Demarcation and establishment of municipalities in South Africa and

Brazil: comparative notesBrasilia, 6 September 2011

Colloquium: “National minimum criteria for the creation, merger and dissolution of municipalities”

Jaap de VisserProfessor, 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 statisticsRSA Brazil

Population 48 million 190 million

Land mass 1,220,813 8,514,877

No. of municipalities 278 5564

Average population/municipality 172 000 34 000

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 1994

1994/1995 2000 2006 2011

> 2000 842 284 283 278

RSA: rationalisation of number of municipalities after fall of apartheid

Before 1994

1994/1995 2000 2006 2011

> 2000 842 284 283 278

46 DMs232 LMs6 MMs

46 DMs231 LMs6 MMs

44 DMs226 LMs8 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 Parliament Oversees 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 staffSOCIO-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 1990 -2010

Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts1990 34 3%1991 38 12%1994 39 2.6%1997 45 15%2000 56 24%2005 70 25%2006 79 13%2010 112 42%

Proliferation of districts in UgandaNightmare scenario?

Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts

Number of districts from 1990 -2010

Year No of Districts % of growth of Districts1990 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

Rough comparison of trend in RSA and Brazil

South AfricaBefore 1994 1994/19995 2000 2006 2011

>2000 842 284 283 278

Brazil1980 1990 1997 2010

3 991 4491 5507 5564

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 develop ment• 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)

Johannesburg 2 227eThekwini 1 526Ekurhuleni 1 491Cape Town 1 338Tshwane 1 038Msunduzi 930Emfuleni 698Nelson Mandela Bay 606uMhlathuze 520Buffalo City 315

Structures Act: “multiple business districts and industrial areas”

Indicator: number of economic hubsJohannesburg 369Cape Town 273Ekurhuleni 206Tshwane 186Ethekwini 151Emfuleni 36Nelson Mandela Bay 34Emalahleni 27Mogale City 24uMhlathuze 24Buffalo City 22Mangaung 22

Structures Act: “Complex and diversified economy”

Indicator: gross Value-Added by Region

Johannesburg 384 575 088eThekwini 249 224 112Cape Town 248 269 693Tshwane 220 622 529Ekurhuleni 151 949 868Nelson Mandela Bay 75 526 865Rustenburg 63 023 141Buffalo City 43 130 440Mangaung 39 278 475

Structures Act: “commuting patterns”Indicator: vehicle outflow

City of Johannesburg 446 914City of Cape Town 381 099Ekurhuleni 301 640Ethekwini 295 262City of Tshwane 290 586Nelson Mandela Bay 105 461Mangaung 65 302Buffalo City 59 182Emfuleni 56 997Msunduzi 46 092Mbombela 40 833

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