1. 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

2. 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

3. some very basic statistics RSABrazil Population48 million190 million Land mass1,220,8138,514,877 No. of municipalities2785564 Average population/municipality172 00034 000

4. 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)

5. 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’

6. 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

7. RSA: rationalisation of number of municipalities after fall of apartheid Before 1994 1994/1995200020062011 > 2000842284283278

8. RSA: rationalisation of number of municipalities after fall of apartheid Before 1994 1994/1995200020062011 > 2000842284283278 46 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. Demarcation of municipal boundaries

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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?

18. Proliferation of districts in Uganda Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts Number of districts from 1990 -2010 Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts 1990 34 3% 1991 38 12% 1994 39 2.6% 1997 45 15% 2000 56 24% 2005 70 25% 2006 79 13% 2010 112 42%

19. Proliferation of districts in Uganda Nightmare scenario? Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts Number of districts from 1990 -2010 Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts 1990 34 3% 1991 38 12% 1994 39 2.6% 1997 45 15% 2000 56 24% 2005 70 25% 2006 79 13% 2010 112 42% Background: local revenues decreased unconditional grants equal conditional grants increased nominally

20. Rough comparison of trend in RSA and Brazil South Africa Before 19941994/19995200020062011 >2000842284283278 Brazil 1980199019972010 3 991449155075564 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

21. 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

22. Determining metropolitan status

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

24. 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?

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Structures Act: “Complex and diversified economy” Indicator: gross Value-Added by Region Johannesburg384 575 088 eThekwini249 224 112 Cape Town248 269 693 Tshwane220 622 529 Ekurhuleni151 949 868 Nelson Mandela Bay75 526 865 Rustenburg63 023 141 Buffalo City43 130 440 Mangaung39 278 475

29. Structures Act: “commuting patterns” Indicator: vehicle outflow City of Johannesburg446 914 City of Cape Town381 099 Ekurhuleni301 640 Ethekwini295 262 City of Tshwane290 586 Nelson Mandela Bay105 461 Mangaung65 302 Buffalo City59 182 Emfuleni56 997 Msunduzi46 092 Mbombela40 833

30. 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