United Nations Development Programme South Africa:

Agenda 21 Case Studies

Introduction

1 BACKGROUND TO STUDY

The advent of participatory democracy in South Africa has catalysed new forms of governance and introduced new approaches to development planning. Since 1994, the functions of local government have expanded to include social and economic development of communities, sustainable service delivery and the promotion of a safe and healthy environment. In order to fulfil this new role, the government has emphasised the need to nurture a new culture of developmental local government.
Integrated Development Planning (IDP) was introduced in 1996 as a form of strategic planning for local government throughout South Africa. It is one of the key tools for empowering local government to cope with its new developmental role and is the principal planning instrument that guides and informs all planning and decision-making in a Municipality. However, it is only in the last two years that the legal framework and administrative structures for developing and implementing IDPs have been set up.
Local government in its currently demarcated form has only existed since the end of 2000, and the first ‘comprehensive’ IDPs were only completed in 2002. The underlying philosophy, principles and processes of IDPs are consistent with Local Agenda 21, and its principles of sustainable development. IDPs, therefore, have the potential to play an important role in promoting ‘sustainable governance’ in South Africa.

It is thus useful to consider to what extent the principles of sustainability are being carried through in integrated development planning. This report outlines the findings of four case studies commissioned by the UNDP through the Environmental Evaluation Unit of the University of Cape Town. The aims and objectives of the study are outlined below.

2. RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the research was to assess the extent to which sustainability principles, as articulated in Local Agenda 21, have been incorporated into the IDP planning and implementation processes and how these efforts are contributing to good governance.

In this regard, the objectives of the research were to:

Examine the level of active participation by local civil society structures in the IDP project/plan formulation and implementation processes;

Examine the extent to which the ongoing and emerging IDP projects/plans exhibit sustainability principles and characteristics;

Identify and analyse the key challenges and constraints restricting the incorporation of sustainable development principles within project/plan design and implementation; and

Identify and discuss possible strategies to overcome the identified impediments.

The sustainability principles against which all case studies were assessed are indicated below. These case principles are largely based on the principles outlined in LA21.

  • Satisfaction of basic human needs;
  • Economic viability/integrity;
  • Conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological integrity;
  • Social justice and equity;
  • Participation of individual communities in activities and decisions affecting them;
  • Partnerships – government, community and the private sector;
  • Accountability;
  • Systemic approach;
  • Concern for future generations;
  • Linkage between local and global dimensions;
  • Use of local skills and talents;
  • Commitment to training and capacity building of the local community;
  • Existence of monitoring and evaluation procedures.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The review of the case studies was undertaken by locally based independent researchers in the four provinces. The research process was managed and facilitated by the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) at the University of Cape Town (UCT). The EEU was responsible for designing the research framework, providing technical support to the researchers, reviewing and editing the case studies. The four case studies selected for review are located in:

  • Ugu District Municipality in KwaZulu-Natal;
  • Buffalo City in the Eastern Cape Province;
  • The Greater Groblersdal Municipality in the Limpopo Province and Mpumalanga, and
  • Kgalagadi District Municipality in the North West Province and the Northern Cape.
    Click here to view the Conclusions, Observations & Lessons learnt
    Download full length case studies - PDF file (1 MB )

Within each of these areas specific projects/plans were identified for review. In both the Ugu and Kgalagadi districts, the overall IDP was reviewed and in BuffaloCity, a waste management and recycling project was selected. Three different projects were identified in Groblersdal, including a nursery project, piggery project and the Mmatoti Forum /AFISDEP Projects.

The basic approach adopted by the independent researchers involved: A review of the case study, including relevant documentation; Interviews with key stakeholders and community representatives; Setting up and facilitation of stakeholder/community meetings/workshops/focus groups; Critical analysis of the case studies; Identification of key lessons learned and conclusions; Preparation of a draft report on the case study.

4. POLICY, LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Integrated development plans are shaped by several pieces of policy, legislation, as well as by guidelines developed at national level.

First, the South African Constitution Act of 1996 mandates local government to ensure sustainable provision of services; promote social and economic development; promote a safe and healthy environment; give priority to basic needs; and encourage the involvement of communities.

The Local Government Second Amendment Act of 1996 first called for the development of integrated development plans. Some other pieces of linking legislation were also developed to tie transport and water/sanitation planning to the IDP. For instance the Water Services Act of 1997 requires the development of a water and sanitation plan linked to IDPs.

The White Paper on Local Government (1998), views integrated development planning as a way of achieving developmental local government. In terms of this, IDPs are intended to:

  • align scarce resources around agreed policy objectives and programmes;
  • ensure integration between sectors within local government;
  • enable alignment between national, provincial and local government; and ensure transparent interaction between municipalities and residents, making local government accountable.

The White Paper also outlined policy principles that IDP must follow, and developed broad guidelines, seeing IDPs as a form of strategic, medium term planning, encouraging a multi-sectoral approach to development.

The Municipal Systems Act of 2000 defines Integrated Development Planning as one of the core functions of a municipality, and defines minimum requirements for the contents and processes followed in developing an IDP.

The Municipal Structures Act of 2000 gave district municipalities the responsibility for integrated development planning for the district municipality as a whole, including a framework for integrated development plans for all local municipalities. They thus have responsibility for inter-local co-ordination, and for links with provincial and national departments. While each local municipality and the district municipality produces their own plan, and conducts their own participatory processes, the role of the district municipality is to ensure that there is a joint district strategy, that the IDPs within the municipality are aligned with each other, and with the district IDP. District municipalities are also responsible for supporting the planning activities of local municipalities with limited capacity. The precise division of functions between tiers remains to be worked out in terms of legislation, but is sometimes emerging in practice through agreement at local level.

In addition to legislation, a set of Guide Packs on Integrated Development Planning has been developed by the national Department of Provincial and Local Government. These provide guidance on all aspects of the IDP, including its methodology, institutional organisation, the form of public participation, and the way cross-cutting issues can be incorporated into planning.

These Guides have been highly influential in the way IDPs are conceptualized and carried out. In addition, the national government has also facilitated the establishment of Planning and ImplementationManagementSupportCenters (PIMS - Centers) to assist local authorities with the development and implementation of IDPs.

5. LIMITATIONS

The time frame for the study was limited to a period of five weeks. During this period the researchers, in collaboration with the Environmental Evaluation Unit had to:

  • Identify and select a suitable case study. This in turn had to be discussed with and confirmed by the EEU and UNDP;
  • Access and review the relevant documentation;
  • Identify the key stakeholders and set up meetings and workshops;
  • Prepare and submit a draft report to the Environmental Evaluation Unit for review; and
  • Incorporate the comments into the final report and resubmit it to the EEU.

Consequently, in the time available it was not possible to canvas the views of all stakeholder groups and community groups affected by the IDP, although an opportunity was provided for key stakeholders, and in some cases, community members to participate in workshops and meetings. Only very limited input was obtained from the private sector and labour organisations during this research process. The final report had in turn to be edited and proof read by the EEU before being submitted to the UNDP.