Metros’ performance in the 2019 Metro OBS results were not very strong. We reported weak transparency and public participation opportunities in budget formulation and implementation. Oversight was also poor in all phases of the budget process except the audit phase.¹ 2020 brought the disruptions of COVID-19 and many justified derogations from financial regulations to the point where we decided not to conduct the Metro OBS either.

When we returned to the survey this year, we knew that metros would likely not have improved on their 2019 scores. But we expected at least a recovery to their 2019 levels. This was the case for oversight, but we are disappointed to report even weaker transparency and participation than in 2019. While overall transparency in the audit phase of the budget process improved slightly, transparency decreased in all three other phases of the budget process.

As metros adjust to the demands of social distancing, weak budget participation is perhaps understandable. But weaker budget transparency is of concern because it impacts on public participation and oversight, thus weakening the whole system. Without information about what government is doing in the budget process, it is not possible to engage with it.

The key reasons for the weaker budget transparency performance of metros were:

• Metros don’t publish monthly financial monitoring reports or they publish them later than National Treasury deadlines. These monthly reports are the only documents that can tell councils and the public whether the budget is being spent as mandated by the council. Their nonpublication removes the possibility of any council oversight and public scrutiny.
• Metros don’t publish key tender information or they publish it later than National Treasury deadlines. Without these documents councils and the public do not know to whom tenders were awarded or what service providers are supposed to deliver. Nelson Mandela Bay is of particular concern – the metro went from being the best performer on procurement transparency in 2019 to the worst in 2021.
• We are also very worried about eThekwini and Nelson Mandela Bay for failing to publish their draft budget on time. This is the key document announcing spending plans and failure to publish it timeously impacts the central moment for council and public participation in the budget process.
• Unlike national and some provincial governments, none of the metros publish any substantial budget information during budget formulation (national government and most provinces publish a pre-budget statement). The result is that councillors and the public only get sight of budget plans when the key decisions and trade-offs have already been made and cannot engage with it meaningfully.
• Many metros and local councils have told us that the reason why their documents do not appear on their websites is because their IT departments do not put them up timeously. These internal issues impact adherence to some of the key values enshrined in our constitution and financial management system, and deserve urgent attention.

¹The Metro OBS reports on the transparency, participation and oversight in the formulation, approval, implementation and audit phases of the budget process.

The Metro Open Budget Survey is an instrument to assess budget transparency, participation and accountability in all four phases of the budget process in South African metropolitan municipalities. IBP South Africa and the Dullah Omar Institute (DOI) at the University of Western Cape developed the methodology by adapting the Open Budget Survey to the South African local government context. A detailed methodology guide is available here.

In terms of the methodology, researchers complete a 114-question survey for each of the metros. Detailed guidelines have been developed for each question based on budget documents or oficial records such as minutes of meetings and agendas. The Metro OBS is therefore not an opinion survey but objectively assesses the availability of budget information, public participation opportunities, and strength of oversight.

The answers are also subjected to extensive review. First the relevant metro is given the opportunity to review the answers. Next, each questionnaire is reviewed by an expert peer reviewer. The peer reviewer considers the responses from both the researcher and the metro reviewer and provides an independent assessment of the answers. Upon conclusion of the process, the completed questionnaires, including all evidence and comments at each stage of the review process, are made publicly available.

One of the strengths and weaknesses of the Metro OBS is that it examines metro Public Finance Management (PFM) systems as a whole. While comprehensive, we are learning that this does not facilitate a focus on specific service delivery problems, like the maintenance of taps and toilets in informal settlements. The result is that surveys such as these remain abstract and removed from the lived experience of the public and even most elected representatives. To restore the faith of the public in the importance of government transparency, participation and accountability re-forms, we need to show how these abstract concepts translate into concrete service delivery improvements.

To make this link more clearly, IBP South Africa has started de- veloping a new instrument that would examine the impact of transparency, accountability and participation deficiencies on specific service delivery problems. The new instrument will also attempt to assess a wider set of PFM governance issues like equity, adequacy of allocations, and alignment with policies.