Municipalities have a moral and legal obligation to involve communities in determining, prioritising and realising socio-economic development needs. To achieve this aim, municipalities should use integrated development planning, which implies a sequential, phased process. Municipalities should engage the local communities in each phase. For this purpose, and based on unique demographic realities, various means of participation should be used.
The aim was to present and reflect on the results of a survey conducted in selected South African municipalities to ascertain the status of integrated development planning design and implementation in the sampled municipalities, with a particular reference to community participation praxis.
Senior managers in 11 randomly sampled local, district and metropolitan municipalities. Participants included municipal managers as chief accounting officers, chief financial officers, executive directors and functional heads of department.
A qualitative survey research design was followed utilising a desktop survey and semi-structured interviews as data collection methods. Input was obtained from senior managers (
The survey revealed significant disparities between high capacity urban municipalities and deep rural low-capacity municipalities regarding the effectiveness of community participation mechanisms and development planning engagement.
Integrated development planning is crucial to address the diverse and complex nature of development challenges experienced by most of the South African population. The IDPs of municipalities are critical instruments to guide municipalities in determining and addressing targeted needs in urban and rural communities. Recommendations are proposed to address the planning participation deficit.
The system of governance in South Africa is characterised by three distinct, but interdependent tiers, namely the national, provincial and local government spheres. The local sphere of government consists of eight metropolitans, 44 districts and 205 local municipalities. There are significant disparities between these municipalities: they range from world-class, high-capacity metropolitan municipalities to deep rural, sometimes almost dysfunctional, local municipalities. These differences make uniform integrated urban planning praxis almost impossible. The extreme complexity of the situation on the ground makes it necessary for municipal councils to consider their unique conditions and circumstances very carefully in designing their integrated development plans (IDPs).
According to section 152 of the
The purpose of this article is to reflect on the findings of an empirical survey undertaken in a sample of municipalities in South Africa to identify integrated development planning needs and challenges, with a specific reference to community participation praxis. Particular deficiencies in the process and means of gaining participation are identified and recommendations are proposed in order to address the identified weaknesses and limitations. The study began with a literature survey of the applicable legislation and IDP process, which is presented before the methodology and discussion of the results to contextualise the survey.
Municipal planning as an official requirement in South Africa commenced in the 1930s, but it was originally conducted mainly on a fragmented, racially segregated basis (Friedman
A formal integrated planning approach was established in South Africa after democratisation in 1994. Its main purpose was to create a national platform where national, provincial, municipal and other key stakeholders could deliberate and reach a consensus on ‘apex’ development priorities and could devise longer-term development strategies for the country (Maake
South Africa has a co-operative system of governance, implying that the respective spheres of government must align, integrate and coordinate their planning efforts. National planning is mainly the responsibility of the National Planning Commission, located in the Office of the Presidency. National planning encompasses strategies and policies for the country as a whole. In this regard, the
The specific requirements, contents and processes of development plans on the respective spheres of government are outlined in the
The composition of the representative forum is prescribed by section 15 of the
agriculture and rural development;
economic growth;
environmental sustainability;
vulnerable groups and community safety;
youth, education and higher learning and early childhood development and
arts, crafts, sports and culture.
A municipality can only claim to have successfully adopted an IDP once it has conducted certain processes in an organised manner (Maake
Section 27 of the
the plans and planning requirements as contained in legislation;
the matters to be included in the IDP;
the principles to be applied to determine the matters to be included;
the approach to be used to include and adopt the matters;
the procedures to be used for consultation between the district municipality and local municipalities and
the procedure to be used to effect vital amendments to the framework (RSA
Section 28 of the
The second phase focuses on identifying the current situation in the municipal area. The IDP should be informed by a detailed analysis of the development challenges experienced by the community (Motingoe
The output of this phase should be a comprehensive assessment of the existing level of development, the details of prioritised needs, an understanding of the causes of development challenges and information on available resources (Ntlabezo
legal framework analysis (e.g. statutory and regulatory compliance);
leadership guideline analysis (e.g. political and administrative leadership directives);
community and stakeholder analysis (e.g. status of service available in the community, input from ward committees, non-governmental and community-based organisations);
municipality technical development analysis (e.g. infrastructure status, level of essential services);
institutional analysis (e.g. strengths and weaknesses that can affect performance by scrutinising the capacity of the municipality);
economic analysis (e.g. contributions of economic sectors within the municipal area);
socio-economic analysis (e.g. demographical realities, social equity, prevalence of poverty and unemployment, income distribution and per capita income);
spatial analysis (e.g. spatial constraints, problems, opportunities, trends and patterns in order to determine the need for spatial restructuring, land reform and the spatial dimension of development issues);
environmental analysis (e.g. environmental factors that may hamper or support development strategies and programmes such as geology, air quality, topography, climate, soils and land, fauna and flora, surface water, ground water, water quality and water pollution) and
in-depth analysis (e.g. consolidate and integrate different data sets to assess the overall development status of the municipal area).
The completion of the previous phase, Phase 2, provides the municipality with an understanding of the problems that affect the community and the causes of those problems. In Phase 3 then, the municipality has to develop a priority list and solutions to the challenges that have been prioritised (Musitha
In the fourth phase, the municipality needs to determine the design, content and specifications of the projects identified in the third phase. The projects that are identified must be directly related to the issues determined and prioritised in Phase 2 and the objectives identified in Phase 3 (Motingoe
the target group (beneficiaries);
the location of the project;
the date of commencement;
the date of completion;
the persons responsible for managing the project;
the cost of the project and
sources of funding.
The fifth phase entails integration and consolidation to ensure that the municipality ascertains the outcomes of projects measured against the development vision, objectives, strategies and resources allocated (Motingoe
a 5-year financial plan and capital investment programme;
an integrated spatial development framework;
integrated sectoral programmes such as gender equality, economic development and poverty alleviation;
consolidated performance management systems;
disaster management plan;
institutional plan and
reference to relevant sector plans.
The previous phases should have resulted in the compilation of a draft IDP. Prior to the adoption of the IDP by a municipal council, it is essential that the community and other interested parties be provided with an opportunity to comment on the draft plan. This phase is meant to provide the approved plan with a sound basis of relevance, support and legitimacy (Motingoe
Participatory democracy can be regarded as a form of governance in which citizens are actively involved in the decision-making processes of government (Ababio
The democratic and developmental system of local government in South Africa finds expression mainly through community participation. As has already been mentioned, the statutory and regulatory framework for local government strongly underscores the participatory nature of development planning. In particular, section 152(1) of the
[
Musitha (
Chapter 4 of the
As far as community participation in the IDP process is concerned, the
With a particular reference to participation in the IDP process, these guideline documents pinpoint the following participation mechanisms for municipalities:
the IDP representative forum;
advertisements in local newspapers and radio stations;
municipal websites;
notices at municipal offices;
loud-hailing;
information sheets distributed by ward committees;
the
public hearings;
ward committees and
community development workers.
There is, however, limited empirical evidence regarding the suitability and effectiveness of these mechanisms in the IDP process. It seems that especially low-capacity local municipalities struggle to use these mechanisms and fulfil their obligations to promote community participation in the IDP process. Scholars such as Hlongwane (
Some municipalities have initiated additional mechanisms for information-sharing purposes, such as the compilation of databases of all relevant community and stakeholder organisations, informing communities and stakeholders through campaigns and advertisements in local newspapers, notices in prominent locations such as pay points, direct mail, leaflets with service bills, distribution of pamphlets and posters to ward committees and radio announcements (Hlongwane
The result is that community consultations do not have enough of an impact on development priorities and decisions. This problem is highlighted by Everatt, Marais and Dube (
Other researchers who advocate local participation during
Following a qualitative research design, a survey was undertaken to ascertain the status of IDPs and community participation praxis in a sample of South African municipalities. The survey followed a phased approach. The first phase entailed a conceptual, contextual and situational analysis. By means of a desktop survey, the statutory and regulatory requirements and prescripts for IDPs in municipalities were analysed (as set out above).
The second phase concerned the design of an interview schedule to obtain information pertaining to IDP challenges, with a specific reference to community participation and consultation. Input was obtained from senior managers in 11 randomly sampled local, district and metropolitan municipalities (representative of rural low-capacity and urban high-capacity municipalities). Municipalities located in different provinces were selected to gain a broader geographical and demographical perspective, specifically regarding issues related to culture and ethnicity. The sampled municipalities were the following:
Alfred Duma Local Municipality (KwaZulu-Natal).
Amajuba District Municipality (KwaZulu-Natal).
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (Gauteng).
Emalahleni Local Municipality (Mpumalanga, local municipality which falls under the Nkangala District Municipality).
Emfuleni Local Municipality (Gauteng, local municipality which falls under the Sedibeng District Municipality).
Fezile Dabi District Municipality (Free State).
Frances Baard District Municipality (Northern Cape).
Greater Letaba Local Municipality (Limpopo, local municipality that falls under the Mopani District Municipality).
Newcastle Local Municipality (KwaZulu-Natal, local municipality that falls under the Amajuba District Municipality).
Sol Plaatje Local Municipality (Northern Cape, local municipality that falls under the Frances Baard District Municipality).
Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (Gauteng).
The third phase entailed conducting face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with the target population. Four (local) and five (district and metro) senior managers per municipality were sampled (
The fourth and final phase involved data analysis, including the final verification and cross-referencing of findings. Content and narrative analyses were utilised for sense making purposes of the data obtained from the desktop survey and interviews.
The first part of the survey (Questions 1–5) was aimed at ascertaining the demographic profiles of participants. The majority (67%) occupied positions as municipal managers, functional heads and deputy directors. Most participants (75%) had more than 10 years of local government experience and 88% of them held tertiary qualifications. The findings confirmed that the profile of the sampled target population was fully conducive to their providing relevant, accurate and informed responses.
The second part of the survey was aimed at ascertaining the status of IDP processes in the municipality and exploring the challenges and praxis pertaining to community participation in the IDP process. Various dimensions of the IDP process were accommodated in the interview schedule. The data were obtained from eight open-ended and five Likert-style questions. Some questions were divided into sub-questions to facilitate the collection of rich data.
Question 6 asked ‘How would you rate the overall legitimacy of the municipal council in the community?’ The question was posed to determine the opinions of senior managers regarding the current level of engagement with the community and how healthy they perceive the interaction in the IDP participation process between the municipality and the community. The combined rating of 81% for ‘Adequate’, ‘Good’ and ‘Excellent’ seems positive. However, this response should be compared to and read in the light of the limitations and challenges identified as currently hampering the IDP process, as identified in Questions 11, 12 and 13, where participants singled out the lack of participation and limited stakeholder engagement as the most significant challenge.
To ascertain the status of the analysis phase of the IDP process, Question 7 asked: ‘Do you conduct regular community profiling endeavours to understand the demographical realities, and infrastructure and service delivery challenges?’ The relatively low affirmative response of 65% (
Question 8a was designed to identify the mechanisms that municipalities use to determine development needs in the community, whereas Question 8b requested participants to indicate the frequency of the determination of such needs. The findings are reflected in
Question 8a: Mechanisms for the identification of development needs.
Results | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|
Through IDP review processes | 21 | 40 |
Public meetings | 11 | 21 |
Public representations | 6 | 12 |
Road shows | 5 | 10 |
4 | 8 | |
Councillors engaging community | 3 | 6 |
Community surveys | 2 | 4 |
Ward committees | 2 | 4 |
House visits | 2 | 4 |
Questionnaires | 2 | 4 |
Public consultations | 1 | 2 |
Meeting clients, visiting services | 1 | 2 |
Updating community profile | 1 | 2 |
Reports from various departments | 1 | 2 |
Community outreach initiatives | 1 | 2 |
Stakeholder engagement initiatives | 1 | 2 |
Call centres | 1 | 2 |
*Unsure/no response | 4 | 8 |
IDP, integrated development plans.
Question 8b: Frequency of the identification of development needs.
Results (frequency) | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|
Every 3 years | 1 | 2 |
Annually | 33 | 63 |
Six monthly | 4 | 8 |
Quarterly | 15 | 29 |
Monthly | 5 | 10 |
Twice a month | 1 | 2 |
Ad hoc | 3 | 6 |
* Unsure/no response | 5 | 10 |
Most participants indicated that their municipalities use the IDP review process as the primary mechanism to identify development needs. This finding supports the contention that municipalities generally comply with their legal obligations in this regard. The mechanisms that are mainly employed to engage with local communities include public meetings (21%), public representations in open council meetings (12%), roadshows (10%) and the
Regarding the frequency of the identification of development needs, 63% of the participants indicated that the municipality does so annually; 29% claimed that their municipality undertakes this exercise on a quarterly basis. These responses make sense given the annual review cycle of the IDP, as well as the compilation of quarterly performance reports that the respective municipal departments must submit to the municipal council.
A further worrying issue is the fact that a relatively high percentage of participants were unsure about the manner in which the municipality identifies development needs (8%) and how often they conduct a process to identify such needs (10%). Based on the seniority of participants, one would logically expect that they would be actively involved in the IDP process and that the data on any development needs identified would be disseminated to, and remedies would be coordinated between municipal departments. However, this does not seem to be the case in all municipalities. It can be deduced that some administrations act and function in silos.
Question 9 and its sub-questions were formulated in line with section 29 of the
Question 9a: Level of community participation in development needs and priorities.
Results | Value | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|---|
Very poor | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Poor | 2 | 5 | 10 |
Adequate | 3 | 18 | 34 |
Good | 4 | 17 | 33 |
Excellent | 5 | 11 | 21 |
Question 9b: Level of community participation in the drafting of the integrated development plans.
Results | Value | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|---|
Very poor | 1 | 2 | 4 |
Poor | 2 | 8 | 15 |
Adequate | 3 | 12 | 23 |
Good | 4 | 17 | 33 |
Excellent | 5 | 12 | 23 |
*No response | 6 | 1 | 2 |
Question 9c: Extent to which organs of state, including traditional authorities and other role players, are consulted in the drafting of the integrated development plans.
Results | Value | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|---|
Very poor | 1 | 3 | 6 |
Poor | 2 | 5 | 10 |
Adequate | 3 | 15 | 29 |
Good | 4 | 20 | 38 |
Excellent | 5 | 8 | 15 |
*No response | 6 | 1 | 2 |
The combined positive responses (88%, ‘Adequate’, ‘Good’ and ‘Excellent’) regarding level of community participation in identifying development needs and priorities (Question 9a) are encouraging. However, these results reflect only the opinions of municipal officials and not those of community members. Generalisations in this regard should thus be avoided. Furthermore, this result should be contrasted with responses to Questions 11–13, which reveal that responses to Question 9 do not correspond neatly to the limitations and challenges identified (see
Main integrated development plans challenges and limitations.
Responses | Number of participants ( |
% |
---|---|---|
Lack of and limited participation of community and other stakeholders | 11 | 21 |
Financial constraints | 5 | 10 |
Lack of long-term planning aligned with financial plan/budget | 5 | 10 |
Lack of consultation with stakeholders | 4 | 8 |
Lack of skills/capacity regarding IDP planning | 4 | 8 |
Lack of or limited national and provincial participation | 3 | 6 |
Lack of commitment and engagement | 2 | 4 |
Poor communication | 2 | 4 |
High expectations of community versus capability of municipality to deliver planning of district municipalities | 2 | 4 |
Limited monitoring and evaluation | 1 | 2 |
Lack of implementation capacity | 1 | 2 |
Differences of opinion between political parties | 1 | 2 |
Lack of assessment/review of provision targets versus outcomes | 1 | 2 |
Lack of performance feedback | 1 | 2 |
Unavailability of land; settlement patterns in rural areas are not conducive to proper planning | 1 | 2 |
Influx of foreigners | 1 | 2 |
Municipal officials of all levels do not attend meetings with the public | 1 | 2 |
Political interference | 1 | 2 |
High vacancy rate in the municipality | 1 | 2 |
Unreliable information and statistics provided | 1 | 2 |
Silo mentality; protecting own turf and resources | 1 | 2 |
IDP, integrated development plans.
Regarding the level of community participation in the drafting of the IDP (Question 9b,
Question 10 considered the perceived effectiveness of the community participation mechanisms in the IDP process, using a five-point Likert scale. The ‘Good’ and ‘Excellent’ responses on the scale combined reflect an overall positive rating of a particular mechanism.
Perceived effectiveness of integrated development plans participation mechanisms.
Responses show that open council meetings and local newspapers are perceived as the most effective means to engage the community in the IDP process. It would be interesting to juxtapose these findings with follow-up research in communities to ascertain whether community members agree regarding the most effective mechanisms to become involved in municipal decision-making in general and the IDP process in particular. Variables such as age, access to information, literacy levels and socio-economic conditions of various segments of municipal communities may have a significant influence on their preferred means of participation. It is thus essential that the choice of effective mechanisms for community participation be informed by the analysis phase (Phase 2) of the IDP process.
Question 11 enquired into the overall status of the IDP process by focusing on the availability of planning support systems and mechanisms. Participants rated the availability of or access to various types of support and reflected on how much the perceived absence of these support systems and mechanisms negatively influences the quality of the IDP.
Absence of planning support systems and mechanisms detrimental to the integrated development plans process.
Inadequate planning alignment between local and district municipalities and between municipalities and provincial and national government was identified as the most significant IDP support challenge. Thus, more needs to be done to coordinate development planning efforts and forums aimed at fostering cooperative governance. Intergovernmental relations should be used to support individual municipalities with the design of their IDPs.
The responses to this question were cross-referenced with two final follow-up questions (Questions 12 and 13), where participants were requested to list the main challenges and limitations to IDP planning and say what they thought should be done to improve planning praxis for IDP purposes in their respective municipalities. Their responses are reflected in
Recommendations to improve integrated development plans praxis.
Responses | Number of participants ( |
|
---|---|---|
Improve stakeholder participation and engagement | 19 | 37 |
Allocate more funding and resources | 8 | 15 |
Improve communication | 7 | 13 |
Appoint officials capable of implementing IDP resolutions | 3 | 6 |
Design a long-term plan to guide the IDP process | 3 | 6 |
Appoint more people; fill vacancies in the IDP | 3 | 6 |
Coordinate actions of national, provincial and local government | 3 | 6 |
Proper integrated forward planning, incl. financial planning | 3 | 6 |
Increased participation by local municipalities in district municipal planning | 3 | 6 |
Stabilise political leadership | 2 | 4 |
Increase the involvement of municipal officials in the community | 2 | 4 |
Skills development must be prioritised | 2 | 4 |
Appoint specialist to assist with IDP and sector planning | 2 | 4 |
Improve participation by national and provincial government | 2 | 4 |
Avoid malicious competition | 1 | 2 |
Councillors must improve relations with the community | 1 | 2 |
Limit political interference | 1 | 2 |
Empower staff to do proper scientific research | 1 | 2 |
Encourage participation by traditional leaders | 1 | 2 |
Use web-based, online platforms | 1 | 2 |
Assign an executive director to be responsible for planning | 1 | 2 |
Improve community profiling | 1 | 2 |
IDP, integrated development plans.
The results confirmed the responses obtained in the previous question. Again, some challenges are municipality specific. Not all municipalities experienced the same challenges. A targeted approach aimed at addressing specific challenges experienced by particular municipalities is thus advised.
Based on the findings of the survey, two sets of recommendations can be made. The first set pertains to improving IDP praxis in municipalities in general, and the second set focuses on cultivating community participation in the IDP process.
Three general recommendations to improve municipal IDPs are made:
It is evident that there are significant disparities between different municipalities. The IDP improvement interventions should thus follow a targeted approach aimed at specific practices in certain municipalities. A pragmatic approach should be adopted to suit the specific circumstances and demographic profile of some municipalities. Aspects that should receive particular attention include municipal capacity building through the appointment and upskilling of competent and experienced managers responsible for IDP planning and the filling of critical vacancies.
It is strongly recommended that municipalities be assisted to use more sophisticated planning tools and technical instruments aimed at securing more accurate and relevant data and statistics during the analysis phase of the IDP. Unreliable management planning information, outdated statistics and incomplete data seriously jeopardise the development planning capacity of municipalities, especially community profiling demands. Management information systems and general information technology support are essential to obtain and disseminate information to key stakeholders across all spheres of government. Existing data bases from Statistics SA, SA Cities Network, National Treasury and various consultancy groups should be aligned by using online web-based platforms.
Mechanisms for effecting greater synergy between development planning processes undertaken by the different spheres of government should be established. Greater alignment in respect of integrated development planning between the provincial and local spheres of government requires improved coordination and cooperation. Provincial sector departments, district municipalities and other stakeholders should participate meaningfully in the formulation and implementation of the IDPs of local municipalities.
Five recommendations are made regarding the cultivation of community participation in the IDP process:
It is essential that municipal councils establish and cultivate a participation ethos and culture premised on recognised democratic principles, such as openness, transparency and responsiveness. Such a culture should strengthen local democracy and contribute to the overall legitimacy of municipal councils by promoting service delivery excellence. The capacity of councillors as political representatives in their community engagement and consultation roles and responsibilities must be strengthened.
Discrepant responses from participants in the same municipalities suggest that municipal administrations often function in silos. The IDP requires a multidisciplinary, multi-faceted and integrated approach. Coordination, cooperation and alignment between municipal departments are thus vital to prevent ‘turf-protection’ and to promote acting as equal partners in designing and executing development strategies, programmes and projects.
It is recommended that the performance management systems of municipalities be extended to more effectively serve as monitoring and evaluation instruments for community participation during the IDP process. Performance indicators and targets should be designed to measure the scope, level and quality of engagement in each phase of the process, and participation mechanisms should be adapted accordingly.
Community participation and consultation should follow a differentiated approach. The community is not a homogenous entity but consists of local businesses, the agricultural community, taxpayers’ and taxi associations, religious groupings, the elderly, marginalised groups and so forth. Councils should use different participation mechanisms for each community segment, depending on demographic profiles and access to information. Hence, the design of an IDP community participation toolkit with appropriate and suitable participation mechanisms and how and when to apply them is strongly advised. Such a toolkit should take cognisance of the different participation capacities of metropolitan, district and local municipalities, as well as urban and rural realities.
A more holistic perspective regarding the status of community participation in the IDP process is needed. Additional research should thus compare and contrast the opinions of senior municipal officials on the scope, level and quality of participation and stakeholder engagement with those of different groupings in the community.
Integrated development planning is crucial to address the diverse and complex nature of development challenges experienced by most of the South African population. The IDPs of municipalities are critical instruments to guide municipalities in determining and addressing targeted needs in urban and rural communities. Municipalities as developmental agencies are obligated to foster community participation in the entire IDP process. It is evident that this obligation is not always sufficiently adhered to. Disparities between municipalities and the demographic realities of communities call for the use of different participation mechanisms in the IDP process. The unique demographics of urban and rural communities should be accommodated in the design of community participation toolkits for metropolitan, district and local municipalities. In this way, participative integrated development planning praxis in local government can be significantly enhanced.
The implications of the study are twofold. Firstly, it is evident that a more nuanced and differentiated approach should be followed in the design and implementation of municipal IDPs. The IDPs should be fully congruent with the particular institutional capacity and community realities of municipalities. Secondly, it is apparent that more should be done to cultivate community participation in the IDP process. More research pertaining to the interfaces between planning and community participation is required to explore the suitability of certain participation mechanisms in different rural and urban planning settings.
The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.
All authors contributed equally to this work.
The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee: Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of Pretoria and an Ethical Clearance certificate was issued. EMS 014/20.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.