The case for modernization of local planning authority frameworks in Southern and Eastern Africa: A radical initiative for Zimbabwe

Abstract

This article critiques the dichotomous local planning authority framework and fragmented municipal boundary demarcation in Zimbabwe and suggests systemic transformation to enhance their integrated developmental planning responsiveness. To achieve this, it identifies from Sub-Saharan Africa and Zimbabwe the implications of present local planning authority frameworks on integrated development planning practice and, from a South African case study, some fundamental lessons on total transformation of local planning authority frameworks and constructs a case for a systemic transformational initiative for Zimbabwe. It concludes that the dichotomous structural design and fragmentation that is retained in present frameworks since independence in 1980 remains a major bottleneck and impediment to achieving integrated development planning and requires total systems change. Accordingly, the article proposes systemic transformation initiative towards a new vision and single system of modern developmental local planning authority and boundary demarcation framework for Zimbabwe. Although the focus is on Zimbabwe, the paper recognizes that these perspectives are relevant to several ex-colonial states in Southern and Eastern Africa.

Introduction

This paper addresses a subject fundamentally important to improving the effectiveness of development planning practice in Zimbabwe and other countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, the majority of whom inherited colonial institutional and spatial planning authority frameworks that are characteristically dichotomous and fragmented, divisive, and inequitable in their planning philosophies and practices. In the specific context of Zimbabwe, a local planning authority is a local government, municipal council, or local authority that is empowered by law to exercise local government, local governance and the functions of town, regional and country planning over a jurisdictional territory. On the other hand, the gamut of local and central government institutional, organizational, legislative, and jurisdictional boundary demarcation structures and arrangement as well as related values and practices of administration, planning, management and governance are what collectively constitute and define the local government authority and function for regional and town and country planning.

The argument that such ex-colonial frameworks present more development planning, urban management and governance bottlenecks than they enable has been with us since the 1970s when World Bank began lending for urban development. By linking lending agreements to reform of planning regulatory frameworks (as in the case of the Urban I and Urban II Projects of Zimbabwe implemented between 1984 and 1998), the World Bank has made significant influence on developing countries to reform their frameworks. Though significant, these reforms have not been systemic because they have characteristically been reactive and on a project-by-project basis. However, it is in the most recent 10 years or so that the UNCHS-HABITAT (1997) has globalized and internationalized an agenda for reform and development of good practices of responsive and development-oriented national and local planning authority frameworks and governance.

It is in that regard that Payne and Majale (2004) observe that reform of urban development regulatory and planning frameworks is central to UN-Habitat Agenda for addressing current problems associated with rapid urbanization (UN-Habitat, 2001) and the city region (Wikipedia, 2007) and achieving sustainable human settlements. Also in that connection, Okpala (2003), The World Bank (2003a), World Bank (2003b), and Infrastructure Canada (2003) confirm that the ‘rural–urban linkage development approach’ and ‘city region’ hinterland are receiving increased emphasis in UN-Habitat's international development agenda. However, threading through Yahya et al. (2001), UNCHS-HABITAT (1996), UNCHS-HABITAT (1997), the World Bank (1999), World Bank (2003a), World Bank (2003b), Boraine (2003), Payne and Majale (2004) and IRIN (2005), is substantial evidence of concern that national and local governments have not related the structural and philosophical deficiencies inherent in their frameworks to the inability of frameworks to respond effectively to increasing inter-jurisdictional development planning challenges and opportunities arising from peri-urban and city region complexes.

More critical is Okpala who raises fundamental doubts about the validity of present day local planning authority frameworks which divide, separate, fragment, and isolate rather than integrate planning and development of the city and its regional hinterland. We can draw useful ideas about the development planning significance of peri-urban and city region context in Sub-Saharan Africa from Mbiba and Huchzermeyer (2002) who characterize peri-urban areas not only in terms of being frontiers of dynamic change, growth, complex urban-rural linkage processes, and opportunities and challenges, but also of contentious and contradictory planning and developmental significance. Several accounts show that in general, and perhaps with the exception of South Africa, of the few countries that have effected reforms and changes to their local planning authority frameworks, none has holistically and systemically questioned and challenged the ex-colonial dichotomous structural design and rationale underlying their frameworks and practices, or critically questioned the alignment, function, and effectiveness of municipal planning authorities and boundaries towards achieving integrated development planning of tows and cities in relation to their city regional hinterlands.

These and other emerging perspectives and questions point to a pressing need for a new essence and perspectives concerning the nature, orientation, and alignment of local planning authority frameworks that are different from the present structurally and philosophically dichotomous and discrete ‘urbanist’ and ‘ruralist’ and fundamentally divisive, separatist, fragmented, fragmenting, and inequitable traditional genres. The question of how to overcome and transform the underlying and oftentimes outdated ex-colonial structural design rationale and philosophy as well as the insular municipal boundary frameworks, which present considerable inter-jurisdictional planning and developmental problems and bottlenecks in Zimbabwe, is the primary concern and focus of this paper.

The paper posits that the present structural and philosophical design underpinning Zimbabwe's ex-colonial local planning authority framework, is now fundamentally outdated, non-developmental, and dysfunctional. It argues that the framework actually legislates and institutionalizes the perpetuation of a pervasively fragmented dichotomous rural and urban system of local planning authority and governance. It argues that present structural and institutional arrangements, alignments and practice necessitate inter-jurisdictional planning arrangements and processes which have increasingly proved unresponsive and ineffective in the integration of city regional development. The final argument is that past incremental reform approaches adopted by central government in Zimbabwe, though having achieved significant improvements in the past 26 years, have left the problematic structural design and philosophy of the framework rather intact. It is in that regard that the paper pushes a motion for a radical vision towards systemic transformation and modernization to overcome philosophical and structural drawbacks in the framework and make it responsive. Accordingly, the primary task of the paper is to interrogate and benchmark the present framework to identify and recommend ways and means for overhauling underlying structural and philosophical flaws and render it responsive to contemporary developmental needs and challenges, especially from the city region perspective, while its main objective is to stir critical thinking and dialogue around appropriateness and improvement of effectiveness local planning authority frameworks in Southern and Eastern Africa in general.

The methodology used to achieve this task involved several methods and techniques. Reflective review was drawn from the author's extensive experience of working as an urban and regional planner and urban sector development programme manager in the Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development and National Housing, the Department of Physical Planning, and consultancy over the years in Zimbabwe. Peer interviews and dialogue involved fellow professional planners in practice in the City of Harare and Department of Physical Planning and academics. Review of literature focused on placing the issue of local planning authority frameworks of Zimbabwe within the contexts of Sub-Saharan Africa and UN-Habitat Agenda. Good practice case study and benchmarking together with gap analysis and scorecard matrix techniques were effectively used. A good practice case study of South Africa provided basis and learning indicators of what radical initiatives could be adopted in Zimbabwe to transform dichotomous local planning authority frameworks. Gap analysis and scorecard matrix involved comparison of the Zimbabwe and South African case studies to identify and assess differences and gaps between them around key philosophical, structural, and functional indicators.

The relatively recently designed framework of South Africa was selected as good practice for benchmarking for several valid reasons. In 1994, the new democratic South African government inherited a local planning authority framework underlain by both colonial and apartheid structural design rationale. Its spatial and institutional imprint bore significant historical resemblance and similarities with that Zimbabwe inherited in 1980. Aside difference of scale and complexity, the two case study contexts have faced similar issues and challenges about the inherited frameworks and therefore provided reasonable scope for drawing comparative notes and lessons on their different responses, approaches and outcomes to a substantially similar structural and philosophical problem and challenge.

To accomplish the primary task, the remainder of the article is organized into four main parts. The next is Background on Local Planning Authority Frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa. It provides a conceptual global overview necessary to analyse, benchmark and assess the framework in Zimbabwe. Urban Development Framework of Zimbabwe, whose purpose is to build a case for radical change, follows, while the next part on Comparative Assessment of the Frameworks of Zimbabwe and South Africa identifies gaps and opportunities useful to build and strengthen the basis for radical transformation and modernization in Zimbabwe. Following this is the Conclusions, which puts forward overall conclusions and recommendations. Following immediately below is a global overview of urban development frameworks in developing countries with special reference to Sub-Saharan Africa, Zimbabwe, and the problematic city region.