CHAPTER THREE: TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN POST-1994 SOUTH AFRICA
3.6 RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK
3.6.4. Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy (ISRDS) 2000
102 acting as a partner rather than a manager. Nonetheless, the experimental nature and learning from mistakes approach resulted in less progress being made.
The period between 1996 and 1997/8 was more focused on the evaluation and refining of the programmes. Everrat and Zulu (2001) assert that some rural development programmes were substantially refined and new objectives set with some that were unrealistic. What is significant about this period is that a lot of innovation was encouraged and different models of institutional arrangements were introduced. The introduced models include outsourcing some programmes to independent stakeholders for implementation. It was also a period of refining policy responses through evaluation of previous programmes, learning from the previous mistakes, and experimenting on various approaches. The RDF of 1997 provided guidance for the development and implementation of rural development programmes for almost three years.
Unfortunately, there was a bit of stagnation regarding the construction of a clear and official rural development policy. Thus, stagnation prompted some advocacy groups such as the Rural Development Initiative (RDI), to urge the government to address the issue of rural development (Perret, Anseeuw and Mathebula, 2005).
103 The ISRDS rejuvenates the Government’s initial commitment to rural development. It is a fairly broad strategy to cover various challenges of rural development. For example, it takes into account the local and diverse contexts of rural areas, and also emphasises the eradication of rural poverty as a priority on its agenda. It also drew lessons from different rural development approaches employed by other developing countries in different parts of the world. Notably, it takes cognisance of input from various stakeholders and information generated through evaluation of the rural development programmes that had been implemented since 1994 (ISRDS, 2000). It identifies the lack of coordination in the implementation processes as the major reason that led to the fragmentation of rural development programmes and lack of progress. It articulates its vision as the development of:
“…socially cohesive and stable communities with viable institutions, sustainable economies and universal access to social amenities, able to attract and retain skilled and knowledgeable people who are equipped to contribute to growth and development” (ISRDS 2000:1).
The programme set districts and Local Government (LG) as the key drivers and locationsfor the achievement of an integrated sustainable rural development. The role of LG in rural development is discussed later in this chapter. What is important to note is that, although the LG was identified as the key driver of rural development, the programme acknowledges the weaknesses of local municipalities, and consequently preferred to focus on districts. This point is explained further in the discussion on the role of LG in rural development.
The ISRDS is viewed as a creative and ambitious attempt to address the problems of institutional capacity and lack of resources that were hindering the implementation of rural development programmes (Motebang, 2005). The plan sought to implement the programme in phases over a ten year period starting from 2001. One of the strengths of the programme is that it was a result of research and previous experience. The research had identified the centralised system of governance as contributing to poor performance of rural development programmes elsewhere. Consequently, it favoured a decentralised, empowered and trained rural local government system as the most appropriate to drive rural development in post-apartheid South Africa. Thus, the ISRDS focused on 13 selected nodes spread over rural areas across the country. Three pilot nodes were selected initially and ten more nodes added later. Perret, Anseeuw and Mathebula (2005) note that, 12 of the selected nodes superimposed district demarcations. Nonetheless, the programme aimed to promote integrated service delivery through coordinated planning and resource allocation in the nodal areas. It also sought to
104 encourage better collaboration between programmes implemented by the government and independent actors in order to fast track service delivery and improve the quality of life of rural people in the nodal areas (Mdaka, 2009).
The selected nodal areas provided an opportunity to address the challenges that impacted negatively on the previous rural development programmes. The challenges include: poor coordination, poor consultation, weak participation, poor data and planning, weak institutional and regulatory mechanisms, slow delivery and weak sustainability (ISRDS, 2000; Phuhlisani Solutions 2009). These are clearly identified and delineated in the programme and there is an explicit commitment to address them.
As a result, the ISRDS was inaugurated at a time when many local municipalities were ill- equipped to play a meaningful role in the agenda of rural development. As such it was designed to enable both the national and provincial levels of Government to support municipalities that were poorly resourced. The Independent Development Trust (IDT) was appointed to work with municipalities in the designated nodes to facilitate the integration of their projects and to prepare a nodal operational plan. The Integrated Development Planning (IDP) model was adopted as the core tool for delivering the objectives of the programme. The IDPs were designed to bolster local capacity for people’s involvement in the matters of local government (Motebang, 2005).
The ISRDS hoped to achieve the vision of building socially cohesive and stable rural communities with viable institutions and sustainable economies within the timeframe of ten years. It aimed to achieve universal access to social amenities in rural areas and empower rural people to contribute to the growth and development of rural communities. This vision could only be realised after the establishment of both a strong institutional capacity at the local level and relevant infrastructure had been established. It is evident that there was need for strong institutional capacity and relevant infrastructure to enable the LG to fulfil its obligation of driving rural development in the post-apartheid epoch. Thus, the ISRDS recognizes institutional capacity at LG level as a prerequisite to achieving sustainable rural development in the post-apartheid period. This strongly suggests that weak and dysfunctional LG institutions at both district and local municipality level will fundamentally undermine the role of local government in rural development. The reduction of rural poverty and intensification of rural development essentially depends entirely on strong and functional LG institutions. The
105 mandate of LG in relation to rural development in the post-1994 era has been clearly defined, and there exists a basket of pieces of legislation to support it.