4.5 Public Works Programmes in South Africa
4.5.3 The National Public Works Programme
The South African National Public Works Programme (SANPWP) was initially conceptualized as an instrument for asset and employment creation and as part of
‘the systematic re-orientation of public sector approaches to infrastructure provision’
(DBS, 1994). This was based on a two-pronged strategy: promoting a community- based PWP and changing the rules governing the provision of infrastructure to increase labour intensity across all government departments charged with infrastructure delivery (Adato et al., 1999). The Construction Industry Development Programme was responsible for the development and dissemination of best practice guidelines for labour-based construction (McCord and Meth, 2007).
In 1994, PWPs were part of the Reconstruction and Development Programme and were known the National Public Works Programme (NPWP). Phillips (2004) therefore notes that, labour-intensive PWPs are not a new development policy approach in South Africa. Thwala (2011) notes that the NPWP adopted labour- intensification approaches through increased training and capacity building in the provision of infrastructure.
McCord (2003) concurs with Thwala (2011), pointing out that the merits of this approach were recognised in the GEAR strategy (1996), which postulated that 100,000 new jobs would be created each year through labour-intensive infrastructural development and service provision. However, successive policy shifts in the Department of Public Works reduced the relative priority of employment creation through labour-intensive infrastructure provision, which was later restated as
a central policy objective for the EPWP. At that time, the Department of Public Works opted to focus on more conventional PWPs through the Community-Based Public Works Programme discussed later in this chapter.
McCord (2003) observes that the objectives of the NPWP set out by the National Empowerment Fund (NEF) in 1994, are highly complex and were as follows:
i) To create, rehabilitate, and maintain physical assets that meet the basic needs of poor communities and promote broader economic activity;
ii) To reduce unemployment through the creation of productive jobs;
iii) To educate and train those on the programme as a means of economic empowerment; and
iv) To build the capacity of communities to manage their own affairs, strengthen local government and other community-based institutions, and generate sustainable economic development.
The four objectives can be divided into eight primary and three secondary objectives, indicated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: National Public Works Programme objectives
Primary Secondary
1. Create/ maintain infrastructure 1.1 Meet basic needs of poor communities
1.2 Promote economic activity 2. Reduce unemployment
3. Create productive jobs
4. Educate and train workers 4.1 Achieve economic empowerment 5. Build community capacity
6. Strengthen local government
7. Strengthen community-based institutions 8. Generate sustainable economic
development
Source: Adapted from McCord (2003).
The objectives listed in Table 4.5 are the basis of the South African EPWP objectives outlined in Chapter 3; hence they are germane to this study. Haddad and Adato (2002:30) concluded that “South Africa’s Public Works programmes were among the most innovative in the world, with multiple objectives that include not only job creation, poverty reduction, and infrastructure development, but simultaneously, job training and community capacity building”. In contrast, McCord (2003) asserts that in some instances this plurality of objectives has hindered progress in primary job creation. She cites the fact that in 2000/1 the Community-Based Public Works Programme only created 918 sustainable and 32,587 ‘non-sustainable’ jobs at a cost of R349 million (DPW, 2001) and concludes that the above objectives were
“ambitious”.
McCord (2003) maintains that, the conceptualization of PWPs is a transformational tool, rather than a tool to address the national employment crisis. This goes some way to explain the poor performance and high cost of South African interventions.
McCord warned against assigning additional objectives to PWPs related to the more diffuse and complex goals of transformation, as the primary goal of job creation might be undermined, and the value of the intervention substantially reduced in terms of poverty alleviation and asset creation.
In view of the above, Thwala (2011) recommends that the EPWP objectives should be:
· specific instead of general;
· not overly complex;
· measurable, tangible and verifiable;
· realistic and attainable;
· established within resource bounds;
· consistent with available and anticipated resources; and
· consistent with organizational plans, procedures and policies.
Thwala (2011) emphasizes that the objectives of the project must be made known to all project personnel and all managers at every level of the organization. He adds that if information is not communicated accurately, there is a possibility that top
management, project managers and functional managers will have different interpretations of the ultimate objective; such a situation invites conflict. This study concurs with this statement; hence there is a need for all role players - EPWP beneficiaries, management, operational staff and foremen - to understand the programme’s objectives.
According to McCord (2003), additional functions such as community empowerment, capacity building and transformation have been added to the public works concept in South Africa. This study takes these factors into account as they will determine the sustainability of the EPWP projects, quality service and long term job creation.
4.5.3.1 Community-Based Public Works Programme (CBPWP)
Phillips (2004) identifies two NPWP strategic initiatives. The first is the Community- Based Public Works Programme (CBPWP), which aimed to:
· provide rapid and visible relief for the poor, and
· build the capacity of communities for development.
According to the NDPW EPWP Five Year Report (2009), the CBPWP was allocated approximately R350 million per annum and created 130 000 work opportunities over a six year period (1998 to 2004). The original intention of the CBPWP was to allocate funds to community-based organizations (CBOs) to implement projects. However, in order to ensure integrated planning that makes maximum use of the Integrated Development Plans, after consulting with stakeholders, the DPW, decided not to have a separate national fund for the CBPWP. Instead, municipalities were empowered to implement and maintain local infrastructure. Funds that would have been allocated to the CBPWP were channelled to the conditional Municipal Infrastructure Grants (MIGs), from which the municipalities fund EPWP infrastructure projects (NDPW EPWP Five Year Report, 2009) and the CBPWP was phased out (NDPW EPWP Five Year Report, 2009). This shift in policy occurred after the democratic local government elections (Phillips, 2004). However (see section 4.5.3), the programme was not a success as it only created 32,587 ‘non-sustainable’ jobs at a cost of R349 million.
4.5.3.2 Labour-intensive techniques
The second NPWP strategic drive identified by Phillips (2004) was the reorientation of mainstream public expenditure on infrastructure towards labour-intensive techniques. However, this objective was also not realised (NDPW EPWP Five Year Report, 2009). Phillips (2004) observes that this was due to politically-related factors;
viz, major political restructuring, the multiple demands on the new government, and an uncertain legal framework for labour-intensive construction. This strategic initiative was later resuscitated in the EPWP (see chapter 3).
4.5.3.3 The Framework Agreement and the Code of Good Practice
During the 1990s, there were engagements between organized labour, the construction industry and government on the use of labour-intensive construction methods. The positive result of these consultations was the signing of a temporary Framework Agreement for labour-intensive construction (Phillips, 2004).
Thwala (2006) states, that, the Framework Agreement was a social compact between government, labour, the construction industry and civics. He adds that the main item in the agreement was a commitment from industry to maximize the use of labour-intensive methods of construction within PWPs with due regard to economics;
the main objective of the agreement was to transform the PWP from relief, emergency, and “Special” Public Works to a long-term, structured, labour-intensive programme. This aimed to link economic growth, employment, and investment policies (NDPW EPWP Five Year Report, 2009).
The principles in the Framework Agreement were consolidated into a Code of Good Practice for Special Public Works Programme. This forms a PWP employment framework based on the model of PWPs as a tool to provide unemployed people with both work experience and training as stipulated in Chapter 3 of the Code of Good Practice (2002). This is significant for this study as it forms part of the EPWP frame of reference.