TITLE ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN THE CONCEPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPHERE IN SOUTH AFRICA AUTHOR: DR HEATHER NEL DIRECTOR: SCHOOL FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF PORT ELIZABETH ADDRESS: PO BOX 1600 PORT ELIZABETH 6000 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA E-MAIL: padhjn@upe.ac.za TEL: +27 41 5042123 FAX: +27 41 5042263

1

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN THE CONCEPTION OF

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPHERE

IN SOUTH AFRICA

ABSTRACT

In terms of recent legislation in South Africa there is a strong focus on progressively building local

government into an effective, frontline development agency capable of bringing about the social and

economic upliftment of local communities. Local authorities are no longer mere providers of services

such as water and electricity. Rather, the emphasis has shifted to developmental local government

whereby it is the central responsibility of local authorities to work together with local communities to

find sustainable ways to meet their needs and improve the quality of their lives. In this context, local

authorities are required to produce Integrated Development Plans which form the framework for

development projects within the local government sphere. Within this framework, local authorities

need to initiate and design development projects together with local communities. To this end, this

paper will devote attention to the need for active community participation in project conception, as well

as the various mechanisms or strategies that can be utilised by local authorities to bring this about.

2

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) recognises that local

government has an important role to fulfil in terms of undertaking development initiatives that will

promote the upliftment of local communities, particularly those disadvantaged through the previous

system of separate development. It is furthermore acknowledged that local government is ideally

situated to interact closely with local communities, to take responsibility for the services and

infrastructure essential to the general welfare of local communities, and to ensure economic growth and

development in a manner conducive to community participation and accountability.

Throughout the world, local authorities have come to appreciate that the relation between government

and those who are governed is as important as government itself. This has resulted in a shift from

"government" to "governance" which implies, in a broader sense, that the democratic values of

participation, accessibility, equity and justice are regarded as supplementing governance as a capacity

for self-government, empowerment and problem-solving and involves the participation of the

community in the management of their own affairs (Sing, 1999: 91).

Linked to this is the fact that the concepts of reconstruction and participation in South Africa call for a

special kind of development planning. The most fundamental feature of these concepts of development

is a people-centred orientation which stresses not only economic growth, but also social well-being and

the quality of the physical environment. The argument is that unless people are at the centre of

development, no significant development will take place. To enhance people-centred development in

South Africa, there is a need for a democratised civil society which is guided by the principle of every

community member being dynamically involved in the process of reconstruction and development in

the local government sphere.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legislative requirements in respect of developmental local

government and to identify the need for actively involving the local community in development

initiatives undertaken by local authorities. Particular attention will be devoted to the strategies that can

be adopted by local authorities to engage with local communities when identifying and formulating

development projects. In this respect, emphasis will be placed on the role of local development

forums, ward committees, and municipal-community partnerships.

3

1. DEVELOPMENTAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT: THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICY

CONTEXT

The Constitution, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) indicates the objectives of local government in Section

152 as inter alia to

- provide democratic and accountable government for local communities;

- ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner;

- promote social and economic development;

- promote a safe and healthy environment; and

- encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of

local government.

The Constitution furthermore stipulates the developmental duties of municipalities in Section

153. In this regard, it is stated that a municipality must

- structure and manage its administration, budgeting and planning processes to give priority to

the basic needs of the community and to promote the social and economic development of the

community; and

- participate in national and provincial development programmes.

It is therefore apparent that the Constitution, upholds and entrenches the right of existence of

local government, especially in respect of implementing development programmes. This

developmental orientation of local government is supported by the Reconstruction and

Development (RDP) White Paper (1994: 22) in that local government is assigned a vital role in

implementing the RDP and it is acknowledged that local authorities are the key institutions for

delivering basic services, extending local control, managing local economic development, and

redistributing local resources. Wallis (in Reddy, 1996: 171) asserts that the priorities of local

government in terms of the RDP are twofold and need to be approached in tandem. Firstly, the

delivery of services needs to be improved or extended to new localities. Secondly, institutional

capacity needs to be developed in ways which create conditions conducive to the implementation

of the RDP.

4

Liebenberg and De Kock (1995: 109-110) reinforce local government as the pivotal focus of the

RDP and recommend that the developmental tasks of the three spheres of government be as

follows:

- National government could fulfill a co-ordinating role and focus its attention on the attainment

of economic growth and the delivery of services in line with the RDP;

- provincial/regional government could oversee regional infrastructural developments and could

assist local governments by creating an atmosphere in the region conducive to community

empowerment and development; and

- local government could directly identify needs, provide services, and co-operate with

community organisations in implementing development projects.

Emphasising the developmental role of local government, the RDP lists:

• Integrating areas which were once divided under apartheid;

• providing and maintaining affordable infrastructure services;

• strengthening the capacity of local government to provide services;

• ensuring a more equitable role for women; and

• ensuring meaningful participation by residents and stakeholders.

The White Paper on Local Government, 1998 (Notice 423 of 1998) is another policy framework

that has significant implications for local government in South Africa. The White Paper puts

forward a vision of "developmental local government" which centres on working with local

communities to find sustainable ways to meet their needs and improve the quality of their lives.

It establishes the following characteristics of developmental local government:

• Exercising municipal powers and functions in a manner that maximises their impact on social

development and economic growth;

• playing an integrating and co-ordinating role to ensure alignment between public and private

investment within the municipal area;

• democratising development; and

• building social capital through providing community leadership and vision, and seeking to

empower marginalised and excluded groups within the community.

The White Paper provides the following approaches to assist municipalities to become more

developmental:

5

• integrated development planning and budgeting;

• performance management; and

• working together with local citizens and partners

Integrated development planning is therefore central to realising the developmental local

government vision. It is seen as a mechanism to enable prioritisation and integration in municipal

planning processes and to strengthen the links between the developmental (external) and

institutional (internal) planning processes.

Local authorities are being asked to produce integrated development plans not only because it is

required by legislation. The changing role of local government calls for a more effective way of

managing resources.

Under the new Constitution, local government has a new, expanded role to play. In addition to

providing many of the traditional municipal services – such as ensuring water provision and

refuse collection – local authorities must now lead, manage and plan for development. Their task

– together with national and provincial government – is to eradicate poverty, boost local

economic development and create jobs, and carry forward the process of reconstruction and

development. Local authorities are expected to provide clear and accountable leadership,

management, budgeting and direction in areas such as

- participation of the community in its own government;

- communication and cooperation between community and government;

- integrated development and management of the municipal areas;

- provision of infrastructure, household and community services;

- land-use regulation and planning;

- housing and township establishment;

- development planning and local economic development;

- environment and health care; and

- local safety and security.

Local authorities will be expected by their constituents to address this "package" of respon-

sibilities to the greatest extent possible within the constraints of available resources and abilities.

Furthermore, planning and management for development must also combine – integrate – all

6

important aspects of development: social, economic, environmental, ethical, infrastructural and

spatial. To achieve all of this, local authorities must mobilise the participation, commitment and

energies of residents and stakeholders by establishing participatory processes which are

constructive and effective. Competing claims on the limited available resources might lead to

conflict and local authorities will have to provide direction and leadership, ensure fairness and

build agreement and consensus around common shared goals (IDP: A User-Friendly

Guide;www.local.gov.za).

A further piece of legislation impacting upon the developmental role of local government in

South Africa is the Development Facilitation Act, 1995 (Act 67 of 1995). Chapter One of the

DFA sets out principles which affect decisions taken by local authorities with respect to the

development of land. These principles include that

• all laws, policies and administrative practices affecting land development should inter alia

* facilitate the development of both formal and informal, existing and new settlements;

* promote sustainable development;

* provide guidance and information to stakeholders involved in or affected by land

development, rather than simply attempting to control the process and the people.

• authorities in each sphere of government must coordinate the various sectors involved in or

affected by land development so as to minimise conflict over scarce resources.

In addition to the above, the DFA requires that local authorities submit land development

objectives (LDOs) to the provincial government for approval. The LDOs focus on four main

areas, namely objectives relating to

• the sort of services a local authority will provide, the standard of the services and the level at

which they will be provided;

• urban and rural growth and form which includes a range of issues traditionally recognised

as part of town and regional planning;

• the development strategies a local authority will utilise to manage the proposed

development; and

• the targets set by the local authority against which its performance in meeting development

objectives can be measured.

7

It is essential to point out that LDOs are not something separate from or supplementary to the

Integrated Development Plan of a local authority. Rather, the requirements of LDOs need to be

utilised as a broader framework within which local authorities determine their development goals,

detailed strategies, action plans and budgets. In turn, the IDP of a local authority serves as a basis

for the conception of various development projects.

In this respect, it is essential to provide a brief overview of the characteristics of development

projects, as well as the process by which such projects can be managed.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

A project is defined by the Project Management Body of Knowledge (in Oosthuizen, 1994 : 42)

as any undertaking with a defined starting point and specific objectives by which completion is

identified. A similar definition of a project is provided by Kerzner (1992 : 2) who considers a

project to be any series of activities which

- has a specific objective to be completed within certain specifications;

- has defined start and end dates; and

- consumes resources such as finance, personnel and equipment.

Atkins and Milne (1995 : 3-5) distinguish between conventional and development projects. It is

asserted that development projects extend the project activities, output and timeframe beyond the

scope of conventional projects by inter alia

- encouraging and assisting the beneficiary community to actively participate in the project and

to take ownership, in so far as possible, of the asset created;

- maximising the short-, medium- and long-term project benefits to alleviate poverty in a

sustainable and replicable manner;

- using the project as a vehicle for training and building the capacity of the local community;

- enhancing employment opportunities through the use of labour-intensive technologies; and

- minimising negative environmental impact and thereby enhancing sustainability.

The RDP White Paper (1994 : 17-18) makes provision for development projects which conform to

certain criteria, namely

8

- high impact on communities served;

- economic and political viability and sustainability;

- job creation;

- provision of basic needs;

- training and capacity development;

- some existing capacity to start implementation;

- visibility;

- transparency; and

- affirmative action with respect to race and gender.

It is interesting to note from the above that development projects are primarily characterised by an

emphasis on engaging the beneficiary community in those attempts by local government to meet

basic needs. Added to this, development projects are furthermore characterised by attempts to

create jobs and build the capacity of beneficiary communities in a sustainable, viable and

transparent manner.

To facilitate such attempts, local authorities can make use of the project management cycle as a

framework within which to manage development projects. This project management cycle

comprises various interrelated and interdependent phases, namely

- project conception whereby the need for a development project is identified and a project

proposal is formulated;

- project preparation whereby a project proposal is subjected to a series of stringent feasibility

analyses before being submitted to a higher authority for appraisal;

- project implementation whereby the actual work is done to give effect to the objectives of the

project; and

- project evaluation whereby the effectiveness and efficiency of the project in terms of goal-

attainment is determined.

The focus of this paper will be restricted to project conception in the sense that community

participation is the most intensive and essential during this particular phase of the project

management cycle. Project conception involves the conversion of a vague idea into a concrete

project proposal. In this respect, project ideas usually originate from a perceived, and felt,

deficiency in the development of the local environment. It is thus essential for local authorities

9

to identify and formulate project proposals which will meet community needs, but through the

widest possible consultation with and participation of community members. With this in mind,

it is important to further analyse the necessity of community participation in the conception of

development projects in the local government sphere.

3. THE NECESSITY OF ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN PROJECT CONCEP-

TION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPHERE

Chandler (1988 : 175) defines community participation as the direct involvement of the local

community in the processes of policy formulation, administrative decision-making, and

programme implementation. It furthermore implies that decisions made should involve and be

acceptable to those affected by them (Scruton, 1982 : 345). Thus, the making and

implementation of decisions relating to development in the local government sphere should not

be done in isolation of the local community being served.

In this respect, Brown (1995 : 46) adds that community participation can be defined as the

active process by which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a

project rather than merely be consulted thereof or receive a share of the benefits. This

definition has some important implications for the project management cycle, and project

conception in particular. It implies inter alia that

- the context of participation is the definition of the scope of the project, following which

technical and managerial aspects need to be decided upon by the project manager and the

project team;

- the community affected by the proposed project is the focus in that the acceptance by

community members of the project is crucial to the eventual success of the management of

the project;

- community participation involves collective action by the community as a group or a couple

of groups and a major task for the project manager is ensuring that the community is

organised in a manner whereby it can act in concert to advise on issues relating to the

project.

10

It is added that, in eliciting participation from beneficiary communities, the local authority

needs to engage in a two-way communication process with the community concerned. This

basically entails

- engaging the community in project conception to determine their needs and expectations;

- being responsive to identified community needs and informing the community of progress

being made in projects undertaken to meet these needs.

Picciotto and Weaving (1994 : 43) add that project conception could be termed the "listening"

phase of the project cycle since it involves an open-ended but systematic inquiry into the

concerns and views of all relevant stakeholders, particularly the beneficiary community. The

value in this is that, when all participants listen, they learn from one another and use the

information to clarify project goals and to gather relevant insights pertaining to project design.

Furthermore, listening to the community during project conception ensures that the demand side

of the equation receives attention, by eliciting the preferences and values of the people who are

to be affected by the project. It therefore further ensures that supply-driven initiatives do not

succeed unless they elicit a broadly based supportive response from potential beneficiaries.

Despite the obvious benefits of ensuring that citizens fulfil an integral role in the local decision

making process and in the administration of the subsequent policies, there are potential costs

involved. Kendrick et. al. (1974 : 147-149) point to various problems associated with

community participation in local decision-making, namely

- due to public apathy many citizens are not interested in active political involvement,

particularly if it implies demands on time, money, or effort;

- local plans, decisions and policies are formulated by non-elected professional

"technocrats" who regard themselves as experts and are thus not always open to the

influence of "uninformed citizens";

- there is often a distrust of government by many groups in local communities in that they do

not perceive any tangible benefits of participation in terms of policy outcomes; and

- in certain cases, interest groups are elite minorities who may advocate change in the

interests of causes other than the welfare of the broader community.

This is supported by Ceasar and Theron (1999: 65) who point out that the ideals of participation

often do not take cognisance of the reality that many community members do not make use of

11

the opportunities to engage themselves in local decision-making in that the apartheid system

did not encourage a culture of inclusivity and participation.

Gyford (1991 : 74) acknowledges problems associated with community participation and

identifies a number of key requirements for effective participation in local government planning

and project conception, namely

- both the local council and the community need to be clear about the purpose of the exercise

from the outset;

- it is necessary to identify in advance exactly who is to be involved from amongst the

community;

- where interest groups are being regarded as spokespersons for a wider constituency,

agreement should be reached at the outset on a "test of representativeness" (that is, what

counts as representation and who is authorised to act in that fashion?); and

- the parties involved must accept that community participation will add to the time taken to

design and implement local development projects.

Added to the above, it is furthermore imperative that local government managers are aware of

the various forms of community participation, since this will inform decisions as to which

strategies of participation are the most appropriate in a particular project setting.

4. FORMS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Local Government White Paper indicates that local authorities require active participation

by citizens at four levels:

• As voters – to ensure maximum democratic accountability of the elected political

leadership for the policies they are empowered to promote.

• As citizens who express, via different stakeholder associations, their views before, during

and after the policy development process in order to ensure that policies reflect community

preferences as far as possible.

• As consumers and end-users, who expect value-for-money, affordable services and

courteous and responsive service.

• As organised partners involved in the mobilisation of resources for development via for-

profit businesses, non-governmental organizations and community-based institutions.

12

For the purposes of this discussion, attention will be devoted to the involvement of local communities in development initiatives in the forms of participation and partnerships.

4.1 Participation Community and participation are linked in such a way as to render ideas of community

unsustainable without the processes of participation to reinforce and develop a collective sense of identity, interest and place (Smith & Beazley, 2000: 858). In an attempt to encourage a more enlightened dialogue on community participation, Arnstein developed a typology, or ladder, of community participation in 1969. This typology identifies eight levels of participation moving from non-participation, through degrees of tokenism, to the higher levels whereby citizens gain increasing levels of decision-making power. This typology is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: LADDER OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 8 Citizen control Degrees of citizen power 7 6 5 Degrees of tokenism 4 3 2 Non-participation 1 Source: Arnstein, 1969: 216

Delegated power

Partnership

Placation

Consultation

Information

Therapy

Manipulation

13

Although this typology provides a helpful starting point for an analysis of community

participation, Burns et al (1994: 161) identify a number of problems with this model. Firstly, it

is argued that Arnstein's typology should not represent the rungs of the ladder as equidistant in

that experience has shown that it is far easier to climb the lower rungs than to scale the higher

ones. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish more clearly between participation and control.

In this respect, these authors identify four spheres of citizen power namely: individual;

neighbourhood; local government; and national governance. It is pointed out that it is quite

possible for citizens to enjoy a high degree of power within the second sphere yet comparatively

little within the third. This may be due to local authorities jealously maintaining control over

strategic and policy making matters. Alternatively, citizens may be denied power within the

third sphere because local strategic powers have been absorbed by the national government. It is

worth noting that " … whoever controls strategy controls the script, because resources and

operational practices tend to flow from the former and not the other way around" (Burns et al,

1994: 159).

With respect to community participation it is helpful to distinguish between informing and

consulting and decentralised decision-making. Davis (1997: 31) elaborates by defining

consultation as an exchange between citizens and their government, between those who make

policy and the people affected by policy choices. However, consultation does not involve any

fundamental shift in ultimate responsibility for decision-making in that decisions are still made

by the local authority. Thus, local government retains control, even when delegating some

choices to the community.

Closely related to consultation is informing. Progressive local authorities have recognised that

sound approaches to community involvement need to be supported by high-quality information.

Clearly, a prerequisite of meaningful participation by the community is the provision of clear,

understandable information about local decisions and policies and the reasons for these, as well

as the services to which they are entitled. This is upheld by the Batho Pele ("People First")

White Paper in that it sets out eight principles for the transformation of public service delivery.

Two of these principles are consultation and information. In other words, citizens should be

• consulted about the level and quality of services they receive and, where possible, be given a

choice about services which are provided; and

• given full and accurate information about services to which they are entitled.

14

However, it should be noted that beneficiary communities tend to react negatively to proposals

which affect them and have been identified and formulated without their involvement. The

result is skepticism on the part of the community in respect of the motives and intentions of the

local government managers, especially when it appears that all the important decisions have

already been made. In this respect, a top-down approach to community participation needs to be

avoided whereby local government managers merely inform communities of decisions already

taken without their involvement. Furthermore, a paternalistic approach to consultation should

be guarded against since communities resent the attitude that professionals "know what is best"

for them. Finally, consultation and information should not be utilised merely to legitimise

decisions taken by the local council. Rather, community members need to be engaged in

making decisions relating to development projects to be undertaken by the local authority.

To facilitate this, community participation may take on the form of decentralised decision-

making. This involves the local authority committing itself to taking into account the views of

the community before decisions are made. This further requires a transfer of at least some

power and citizens acquire genuine bargaining influence. In a British context, user groups are a

mechanism by which the local authority actively engages the users of a service or facility in

decisions affecting them. A feature of these user groups is that community members are

• provided with a clear vision of what needs to be achieved;

• not flooded with too much, complex information;

• permitted to brainstorm ideas and priorities in respect of service provision (Burns et al, 1994:

170).

Within the local government sphere in South Africa, the Municipal Structures Act, 1998 (Act

117 of 1998) makes provision for certain municipalities to establish ward committees. These

committees are established in each ward of a municipality and consist of

• the councillor representing that ward in the council who serves as chairperson of the

committee; and

• not more than 10 other persons.

The primary responsibility of such ward committees is to make recommendations on any matter

affecting their wards to their councillor or, through their councillor, the governing and

legislative bodies of the municipality. In addition, a ward committee has such duties and powers

15

that may be delegated to it by the local council. However, section 32(2) of the Municipal

Structures Act stipulates that any delegation or instruction

• must be in accordance with the Constitution;

• must be in writing;

• is subject to any limitations, conditions and directions the local council may impose;

• may include the power to sub-delegate a delegated power;

• does not divest the council of the responsibility concerning the exercise of the power; and

• must be reviewed when a new council is elected.

In addition to the above, the RDP has also initiated formal community structures within the local

government sphere to enhance interaction between municipalities and local communities.

Firstly, community development forums (CDFs) have been established as a channel through

which local communities can identify their needs and concerns, identify development priorities

and communicate these to local government managers and elected councillors within the local

authority. Secondly, local development forums (LDFs) were instituted to coordinate and ensure

consultation, negotiation and representation by the communities in their areas. An LDF

comprises delegates from the CDFs within its jurisdiction and exists to negotiate with and

communicate to the local authority, in a coordinated manner, the identified and prioritised needs

of the community (Knipe, 1995 : 36).

The IDP Manual emphasises that the IDP process is an integrated approach to development

planning with all sectors and functions working together in pursuit of a common vision. Public

participation must be structured to enhance interaction between the various sectors. Structures

that represent a wide range of sectoral interests and expertise will stand a greater chance of

developing holistic sustainable solutions. This should in turn foster greater cooperation and

coordination between a wide range of development agencies and establish a culture of

integration across municipal departments.

An effective decentralised decision-making process will be characterised by:

• representative attendance at workshops and public meetings;

• the filtering of information down to the man/woman in the street;

• few incidents of conflict during meetings and workshops;

• continuous progress in the planning process;

16

• a large measure of consensus between stakeholders and roleplayers;

• clear mandates for participants;

• clear, supported terms of reference for all participants; and

• clear and agreed-to codes of conduct for all participative sessions.

It is suggested that such decentralised decision-making structures work through a six-stage

process in respect of development planning, namely

• bringing people together;

• agreeing how the service/project should operate;

• looking at what is happening currently;

• choosing something that can and should be improved;

• deciding on and putting a plan into action; and

• reviewing how things have changed and deciding what to do next (Burns et al, 1994: 170).

In short, a half-hearted approach to community participation will not deliver these results.

Local authorities need to give community participation careful thought and make full use of all

available resources to assist with the process. Some local authorities will require more complex

community participation processes than others. For instance, large local authorities with a

history of tension or conflict between various community groups will need processes which take

this history into account. In such cases local authorities might consider bringing in a

community participation facilitator to assist with the process. At the same time, community

participation must not become an obstacle to development. Elected councillors are the

legitimate representatives of the community. At certain points local councils will have to take

difficult decisions and demonstrate clear leadership.

Another form of community participation which involves the community even more closely in

the conception of development projects is the notion of partnerships.

4.2 Partnerships

A partnership is a further step toward handing control of a decision from local government to

the community in that it provides some measure of joint decision-making. Partnership is often

achieved through advisory boards and representative committees designed to provide

17

continuing expert and community input. Community representatives on an advisory board can

provide policy-makers with direct and unfiltered views, while local government representatives

are given the opportunity to explain their approach and objectives.

Over time, advisory boards can become policy communities whereby regular meetings are held

representing key interests in a policy field with an opportunity to broker agreements. Although

policy communities can be slow and difficult forums for policy discussion, they may find

resolutions where otherwise only conflict and disagreement prevail. The primary concern in

respect of partnership bodies is the question of representativeness. In other words, these bodies

ensure that the organised have a voice, but still leaves outside policy deliberations those not

represented on these bodies (Davis, 1997: 35-36).

Smith and Beazley (2000: 861) provide an interesting typology of partnerships as they relate to

urban regeneration initiatives in the United Kingdom. These authors indicate that partnerships

represent a collective attempt to add value to, or derive some mutual benefit from, activities that

individual actors or sectors would be unable to attempt alone. In addition, they are promoted as

the solution to difficult problems and they have the potential to: enable local needs to be

identified and addressed; give local people a voice; and empower local communities leading to

greater social justice.

However, it is common to find examples of partners being drawn into the process after the

design for the particular project has been established by the lead agency, in this case the local

authority. Clearly, this type of partnership represents an imbalance of power between the

partners involved and is essentially exclusivist in structure. In this respect, the typology

referred to above is worth noting since it depicts the type of partnerships that may evolve within

the local government sphere depending on the degree of power granted to community partners.

18

FIGURE 2: TYPOLOGY OF PARTNERSHIPS

Shell Nominal involvement of partners. The leader is dominant and

partners have little involvement in any stage of the process.

Consultative Partnership remains strongly controlled by the leader, but partners are

consulted to some extent and allowed to make changes at the margin.

Participative Partners have increased and often equal access to the decision-making

framework and their views frequently shape policy.

Autonomous The partnership develops an independent identity in which partners

are fully integrated. All partners have equal access and mechanisms

exist to ensure genuine and sustained involvement.

Source: Smith and Beazley, 2000: 861.

The Local Government White Paper goes beyond merely engaging community partners in the

making of decisions pertaining to development. The White Paper stipulates that local

authorities can utilise partnerships to promote emerging businesses, support non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) and community-based development organisations (CBDOs), mobilise

private sector involvement, and promote developmental projects that are initiated but not

necessarily funded by local government. Essentially, this involves service delivery partnerships

which entail a range of creative methods through which local authorities can mobilise external

capacity and resources for the development of the area.

It is worth noting in this respect that interaction with NGOs and CBDOs could prove to be

instrumental in facilitating empowerment in that these organisations fulfil a vital role in

- capacity-building or ensuring the acquisition of skills and competence within disadvantaged

communities and thereby reducing a culture of dependency; and

- enablement or generating the ability amongst members of disadvantaged communities to

participate effectively in the process of development planning (Davies, 1993 : 40-41).

19

Morris (1995 : 428-429) adds that there are many advantages of local government managers

promoting formal partnerships and interacting with civil society organisations (CSOs) in that

such organisations often

- are more committed to the upliftment of their community members than the local authority

concerned;

- understand the problems of their particular communities better than local government

managers within municipal departments; and

- are more flexible and creative than the local authority in solving community problems and

meeting community needs as they are not bound by strict standards and regulations.

However, NGOs complain that regional and, to some extent, local governments are "trying to

reinvent the wheel" by initiating new development projects instead of harnessing the expertise of

NGOs and expanding on existing projects. Added to this, the erstwhile Minister Without

Portfolio pointed to the problem that funds are available to implement the RDP, yet there is a lack

of suitable mechanisms in the various spheres of government to "get them to the ground". In this

respect, it is suggested that government institutions, such as local authorities, liaise with NGOs

and CBOs to spur the implementation of development projects.

This interaction between government and NGOs is supported by Dangor (1994 : 16) who states

that if government wishes to give meaning to its promise that the RDP will be people-driven and

sustainable, it should strengthen the policy environment in which organs of civil society operate

and actively build partnerships with NGOs in the planning and implementation of development

initiatives. It is furthermore stressed that both government and NGOs require a paradigm shift

towards working symbiotically to ensure that their functioning is commensurate with community

interests and that the wider purpose of ensuring the progress of civil society is achieved (Maharaj

and Jaggernath, in Reddy, 1996 : 268).

Davies (1993: 43) summarises by stating that NGOs, CBDOs and other CSOs such as civic

associations require a facilitating environment in which to operate. In particular, these organs of

civil society need support from government institutions, at least to the extent that their role in

development is acknowledged and understood. In encouraging such a mutually supportive

relationship, local government managers can be instrumental by inter alia

20

- providing opportunities (for example, through training) for local NGOs and CBDOs to

strengthen their capacity in servicing development needs within the communities being

served;

- expanding information-sharing and networking activities with local NGOs and CBDOs in

respect of development initiatives; and

- encouraging national government and multilateral agencies to channel more aid to NGOs and

CBDOs with a recognised ability to undertake development projects effectively and efficiently

(Davies, 1993 : 42-43).

These factors are reflected in a report on municipal-community partnerships (MCPs) issued by

the Department of Constitutional Development (www.local.gov.za). This report supports the

shift away from the local authority as the sole service provider to a leader and facilitator of

development, working in collaboration with a multiplicity of community partners. Successful

MCPs are understood as service delivery and governance mechanisms which include three key

elements, namely

• enhancing the organisational effectiveness of local government;

• extending basic services to address areas of greatest unmet needs and poverty; and

• promoting community empowerment and the deepening of the social contract at a local level.

This MCP report suggests that the following sectors should be prioritised as the lead

components of an MCP strategy within the local government sphere in South Africa:

• Basic services such as water and sanitation, refuse collection, roads and environmental

maintenance;

• Social housing in metropolitan areas, cities and towns;

• Local economic development strategies; and

• Revenue management including billings and revenue collection.

Irrespective of the sector(s) in which MCPs are established, it is crucial to the success of such

partnerships that an empowering and enabling climate is created by local government for its

community partners.

21

5. "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" IN DEVELOPMENT: CREATING AN ENABLING

ENVIRONMENT FOR MUNICIPAL-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS IN SOUTH

AFRICA

The IDP Manual highlights that the IDP process introduces a new system of planning in local

government. It is important that sufficient capacity is developed in order to undertake the

process effectively and efficiently. The process requires new skills from professionals and

councillors alike and demands a shift in both attitude and approach.

The participants in the planning process represent a wide variety of interest groups with different

interests and backgrounds. The various role-players need to enter the planning process on an

equal footing. This implies that the role-players in the planning process need to be empowered

in order to ensure that their contributions are meaningful.

In the spirit of democratisation, this integrated planning process should empower local role-

players to map out a new future for their area. It should enable them to accept full responsibility

for their shared destiny. It is suggested that empowerment initiatives run alongside the planning

process and are directed at all participants, including councillors, officials and community

representatives.

Training requirements may include, amongst others:

• Training on the integrated planning approach and procedures;

• Training on a wide variety of development issues such as transport, housing, environment,

tourism, health and others;

• Training on the management and coordination of the process.

Morris (1995: 429-430) notes that various mechanisms are utilised in the United States of

America to facilitate involvement by CSOs in development inter alia local government can

- provide technical assistance to such organisations to increase their capacity to provide

quality services to disadvantaged communities;

- refer members of communities to CSOs who offer the services they require but are not

rendered by the local authority;

22

- contract out the implementation of certain development projects to CSOs with a proven track

record in this sphere.

Fredericksen and London (2000: 233) elaborate by stating that partnerships between government

and CSOs have proven to be central to long-term neighbourhood revitilisation in many settings

in the United States. However, it is argued that in their haste to contract with community

partners, such as NGOs and CBDOs, local governments may not be considering the serious

possibility that such organisations do not have the capacity to deliver services or effectively

manage projects over time. It is recommended that particular attention be devoted to the

following elements of the organisational capacity of CSOs when engaging in empowerment

strategies

• leadership and vision;

• management and planning; and

• operational support including skilled staff and adequate infrastructure.

Nalbandian (1999: 191) shifts the focus to local government managers and asserts that the

prevalence of MCPs is requiring managers to lead by example to help pave the way for the

establishment of these partnerships. It is noted that there has been a change in direction in terms

of local government management away from professional elitism toward a community

paradigm. It appears that local government managers need to be able to move in this direction if

they are to maintain their effectiveness and influence. There is therefore a need to capacitate

local government managers in the areas of community building, facilitative leadership,

managing diversity, and problem solving.

The report on MCPs referred to earlier summarises by highlighting the key cross-cutting

activities that can be initiated by local government to develop an enabling environment for

successful MCPs. These activities include

• the establishment of a training and capacity-building programme to empower CSOs and

enhance municipal capability to work on MCPs;

• the need for research and development and the production and dissemination of international

and local knowledge and best practices with respect to MCPs;

• the need for a national Municipal Services Partnership (MSP) policy and the establishment of

a national MCP fund to support all of the above activities.

23

6. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to explore the role of local government in engaging local

communities in the conception and design of development projects. In this respect, it was

pointed out that local government has been assigned a developmental role in the sense that

legislation stipulates that local authorities will be expected to inter alia actively participate in the

implementation of national and provincial development programmes. In fulfilling its deve-

lopmental role, it was proposed that local government adopt a project management approach

whereby local authorities identify needs and initiate various development projects that will meet

these needs and attain the objectives contained in broader development programmes.

The focus of this paper was restricted to project conception in the sense that community

participation is the most intensive and essential during this particular phase of the project

management cycle. It was pointed out that project conception involves the conversion of a vague

idea into a concrete project proposal. In this respect, it was furthermore asserted that project

ideas usually originate from a perceived, and felt, deficiency in the development of the local

environment. It was found that it is essential for local authorities to identify and formulate

project proposals which will meet community needs, but through the widest possible consultation

with and participation of community members.

Community participation was defined as the active process by which beneficiary or client groups

influence the direction and execution of a project rather than merely be consulted. This implies

that the context of community participation is primarily the definition of the scope of the project

whereby the local authority engages the community in identifying projects which will meet their

needs and expectations. Thus, project conception was termed the "listening" phase of the project

management cycle in that the local authority systematically inquires into the concerns and views

of the beneficiary community when designing development projects.

Community participation was analysed in terms of its costs and benefits and it was found that,

despite the fact that it is often costly and time-consuming, it has a number of potential

advantages. For example, it was asserted that by engaging the local community in the conception

of development projects, the local authority can be instrumental in empowering community

24

members, building beneficiary capacity and enhancing overall project effectiveness. However, to

ensure that such benefits are realised, certain requirements need to be borne in mind, namely

- local authorities must avoid adopting a paternalistic approach whereby public managers view

themselves as experts who "know what is best" for the community;

- public apathy presents a challenge and local authorities need to ensure that community

members have the necessary motivation and resources to participate;

- the various interest groups engaged in community participation need to be tested with respect

to their representativeness of the community at large; and

- community members and the local authority need to accept joint responsibility for and

ownership of the project(s).

In addition, it was pointed out that community participation can assume various forms and it is

important that local authorities decide in advance which model they are going to adopt when

embarking on the conception of development projects. Two main forms of community

participation were discussed, namely participation and partnerships. The former includes

• consulting the community on proposed development initiatives and projects;

• informing the community of local decisions and the reasons for these, as well as the services

to which they are entitled; and

• decentralised decision-making whereby local government transfers some of its power to

make development decisions to community bodies such as local development forums or ward

committees.

The key element of participation strategies is that the power to make decisions relating to project

design remains primarily with local government and not the community. However, it was

demonstrated that municipal-community partnerships (MCPs) engage the community more

extensively in both the design and implementation of development projects. Such partnerships

are endorsed by the Local Government White Paper as a mechanism by which local authorities

can harness external capacity and resources to undertake development projects.

In a South African local government context, MCPs mostly target civil society organisations

(CSOs) as alternative service providers and partners with local government in the effort to meet

community needs. Despite the benefits of engaging such community partners in the conception

and implementation of development projects, it was found that the balance of power still often

25

lies in the favour of local government. To rectify this situation, the final section of this paper

devoted attention to the role of local government in empowering the community and in creating

an enabling environment for MCPs to succeed. Most importantly, the need for training and

capacity-building of both CSOs and local government managers was stressed. Both parties to the

partnership need a clear understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities with respect

to planning for and implementing development projects within the local government sphere.

In conclusion, this paper served to place an emphasis on the necessity of community participation

in project conception in the local government sphere in South Africa. In this respect, it was

demonstrated that, although community participation has its potential disadvantages, it can

enhance project effectiveness and efficiency if properly managed. In engaging the community in

project conception, the local government manager can make use of various community structures

as a channel to the beneficiary community. In a South African context, such structures include

development forums, ward committees and CSOs such as non-governmental organisations. The

functions of these structures were described in this paper and it was deduced that they can fulfil a

meaningful role in facilitating the design and implementation of development projects provided

they are sufficiently empowered by local government to do so.

26

REFERENCES

Arnstein, S.R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol.

35, 1969.

Atkins, H. and Milne, C. Role of Consultants in Development Projects, Development Bank of

Southern Africa, May 1995.

Brown, C.J. "Project Scoping through Public Participation", Project Pro, Vol. 5, No. 4, July 1995.

Burns, D. Hambleton, R. and Hoggett, P. The Politics of Decentralisation: Revitalising Local

Democracy, London, MacMillan, 1994.

Ceasar, N. and Theron, F. "Assessing Attitudes and Perceptions on Integrated Development Planning –

The Case of Stellenbosch", Administratio Publica, •Vol. 9, No. 2, December 1999.

Chandler, R.C. (ed) The Public Administration Dictionary, Second Edition, Santa Barbara, ABC-Clo,

1988.

Dangor, Z. "NGOs and Government RDP Partnership", Matlhasedi, November/December 1994.

Davies, B. "Empowering the Poor: Capacity-Building in the Eastern Cape", Indicator South Africa,

Vol. 11, No. 1, Summer 1993.

Davis, G. "Rethinking Policy Making: A New Role for Consultation?", Administration, Vol. 45, No.

3, Autum 1997.

Fredericksen, P. and London, R. "Disconnect in the Hollow State: The Pivotal Role of Organizational

Capacity in Community-Based Development Organisations", Public Administration Review, Vol. 60,

No. 3, May/June 2000.

27

Gyford, J. Citizens, Consumers and Councils: Local Government and the Public, Basingstoke,

Macmillan, 1991.

Harrison, F.L. Advanced Project Management: A Structured Approach, Third Edition, Aldershot,

Gower Publishing, 1992.

Kendrick, F,. Fleming, T., Eisenstein, J. & Burkhart, J. Strategies for Political Participation,

Massachussetts, Winthrop Publishers, 1974.

Kerzner, H. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling,

Fourth Edition, New York, Van Nostrand Reinholdt, 1992.

Knipe, A.N. "RDP Structures of Civil Society", Administratio Publica, Vol. 6, No. 2, December 1995.

Liebenberg, I. and De Kock, P. "Some Conjectures and Perspectives on the RDP White Paper",

Politeia, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1995.

Maharaj, B. and Jaggernath, S. "NGOs, Civil Society and Development: The South African

Experience", in Reddy, P.S. (ed) Readings in Local Government Management and Development: A

South African Perspective, Kenwyn, Juta, 1996.

Morris, P. "Democracy, Governance and Partnerships with Institutions of Civil Society and the Private

Sector", Development Southern Africa, Vol. 12, No. 3, June 1995.

Nalbandian, J. "Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government

Managers", Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 3, May/June 1999.

Oosthuizen, P. The Silent Revolution: Project Management … How to Make Business Work, Arcadia,

PM Publishers, 1994.

Picciotto, R. and Weaving, R. "A New Project Cycle for the World Bank?", Finance and Development,

Vol. 31, December 1994.

28

Republic of South Africa, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996),

Pretoria, Government Printer, 1996.

Republic of South Africa, Development Facilitation Act, 1995 (Act 67 of 1995), Pretoria, Government

Printer, 1995.

Republic of South Africa, Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, 1998 (Act 117 of 1998),

Pretoria, Government Printer, 1998.

Republic of South Africa, Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act of 2000),

Pretoria, Government Printer, 2000.

Republic of South Africa, White Paper on Local Government, 1998 (Notice 423 of 1998), Pretoria,

Government Printer, 1998.

Republic of South Africa, White Paper on Reconstruction and Development: Discussion Document,

Pretoria, Government Printer, 1994.

Salmen, L. "Listening to the People: Participant Observer Assessment of World Bank Development

Projects", Finance and Development, Vol. 2, June 1987.

Scruton, R. (ed) Dictionary of Political Thought, London, Pan Books, 1982.

Sing, D. "A Governance Perspective of Public Administration", Administratio Publica, Vol. 9, No. 2,

December 1999.

Smith, M. and Beazley, M. "Progressive Regimes, Partnerships and the Involvement of Local

Communities: A Framework for Evaluation", Public Administration: An International Quarterly, Vol.

78, No. 4, 2000.

29

Wallis, M. "Local Government and Development Planning in South Africa", in Reddy, P.S. (ed)

Readings in Local Government Management and Development: A Southern African Perspective,

Kenwyn, Juta, 1996.

http://www.local.gov.za/DCD/Integrated Development Planning Manual.

http.//www.local.gov.za/DCD/Integrated Development Planning for Local Authorities: A User-

Friendly Guide.

http.//www.local.gov.za/DCD/Municipal-Community Partnerships.

___________________________

Dr HJ Nel/vrs/4(z)4(27) 2001-03-07