[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

17 September 2008

Introduction
The pilot programme targeting thirteen rural and eight urban poverty nodes launched in 2001 is now in the eighth year of implementation. The objective of the programme was to focus government actions in the target areas in an integrated and co-ordinated manor towards poverty reduction. A recent mid term review of the rural and urban nodes presents progress to date and highlights some emerging lessons. The review based on the findings of a series of studies conducted between 2007 and 2008 examines the impact of the programme in light of the approach adopted for the implementation of the joint government programme of action and the associated impact. The focus is on issues of co-ordination, integrated planning, resource mobilisation and the related institutional arrangements. Some recommendations for mainstreaming beyond the ten years' pilot in 2011 are proposed.

Progress to date
In 2001 the vision for ISRDP/URP in 2001 was stated as attaining socially cohesive and stable urban and rural communities with viable institutions, sustainable economies and universal access to social amenities, able to attract and retain skilled and knowledgeable people who are equipped to contribute to growth and development.

This in turn supported the 2014 vision with the focus to service delivery targets and the need to ensure that "basic fundamentals for administration and operations at local government are in place".

In the balance of the three years left, the ISRDP/URP focus will be on accelerating high impact projects that support improvement in economic productivity within the nodes, consolidating key emerging lessons as part of the mainstreaming strategy and documenting key findings as a legacy of the programmes.

To date, the programme can report that:
* Access to basic services has improved significantly in the majority of the nodes. Progress has been made in the provision of water, sanitation, electricity, housing and access to social assistance with slightly higher margins in the urban nodes in relation to rural counterparts.

* Significant public investment has been directed at bulk infrastructure mainly to address backlogs in the first instance. A lot more can be done in development in response to emerging trends and forward planning for future growth.

* Growth in economic activities in both urban and rural nodes has however been marginal due to limited linkages to mainstream economy. This has been most evident where historical physical isolation from main economic hubs has deterred market interest.

* Crowding in of public sector investment is proving to have positive impact. The immediate examples are the positive impacts of enhanced transport interchange in the urban township which have improved the quality of local environment and increased opportunity for emerging Small Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) for trade. Multi-purpose centres in rural nodes have also made government services more accessible to the people.

* Significant knowledge has been consolidated with regards to economic potentials that reside in both the urban and rural nodes (economic profiles of the presidential poverty nodes, 2007 in partnership with Business Trust).

* A better understanding of the strengths and weakness of the local governing institutions in support of integrated development planning and coordination for efficiency has been attained.

* Significant lessons are beginning to emerge from the ten year pilot for considerations in mainstreaming the ISRDP/URP. These lessons would serve as backdrop to further government interventions with regards to managing future growth and development of urban townships and previously isolated high density rural communities.

It should however be noted that progress in the nodes is relative to their levels of deprivation which at the time of selection were among the highest in the country. Thus direct comparisons with improvements in areas with similar characteristics would be inaccurate. Other than the equitable share allocations, the nodes may have benefited from budget allocations by sector departments but not at the expense of other areas with similar conditions.

The progress made however demonstrates that where vertical and horizontal co-ordination has been achieved, government can expect high impact in quality and efficiency of services. This has been demonstrated by successes of the anchor projects in urban and rural nodes where governing structures were also adequate

Emerging lessons
* Technical support: Technical capacity for the majority of the rural municipalities is still relatively weak. The challenges experienced in the delivery of bulk infrastructure backlogs targets in rural nodes demonstrate that local institutional capacities will take time to mature.

Greater focus for technical skills should target support for effectiveness of delivery at local municipal levels rather than the drive for staffing at district levels. Such technical skills can be pooled or centralised and deployed strategically.

Further innovations for viable models need to be tested building on emerging lessons from project consolidate. To this end, the transfer of roles and responsibilities to local municipalities may be premature in some instances. The roles and responsibilities of Water Board Authorities with regards to service level agreements previously held with DWARF will need closer examination to safe guard the access and quality of water services to indigent populations.

* Resource mobilisation: The voluntary resource allocation by sector departments and absence of centralised funding pool at implementation points has weakened co-ordination efforts towards integration of government actions within a node.

Where this has been possible, greater efficiency has been achieved both vertically and horizontally within government. Alexandra Urban Renewal project (URP) is an example where sector department allocations have been ringed fenced at the provincial level and metro giving the project management office greater opportunity to co-ordinate and align project implementation for accelerated delivery. This model should be explored further for localised area management through target setting, project planning, and coordination and pooling of budget allocations from sector departments towards an agreed goal.

Crowding in of public sector investment has proved to have significant impact in demonstrating government delivery. This has been most evident in the urban nodes where improvement to transport interchanges has enhanced the quality of public space, taxi ranks and retails facilities for SMMEs. Most notable has been the significant contribution made by the National Treasury through the Neighbourhood Development Grant (NDPG). The grant has to date allocated close to R1 billion within the urban nodes amongst others.

All urban nodes now have access to the Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant with the exception of Alexandra. The NDPG provides municipalities with technical assistance to develop appropriate project proposals for property developments in townships and new residential neighbourhoods. In addition, the grant provides for construction or upgrading of community facilities for neighbourhood development or renewal projects that attract private sector funding and input where appropriate. A total amount of R987 575 780.00 and R34 925 000.00 has been allocated for Capital Grant and Technical Assistance respectively.

Node: Galeshewe
Project Name: Business Centre Renewal
Capital Grant: R165 780.00
Technical Assistance: R4 100 000.00

Node: INK
Project Name: INK Urban Renewal
Capital Grant: R215 460 000.00
Technical Assistance: R8 500 000.00

Node: INK
Project Name: Bridge City
Capital Grant: R80 300 000.00
Technical Assistance: R800 000.00

Node: INK
Project Name: Town Central Renewal
Capital Grant: R60 000 000.00
Technical Assistance: R2 000 000.00

Node: Khayelitsha
Project Name: Monwabisi Coastal Node
Capital Grant: R100 000 000.00
Technical Assistance: R3 000 000.00

Node: Khayelitsha
Project Name: Kuyasa and other nodes
Capital Grant: R300 000 000.00
Technical Assistance: R10 000 000.00

Node: Mitchell's Plain
Project Name: Mitchell's Plain and Lentegeur CBDs
Capital Grant: R300 000 000.00
Technical Assistance: R4 000 000.00

Node: Motherwell
Project Name: Sustainable Community Development
Capital Grant: R26 650 000.00
Technical Assistance: R2 500 00.00

Node: Mdantsane
Project Name: Mdantsane Urban Renewal
Capital Grant: R205 000 000.00
Technical Assistance: R25 000.00

Total
Capital Grant: R987 575 780.00
Technical Assistance: R34 925 000.00

In the rural nodes the multi purpose centres demonstrate promise for enhancing access to government services for rural communities. Their success would however depend on proximity to transport linkages and other public amenities such as hospitals, education and financial centres. The Municipal Infrastructure Grants (MIG) are however inadequate as the main source of income for rural municipalities with limited rates base.

* Integration and Planning (Integrated Development Planning [IDP], Provincial Growth Development Strategy [PGDS], National Spatial Development Perspective [NSDP]), the governance and institutional challenges at local municipal levels have impacted negatively on the programme with varying degrees between the urban and rural nodes.

With regards to IDP in rural areas, this practice is still relatively weak and conducted as compliance issue. The district IDPs are often not aligned to the local municipalities and have little bearing on the PGDS. At this scale, the NSDP is becomes insignificant as a means of displaying spatial economy in local geographical area.

The lessons suggests that an enhanced system is necessary to provide more rigor in local physical planning especially where government is expected to contribute greater infrastructure investment to unlock economic potential for wealth creation.

The current focus is noted to have been too focused on meeting backlogs than improving the ability of government to guide emerging trends and future settlement patterns much more strategically for efficient servicing. The roles and responsibilities of traditional leadership in land use administration and management has to this end been underestimated in rural areas.

The rural urban linkages need to be understood better given the growing trend of high density, low economy rural communities comprising approximately 11 million people living in high density peripheries yet generating only 4% of national economic activity. These areas are largely to be found in former homelands in rural areas, townships and informal settlements around cities and small towns.

This trend will require a comprehensive approach to the questions of national rural and urban development strategies. The need for a response to this trend is now beyond the Poverty Nodes as prescribed.

Although the urban nodes have had some institutional capacity advantage by virtue of being amalgamated into the metro regions, the emerging lesson suggest the management of formally black township and growing informal settlements around them demand a whole range of re-engineering and support mechanisms. These high density zones with low economic activities require new innovative service arrangement than those traditionally offered by the metropolitan municipalities. Area based Management along with varied forms of partnerships arrangement between stakeholders is one of the emerging lessons from the URP studies. In terms of knowledge generation, specific training for professional managers in Township areas is proving to be of interest. Such a programme is currently being tested as a partnership between Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), National Treasury, South African Cities Network and Treasury.

Conclusions
There is a need to consider targeted future public infrastructure investment plans to unlock local and regional economic potentials as identified in the 2007 Nodal Economic profiles. Public sector investment should be strategic and targeted at meeting both social and economic growth objectives. This means that public spending should be within an integrated package of plans in support of a regions rather than isolated projects for maximum impact.

Technical capacity should be enhanced and pooled for strategic deployment. This would however require greater intelligence in projection of trends and forward planning for development in anticipation of future growth. A dedicated entity maybe required for this purpose to ensure equity and efficiency at local levels.

The stakeholder communication mechanism should be improved between and within spheres of government. Resource mobilisation, exchange of best practice and innovation through platforms for dialogue and action (outreach, partnerships, networks, and summits) should be shared amongst nodes.

Given the capacity constraints in rural nodes, the establishment of a technical support facility for rural nodes may help bridge the current gap. This facility would serve as a pilot for pooling scarce technical skills such as financial, engineering and town planning for the benefit of emerging small towns to help direct public sector investment in light of current skills shortage.

Issued by: Government Communications (GCIS)
17 September 2008