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
RSA
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’ (formulabased 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
> 2000
1994/1995
2000
2006
2011
842
284
283
278
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
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 • determines municipal boundaries
Demarcation Board
• determines metropolitan status
(MDB)
• 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
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 1990 -2010
Year
1990
1991
1994
1997
2000
2005
2006
2010
No of Districts
34
38
39
45
56
70
79
112
% of growth of Districts
3%
12%
2.6%
15%
24%
25%
13%
42%
Proliferation of districts in Uganda
Nightmare scenario?
Uganda: President ‘proclaims’ districts
Number of districts from 1990 -2010
Year
1990
1991
1994
1997
2000
2005
2006
2010
No of Districts
34
38
39
45
56
70
79
112
% of growth of Districts
3%
12%
2.6%
15%
24% Background:
25% • local revenues decreased
13% • unconditional grants equal
42% • conditional grants increased
nominally
Rough comparison of trend in RSA and
Brazil
South Africa
Before 1994
1994/19995
2000
2006
2011
>2000
842
284
283
278
Brazil
1980
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 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)
Johannesburg
eThekwini
Ekurhuleni
Cape Town
Tshwane
Msunduzi
Emfuleni
Nelson Mandela Bay
uMhlathuze
Buffalo City
2 227
1 526
1 491
1 338
1 038
930
698
606
520
315
Structures Act: “multiple business districts and
industrial areas”
Indicator: number of economic hubs
Johannesburg
Cape Town
Ekurhuleni
Tshwane
Ethekwini
Emfuleni
Nelson Mandela Bay
Emalahleni
Mogale City
uMhlathuze
Buffalo City
Mangaung
369
273
206
186
151
36
34
27
24
24
22
22
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
384 575 088
249 224 112
248 269 693
220 622 529
151 949 868
75 526 865
63 023 141
43 130 440
39 278 475
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
Mbombela
446 914
381 099
301 640
295 262
290 586
105 461
65 302
59 182
56 997
46 092
40 833
Comparative observations
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