Demarcation and establishment of municipalities in South Africa and Brazil: comparative notes Brasilia, 6 September 2011 Colloquium: “National minimum criteria for the creation, merger and dissolution of municipalities” Jaap de Visser Professor, University of the Western Cape

Relevance of South Africa / Brazil comparison Similarities in socio-economic context / federal features – uneven distribution of wealth (often defined geographically) – ‘young’ democracies, emerging from era of centralisation – LG as a constituent unit of federation with legislative and executive powers – strong role for central govt. vis-à-vis LG – LG receives funds directly from central govt. – RSA: central govt. power limited to setting rules, provinces ‘establish’ LGs (but…) – developmental model of local government

some very basic statistics RSABrazil Population48 million190 million Land mass1,220,8138,514,877 No. of municipalities Average population/municipality

Local Government institutions in South Africa: historical context Before 1994, municipalities were – – racially configured – subservient to provincial and national government – illegitimate – fragmented – demarcated and designed to exploit black majority 1996 Constitution: – constitutional recognition of status, powers and revenue authority of LG – uniform system of LG with limited variation between provinces – developmental mandate for LG – democratically elected municipal councils (combination of constituency / party list)

Responsibilities Constitutionally protected powers over issues such as – urban and rural land use planning – supply of water and sanitation – distribution of electricity – refuse removal – road maintenance – municipal health care many ‘delegated’ functions (e.g. social housing) LG performs no social welfare functions Explicit ‘developmental mandate’

Funding Own revenue – property taxation – surcharges on fees for services Grants – constitutionally guaranteed ‘equitable share’ (formula- based on poverty data, cost of services etc.) – Unconditional grants (earmarked grants) Some borrowing by cities Recent trends – increase in central transfers to LG – dependency on grants varies significantly (urban-rural) – challenge: uncollected debts and maladministration endanger viability of municipalities

RSA: rationalisation of number of municipalities after fall of apartheid Before / >

RSA: rationalisation of number of municipalities after fall of apartheid Before / > DMs 232 LMs 6 MMs 46 DMs 231 LMs 6 MMs 44 DMs 226 LMs 8 MMs DM=District Municipality comprising of a number of Local Municipalities (LMs) – two tiered system MM = Metropolitan Municipality – one single municipality

Who does what? National Parliament Legislates on categories of municipalities, governance, finances, minimum standards, formula for division of revenue etc. National Executive Distributes funds Supervises municipalities (monitoring and support) Independent Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) determines municipal boundaries determines metropolitan status determines constituency boundaries Provincial ParliamentOversees Provincial Executive Provincial Executive establishes municipality in all municipal areas, demarcated by the Board and determines basic governance structures supervises municipalities (monitoring, support and intervention)

Municipal Demarcation Board Independent institution, appointed by President Regulated by Municipal Demarcation Act Main functions: – Demarcate municipal boundaries – Proclaim metropolitan municipalities – Demarcate constituency boundaries Compare with Brazil: Feasibility Study, Referendum and Decision of State Assembly combined in one independent body

Demarcation of municipal boundaries

Section 24 of the Demarcation Act: Objectives of demarcation of municipal boundaries democratic and accountable government equitable and sustainable provision of services promotion of social and economic development promotion of a safe and healthy environment effective local governance integrated development a tax base that is as inclusive as possible of users of municipal services in the municipality.

Section 25 of the Demarcation Act: criteria for municipal boundaries PHYSICAL/EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS current provincial / municipal boundaries; areas of traditional rural communities; functional boundaries (magisterial districts, voting districts, health, transport, police etc.); topographical, environmental and physical characteristics; REDISTRIBUTION/INTEGRATED PLANNING need for cohesive, integrated and unified areas, including metropolitan areas; need to share and redistribute financial/administrative resources; land use, social, economic and transport planning need for co-ordination across levels of government

Section 25 of the Demarcation Act: criteria for demarcating municipal boundaries FINANCIAL VIABILITY financial viability and administrative capacity administrative consequences on creditworthiness, councillors and staff SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSION interdependence of people, communities and economies (patterns of human settlement and migration, employment, commuting and dominant transport movements, spending, the use of amenities, recreational facilities and infrastructure; and commercial and industrial linkages) REFORM the need to rationalise the total number of municipalities in order to achieve the objectives of effective and sustainable service delivery, financial viability and macro-economic stability.

Procedure Board, Province or Municipality may initiate procedure Members of public may request Board to start demarcation procedure (but Board may refuse) Consultative procedure prescribed: public hearings, preliminary findings, right to object etc. Board’s decision is final (but may be challenged in Court)

Limited number of demarcation disputes – location of a municipality in a particular province (provincial identity, variation in ‘quality’ between provinces) – Constitutional Court has declared certain provincial boundary determinations unconstitutional for lack of public participation (decisions of Parliament) Generally, decisions of Board are well-respected Pressure from communities and municipalities absorbed into independent organ

Policy debates What is viability? – Defined only with reference to own revenue? – Does amalgamation in rural areas produce viability? Metropolitan municipalities ‘too big to fail’? Size of our municipalities a threat to local democracy?

Proliferation of districts in Uganda Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts Number of districts from Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts % % % % % % % %

Proliferation of districts in Uganda Nightmare scenario? Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts Number of districts from Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts % % % % % % % % Background: local revenues decreased unconditional grants equal conditional grants increased nominally

Rough comparison of trend in RSA and Brazil South Africa Before / > Brazil South Africa: large scale reform was needed to address apartheid fragmentation enhanced role for local government necessitated strong political entities independent board has reduced political factor legislative criteria emphasise viability and redistribution

Minimum population numbers? Demarcation Board’s experience with maximum deviation ratio for constituency boundaries Criteria for demarcating constituencies (wards) – every ward in the municipality must have approx. same number of voters – deviation may not be more than 15% – avoid fragmentation of communities – community participation – identifiable boundaries – physical characteristics/ electoral management issues Numbers game sometimes produced ‘Illogical’ ward boundaries, politically unsustainable units – Board had no choice

Determining metropolitan status

Metropolitan status: – single, self-standing municipality – no complex relationship with ‘district municipality’ – status, profile, political status – ability to attract investment

2000: 6 metro’s (Johannesburg, Cape Town, eThekwini (Durban), Ekurhuleni, Tshwane (Pretoria), Nelson Mandela Bay (Port Elizabeth) 2011: 2 new metro’s (Buffalo City (East London), Mangaung (Bloemfontein)) Questions about application of criteria: how objective is it? How objective can it be?

Municipal Structures Act: criteria for metropolitan status high population density intense movement of people, goods and services extensive develop­ment multiple business districts and industrial areas a centre of economic activity with a complex and diverse economy need for integrated development planning for entire area strong social and economic linkages between constituent units

Structures Act: “high population density” Indicator: population density (number of people/km2) Johannesburg2 227 eThekwini1 526 Ekurhuleni1 491 Cape Town1 338 Tshwane1 038 Msunduzi930 Emfuleni698 Nelson Mandela Bay606 uMhlathuze520 Buffalo City315

Structures Act: “multiple business districts and industrial areas” Indicator: number of economic hubs Johannesburg369 Cape Town273 Ekurhuleni206 Tshwane186 Ethekwini151 Emfuleni36 Nelson Mandela Bay34 Emalahleni27 Mogale City24 uMhlathuze24 Buffalo City22 Mangaung22

Structures Act: “Complex and diversified economy” Indicator: gross Value-Added by Region Johannesburg eThekwini Cape Town Tshwane Ekurhuleni Nelson Mandela Bay Rustenburg Buffalo City Mangaung

Structures Act: “commuting patterns” Indicator: vehicle outflow City of Johannesburg City of Cape Town Ekurhuleni Ethekwini City of Tshwane Nelson Mandela Bay Mangaung Buffalo City Emfuleni Msunduzi Mbombela40 833

How do criteria compare with Brazil’s process for creation, merger and dissolution? RSA no formulae / minimum ratios Independent Demarcation Board Case-by-case approach to municipal boundaries discretion, limited by statutory objectives and criteria emphasis on redistribution and financial viability consultation but no popular referendum Demarcation Board controls the ‘trigger’ Criteria and independence of Board have assisted in creating predictable institutional framework Comparative observations