CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
5.10 Overall spatial planning goals achievement scores
115 Outcomes of Trans-border Spatial Development Cooperation. Insights Musina and Beitbridge’s Twinning Agreement.
“The issue of enforcement is very critical, because currently if I do not act as we agreed, no one will fine me or call me for a hearing.”
De Man (2001) recommended that legal aspects should be among the environmental tools on which sister city relationships must rest. This will encourage stakeholders to meet deadlines because they will be bound by the legal framework. However, the lack of time-bound goals might have also contributed to the fading of the twinning agreement.
5.9.3.4. Lack of continuity of leadership and a champion
The twinning suffered from the departure of officials due to completion of terms of office. When the mayors, councillors and town clerks of both municipalities left, the next group of municipal officials could not prioritize the twinning agreements. Sometime during the handover some of these trans-border relationships were not mentioned explicitly. At the end, the trans-border arrangement faded away as years passed. In support of this, in his study Buxbaum (2014) unpacked Johannesburg’s city-to-city partnerships and concluded that many twinning relationships rely on continuity of leadership. Therefore, the lack of continuity of leadership might have contributed to the failure to achieve the goals and objectives of the twinning agreement as they did not have an overseer.
5.9.3.5 Economic deterioration in Zimbabwe
The deterioration of the economy of Zimbabwe with its ripple effects being felt from 2006 going onwards was a major drawback. This affected the trans-border relationships within the country. The key informants indicated that this contributed to the decline of progress in the relationship. This was mainly because the twinning benefits were no longer mutual as the other twin municipality’s economic environment was no longer conducive for the relationship to survive. However, De Villiers (2006) recommended that twinning relationships should be manned by a twinning champion whose role is to create an environment that can respond to change in each of the twin partners. This means that the Musina-Beitbridge twinning agreement was supposed to have a plan set aside for unexpected political, economic or social changes.
116 Outcomes of Trans-border Spatial Development Cooperation. Insights Musina and Beitbridge’s Twinning Agreement.
the lowest score and 10 being the highest score. The score was a summary of the information that they had discussed. Table 5.10 shows their responses.
Table 5.10: Key informant’s overview on spatial planning goals achievement
Source: Author’s fieldwork 2016(Sample size 14 respondents)
Overall, the highest average score for all goals was 3,6 out 10, which is 36%. This means the key informants felt that the spatial planning goals of the Musina-Beitbridge twinning agreement had achieved only 36% of its goals, which is not close to the mid-mark. Key informants 11, 12 and 13 were immigration officials from South Africa. However, it is important to note that in Musina the scores for Special Economic Zones projects were very high, up to 70%. In Beitbridge Special Economic Zones projects were still far behind, with most key informants scoring a zero, and only 2 scoring 1 and 2 respectively. On average, the key informants indicated that 34% had been achieved in terms of addressing infrastructure challenges.
Information sharing was achieved to a level of 16%. The Inputs that had been set aside to implement the terms of reference were only 7% of what was needed. The progress for Special Economic Zones was only 23%. Easing the movement of people had not been achieved at all. This also corresponds with what the local citizens indicated, that their movement across the border had not been eased at all. Most respondents indicated that the twinning agreement requires a jumpstart to facilitate its projects. Figure 5.11 now shows generally how the spatial planning goals were being prioritised over the years.
Spatial planning goal Musina local municipality (Out of 10)
Beitbridge Town Council (Out of 10)
Border post (SA and Zim)
KI K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K1
4 Mean 1.Addressing inadequate and decaying
infrastructure in Musina and Beitbridge
5 6 7 6 4 4 3 5 0 4 3 34%
2. Sharing of information and expertise sharing with respect to spatial development planning.
5 3 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 3 3 16%
3. Assembling inputs that to implement the terms of reference in the twinning agreement.
2 2 1 0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 7%
4. The progress of establishing Special Economic Zones (SEZ) on both sides.
6 7 5 6 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 23%
5.Easing the movement of people 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average score 3.6 3.6 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.4 0.6 3.4 1 1.4 1.2 n/a n/a n/
a 16
117 Outcomes of Trans-border Spatial Development Cooperation. Insights Musina and Beitbridge’s Twinning Agreement.
Figure 5.11: Prioritisation of the twinning spatial planning goals from 2011-2016
Source: Author’s fieldwork 2016
Figure 5.11 above shows that soon after the twinning agreement was signed the goals were highly prioritised. Key informants explained that between 2004 and 2007 meetings were conducted and goals identified. Plans were put in place to implement them. However, from 2009 onwards the challenges explained in section 5.9.3 started unfolding and plans started falling apart as indicated in the graph. These included the economic meltdown (Parkins, 2011), establishment of two local municipalities on Beitbridge (Netsianda, 2011) and lack of a stand- alone budget for the twinning agreement. These contributed to the reduction in the prioritisation of the twinning goals. Most respondents also explained that they needed an overseer to revitalise the twinning projects. This is supported by Buxbaum (2014) who unpacked Johannesburg’s city-to-city partnerships and concluded that the absence of a twinning champion can contribute the failure to achieve the goals and objectives of the twinning agreement. The majority of the key informants indicated that they needed a jumpstart but were not sure who should be responsible. At least 80% of the key informants, especially from Beitbridge Town Council indicated that they were interested in reviving the twinning relationship which was fading away. According to them the twinning agreement had a good start but the implementation process was not effective. However, they still felt that it still could succeed if given another chance.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2004-2007 2007-2009 2010-2012 2013-2016
Addressing infrastructure Sharing information and expertise Assembling inputs Special Economic Zones projects Easing movement of people
118 Outcomes of Trans-border Spatial Development Cooperation. Insights Musina and Beitbridge’s Twinning Agreement.