth it is also necessary for attaining the benefits of redistribution. Thus, the need to reverse the pattern of infrastructure concentration and to deliberately redirect infrastructure to areas where there are resources but no or insufficient infrastructure is a response to historical unequal development.  Consequently, the proposed infrastructure programme goal is to close this gap, to improve access to basic infrastructure and services and enhance socio-economic opportunities.

Infrastructure realities
In order to better understand what constitutes the current situation infrastructure was mapped across various dimensions. Based on this mapping it is very clear where there are concentrations of infrastructure and thus access to services. In particular there are significant concentrations in select urban areas as opposed to very little availability in many rural areas. Allowing this concentration to continue would be unacceptable.  Thus, as indicated, the intention is to reverse this situation. However, importantly this did not result in a decision to spread infrastructure uniformly across the country but rather to shift or redirect focus to where there are resources but which also lack infrastructure. It is anticipated that this will not only open up economic opportunities through exploitation of un/under-utilised resources but also slow down the rate of migration to urban areas.

The Infrastructure Bill
Against this background the Minister posed the question as to whether or not  the Infrastructure Bill will serve the purpose underlying the Infrastructure Programme.

Time, cost and quality
The Minister observed that it is an embarrassment for government that there are projects which were started up to 10 years ago but which at this time are still incomplete.  He further noted that over time the quantum of financial resources for infrastructure has grown very significantly – over the past 5 years R1 trillion has been spent.  However there has been no visible concomitant growth in infrastructure delivered. It is not only the construction of new infrastructure requiring urgent attention, but also existing old installations that desperately need maintenance and rehabilitation and in some cases replacement.  He further noted that in some cases new infrastructure on completion is already showing signs of deterioration due to inter alia poor design, shoddy workmanship, and the use of inferior materials etc. Not only is effective and efficient operations and maintenance necessary but the use of materials and technologies that enhance a “green” approach is important for sustainability. Approval times are frequently too long – there are unspecified delays and “padding”.  However shorter time frames, which can potentially be attained through better sequencing of activities, must not result in quality being sacrificed. Conversely it also needs to be acknowledged that because something takes longer it does not automatically imply that the result is good.  In this regard the legislation suggests flexibility in approach with more attention being paid to the possibility of doing things in parallel rather than only sequentially.

Capacity
It appears that a key reason for non-implementation has to do with capacity in both Local and Provincial Government. One of the implications which is both cause and effect of exacerbating the situation further is the issue of coordination. This arises partly from the constitutional assignment of roles and responsibilities between and across spheres of government. This presents numerous opportunities for “ducking and diving and finger pointing” and thus impacts negatively on delivery performance. There is, thus, a dire need for improved coordination.  However, cooperation and collaboration is not good and this results in stagnation. Generally bureaucracy works by rules. Therefore it is believed to be necessary to legislate for cooperation and working together. However this legislative guidance should be provided without constraining creativity.

Measuring performance
In order to proceed requires criteria by which the performance of projects can be measured. In this regard, and in an effort to establish what would be necessary for an improved system with enhanced outputs and beneficial outcomes, the PICC, for example, has been monitoring some of the “big” infrastructure investment projects against select criteria. In this regard it has been tracking money flows Eskom spends on select projects, identifying the number of jobs created, what impact this has on the area where the project is located, in particular the localisation of “spend” and development of local business and industry, what development of skills it has supported and whether or not there has been any benefit for rural development.

Localisation
In some water related projects where there have been protests it has been discovered that imported technology has been used. Locals were neither able to operate the equipment properly nor when necessary undertake repairs through local businesses or the supply of locally made parts and fittings.  In short localisation lost out due to an early decision regarding design and the choice of technology which did not best serve desirable developmental outcomes.

The Minister observed that it is acknowledged in the NDP and elsewhere that central to the envisaged “green” economy is the understanding that it is not only what projects are undertaken to drive the economy onto a more carbon neutral and sustainable path which is necessary, but importantly it is how implementation takes place which is so crucial to sustainable success.

Institutionalisation  
Simply put the Legislation seeks to formalise what has been learned from the practices of the past approximately two years. To achieve this, the following institutional arrangements are proposed:

• The Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission is chaired by the President; it in turn is supported by a Management Committee which reports directly to it; the Secretariat works with all spheres of government and reports to the MC.
• Further oversight and management is provided through the assignment to each SIP of an individual Minister as Chairperson and they are in turn are supported by an  implementing agency which provides project management facilities. These agencies are able to utilise not only the extensive internal resources of the state but also of other entities – this service is provided to assist both provincial and local government. Resources are pooled for projects in a SIP. However, this arrangement ends when the SIP is complete.  Municipal accounting officers are very important to this process.  In general there is a need to better utilise internal resources to facilitate improved responsiveness and encourage others to be involved. For example in the case of Sedibeng the inter relationship of the three spheres of government provided information underpinning remedial steps/interventions with regard to technical issues enabling the closure of skills and capacity gaps as well as facilitating access to funds where there were shortfalls. 

Focus and coherence
There are too many projects each with their own goals and objectives. The initially identified 650 national infrastructure projects were prioritised and rationalised into clusters of projects focused on achieving a single or unitary outcome. Thus the infrastructure programme now consists of 18 strategic integrated projects which will have a catalytic effect and leverage further development – in short “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts”.
For example SIP#18 has a focus on water and sanitation but cuts across many other projects. It covers both urban and rural areas to ensure availability and reliability of service, for example it provides both for new dams, the repair and rehabilitation of old installations and the reorganisation of the systems so that there is now equitable access to services. An anticipated positive outcome is that some businesses and institutions rather than moving chose to stay once certainty of reliable quality, service is assured.

In summing up the Minister noted that the proposed approach will provide the environment to drive public sector strategic project management to be more responsive and provide value for money. This should go some way to address challenges such as the fact that:
• There are many skilled committed people in government but (frequently) the system precludes them from performing. The public sector needs to organise to be much more responsive. A particular issue is that the public sector tends to lose out in negotiations with the private sector;
• Loop holes need to be closed to ensure value for money is obtained;
• People in the public sector must do what they get paid to do;
• Public entities and government must work better together;
• The considerable resources available to the three spheres of government need to be better utilised;
• Vertical and horizontal organisation of IGR needs to be improved including the embedding of Local Government.
In conclusion the Minister observed that the intention of the Infrastructure Bill, what it is seeking to do and achieve, can be summed up succinctly as “trying to jack up what comes across as public sector lethargy”.

JURGENS VAN ZYL – BUSINESS LEADERSHIP SOUTH AFRICA (BLSA)
Jurgens van Zyl prefaced his input by stating that his comments were based on a version of the Infrastructure Bill that served before the Portfolio Committee in 2013.  As the issues, in the interim, could have been addressed, it was therefore possible that some of what he had to say would now perhaps be redundant.  As background he noted that BLSA represents some 40-60 of South Africa’s largest corporates and companies in engaging on socio-economic issues. He pointed out, however, that it is not about whinging but rather about trying to play a positive proactive leadership-role with regard to socio-economic issues.

Support for SIP Programme
One such issue is infrastructure development.  It is thus the BLSA view that it is imperative the private sector should be playing a constructive role in infrastructure delivery and thus be involved from inception, through design, to build and operations of such projects.
Towards the end of 2012 BLSA met with the PICC Management Committee.  As result of these discussions BLSA strengthened its own internal capabilities and now has dedicated capacity addressing infrastructure. It was also agreed to use SIP#1 – Unlocking the Northern Mineral Belt with Waterberg as the Catalyst – as a pilot to determine just how the public and private sectors can work together towards the achievement of the anticipated SIP outcomes.

BLSA understands and is in support of what the SIP programme is trying to achieve and what it stands for. It further recognises that the Infrastructure Bill could improve the horizontal and vertical integration and coordination across projects and suggests that business can and should play a role in this process as has now been demonstrated in SIP#1.  It was emphasised that a clear reason for doing so is that some of the “big ticket” infrastructure development very clearly is aimed at encouraging and expanding private sector investment – for example public investment into rail leveraging in private investment into mining activities.

Issues
Based on an initial reading of the Infrastructure Bill and from experiences gained in the engagement on SIP#1 a couple of issues related to the Infrastructure Bill’s scope were identified as potentially problematic and are summarised in the following comments:
• The Bill appeared to “pull in private sector projects to the regulatory framework” rather than encouraging earlier business involvement. A lesson from the SIP#1 engagement indicates that it would be of enormous value if the infrastructure build programme speaks directly to the needs of the private sector.
It was noted that this could be achieved at SIP Steering Committee level where there is a Coordinating Agency into which the private sector could be drawn and represented. Such contribution could be very positive as the private sector has the potential, for example, to invest in the water, energy and rail sectors.
• Where appropriate more formal private sector participation is needed.  It was noted that it happens, for example with Transnet in getting the scope right for rail interventions. Through meetings with other organisations and business it has become clear that government is very positive about the possible contribution business can make.  Never the less there is a very real issue for government of how to provide, in a responsible way, early visibility of opportunities to the private sector. If maximum benefit of localisation and being ahead of the curve is to be obtained, then it is too late to involve the private sector when a project comes out in tender documents – at this point the private sector can only react.  Thus, early involvement and understanding what preparation is necessary and investment could be taken up for and in terms of these opportunities is a developmental imperative.

• Although the scope of the Infrastructure Bill includes the total project cycle inclusive of maintenance it was questioned as to whether this latter “activity” should be part of what is a strategic approach.  It was suggested that maintenance might more correctly belong within the ambit of the project owner or implementing agent. If this were not the case then there is the possible danger for the project owner or implementing agent to have some of their powers eroded through decision making being moved to the SIP structures.
In summary Jurgens suggested careful consideration of the following issues will be key to addressing successful private sector cooperation in the SIPs: 
• establishing how to coordinate public/private investment;
• determining as to whether or not maintenance should be included;
• clarifying whether or not project owners lose authority to the Project Steering Committee/Implementing Agency;
• formalising  recognition of the private sector on the SIP Project Steering Committee/Implementing Agency;
• determining how to provide early visibility of potential projects to the private sector.

JAAP DE VISSER – COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE: UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE
Jaap de Visser noted that the purpose of his presentation was to provide a legal and constitutional perspective to the Infrastructure Bill as well as comment on how it fits into the framework for inter-governmental relations. He observed that the objectives of the Infrastructure Bill, notably to reduce and improve on the complexities of getting approvals, are commonly agreed as necessary amongst stakeholders.  He further suggested that in terms of inter-governmental relations it is good that in the Infrastructure Bill cities are now recognised in their individual capacity. In other related legislation this has always been missing. Local Government has had to speak with one voice through one or two organisations which make it very difficult for cities, with their particular challenges and complexities, to be heard. However he observed there are issues and these concerns relate to the institutionalisation of the work of the PICC – he suggested that there are some risks inherent in the way it is currently envisaged.

Boundaries a nuisance
A common complaint is that the jurisdictional boundaries of spheres of government are perceived to be a nuisance and retard development – this is true for any multi-level government.  It leads to serious levels of frustration when a single project requires inputs and approvals from various spheres of government.  However, it must be remembered that these boundaries are real and constitutional. One sphere of government can say NO to another. If this function was to be eroded it could be construed to be an erosion of both the constitution and rule of law.

Coercion versus cooperation
In general this nuisance factor caused by inter-governmental relations can be resolved through:

•  coercive means – enforcement would be achieved through a hierarchy of authoritative roles and responsibilities established in the  constitution; or
• cooperation – attained through spheres of government working together as equal partners,  this would be more protracted and time consuming.

IGR responsibilities
It was pointed out that the Infrastructure Bill, never the less, is careful not to subvert sub-national powers. However it needs to be noted that the Infrastructure Bill:

Might go too far towards encouraging a coercive hierarchy of inter-governmental relationships. Different parts of the text suggest, imply and promise coercion and an erosion of jurisdictional boundaries; it is not just about enhancing capacity but it actually “threatens to get on case” to ensure compliance and delivery. Section 8.4B is an example of a provision which appears to be more explicit in terms of coercion – it seems to imply that projects in a SIP will not necessarily be under normal line department control but under that of the SIP structures. Provides another dimension of a hierarchy in that both the political and administrative hierarchy cut through portfolios and across all levels of government thus providing a new “chain of command” for SIPs.
For example an official in a province might not be reporting through his or her own MEC but to a Steering Committee and then through that to a minister as chairperson of the SIP. In turn this minister could represent a portfolio different to that which the official is functionally responsible. The aforementioned resultant relationships could have a destabilising effect on governance. In short how will officials manage their allegiance to local, provincial or national imperatives and demands.

Trans-sectoral lessons
It was suggested that the transformation underway in the land planning realm is comparable to what is now required in transforming infrastructure delivery and that some of the lessons from the former could be of relevance:
Governments can and do take each other to court to resolve jurisdictional issues – cities versus province versus national.
National approval of a project does not trump a local or provincial approval if that is where the responsibility lies. In the case of the Infrastructure Bill, the identification of the PICC as the locus for approvals doesn’t trump other spheres government responsibility for approving.
If national government formalises a project in the national interest it is still a constitutional issue which needs to be tested.

Timing
With regard to timing the presenter agreed that although the time frames of Schedule 2 are necessary they are a potential problem.  These timeframes are imposed over existing requirements which are set out in various other pieces of legislation and remain in place and need to be complied with – for example timelines for Environmental Impact Assessments as established in the National Environmental Management Act or land use planning in the Spatial and Land Use Management Act -  these could be contradictory and result in possible confusion and conflict  if institutionalised.

Existing versus new
It was noted that there is already an elaborate framework for inter-governmental relations for infrastructure development. This includes compliance with the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, the Budget as well as Integrated Development Plans and Spatial Development Frameworks.  Although this framework is far from perfect it is improving as are the planning links. Currently infrastructure projects are prioritised through these mechanisms but the Infrastructure Bill assigns priority outside of this framework and process which potentially will result in confusion, contradictions and conflict.

Other observations
Noted that mayor of eThekwini is excluded – not an exec mayor – wording.
Why is Bill a section 75 and not a section 76 which implies it does not affect provincial interests when it quite obviously does impact provinces. Going the chosen route means not involving the NCOP which clearly will be a risk.

Concluding comment
An underlying assumption to the Infrastructure Bill appears to be that centralising all coordinating functions will provide and equip the PICC with local specific knowledge to inform its decisions. However it is really very doubtful that the PICC will be able to control impacts at a local level – for example will PICC effectively be able to control the local price of cement or how local communities engage with regard to choice. Consequently it was strongly suggested the solution should lie with decisions being taken at the level at which power is exercised.

SESSION TWO: ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
The delegates at their various tables were given a chance to identify a couple of critical issues either based on the afore-going presentations or drawn from their own experiences, to discuss these and then present to the full plenary. The following is a reflection of the issues raised and the responses given by the presenters. They are not in any particular order, nor has any priority been accorded them, however they have been loosely grouped where there appears to be a similar underlying concern.
The problem: Inter-governmental relations and institutional structures, existing versus new
IGR

• On numerous occasions it was suggested an over-riding problem is inter-governmental relations. It was further suggested that if this is so then the total IGR system should be overhauled and the IGR Act set aside and replaced with more appropriate legislation rather than an additional Act being promulgated to address some of the issues.

• There was reasonable consensus that the PICC is already functioning and provides a platform for unified government leadership. However, it was not clear which, if any, of these responsibilities could not be executed under the current IGR arrangements of rather than through the introduction of new legislation.

• The point was also made that entities - committees, commissions etc. – frequently develop lives of their own.  Thus if a new institution is created it would perhaps be prudent, taking cognisance inter alia of scarce resources, potential for duplication, conflict etc. to disestablish an existing entity so that the overall size of the civil service doesn’t continue to balloon.

  • Questions were raised about the positioning and coordination of SIPs across spheres of government and in particular as to whether or not locating the function centrally is the most effective solution. The suggestion was made that for regional SIPs the focus should be in provinces rather than achieved through enforcement from the centre. However the question was asked about the level of pro-activeness of provinces in buying into SIPs.

IB purpose:
• There appeared to be common agreement that the intentions of the Infrastructure Bill are good and positive.  However this didn’t translate into positive perceptions about its effectiveness to attain its stated objectives. There was a lack of conviction that the Infrastructure Bill will address the problems, resolve key issues, and in the end be beneficial. It was observed that there appeared to be a disjuncture between the intentions and the possible effects it would have. This it was thought could lead to onerous litigation resulting in government un-necessarily having its hands bound. Concern was also raised about the Infrastructure Bill adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex, and over-burdened system.

The Infrastructure Bill
Scope and Content:
• There was a level of concern that the Infrastructure Bill was not sufficiently detailed and needs to be more specific about what it wants to achieve and spell this out in more depth. The point was forcefully made that it is imperative to include asset management from the very beginning –  it is necessary to know what assets a project consists of over its entire life-cycle and this must be considered right up front at conception and not be an add-on at some future date. It was suggested that an approach similar to that of the EIA processes and procedures could be adopted. For example an Asset Management Plan, taking the project’s full life-cycle into account, would need to be approved up front at the beginning of a project. 

Capacity
• It was acknowledged that there are real capacity and process challenges.  However there was general uncertainty as to how the Infrastructure Bill would rectify this. In particular this has reference to the implied increased administrative load at all levels of government necessary for getting the projects off the ground. Doubts were voiced as to how this would realistically be addressed when existing capacity is taken into account.

Funding requirements
• Concerns were raised as to whether normal development projects, namely those not prioritised and therefore falling within SIPs, are going to have to wait to receive attention for approval, funding and other support. Or, conversely, who would fund newly prioritised projects in a SIP if these differ from projects already funded in terms of local or provincial government priorities. Put another way, who is going to fund projects where priorities change or are not consistent with SIP priorities.

Focus and priorities
• A serious problem, it was suggested, is not how individual projects are being implemented but rather the fact that too much is being attempted. Thus there is a need to focus on priorities and a ranking of interventions to meet these priorities.

Inclusivity and participation
• Participants recognised that a variety of stakeholders are impacted. However it was not clear how all affected communities, including the business sector, labour and NGOs etc would be involved, participate or be catered for.  A particular point of concern was the level of flexibility and space provided in the legislation encouraging early private enterprise involvement – importantly there was support for having alignment between public intentions and private aspirations.

Acceleration
• Implicit in various comments was the issue of whether or not lessons from past experience are being included in the current legislative preparations.  Useful lessons potentially could be obtained, for example, from the implementation of the Development Facilitation Act which was specifically enacted to ensure accelerated and fast tracked development.  Problems hampered its execution. However there were some successes, one of which was the Alexandra Urban Renewal programme and it these lessons that should be incorporated into other projects.

SIPs Realities & Lessons
• A participant reported that at present in SIP#14 – Higher Education Infrastructure - every project at a university, or college etc. in practice is deemed to fall within its scope and therefore the most mundane things – both public and private - are being reported on.  This does raise the issue of whether the scope needs refinement or whether there is an issue of communication that requires further attention. Data and information is being sorted out which would move towards attaining a more refined and rationalised end. Notwithstanding the afore-going a useful outcome of progress made so far is that the university and college Administrations are starting to realise they are not islands but are becoming more aware of their wider environments and responsibilities.

• Another participant noted that he and his colleagues had benefited from the SIPs approach and appreciated the pressure that had been applied. A conclusion drawn was that it resulted in people thinking out of the box.

• In contrast there was another comment highlighting the lack of impetus in a particular province. Notwithstanding support for the PICC approach amongst (some) officials there appeared to be no obvious driver of their projects and the sum total of what officals do is collect data and information.  The resulting perception was that the “energy hadn’t filtered through”.

Continuity and momentum
• The potential loss of momentum for the PICC and how the structures will keep going due to the political term of office drawing to an end was a concern articulated by several of the delegates.

• In commenting on the issue of continuity the DPME delegate suggested the introduction of legislation was probably necessary. He highlighted that there had been successes achieved by the PICC without the help of legislation, however he conceded that coordination and asset management were somewhat lacking.

He further noted that the other legislation focuses on IGR etc whereas the Infrastructure Bill is specific to infrastructure and aligned with economic and national development. With the introduction of the Infrastructure Bill the PICC becomes a reference point. Importantly, infrastructure firstly has the attention and support of the President and secondly it is providing a pipeline of projects which allows planning for skills and content to take place with a level of certainty and comfort. Thus, the question to answer is whether or not we want to lose this when the President steps down as has happened with some projects in the past – is casting it in legislation one way of preserving and ensuring the desired level of continuity?

RESPONSES
The responses from the presenters covered most of the questions and observations, some in more detail than others. Jaap de Visser addressed his comments inter alia to issues of whether or not the Infrastructure Bill is beneficial, the correctness of the approach, whether or not bureaucracy will ensue and whether IGR is being set aside. Notwithstanding a variety of comments he suggested there appears, on balance, to be across-the-board agreement that the PICC is good. Importantly, inter-governmental relations have moved from symbolism to a programmatic approach and it is through this latter approach that the PICC has brought focus to inter-governmental relationships. By contrast he noted not everyone seemed convinced that legislation is required.  It could be the observation that there is a need to provide for continuity to keep the initiative going, is the correct interpretation. He suggested however that law confuses – disputes arise, lawyers disagree and there is potential for good work (of the PICC) over time to get lost.

However he observed that it does need to be noted that:
• There is an existing legal and institutional architecture in place over which the current proposals impose a new framework which almost per definition will create a level of risk and confusion.

• It should be possible to use existing approaches rather than introducing new and yet more legislation. For example a new approach to land planning suggests that:

An integrated approach for projects and synchronisation of decision making and approvals can be catered for –the legal infrastructure is already in place.
Issues and conflicts around planning can be resolved using the dispute resolution mechanism currently in  the Municipal Systems Act.  Therefore why not restructure the IGR Act to incorporate similar clauses and for example include cities specifically and the PICC as a sub-committee of the Presidential Coordinating Council as elements of the institutional structuring.

In IGR use of implementation protocols – can be used to encourage participation of different organs of state. Where there are disputes why not restructure the IGR Act and use implementation protocols? Lastly he raised an issue that confounds and is puzzling: notably the need for (rationale behind) pressure having to be applied from above in order to gain momentum, and create the impetus encouraging officials to improve the well-being of their fellow citizens.

Jurgens v Zyl in commenting on the issue of the necessity for asset management reiterated his view that maintenance is a normal operational responsibility and as such, is the responsibility of a project owner. Consequently he asserted, the Infrastructure Bill should focus on early strategic stages of the project cycle. /With regard to business involvement he again highlighted that the private sector has participated in SIP#1 and its structures and through this, insight is being gained, and perspectives formed, on how collaboration and cooperation can work to achieve enhanced levels of private sector involvement and participation. Many government documents speak of the need for private sector involvement. The SIP#1 experience provides useful lessons, for example, with respect to the private sector in commodity logistics. In this regard the SIP structure put all necessary role players into the same room to talk about what they needed and how they would undertake such an intervention. The space so created is similar to the structure envisaged in the Infrastructure Bill.

Minister Tsenoli’s  comments covered a range of the issues as follows:
Institutional arrangements and IGR 
The Minister emphasised that the Constitution states spheres of government are inter-related; interdependent and distinct. Because of this, the resulting arrangements are complex and cooperation is therefore an absolute necessity if success is to be achieved. It was also noted by the Minister that with respect to institutional structures it is preferable to speak of local government rather than cities and to ensure that such structure would have legal standing in addition to what exists. A question that needs to be answered concerns whether what was previously established under existing approaches achieved what was wanted. For government the answer is negative.   By contrast the improved results produced to date through the infrastructure programme suggest it as the route to follow and what is now being done is to formally codify what has been achieved in this programme over past few years. In mid-March a report on the performance of inter-governmental relations over the recent past will be released. This will be used to derive further lessons for the PICC.

 Make provision for legal framing of what needs to be done
This would need to take care of work to end of this political term of office and the transition to the next administration ie managing the transition

Legislation and process
The Infrastructure Bill’s conception and content is the result of a process including scanning which needs to be done prior to legislation being developed and prepared to ensure that it is coherent and consistent with other related policy as well as takes into account the necessary processes and procedures. In short formal Regulatory Impact Assessment is undertaken. Never the less it does sometimes happen that inconsistencies are not omitted and errors not corrected. Some issues can and do get overlooked– but this is not deliberate. A platform like that provided by the Infrastructure Dialogues is, thus, invaluable to ensuring better policies and legislation is promulgated.

Time frames and capacity
The pace at which legislation is processed is also a reflection of and an an issue of IGR work going on but pace at which it happens  and the capacity to adequately address the issues is a problem

Facilitate speed with which decisions are made – someone with authority to take decision must be in the right place and have the appropriate information to support decision – parallel rather than sequential processes. Alexandra urban renewal experimented with streamlining and speeding up decision making processes. Decision makers having various responsibilities were literally placed in one room and they took decisions affecting these responsibilities at the same time in tandem rather than sequentially. This had a very beneficial impact on the overall timeframe for the project
Now 60 officials, who remain in their respective departments, are dedicated to PICC issues The PICC, the Department of Higher Education, Universities and SETAs are in the process of producing a list of critical skills necessary for the execution of the infrastructure programme. These skills are being categorised according to the following criteria: most critical; critical and others. This list, together with an assessment of available resources for skills building will form the basis for engaging on the way forward with gearing up on the required skills and capabilities.  A critical issue is that currently people are being trained but they are then precluded from continuing as they lack practical experience. It is in this latter area that it is anticipated business can constructively assist. Because the 650 projects underpinning the SIPs extend over a 10-15 year time frame it is now possible to realistically and with certainty plan and gear up for training over the medium to longer term.

Impetus and Urgency
The Minister emphasised that the PICC is perceived to have encouraged and introduced an energy and work ethic which was previously missing. This has been borne out with the priority given to SIP projects showing, for example, that, departments when they have to can produce information within days as against the norm which generally is much longer. Also, where projects have been completed on time and in budget it is because of the pressure, for example provided through the appropriate people with appropriate authority being brought together to speedily address joint decision making.

Funding
If a proposed project meets the various criteria required of a SIP intervention and is implementation-ready, then resources will be found for its execution. This could mean redirecting funding from a project which is facing challenges. The Minister emphasised that it is Government’s intention all resources available will be used in a strategic manner to unlock/unblock prioritised, strategic projects.

Participation and consultation
The Minister was categorical that consultation is central to the process and thus to ensuring there are no conflicts amongst all stakeholders, including labour.

Private sector
The Government views private sector engagement as necessary and their contribution as valuable and therefore the sector must be intimately involved. In this regard each Chairperson of a SIP (a Minister) has the responsibility for identifying who will make a difference in the evolution and development of the SIP for which they are responsible.  Stakeholders include the private sector and therefore there has to be engagement with them.
In this regard, opportunities for engagement, such as the Infrastructure Dialogue, are thus welcomed.

Asset management
The PICC has collected information across the country from a plethora of unrelated sources, completed a systematic national assessment and created a single data base at the PICC which reflects on the extent and status of South Africa’s infrastructure. This has also been geographically mapped thus making comparisons of infrastructure across various locations much easier. A book on infrastructure development including asset management has also been produced and recently published for distribution.

In Bill some disputes to run in parallel with IGR?
Expropriation – once expropriation Act currently under consideration is through parliament then references in the Infrastructure Bill will fall away so that there is a single reference point for expropriation.

Principles:
Triple bottom line 
In the context of the Infrastructure Bill the triple bottom-line is imperative and refers to enhancing skills, creating jobs and extending and deepening localisation with reference to industrialisation.

Pragmatically flexible approach
It was suggested by the Minister that the proposed approach needed to be viewed as “an experiment driven by the desire to grow in an inclusive manner”.  He also noted that “if a little coercion is necessary so be it”. This needs to be viewed against the fact that there is currently provision for coercion in other legislation, but tends not to be enforced. Never the less it was emphasised that this is not enforcement by decree – it operates within the spirit of the IGR Act.

The Minister also highlighted that infrastructure generally does not respect boundaries. It is therefore imperative not to build barriers or walls as they create conflict.  The Minister observed that if collaboration doesn’t work then it is possible to revert or defer to the hierarchy – and then if all else fails and as last resort, national government, in order to guarantee constitutional rights, can step in and drive attainment thereof. Lastly, he emphasised that infrastructure is a crucial priority and that law is sometimes necessary to encourage the level of impetus required to gain momentum and ensure things are neither ignored nor allowed to stagnate. 

Minister
In his opening remarks he commended the ID, suggested they should not be taken for granted. Suggested that the value of ID conversations was to have an impact on law determination – however in this regard the timing of such inputs is critical. There is a need for critical interpretation providing better more nuanced understandings of the situation. The IDs can assist with inputs. Min pleased for opportunity to engage and exchange views – reflect of things that might have taken for granted. Bill now before parliament therefore the timing of input critical to adding value – perhaps needs to be taken into account in the progammiing of the dialogues. As portfolio cottee chairpersons need more creative interpretations and improved workability of legislation its. Minister was very appreciative of comments and observations and will take them and represent the views as best he can when he engages further with his colleagues.