Introduction
A narrow definition of spatial inequality concerns itself with amounts and qualities of resources and services, depending on the area or location of a place. It is this simplistic focus that has largely influenced post- apartheid planning and resource allocation.
Since democracy, our focus has generally been on ensuring that the previously neglected communities are prioritised in the allocation of resources. Progress is notable in this regard. The majority of people that had no access to basic services now have access to such services for the first time in terms of water, electricity, housing, better education and health facilities; and many more. According to the 2014 UN Development Report, South Africa’s human development index has increased from 0.619 in 1990 to 0.658 in 2013.
Although there is still work to be done, on the overall, we have given back people the dignity they deserve, and improved their quality of life.
We acknowledge that despite this positive trend, and the massive resources spent to date, the impact could have been maximised to achieve more with better alignment of spatial plans and the funding. So generally if you aggregate what has been spent against what could have been attained, we could have attained more.
This point is well outlined in the National Development Plan:
“ A great deal of progress has been made since 1994, but South Africa is far from achieving the Reconstruction and Development Programme goals of “breaking down apartheid geography through land reform, more compact cities, decent public transport and the development of industries and services that use local resources and /or meet local needs”.
We are more aware now that dealing with the challenges of inequality, poverty and unemployment sustainably requires more than just channeling resources in previously neglected areas, without considering the spatial transformation agenda that must underpin such decisions.
Generally, our focus has dealt with only one element of spatial justice, namely ensuring a fair allocation of public resources between areas by ensuring the needs of the poor are prioritised and addressed first rather than last. The element that we have not sufficiently dealt with is ensuring that we integrate communities, do away with fragmented development and do not continue the policy of confining particular groups to limited spaces and undesired locations.
While some of our policies have provided much needed services to communities, they have unintentionally continued to confine people to undesirable locations, or neglected to encompass and support informality. Going forward, the key issue is ensuring that provision to meet current demands does not simply reinforce patterns of segregation and polarisation.
The five spatial principles of justice, quality, efficiency, sustainability and resilience outlined in the NDP provide a holistic package to address spatial inequality. This however, means focussing on integrated spatial planning and coordinated delivery.
We acknowledge that spatial planning has been neglected at some levels of government particularly at local level. Where attention has been paid to spatial planning, there has been a disjuncture between plans and resource allocation, as well as both horizontal and vertical alignment of plans. In some instances, making trade-offs between short-term and long-term interventions has been a challenge.
Addressing these well-known challenges and deficiencies, requires both government and non-government stakeholders to collaborate.
There has been a number of initiatives by government to address spatial inequalities by formulating progressive policies and plans, passing laws and creating relevant municipal institutions. These however, has not led to the envisioned integrated development, and hence our renewed focus to the following key priorities:
Our renewed focus
The Integrated Urban Development Framework
The IUDF is one of the initiatives that responds to the challenges of urbanisation and integrated urban development and management.
The IUDF identifies integrated spatial planning as a key lever that must underpin all sectoral planning such as transport planning, human settlements and other urban infrastructure. Furthermore, the “hierarchy” or relationship of the IUDF policy levers is premised on an understanding that:
“spatial planning forms the basis for achieving integrated urban development, which follows a specific sequence of urban policy actions: integrated transport that informs targeted investments into integrated human settlements, underpinned by integrated infrastructure network systems and efficient land governance, which all together can trigger economic diversification and inclusion, and empowered communities, which in turn will demand deep governance reform to enable and sustain all of the above.” Draft IUDF
Our vision is to produce cities and towns that are compact, well connected and well-coordinated. Some of the initiatives we are focusing on in line with the principles outlined in the IUDF include:
- Quality of plans: at a local level, ensuring that the quality of the Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), precinct plans, land use schemes and long-term infrastructure investments comply with the spatial principles outlined in the NDP and SPLUMA (Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act) instead of “tinkering at the margins here and there”.
- Ensuring vertical and horizontal alignment of sectoral plans: We are putting in place systems both at a political and technical levels to ensure collaborative planning so that sectoral plans are informed by the spatial development frameworks of municipalities, and ultimately lead to integrated delivery.
- Strengthening urban-rural linkages
Cities are vital to overall economic development and growth of the country. Rural areas (which are mostly in former homelands) are just as important given the interdependencies between the rural and urban areas. Integrated planning is key to unlock the economic potential of rural areas. Other interventions identified in the IUDF include using infrastructure as an essential bridge between rural and urban areas, and between the agriculture sector and other sectors of the economy.
Back to Basics Programme
The objective of the Back to Basics is to ensure that municipalities have the basics right in order to improve the experiences of the local communities. One of the basics identified is spatial planning. We are repositioning spatial planning as a critical and basic function that each municipality should prioritise.
The programme further prioritises public participation as a means to ensuring responsive local government. The participation can only be meaningful if people are equipped with skills and have a better understanding of how government systems work. We need partners, such as the academics and civil society to help build community skills in this regard.
District and Regional Planning
In an endeavour to promote rural development and rural spatial transformation, our focus has shifted from local municipalities to a broader district planning and development agenda. We are refocusing and supporting districts as centres of regional planning and coordinated delivery.
Furthermore, in line with the provisions of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), we are identifying key economic regions for support on planning and implementation. The introduction of Regional Spatial Development Frameworks acknowledges that development potential and connections transcends administrative boundaries (district, provincial and national). We will be assigning economic development and planning experts to support planning and development in the identified regions.
Towards an active citizenry: The role of academics
We have some of the best thoughts and resources in our academic institutions in this country. How can we partner to use these skills and the knowledge base to advance what is envisioned in the NDP, IUDF and other government policies?
Prof Mark Orange, in a paper prepared for the City of Johannesburg Spatial Transformation Conference titled “Spatial Transformation and Urban Restructuring: Lessons for the 20-year old post-apartheid South African city” puts it this way:
“Academic engagement with the South African city has been stronger on description, analysis and interpretation of what exists, than on large scale intervention…. .starkly absent are papers considering and plotting a way forward on the scale that the challenge posed by the gigantic Apartheid City requires, deserves and justified; not just a case of tinkering at the margins here and there”
I think one of the challenges we have is tapping and channelling these resources to provide practical and implementable solutions.
Relevant research that is solution focussed is critical to take us forward.
How can the academic practitioners become more active citizens that use their skills and expertise to change their surroundings?
Of course this will also need well-receptive government institutions.
In conclusion, we all agree that spatial inequality undermines economic vitality, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. What is critical is for all of us to, as Prof Orange says, identify and implement large scale interventions. This requires very strong intergovernmental collaboration, as well as partnerships with knowledge institutions and communities.
I thank you
