Peter Kimemia reviews a discussion on urban governance in the 2006 SA Cities Report

One of the sticky governance issues that comes out of the State of the Cities Report 2006 is the assignment of functions between the national, provincial and local spheres of government. The bone of contention is that the assignment of functions is premised on an erroneous notion that big cities, small towns and even rural areas can perform similar functions, their differences notwithstanding. Critics argue that South Africa’s governance system has failed to take cognisance of the unique challenges facing the municipal entities operating under vastly different conditions. Metropolitan areas, small towns and rural areas have different capacities due to disparities in their financial situation. Differences in financial sustainability imply that metropolitan councils for example should have more autonomy to manage their affairs. Conversely, small municipalities and especially those in poor rural areas may require more intervention from both the provincial and national spheres of government, at least in terms of financial assistance.

This would suggest that the role of local government be enhanced in the financially better endowed municipalities based on the principle that local communities are best placed to determine their priorities and allocate expenditure accordingly. The Cities Report avers “this will empower cities to deal with large, complex urban environments in a holistic way” (State of the Cities Report, 2006:5-23). However, pursuit of such a strategy must not detract from the need to carry on with redistribution in a manner that allows poorer areas to support decent livelihoods for their communities.

Constitutionally, different spheres of government are allocated different responsibilities. The national government is responsible for high-level economic regulation, social development and security functions. On the other hand, provincial governments are charged with functions related to livelihoods, regional economic planning and human development. In terms of safety and security for example, provincial governments are charged with the duty of enforcing the road traffic law. Local government is responsible for, among other things, livelihoods in the context of built environment functions. These include functions such as electricity distribution, billing and administration, municipal roads, water services, waste management, municipal housing administration etc. Additionally, municipalities are “responsible for basic service provision and the creation of an enabling environment for the growth of business enterprises”.

The Cities Report draws attention to the complex nature of the assignment of the aforementioned functions between the three spheres of government. For example, while functions related to the built environment are mainly the responsibility of local government, the national and provincial governments are also heavily involved and this tends to give rise to fragmentation, potential duplication and confusion about responsibilities. One way of improving coordination would be to forge co-operative relations between the three spheres of government. This is especially important in relation to the safety and security and economic development mandates. The report argues convincingly that lack of intergovernmental co-ordination is to blame for the less than efficient implementation of public policy and programmes. Clearly there are other factors such as the lack of the requisite human capacity as well as disparities in regional resource endowments that also play a role.

The Intergovernmental Relations Framework (IGRF) Act 13 of 2005 is set to tackle the co-ordination challenges cited above. The Cities Report explains that the Act provides a framework for a series of structures designed to promote intergovernmental cooperation and settle intergovernmental disputes with a President’s Co-ordinating Council and various Premiers’ Coordinating Councils as the oversight structures. However, this would also require enhanced communication between the three spheres of government and across the different line functions. Although the Act provides for technical assistance from the Minister or local government MEC to the intergovernmental committees, it does not explicitly indicate how the deliberations of such committees would be communicated and acted upon.

Regarding the ongoing devolution debate, the report stresses the importance of decentralizing functions which help local government to meet its developmental agenda, “particularly that of creating viable human settlements”. The implication is that local government’s role would be expanded to include housing and transport - functions that are currently held by other spheres. It is however, debatable how many municipalities, apart from the large metros, would be able to tackle expanded functions.  The report argues that enabling legislation for the suggested devolution are already in place in the mode of section 156(4) of the Constitution as well as Acts such as Municipal Systems Act, the National Land Transport Transition Act and the Housing Act. Under the circumstances, what is required is for the relevant clauses of these laws to be given effect. However, careful thought has to be applied to ensure that the attendant laws do not result in polarization effects or hamper efforts towards the achievement of greater equity.

The report also alludes to the need to streamline funding flows associated with built environment functions. In terms of the Constitution, the bulk of these functions are a responsibility of municipalities but provincial and national spheres of government are unnecessarily drawn in due to the nature of the transfer mechanism. The resultant fragmentation is particularly evident in the way subsidies are allocated in relation to public transport. “Money for public transport infrastructure and public transport operators flows through four separate and different subsidy routes, involving all three spheres of government”.

Overall, the report’s key contribution to the governance debate is its insistence on the need to re-allocate powers and functions between the three spheres of government by amending the constitution if needs be or by giving effect to existing but ‘inactive’ provisions in legislation that enable greater devolution. Much hinges on the principle that the local government is better suited than the provincial or the national spheres to carry out certain roles. The envisaged changes would strengthen South African cities by giving them greater autonomy to deliver services efficiently and mobilize their own resources. Moreover, the resource-deficient areas would also continue getting better-targeted assistance from provincial and national spheres of government as they endeavour to execute their respective governance mandates.

The Local Government Transformer, Dec 2006/Jan 2007