1. Harmonising and aligning
The National Spatial Development Perspective,
Provincial Growth and Development Strategies and Municipal Integrated Development Plans
Presentation to the Portfolio Committee
on Provincial and Local Government
May 2006
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

2. - Better performance by the state - developmental state
Overview and context
What is the rationale for greater alignment?
- Better performance by the state - developmental state
Make govt as a whole work better in meeting common objectives and outcomes
Need for decisive, coordinated interventions to improve the
state's capacity to spend & deliver services
Need to specifically include a geographical
dimension to growth and employment.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

3. Conceptual overview and context
What do we mean by alignment and harmonisation?
Structured and systematic dialogue
Process
Coordinated and integrated action
Common objectives and maximise development impact.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

4. How does the NSDP frame the parameters for greater alignment?
Approved by Cabinet in 2003 as an overarching national spatial framework with set of guidelines clearly spelling out spatial priorities of govt
Provides a geographical dimension to growth and employment and poverty – policy impact
Facilitate decisive, coordinated interventions to improve the state's capacity to spend and deliver services
Internationally spatial perspectives are seen as critical tools providing the platform for coordinated and integrated action
The normative principles and guidelines embodied in the national spatial perspective provide the central organising concept for facilitating alignment and serve as the mechanism and basic platform for better coordination and alignment of government programmes.
Puts forward mechanisms aimed at ensuring better alignment i.t.o infrastructure investment and development programmes.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

5. Modalities
Such alignment should be guided by:
The reaching of agreement on the spatial distribution of development potential and need/poverty in provinces and district/metropolitan municipalities
Reaching of agreement on socio-economic vision and development trajectory
Alignment of infrastructure investment and development spending in 46 district and 6 metropolitan municipalities in accordance with the NSDP principles
The mutual monitoring and assessment of govt development planning and implementation.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

6. Practical Steps
Review and update NSDP on basis of latest data and comments
Finalised guidelines on PGDS with Provinces. Guidelines to reflect link with NSDP
Team (Presidency, dplg, dti, NT, DLA, DEAT) worked with provinces to assess each PGDS against the guidelines
Team will work with Provinces to supervise the development of District/metro IDPs.
After the President in his SONA in 2004 called for strengthening of the alignment of the PGDS and IDPs with the NSDP, several practical steps were identified. The first three were implemented during Work within districts and metros related to contextualising and applying the NSDP has been initiated this year.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

7. NSDP 2005/6 Strategic Purpose (issues and premise)
Reading of the national space economy
Alignment – current initiatives
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

8. Purpose NSDP – Assists govt to confront three key questions:
To address poverty and the challenge of economic growth and job creation, where should government direct its investment and development initiatives to ensure sustainable and maximum impact?
Given the extreme spatial disparities what kinds of spatial forms and arrangements are more conducive to the achievement of our objectives of democratic nation building and social and economic inclusion?
How can govt as a whole:
Capitalise on complementarities and ensure consistent decision-making;
Move beyond mere focusing on integration & coordination procedures to establishing processes & mechanisms to bring about strategic coordination, interaction and alignment.
This first point is crucial given also that a key pillar of ASGI-SA - increase overall level of investment in the economy
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

9. key issues
Dynamic qualities of areas develop historically and culturally over long periods of time.
Social and economic development not evenly distributed –spatial disparities a normal feature of economic activity and restructuring.
In SA, spatial disparities aggravated by apartheid spatial planning – especially in terms of human settlement formation creating a disjuncture between where people live and where social and economic opportunities are concentrated.
Government plans often not spatially referenced – thus plans developed in an analytical and empirical vacuum – as apparent from discussions with provinces around PGDS and IDP hearings
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

10. 93% of the national economy; 79% of the population live;
30% of land:
93% of the national economy;
79% of the population live;
70% of all people living below the MLL
Space economy displays quite stark disparities – we have areas with medium to high economic potential and high population densities (70% of poor on 30% of land area); areas with low economic potential and high densities (18% of population on 5% of land area) and a further 12% of people under MLL dispersed on 65% of land; micro manifestation reflecting the social and economic exclusion of settlements on the fringes of cities and towns.
These are broad categories and big variations exist in each group.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

11. Theory and empirical research
Convergence between regions more successful where poor regions are functionally linked and connected to centres of economic activity – examples Uganda and Ghana
Unfocused infrastructure spending does not improve economic growth – former East Germany
Unfocused human development does not address poverty or improve incomes
South African example of locating industries in Bantustans – example of unsustainable approaches to locating jobs where people reside.
Migration to economic centres a reality – produce economies of scale, but also serious diseconomies.
Regions succeed when institutions and incentives work & institutions are locally specific.
More successful where dynamics & social, economic, env, demographic trends understood in spatial terms.
Between 1992 & 2000 Uganda experienced strong economic growth – the incidence of poverty fell by half in areas around the growth centres, but only by 9% in the remote Northern parts.
Similarly in Ghana between 1992 and 1998 poverty did not fall sharply in the less well connected areas & in fact increased in the remote northern Savannah zones.
Since unification the German government spent a staggering 90 billion Euros p.a. ($110 bn or R682 bn) in the former East Germany to ensure “spatial balance/equality’ with no discernable impact in stimulating economic agglomeration in the weak peripheral regions – growth has remained well below that in the West and migration continues unabated.
In fact Germany as a whole fell into recession and unemployment climbed dramatically causing policy analysts to seriously question Germany’s so called “watering can approach’ – indiscriminate, uncoordinated and unfocused investment under the ambit of spatial or geographic equity.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

12. Spatial disparities: Questions / implications for policy
What types of investments are effective in poor areas with poor natural resources and economic potential?
What kinds of environments afford the poor with greater protection against shocks and to diversify incomes?
Is the aggregate impact on poverty reduction greater by focusing on areas with high poverty rates or high poverty densities?
How to overcome spatial dysfunctionalities and inefficiencies particularly where they undermine poverty eradication and retard economic growth?
Uneven social and economic development has generated debate about how should policy interventions impinge on spatial disparities.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

13. NSDP premise
Primary premise – the diverse and disparate spatial contexts suggests a policy approach which is itself differentiated and conducive to the respective requirements of the different contexts – (avoid one size fits all)
Hence the people not places approach when considering regions where economic potential is low.
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

14. Reasons for the NSDP
Resources limited by the extent to which the economy can grow/redistribute them;
All government programmes involve choices about allocating limited resources;
In the absence of an explicit perspective, such choices may become ad-hoc and unfocused.
The reason for the NSDP is therefore to improve rationality and consistency in decision-making
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

15. NSDP:
Seeks to focus Government’s investment on the basis of an areas potential - sustainable development
Suggests that Government’s objectives of promoting growth & alleviating poverty will best be accomplished when unique potential of regions is harnessed
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

16. NSDP:
Recommends that in areas with limited potential Government, over & above other initiatives/ constitutional obligations, should focus on social investment & HCD (HRD, labour market info and social transfers) to give people more sustainable opportunities
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

17. NSDP 2005
The National Space Economy
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

18. 79% of the population live on 30% of the land
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
79% of the population live on 30% of the land
STATS SA 2001
The highest concentration of population is located in the six metropolitan areas.
The areas that have some of the most dense settlements in the country[1] are Metropolitan areas, including magisterial districts such as Umlazi, Soweto, Mitchells’ Plain, Soshanguve, Goodwood, Chatsworth, Alberton, Wynberg and Inanda, which all have densities of more than 2 000 people per km². [1] Based on 2004 data.

19. Districts/metros with highest population
Ranking
District and metropolitan
Province
No of people
% of national population
Cumulative % of national population 1.
City of Johannesburg MM
Gauteng 3 
7.1 2.
Ethekwini MM
KZN
6.4
13.5 3.
City of Cape Town MM WC 2 
5.7
19.2 4.
Ekurhuleni MM 2 
5.1
24.3 5.
City of Tshwane MM 1 
4.1
28.4 6.
O R Tambo DM EC
3.8
32.2 7.
Amatole DM 1 
3.7
35.9 8.
Vhembe DM
Limpopo 1 
2.7
38.6 9.
Bojanala DM
Northwest 1 
41.3
10.
Capricorn DM 1 
2.6
43.9
11.
Nkangala DM
Mpumalanga 1 
2.4
46.3
12.
Sedibeng DM 1 
48.7
13.
Umgungundlovu DM
2.2
50.9
14.
Sekhukune DM
Mpu/Limpop
53.1
15.
Mopani DM
55.3
16.
Ehlanzeni DM
2.1
57.4
17.
Nelson Mandela MM
59.5
18.
Gert Sibande DM
2.0
61.5
19.
Uthungulu DM
1.9
63.4
20.
Chris Hani DM
828 181
65.3
Total percentage for the twenty district and metropolitan municipalities
Population Growth
The district and metropolitan municipalities that have experienced the highest population growth for this period are the City of Cape Town, areas in and around the Gauteng City Region, eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and the district municipalities of Amatole and Nkangala

20. INTERNAL MIGRATION: DMs & MMs with biggest in-migration
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
Of the 53 district and metropolitan municipalities:
19 experienced a net in-migration of people
STATS SA
SA population only, indicating internal movement between districts and metropolitan areas
Note that in 5 years just 6.5% or less than 1 in every 15 South Africans migrated from one district or metropolitan municipality to another.
Of the 53 district and metropolitan municipalities 19 experienced a net in-migration of people, while 34 district or metropolitan municipalities experienced a net out-migration.
All the Gauteng and Western Cape district and metropolitan municipalities experienced a net in-migration of people between 2001 and 2006, while none of the Free State district municipalities did. Only one district or metropolitan municipality in the case of Limpopo, the Northern Cape and the Eastern Cape did experienced net in-migration. In the case of KwaZulu-Natal, the North West, Mpumalanga only two district or metropolitan municipalities did. In most cases the movement was to municipalities with either a strong metropolitan area or secondary city. Primarily though, the pattern was that of a very focused migration towards the two predominantly metropolitan provinces in the country (i.e. Gauteng and the Western Cape).
Source: Stats SA 2001

21. INTERNAL MIGRATION DMs with biggest out-migration
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
Of the 53 district and metropolitan municipalities, 34 experienced a net out-migration of people. Table indicates 20 DMs with the greatest out-migration
STATS SA
Out-migration (Internal Migration Patterns (STATS SA)
Of the 53 district and metropolitan municipalities 34 district or metropolitan municipalities experienced a net out-migration.
Amongst the twenty district or metropolitan municipalities that experienced the highest net out-migration of people between 2001 and 2006 are six of the seven district and metropolitan municipalities in the Eastern Cape, three of the four district municipalities in Limpopo and two of the four district municipalities in the North West province. The three district municipalities that experienced the largest net out-migration in absolute numbers in this period were all in the Eastern Cape, while the municipality that saw the largest out-movement of people as percentage of its total population was Chris Hani DM with 8.51%.
Source: Stats SA 2001

22. Employment
Figure 5: Employment figures per provinces as percentage of Economic Active Population (2004)
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency

23. Formal employment per NSDP category of economic potential as a % of formal employment
Province
Labour-intensive Mass-produced Goods
High-value Differentiated Goods
Services & Retail
Tourism
Innovation & Experimentation
Public Services & Administration
Total
 1996 
National
44.0
9.9 22
3.9
0.16
19.6
Western Cape
45.2
7.9 24
4.9
17.9
Eastern Cape
35.9
12.3 18
3.3
0.07
30.1
Northern Cape
54.9
4.1 16
2.7
0.06
22.0
Free State
60.7
3.2 14
2.1
19.5
KwaZulu-Natal
46.1
9.7 21
3.6
0.14
19.8
North-West
56.8
5.1
4.6
Gauteng
32.7
15.3 30
4.5
0.27
17.0
Mpumalanga
59.4
6.9
2.3
15.8
Limpopo
50.1
3.1
2.4
0.08
30.4
2004
36.1
27.8
0.24
23.4
37.8
5.8
27.2
5.7
0.21
23.3
30.0
8.9
20.6
3.7
0.10
36.8
49.8
2.9
26.2
49.5
16.6
2.5
0.09
28.5
38.3
25.8
4.2
23.6
48.7
18.0
5.9
25.1
12.1
38.8
5.2
0.41
18.3
52.5
5.5
19.3
2.8
1.9
2.2
35.1
Between 1996 & 2004 most provinces have seen a drop in formal employment in the labour-intensive sectors & high value differentiated (export) sectors.
Growth in employment in this period came mainly from services and retail, tourism and the public sector.

24. 70% of all people living below the MLL live on 30% of the land
POVERTY DISTRIBUTION
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
70% of all people living below the MLL live on 30% of the land
Nationally poverty, as measured in terms of number of persons living below the Minimum Living Level (MLL), is strongly concentrated in the six metropolitan areas, secondary and port cities and large towns on the major national road grid and the more rural, former Bantustan areas, a stark reminder of former apartheid policies, which forcefully located people in isolated and desolate places with little/low demonstrated economic potential
It is especially in the northern and eastern parts of the country that extremely high densities of the poor are concentrated in areas far removed from the major cities and towns. These patterns are borne out by the information in figures for the various district and metropolitan municipalities

25. POVERTY DISTRIBUTION PER MUNICIPALITY
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE 7 6
Twenty district and metropolitan municipalities with the highest percentages of those living below MLL in the country 5 4
% of national population 3 2 1
DISTRICTS WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS UNDER MLL:
These 20 districts account for 62% of the poor.
O R Tambo DMAmatole DMEthekwini MMCapricorn DMVhembe DMCity of Johannesburg MMChris Hani DMSekhukune DMZululand DMCity of Cape Town MM
An analysis of the poverty gap and employment statistics between 1996 and 2004 indicates that socio-economic conditions have worsened in the metropolitan areas; the secondary and port cities and large towns, such as Pietermaritzburg, East-London and Bisho, Bloemfontein, Rustenburg, Mmabatho, Kimberley, Newcastle and Welkom; and the former Bantustan and densely populated rural areas in Limpopo (in the district municipalities of Waterberg, Capricon, Sekhukune and Vhembe), Mpumalanga (Bushbuckridge and Nkomazi), Northwest (in the Central and Bojanala District Municipality areas) and the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape coastline and surrounding areas.
Amatole DM
Vhembe DM
Mopani DM
Central DM
O R Tambo DM
Ethekwini MM
Capricorn DM
Chris Hani DM
Zululand DM
Sekhukune DM
Ekurhuleni MM
Ehlanzeni DM
Nkangala DM
Uthungulu DM
Bojanala DM
Gert Sibande DM
City of Cape Town MM
Umgungundlovu DM
City of Johannesburg MM
Thabo Mofutsanyane DM
Source: Ricon (Pty) Ltd, Regional Economic Explorer (version 190)

26. ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
Economic activity is spread over the country, but bulk of the generated GVA in about 26 strong growth points
Of course in all parts of the country there is some economic activity taking place
In South Africa’s case the dominant economic centres are the six metropolitan areas, with a very strong node stretching from the Middelburg/Witbank conurbation in the east, through Gauteng to the Rustenburg/Brits area in the west. Further areas of high GVA include major secondary cities and their surrounding areas, such as Bloemfontein, Nelspruit, Umtata, Welkom, Newcastle, Richards Bay, Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Kimberley, George/Mossel Bay Pietermaritzburg and East London[1], the coastal areas of Kwa-Zulu/Natal, mineral extraction zones in the Limpopo province and the Northern Cape.

27. Top twenty contributors to total national GVA (2004)
Ranking
Municipality
Province
% of national GVA
Cumulative % of national GVA 1.
City of Johannesburg MM
Gauteng
17.0 2.
City of Cape Town MM
Western Cape
11.0
28.0 3.
City of Tshwane MM
9.5
37.5 4.
Ekurhuleni MM
8.0
45.5 5.
Ethekwini MM
KwaZulu-Natal
7.5
53.0 6.
Bojanala DM
Northwest
3.7
56.7 7.
Nkangala DM
Mpumalanga
3.4
60.1 8.
Nelson Mandela MM
Eastern Cape
2.4
62.5 9.
Sedideng DM
2.3
64.8
10.
West Rand DM
2.2
67.0
11.
Gert Sibande DM
69.2
12.
Boland DM
1.9
71.1
13.
Fezile Dabi DM
Free State
1.6
72.7
14.
Motheo DM
74.3
15.
Amatole DM
75.9
16.
Uthungulu DM
1.5
77.4
17.
Umgungundlovu DM
78.9
18.
Ehlanzeni DM
1.3
80.2
19.
Southern DM
81.5
20.
Waterberg DM
Limpopo
82.8
Total percentage for the twenty municipalities
All of the 6 metros and 14 districts contribute 83% of national GVA. These 20 metro/district areas account for 56% of national population and 5.5% of national space.
5 metros accounting for 53% of national but share of national population is only 28.4%.

28. 30% of land (26 core regions): 93% of the national economy;
79% of the population live;
70% of all people below the MLL
The economy is highly diversified with different forms of economic potential located at different spatial localities – but as already stated this concentrated in 26 core areas.
Areas such as Rustenburg, Witbank/Middleburg, Welkom, Phalaborwa and Saldanha are dominated by the mass produced labour intensive sectors – particularly mining.

29. Space Economy at a macro scale
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
Space Economy at a macro scale
The space economy consists of core areas (high potential, high need) and poverty pockets (high need)
Just 26 locations can be said to represent the engines of the South African economy
These areas and their immediate hinterlands (70 km radius) are home to 70% (16.5 million) of all people living under minimum living level in the country, 79% of the total population and generate 93% of the national Gross Value Added (GVA)
Some of the areas with high demonstrated economic potential are experiencing difficulties. An analysis of the trends in GVA between 1996 and 2004 (see Annexure E, Map i) suggests that the goldfields on the West Rand and the Free State, despite still showing relatively high GVAs, are experiencing steady declines in their GVA.
18% or 4.2 million people under MLL are located in dense settlements where social and economic activities are at low ebb – approx 5% of land space.
Remaining 12% (or 2.8 million) are dispersed on 65% of land.
Projected GVAs for 2010 show an entrenchment of current patterns.
Research conducted for the 2003-NSDP indicated that despite more than three decades of spatial engineering by the apartheid regime (1960s to the late 1980s), the location of high levels of contribution to national GVA has been subject to little change over the last hundred years of settlement in the country (see McCarthy, 1999). Research into international examples of similar attempts at redirecting the location of economic activity revealed that this has largely been unsuccessful.
In order to generate and sustain economic growth rates of 6% and more and address poverty it will be important to focus on and factor in the role of these areas
However, between 1996 and 2004 these areas have been generally only growing at around or marginally above the natural population growth rates: resources and collaborative government action should be directed at making these areas more productive and socially inclusive

30. % of National Population
Space Economy at a macro scale
NATIONAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
% of National Population
% of National
pop under MLL
% of National GVA
% of National Area
Areas of High Demonstrated Economic Potential and High Need (Area of concentration and 70km proximity)
Total
79.20
69.99
93.24
30.08
Areas of High Need and Low Demonstrated Economic Potential
11.06
17.71
1.49
4.74
Combined Total
90.26
87.70
94.73
34.82
Overall impact of the NSDP:
Economic potential and poverty are mainly found in the same localities
Different forms of potential are in different places
… CONTINUE

31. Taking the NSDP forward
Our ability as a country to accelerate growth and reduce poverty & unemployment is tied to growth potential of regions.
Districts/metros identified as pivotal sites.
Medium-term vision is to make district/metro IDPs local expressions of the plans of all three spheres.
Seek to contextualise and apply NSDP – use NSDP mechanisms and principles to identify the potential of districts/metros
Provide government with an appreciation of the development potential and dynamics of each district/metro – basis for improving alignment and coordination – credible IDPs.
This year pilot the NSDP approach in select districts;
Development occurs in space. That is understanding economic development, inequality and environmental challenges in spatial terms. Regions are pivotal
The district/metro levels are also understood to be the basic units to drive intergovernmental coordination to maximize the potential of regions.

32. - End -
4/9/2019
PCAS, The Presidency