Human Settlement - Background Paper

7/28/2019 Human Settlement - Background Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-settlement-background-paper 1/37

Background Research Paper: Human Settlements

South Africa Environment Outlook December 2005

1

NATIONAL STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROJECT

HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Background Research Paper produced for the South Africa

Environment Outlook report on behalf of the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Original Text and Research By:

Darryll Kilian

SRK Consulting

&

Hazel Fiehn, Jarrod Ball

Jarrod Ball and Associates

&

Dr Mark Howells

Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town

Original Peer Review:

Dr Owen Crankshaw

University of Cape Town

&

Sharon Lewis

National Treasury

Additional Research, Editing and Integrative Writing:

Dr Rudi Pretorius

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

&Donald Gibson, Dr Caroline Henderson

SRK Consulting

December 2005





2

Disclaimer

This specialist study was commissioned by SRK Consulting (SRK) on behalf of the

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) as part of the National State

of the Environment Reporting Programme. The material has been used in the

compilation of the South Africa Environment Outlook report. The views it contains are

not necessarily the views of DEAT or SRK. The DEAT and SRK do not accept

responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to or as aconsequence of anything contained herein.





3

9 HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9 HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ............................................. ................................................... .................3

9.1.1 Types of settlement ............................................ ................................................. .....................5 9.1.2 Population and settlement.......................................................................................................7 9.1.3 International migration.........................................................................................................10

9.2 SETTLEMENT IN SPACE ................................................... .................................................. .......11 9.2.1 Patterns of settlement............................................................................................................11 9.2.2 Urban form and structure ............................................ ........................................ .................12 9.2.3 Heritage and the built environment......................................................................................13 9.2.4 Transport ............................................ .................................................. .................................13 9.2.5 Social services: health and education...................................................................................14 9.2.6

Employment...........................................................................................................................17

9.2.7 Shelter and service provision................................................................................................19 9.3 THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SETTLEMENT AND ENVIRONMENT ................................................28

9.3.1 Ecological footprints.............................................................................................................28 9.3.2 The use of natural resources ................................. ................................................................29 9.3.3 Pollution and waste...............................................................................................................30

9.4 CONCLUSION ................................................. ................................................... ......................33 9.5 R EFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................34





4

SOUTH AFRICA’S SETTLEMENTS AT A GLANCE

What are the main issues?

! Integrating rural and urban settlement economies and servicing

! Integrating urban settlements to remove the distortions of apartheid planning

! Delivery of basic services and needs including housing, water, sanitation, electricity and waste

removal

What is the condition of our settlements?

! Settlements are still socially and economically divided

! There has been a rapid expansion of informal settlements around urban centres and peri-urbanareas

! Nearly 58% of South Africa’s population lives in urban areas

! Housing backlogs in cities have increased dramatically

! There has been some success in service delivery, most notably with clean water and electricity

! Many poorer households still lack access to basic needs, notably adequate sanitation facilities

! Local municipalities are faced with a severe shortage of capacity and resources, and increased

levels of corruption

! Access to adequate health care and quality schooling is varied across the country, and particularly

poor in rural areas! Many known waste disposal sites are not permitted, and there are many illegal communal dumping

sites across the country. Many waste sites do not meet the required environmental health standards

! Many settlements are located near to unhealthy areas, which poses health risks to the people living

there. Notable areas are mining areas, waste sites, polluted water courses and industrial areas

What are the main causes of change in settlements?

! Urbanization (and its rate) due to migration from within and outside the country

! Capacity of government to deliver services

! Economic activities and conditions

What consequences does this have?

! Reduced quality of life for urban dwellers, especially the poor and those without access to basic

services

! South Africa has an ecological footprint of 5.2 hectares per person, way higher than the globalaverage

! Unsustainable settlements lead to the degradation of ecosystems through consumption patterns and production of wastes and pollutants

! Expanding settlements and urban sprawl leads to the destruction of natural habitat and the loss of

high potential agricultural land

Are there opportunities?

! Enterprise development around waste management (re-use and recycling)

! Increased pace of delivery of water supplies and sanitation services, waste collection and housing

How is South Africa responding to issues of concern?

! Project Consolidate which aims to enhance the capacity of local government

! Expanded public works programme

! Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme

! Urban Renewal Programme

! The development of a Sustainable Settlements Strategy

! Renewable energy policy for South Africa

! Development of a National Heritage Register by SAHRA

! Development of Energy Strategies by South African cities

Key emerging issues

! The effects of climate change, in particular sea level rise on coastal settlements

! Deliver on land reform





5

INTRODUCTION

Human settlements define people’s

existence. They are places – large andsmall, urban and rural, formal and informal -

where people live, learn, work and create.The world has witnessed a dramatic increase

in the movement of people to urban areas,

especially in developing countries.Opportunities for employment, education

and access to health care are some of the principal factors that attract people to urban

settlementsa. This has resulted in more urban settlements with bigger populations, and the

dramatic expansion of existing urban centres. In 2000 over 40% of the global population livedin urban centres compared to 27% in 19721. It projected that the world will soon cross the 50%

mark, reaching 60%, some 5 billion people, by 2030. The urban population in the developingworld is growing at 2.4% per year – double the global growth rate. Rural-urban migration is

most pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa, which has an urbanization b rate of 3.5% per year.

Presently about 300 million Africans live in urban areas, a figure which is estimated to rise to

1405 million by 20302

.South Africa is experiencing a similar trend. Close to 58% of the population is

urbanized, up from 53% in 1996. This is a great deal higher than the average for Sub-Saharan

Africa, which stands at 34%1. Like in the rest of the developing world, this rapid urban growth

has placed significant pressure on natural and human systems that underpin and maintainsettlements.

As the locus human-environment interactions, human settlements lie at the centre of

global efforts to address the multiplicity of challenges facing sustainable development. It is

within this context that that the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was formulated. In linewith the principles contained in Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda

c, Millennium Development

Goal 7 set important targets relating to human settlement. Whereas Target 10 aims to halve, by2015, the proportion of people without safe drinking water, Target 11 commits countries to

collectively improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020.

Against this background, and with the socio-political overlay of settlement engineering,the pattern of human settlement in contemporary South Africa is complex and multi-faceted. It

is useful to establish a picture of the different types of settlement that characterize our

landscape.

9.1.1 Types of settlement

Human settlements are differentiated by a multitude of factors such as topography, location,size, proximity and management structures. As a result, it is not always easy to identify and

distinguish between different types of settlements. South Africa is no exception. It has a

settlement hierarchy that comprises settlements of varying sizes and geographic locations;

places that are urban and rural, planned and unplanned.

a The definition of what constitutes an urban area differs across the world. For example, Uganda classifies a

settlement with over 100 people as urban whereas in Nigeria an urban area has more than 20 000. Large cities aregenerally those of over a million and mega-cities over 10 million people. b Urbanization is the process whereby the number of people living in cities increases compared with the number of

people living in rural areas. A country is considered to be urbanized when over 50% of its population lives in urban

places.c The Habitat Agenda is an agenda for the sustainable development of human settlements. It was developed at the

Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlement, Habitat II, held in Istanbul, Turkey in 1996. The Habitat

Agenda includes the goals, principles and commitments to turn the vision of sustainable human settlement into

reality. South Africa endorsed the Habitat Agenda in 1996.

Human settlements mean the totality of the

human community – whether city, town, or

village – with all the social, material,

organizational, spiritual and cultural elements thatsustain it

(Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlement,

1976)





6

9.1.1.1 The size of settlements

In 1995, the Urban Development Strategy identified four principal city size classes: large

metropolitan areas (over 2 million people); large cities (500 000 to 2 million); medium sizedcities/large towns (100 000 to 500 000); and medium sized towns (50 000 to 100 000). Given

its urban focus this strategy did not include any rural typologies. The White Paper on Local

Government (1998) officially extended the previous narrow interpretation of settlement types to

include rural settlements including rural villages of varying sizes. Subsequent reports on humansettlements have expanded the settlement typology as follows: small towns (less than 50 000);

displaced urban or dense rural settlements (less than 50 000)3; large rural villages (between 5

000 and 50 000); and small rural villages and scattered settlements (of less than 5 000)4. Map

9.1 presents the settlement hierarchy for the country.

Although the different typologies have differentiated between urban and rural, the

definition of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ is strongly debated5. This is because it is difficult to establish

the cut-off point between these settlement types. Urban areas are typically densely settled anddeveloped, whilst rural settlements are characterized by a more scattered distribution of

population. However, there are many settlements that have both urban and rural characteristics.

9.1.1.2 The geography of settlements

An understanding of South African settlement typology would be incomplete without a

consideration of their geographic location and distribution. Settlements are defined by their relative location within and adjacent to urban cores as well as their economic divisions: whether

located in the core of cities; on their fringe or periphery, or at some distance from cities. In

addition to their spatial location, settlements can also be differentiated as planned and

unplanned, formal and informal, and comprising a range of housing types.Planned settlement has taken place within a legal land tenure framework, and is

characterized by the planned provision of services and infrastructure. Under apartheid, plannedtownships were constructed on the fringes of towns and cities. The services were frequently

basic, but in many townships these services are far superior than those in the informald

residential areas that have grown within and around them. Unplanned settlements evolved as

people settled in areas that are closer to employment opportunities. They occurred in a range of

locations: within planned townships, on open land within an urban area, or in peri-urban areas.Peri-urban squatter settlements for instance, developed on farms or smallholdings situated on

the outskirts of cities and towns.These unplanned settlements often lack services and have a range of housing (e.g.

backyard shacks, free-standing structures). Some are illegal, whilst others are on communalland, or on land where tenure has been secured following settlement. Some informal

settlements have also been planned. Planned informal settlements have evolved through site-and-service schemes, which involve the identification and preparation of land before settlement

takes place, including the insertion of basic infrastructural services. There has been wide

application of in situ upgrading of informal settlements, which involves the provision of secure

tenure and the insertion of required service infrastructure to ensure health and safety in existingsettlements.

d Informal settlements are characterized by communities living and located in informal housing. These settlements

are found in diverse geographical locations - close to the urban core, on the urban fringe or in peri-urban areas.





7

Source: Department of Housing (2002)6

Map 9.1: Types of settlements and their distribution in South Africa

Historically, South Africa has defined any settlement managed by a local authority as an ‘urban

area’, which resulted in a separation of rural areas from towns and cities and deepening

inequality for rural residents. This definition fell away following the promulgation of the

Municipal Structures Act 17 of 1998, which initiated a process of re-demarcation of

municipalities (Box 9.1). The Municipal Demarcation Board significantly improved humansettlement management by placing all rural and urban land in the country under the jurisdiction

of local government7. Coupled to this, Statistics South Africa in the 2001 Census categorized

census enumeration areas involving a mix of criteria (e.g. structure of the built environment,

land use and political institutions present). This resulted in a broadening of settlement types toincorporate more strongly informal and semi-urban aspects in urban classification from 1996

and 2001 Census.

9.1.2 Population and settlement

Settlements expand and evolve as populations grow. Population size and densities are among

the criteria used to characterize a settlement as either urban or rural. Despite ongoing debate,

there is broad agreement globally that settlements over 20 000 people, and a population density

of over 1 000 people per km2, are urban1. This cut-off does not however reflect the functional

inter-dependence of urban and rural areas, as the new municipal demarcation has recognized.

Box 9.1: New municipal structures

The Government Municipal Structures Act (1998) identifies three categories of municipalities:

metropolitan, local and district municipalities. The municipalities also comprise five broad governancetypes, namely: collective executive systems, a mayoral executive system, a plenary executive system, a

sub-council participatory system, and a ward participatory system.

Category A refers to a metropolitan municipality that is characterized as:

! A conurbation that has areas of high population density, intense movement of people, goods and

services, and possess multiple business districts and industrial areas;





8

! A centre of economic activity with a complex and diverse economy;

! A single are for which integrated development planning is desirable.

! An area with strong interdependent social and economic linkages between its constituent elements.

This category can have eight types or combinations of types of municipality.Category B (local) and C (district) municipalities are defined as those that do not comply with

category A. Six types or combinations of types are possible in local municipalities (category B) and three

in district municipalities (category C). A District Council is comprised of a collection of local

municipalities.

Between the 1946 and 2001, the South African population increased from over 7.36 million to

over 44,81 million, an average annual growth rate of 3.34%1. Recent census data provides more

detail about the demographic shifts between urban and rural areas in the country. These shifts

should be viewed against the backdrop of national population densities, which are presented in

Map 9.2. There is a strong relationship between population density and the nature of settlement.In 2001, 57.5% and 42.5% of South Africans lived in urban and rural settlements respectively 8

(Figure 9.1).


Map 9.2: Spatial distribution of population density across South Africa





9

Source: Statistics South Africa (2004)9

Figure 9.1: The proportion of urban and rural dwellers by province in 2001

There is a general perception that South African cities would experience large-scale permanent

rural to urban migration following the dismantling of laws that prevented many people fromliving in urban areas. The proportion of people moving into urban areas between 1996 and

2001 increased nationally by 2.4%8, while 7 of the 9 provinces experienced lower than average

increases in urban population during this period (Figure 9.2) suggesting that rural-urban

migration is not as dramatic or permanent as generally believed, nor is it only one way.Migration is often circular and non-permanent10. Although many cities have grown in

population size, there are indications of return migrations to rural areas from cities and towns.There is also inter-city migration occurring as people abandon urban centres with high

unemployment in search of opportunities elsewhere. Intra-city and intra-provincial migration

has also played a role. For example, 13.7% of new migrants to Johannesburg in 2001 came

from Ekurhuleni and Tshwane, and a further 10.4% from the rest of Gauteng. The city lost 92

396 people (or 42,5%) to the rest of the province1. In Cape Town, 11% of the total population

moved house between 1996 and 2001. In addition, the country’s nine largest cities have seen an

average annual increase of 4.89% in households between 1996 and 2001, far in excess of

population growth9. This increase seems to support the evidence that households resident in the

cities are splitting.

Source: Statistics South Africa

(2003)8

Figure 9.2: Difference (in

percentage) in the population

proportions living in urban areas

between 1996 and 2001

An understanding of demographics

in relation to human settlements would be incomplete without touching on the impact of

HIV/AIDS. The rate of growth is already declining, but the population as a whole is likely todecline after 200711. Major urban areas will be particularly hard hit, but rural areas will also be

affected (Map 9.3). Refer to Chapter 2 for more information on the scale and impact of the

HIV/AIDS pandemic.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P e r c e n t a g e ( % )

Rural(%) 2.8 9.6 17.3 24.2 42.5 54 58.2 58.7 61.2 86.7

Urban(%) 97.2 90.4 82.7 75.8 57.5 46 41.8 41.3 38.8 13.3

GP WC NC FS SA KZN NW MP EC LP

-1.7

0.2 0.6 11.7 1.8 1.8

2.4

7 7.5

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

N W

G P

E C

W C

M P

K

Z N L

P S A

F S

N C

Province






10


Map 9.3: Estimated impact of HIV/AIDS on population numbers from 2001-2011

9.1.3 International migration

Transboundary migration has played a significant role in the South Africa’s urbanization

process. South Africa has a long history of dependence on migrant workers particularly in themining and agricultural sectors

13. South Africa’s political and economic stability since the

1990s relative to that of Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries and beyond, has brought with it new streams of legal and undocumented migrants. Legal migration

from SADC countries to South Africa has increased dramatically since the early 1990s14, whilemany Zimbabwean health professionals are immigrating to South Africa amongst other

countries15.

Between the 1996 and 2001 there was an increase of 158 000 people who were born in

a SADC country, whilst the number born in other African countries like Democratic Republic

of Congo, Ethiopia and Somalia increased by 21 8009. This growing trend in international

migration to South Africa has continued since then. Authorities received 104 000 applications

for asylum in 200416

, more than double that in 2000.

A baseline study undertaken in 2003 among 1 500 refugees found that the average age

of African refugees was 31 years, just under half were single, 82% were male, and that two-thirds possessed education of matric or higher 17. However, there is a growing stream of female

migrants coming to South Africa18

. Whereas men migrate primarily in search of employment,women’s migration to South Africa is motivated by trade opportunities.

It is difficult to determine how many migrants are living in South Africa illegally.

Approximately 600 000 people were forcibly removed from South Africa between 1994 and199819. Stricter provisions in the new Immigration Act introduced in 2002, impose harsh

penalties on anyone giving illegal immigrants work or shelter. This may have contributed to the





11

sharp increase in the asylum applications, since the Refugees Act states that no one who hasapplied for refugee status can be deported until their application has been considered.

These trends in national and international migration are spatially represented in Map 9.4

below. The Housing Atlas map shows migrants concentrated in and around the large cities, aswell as in parts of Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal. These correspond with the

location of displaced or dormitory urban settlements situated on the fringe of cities or in

dormitory towns far from urban centres. This explains to some extent the envisaged spatial

patterns of impacts of HIV/AIDS on population numbers.


Map 9.4: Net migration from 2001 to 2004

9.2 SETTLEMENT IN SPACE

9.2.1 Patterns of settlement

South Africa has a fully developed settlement hierarchy, with high levels of connectivitye – by

developing world standards - of roads, rail and communications networks. Historically,

settlement patterns have been shaped by colonial conquest imposed on indigenous settlement patterns, then by colonial trade and minerals extraction dynamics. Many of South Africa’s large

urban centres are therefore situated along the coast (Ethekwini, Nelson Mandela Metropole,

Buffalo City and Cape Town) or close to major mining activities (Kimberley, Mangaung,Johannesburg, and Tshwane). Recent changes in settlement patterns are partially a legacy of apartheid spatial planning. Apartheid planning over several decades systematically designed

towns and cities that spatially separated races and classes. Black residents were put into areason the margins of the cities, which were often poorly serviced, lacked good infrastructure,

possessed few work opportunities, or shopping and entertainment amenities. White residential

areas were generally well laid out and well-serviced suburbs conveniently located to

eConnectivity refers to the degree to which different transport and communication nodes and modes are

connected thereby enabling the movement of people and goods.





12

employment and major urban facilities. Despite efforts to address these spatial patterns, SouthAfrican cities still bear testimony to this legacy. Rural settlements are mostly unplanned and

poorly serviced. A large proportion of the rural settlements are located in the former homeland

areas in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and North West provinces. Some keyelements of the rural landscape nonetheless remain; land under communal tenure in former

homelands and large peri-urban dormitory settlements in former homelands (e.g. the complex of

settlements in the former KwaNdebele, east of Pretoria).

By redrawing of municipal boundaries in 1999/2000, the Municipal Demarcation Boardeffectively linked towns and cities with their peri-urban and rural hinterlands with the aim of

better integrating the people, communities, economic activities and infrastructure of urban andrural settlements. The extended municipal boundary of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, for

example, includes within its urban fabric high-density central business and residential districts,

industrial areas, a number of town centres, commercial farming, and peri-urban smallholdings

and homesteads. It also includes the displaced urban settlement of Winterveldt.Most South African cities tend to be ‘small’f . There are six large cities and no mega

cities (Table 9.1). The metropolitan areas of Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni and Tshwane form the

core of the country’s industrial heartland that includes the Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark-Vaalcomplex. The Gauteng cities, although defined as separate metropoles, form a ‘polycentric

urban region’1. The port cities of Ethekweni, Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Metro are also

base to significant economic activities.

Table 9.1: Population in the nine largest cities in South Africa

City

Size of

municipal

area (km2)

Population

(2001)

Population

(2004)*

Average density

(people/km2)

(2001)

Johannesburg 1 644 3 225 812 3 638 715 1 962

Cape Town 2 499 2 893 247 3 111 039 1 158Ethekwini (Durban) 2 292 3 090 122 3 313 205 1 348

Ekurhuleni 1 923 2 480 276 2 799 707 1 290Tshwane (Pretoria) 2 198 1 985 983 2 193 596 904

Nelson Mandela (Port Elizabeth) 1 952 1 005 778 1 028 021 515

Buffalo City (East London) 2 516 701 890 713 921 279

Mangaung (Bloemfontein) 6 283 645 441 671 856 103Msunduzi (Pietermaritzburg) 648 553 223 572 975 854

* EstimatedSource: South African Cities Network (2004)

1

9.2.2 Urban form and structure

South African cities are characterized by low-density urban sprawl, where residential areas aremostly separated from places of employment, shopping and public facilities. Urban

development continues to reinforce the fragmented nature of the cities through the growth of

peripheral formal and informal settlements4. Cities are fragmented into relatively discrete cells

of development intersected by road systems and generally separated according to land use,

population and income.

In upmarket suburbs, the shift to high security, one-entrance townhouse and cluster complexes, golfing and country-estates, and walled and gated suburbs has made urban sprawl

worse. Residential development accounts for a third of all development in the country’s largest

cities20. In poorer suburbs, attempts at densification have been undermined by the expansion of fringe informal settlements. This sprawl is often fuelled by land invasions as old residents

living in backyard dwellings of existing townships and newcomers to the city occupy open land

on the outskirts of the city in the hope of securing housing in the future1. For instance, peri-

urban areas in Randburg have witnessed a dramatic increase in land invasion in close proximity

to the Cosmo City residential project, which is presently under development. Illegal land

f The following size categories have been used: small cities have more than 0.5 million people, large

cities have between 1 and 5 million people), and mega-cities have over 5 million people.





13

encroachment could also be attributed to growing impatience with the land reform process,especially in urban areas21.

Due to the logistical and fiscal challenges associated with urban sprawl, cities such as

Cape Town and Johannesburg are attempting to define and set the urban edge. The aim is toencourage residential and other commercial development within the existing confines of the

city, with the aim of promoting more a more compact city structure.

9.2.3 Heritage and the built environment

Population growth and settlement expansion has led to an accelerated rate of change, placingmany long-established built environments, rural landscapes and urban open spaces under

intense pressure. As heritage is associated with interventions, manifestations and physicalcreations of human origin, it is vulnerable to these pressures. This has resulted in growing

public concern about the loss of familiar environments, particularly historically and culturally

important buildings, and urban precincts. Conservation of natural and cultural heritage is seen

as essential to ensure the survival of valuable and irreplaceable resources, and constitute culturalsignificance for present and future generations. Culturally significant heritage may therefore

include places to which oral traditions are attached, places associated with living heritage, and

landscapes of natural features of cultural significance22

. Heritage does not stand alonetherefore, but forms an integral and indispensable part of the environment. However, an

evaluation of the state of heritage resources is not possible due to the absence of a national dataset. Box 9.2 provides available details of the situation.

Box 9.2: Heritage in South Africa

Heritage is the sum total of sites of geological, zoological, botanical, archaeological and historical

importance. It would also include national monuments, historic buildings and structures, works of art,literature and music, oral traditions and museum collections and their documentation, which provides the

basis for a shared culture and creativity.

Although heritage conservation dates back to 1911, the promulgation of the National Heritage

Resources Act (25 of 1999) provided for the protection of a wider and more inclusive range of heritageresources, or ‘National Estate’. National Estate may include structures, buildings, historical settlements,

landscapes, geological sites, archaeological sites, palaeontological sites, graves, burial grounds, movable

objects (associated with oral traditions) and sites relating to the history of slavery in South Africa. It alsoemphasises the management of these resources. This richness and diversity is reflected in South Africa’s

seven official world heritage sites: Robben Island, Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park, The Cradle of Humankind, uKhahlamba Drakensburg Park, Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, Cape Floral Region and

Vredefort Dome23

.Despite growing international and national interest in heritage conservation, there is no

comprehensive overview of South African heritage. The South African Heritage Resources Agency

(SAHRA) is presently in the process of developing an inventory of the National Estate, which will formthe backbone of a database of heritage resources that are worthy of conservation

24. In 1998 there were

over 4000 official national monuments25 and close to 3000 ‘provincial heritage sites’26.

9.2.4 Transport

Transport systems comprising road and rail networks, airports and harbours form the backbone

of any country’s socio-economic activities by enabling the movement of people and products.

In South Africa, transport has been used to socially and spatially separate millions of people andthe resultant distortions remain.

In spite of an extensive railway and road transport infrastructure, many people do not

have access to these modes of transport. Walking and cycling accounts for approximately 60%of all transport, while nearly 37% of people use road transport (Figure 9.3). The use of

motorcars for passenger transport is the least efficient per passenger in terms of congestion,

energy consumption and air emissions. Private vehicle transport, including cars and

motorcycles, accounts for 19% of trips while minibus/taxis are used 11.5% of the time. Thereare, however, differences in the levels of access to transport between urban and rural areas.

Many more people in rural areas travel by foot, whereas the reverse is true for private motor





14

cars, buses and minibuses27

. The national average use of private cars and taxis is consideredrelatively limited compared to certain local metropolitan areas. In Johannesburg, for example,

private car travel accounts for almost 50% of commuter trips with minibus travel being

responsible for a further ~30% of trips.The vast majority of South Africans are dependent on public transport, especially

private minibus taxis, to commute far distances to and from employment. As the state’s

transport subsidies only apply to rail and bus transport, the poor using minibus taxis to commute

do not currently derive any benefit from state subsidies.


Figure 9.3: Modes of transport used in

South Africa in 2001

In 2001, South Africa had an estimated 129vehicles for every 1 000 people, above the

world average of 120 vehicles per 1000 people. Presently there are over 7 million

vehicles on South African roads and this figure

is growing at a rate of about 2 % per year.

There is growing acknowledgement of the challenges linked to poor transport. TheUrban Development Framework of 1997, by

outlining a programme that aimed to integrate

cities, effectively focused attention on integrated planning including transport planning. The

White Paper on National Transport and Moving South African in 1998 aimed to promoteefficient transport systems that promote socio-economic integration within and between urban

and rural areas. Using a range of strategic actions (e.g. densifying corridors, optimizing modaleconomics and service mix) the government aims to develop transport corridors in strategic

sites across the country. This policy is closely linked to Spatial Development Initiatives, which

aim to unlock inherent economic potential in specific spatial locations such as Pietermaritzburg-Durban-Richards Bay, Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth-Port St Johns or Pretoria-Brits-Rustenburg28.

9.2.5

Social services: health and education

9.2.5.1 Health services

Social services are important as they contribute to the health and welfare of urban and ruralcommunities. The following statistics provide some indication of the state of health services in

South Africa:

! South Africa had 143 755 beds in 749 private and public hospitals in 200229

. By 2004 the

number of beds had declined to 135 977 in 739 hospitals30

.

! There were a total of 197 898 public health sector postsg in 2002, which included 19.30

medical practitioners per 100 000 of the population. Recent surveys have found poor

availability of all kinds of key health care personnel at a national level31

.

! In 1996 one third of the country’s public health care facilities needed rehabilitation 32. By

2001, 282 hospitals and 2 298 of the 4 000 clinic throughout the country had been

upgraded, with some 500 mobile clinics being provided between 1994 and 2001. 70% of thefacilities sampled in the 2003 Facilities Survey were found to be in urgent need of repair,

with only 43% having adequate toilet facilities for patients and staff 33

.

! Of the facilities surveyed 35% had been commissioned within the past 10 years suggesting

a possible improvement in access to public health care facilities for many South Africans.

gPublic health sector posts include positions for personnel such as nurses, dentists, doctors and

pharmacists.

On foot

59.4%

By car as a

passenger

8.7%

Other

0.7%

By train

2.5%By bus

6.0%

By minibus/taxi

11.5%

By car as a driver

9.9%

By bicycle

0.9%

By motorcycle0.4%





15

! Although most public health care facilities provided family planning and TB services at

least 5 days a week, almost one third of facilities did not provide immunisation services 5days a week. Facilities were also inadequately prepared to provide the required level and

quality of care to HIV positive patients.Like other services, access to health facilities varies distinctly across the country (Map

9.5). Low accessibility is concentrated mainly in rural settlements, although informal and

displaced urban settlements, for example, Emfuleni (Gauteng), Atlantis (Western Cape) and

Winterveldt (Limpopo) suffer from the same.

Source: Department of Housing (2002)

6

Map 9.5: Health care accessibility index

A severe shortage of health care staff, resources and facilities in public hospitals and clinics hasundermined health care provision. About 42.5% of posts in the public health care sector were

vacant in 200229

. Of particular concern was the decline in the number of community service

professionals from 406 to 341 per 100 000 people in 200334

, which has lowered the access to basic healthcare services of the rural and urban poor. The inequitable geographical distribution

of health services worsens the effects of these shortages. There is an imbalance in the inter- and

intra-provincial distribution of healthcare facilities, with some areas experiencing over-supplyand others backlogs. The Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga and Limpopo in particular have major

shortfalls in hospital beds35

. In addition to these inequalities, the quality of many public health

care facilities requires urgent attention, particularly in the Eastern Cape, Gauteng and North

West. This highlights the importance of continuous maintenance.It is evident that much still needs to be done to improve the delivery of health services.

The White Paper on the Transformation of the Health System (1997) and the subsequent HealthSector Strategic Framework 1999-2004 guide the activities of national and provincial health

departments. It is policy to provide free health care to children at all public hospitals, and to

supply medication for pregnant women that are HIV+. In practise, however, few women arereceiving the medication. While there is considerable effort to contain the epidemic, to date we

have few results to show36.





16

Programmes such as the Hospital Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Programme andClinic Upgrading and Building Programme have had some success in providing basic healthcare

facilities to poor communities, including women and children.

9.2.5.2 Education

South Africa is faced with huge challenges in the education sector. The obvious improvements

since 1994 have been highly unevenly spread. The transformations of the education systeminclude:

! the creation of a single national education department from 19 departments that were

racially, ethnically and regionally divided;

! the establishment of non-discriminatory environments in the country’s 27 000 schools;

! the setting up of a National Qualifications Framework and the amalgamation of 150 Further

Education and Training Colleges into 50; and

! the merger of various technikons and universities32.

There has been increased delivery of basic services, which has had a positive impact on

some schools. The following improvements took place between 1996 and 200037:

! a decline from 34% to 27% in the percentage of schools with running water;

! a 55% to 16% decline in the percentage of learners without access to toilet facilities;

! an improvement in access to electricity from 40% to 54.9%;! schools without telephones declined from 59% to 36.4%; and,

! the number of schools with computers increased from 2 241 to 6 581.

These improvements have contributed to higher enrolment rates. In 2001, more than 12 million

learners (representing approximately 90% of all children between the ages of 5 and 15) attended

school9. These positive developments notwithstanding, South Africa faces huge backlogs the

education system with the poorest schools in the country remaining severely disadvantaged

thereby impacting on literacy levels. Inequalities between urban and rural schools are evident in

the facilities and resources available to them. Many households find it difficult to access qualityeducation, mainly in the rural areas, which is needed to develop appropriate skills for the

marketplace. The high percentage of un- and under-qualified teachers is a cause for concern38

.

Pressure on provincial education budgets over recent years has resulted in therationalization of teachers and an inability to develop basic infrastructure, especially in the

larger and poorer provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, Limpopo and North West.

This inefficiency has contributed to higher drop-out rates and failure rates.In order to address the discrepancies in the education sector, the Department of

Education has put in place several programmes. The National Schools Building Programme

makes available grants to provinces for the development of school infrastructure. The

department has adopted action strategies in order to improve the poor delivery of provinces.The Schools Register of Needs has been established to identify areas (and schools) requiring

priority intervention.

9.2.5.3 Community facilities

In addition to the health and education facilities, people’s quality of life is also influenced byaccess to community facilities such as libraries, parks, sports fields and community halls andrecreational facilities. Table 9.2 compares the number of community services per 10 000 people

in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Mangaung and Msunduzi.

Table 9.2: Social services and amenities per 10 000 peopleFacility Johannesburg Cape Town Mangaung Msunduzi

Libraries 0.24 0.35 0.11 0.16

Swimming pools 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.16

Parks - - 1.82 0.09





17

Sports fields 0.69 0.23 0.69 0.75

Community halls andrecreational facilities

0.29 0.37 0.31 0.02

Nursery schools 0.28 0.03 - -

Childcare 0.28 0.04 - -

Total rates per person

2002/03R653.97 R640.24 R278.23 R405.55

Source: South African Cities Network (2004)1

Open spaces, especially in highly urbanized settlements, also enhance people’s daily existence.Increasingly cities (including Nelson Mandela, Ekurhuleni, eThekwini and Cape Town) are

focusing on the impact of the built environment on valuable open spaces such as parks,

greenbelts and the municipal reserves. Open Space Management Systems (OSMS) have been

developed in municipalities such as Cape Town, eThekwini and Johannesburg. Theseframeworks attempt to balance the pressure to develop new land with the imperative to maintain

environmentally sensitive land for the benefit of future generations. However, there are nocomprehensive data on urban open space in the country.

9.2.6 Employment

Employment is one of the primary causes of urbanization, since cities and towns are where jobsare concentrated. Most of the new jobs (469 927) created between 1996 and 2001 were created

in the nine largest cities9. During this period, absolute employment in these cities increased by

247 672 to 4 866 808. However, relative to the growth in sectors such as wholesale and retail,

and manufacturing, there has been negative growth in employment. The exception to this jobless growth appears to be the financial and business sector, which has gone from the second

smallest employment sector in 1960 to the fourth largest in 20011. Figure 9.4 presents the

employment by economic sector for all cities in South Africa. Employment profiles (including

income and skills) differ depending on the nature of a city’s economy. For instance, the growthin the wholesale and retail sector in cities such as Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, Tshwane and Cape

Town (represented by the development of large shopping centres) has been mirrored by anincrease in employment of service workers. The ‘community and government’ sector is the

largest employer in urban economies in the country.


Figure 9.4: Percentage employment by economic sector

In the absence of data on unemployment in rural areas, it can be assumed that these areas

experience levels of unemployment on a par with (or higher than) national figures. Research on

rural development40

has indicated extreme rural poverty and deprivation, for example in

Community &

government

19%

Construction

6%

Utilities

1%

Financial13%

Manufacture

16%

Mining

1%

Households

9%

Other

0%

Agriculture

2%

Wholesale & retail

17%

Transport &

communication

6%

Undetermined

10%





18

KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Limpopo, with strong linkages to poor land management andenvironmental degradation41.

The monthly income of workers also offers some interesting insights into the

distribution of employment opportunities within the country. The average monthly income of workers in the nine largest cities in 2001 was R5,927.22, compared with R2,789.26 in the rest

of the country9. In the SACN cities, Tshwane and Johannesburg displayed the highest average

monthly income per employed person, of R6,483.81 and R6,408.63, respectively.

A comparison of the 1996 and 2001 census data shows an increase in unemployment in

the country as a whole (Figure 9.5) (Refer to Chapter 2). Using the expanded definition of

unemploymenth, in 2001, unemployment in the SACN cities stood at 38.3%, against 41.5% for

the country as a whole. Despite the contribution of the major urban centres to employment, job

creation is insufficient to address the employment needs of the country’s population. Although

the workforce across the country grew by 16.8% between 1996 and 2001, the numbers of

people seeking employment in the SACN cities increased by 20.94%. This means that thecountry’s cities experienced a much higher increase in total unemployment, 58.80% compared

to 43.90% for South Africa as a whole.

Source: South African Cities Network (2004)1

Figure 9.5: Unemployment in nine largest cities (1996 and 2001)

Although difficult to accurately quantify, it is widely acknowledged that informal economic

activities are a major generator of economic value in South Africa. Small, medium and micro

enterprizes (SMMEs) represented 97.5% of the total number of firms in South Africa,contributed 34.8% to the GDP, and employed 55% of the national labour force in 200242.

Estimates that are more recent suggest that the informal economy employs a larger percentageof the country’s labour force. In 2004, 71.4% of economically active people earned a living in

the informal sector 43. Empirical investigations on the SMME economy in Johannesburg provide

some insights into the characteristics of informal enterprizes:

! SMME establishment is motivated by supply-push rather than demand-pull

considerations44;

! immigrant entrepreneurs, especially from sub-Saharan Africa, represent a significant

component of the informal economy45

;

! survivalist activities contribute to over-trading niches such as home-based spaza retailing,

street trading and informal urban cultivation46

; and

h The expanded measure of unemployment is defined as those people who want to work but have not taken active

steps to look for work or to start some form of self-employment in the previous four weeks.

Figure 9.5: Unemployment in the 9 largest cities (1996-2001)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

J o h a

n n e s b u

r g

e T h e

k w i n i

C a p e

T o w n

E k u r h

u l e n i

T s h w

a n e

N e l s o

n M a n

d e l a

B u f f a

l o C i t y

M a n g

a u n g

M s u m

d u z i

N o u n e m p l o y e 1996 2001





19

! variable entrepreneurial skills are required to be competitive47

.

This research indicates that the informal sector is much more than a temporary safety net for theunemployed, but also an important provider of goods and services.

9.2.7 Shelter and service provision

South Africa has an extremely skewed pattern of access to housing and basic services. The

service deprivation index, developed by the UNDP to measure progress in the delivery of seven basic services in South Africa, shows a slight increase in service deprivation between 1996 and

2001, especially among Black-headed households32

. There has been an increase in the number

of households that are considered deprived of access to ‘good’ quality basic services; from 5.68

million in 1996 to 7.24 million (27% increase) in 2001. Fifty percent of the total deprivation

occurs in the KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces (Map 9.6). A closer look atthe access to housing, water, sanitation, waste management and energy shows a number of

interesting trends. It also shows that the country’s progress towards meeting the Millennium

Development Goals has been uneven (Box 9.3).


Map 9.6: Household access to basic services: (a) piped water in the dwelling, (b) adequate

sanitation (flush toilets), (c) electricity for lighting, and (d) waste removal

9.2.7.1 Shelter

Since 1994, South Africa has spent R24.22 billion supporting the building of over 1.5 million

houses for poor households7. Approximately 6 million people benefited from subsidy and

housing credit schemes across the country between 1994 and June 200349

. Depending on the

province, between 28% and 54% of all housing subsidies approved, were granted to women-headed households32. A review of the number of houses completed this period shows that

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)





20

housing delivery in provinces has been sporadic, tailing off significantly in 2003. By far thelargest number of houses were constructed in Gauteng (355 556 units) and KwaZulu-Natal (256

542 units) between 1994 and 2003, whereas only 32 136 houses were built in Limpopo for the

same period49

.

The total proportion of traditional households decreased significantly from 18.2% to

14.8% over the period 1996 to 2001 (Figure 9.6), with female-headed households showing the

largest decline. During the same period the proportion of informal households living in shacks

increased by 5.8%, this despite a 7% increase in the proportion of households living in formalhousing. Black households have been the primary beneficiaries of state housing policies: the

proportion of formal dwellings occupied by Blacks increased by 10% to 55%, while the number of blacks occupying informal shacks declined.

Housing needs have increased due to a rapidly growing urban population. The expansion of

unplanned informal settlements has resulted in an increase in the housing backlog: from 1.5

million units in 1994 to approximately 3 million units in 200032

. In 2002, the rate of housing backlog was around 208 000 units per year, and can be attributed to factors including rapid

urbanization, unemployment, population growth, exacerbated by corruption and lack of administrative capacity50. Surveys have shown mixed reactions from recipients of RDP houses,

including dissatisfaction with the quality of housing delivery, the poor access of households

living in housing projects to jobs and job-hunting opportunities, the under-spending on budget

for low-income housing by responsible housing departments, and unfair allocation of housing

7

.

1Others: Incl. caravan or tent and private ship/ boat


Figure 9.6: Distribution of dwellings by type and race

9.2.7.2 Water and sanitation services

Access to potable water and sanitation is essential to the effective functioning of human

settlements and integral to human health and well-being. Since 1994, there has been an

improvement in access to clean water. In 2001, 9.5 million households (84.5%) had access to

piped water, an increase of 2.4 million households since 1996. During the same period, thenumber of households reliant on water from sources including dams, rivers and streams and

boreholes declined, thereby suggesting improved access to clean water among rural households.However, low cost recovery, water availability and inefficient training in maintenance of

infrastructure, among others, have resulted in the variable success of rural water schemes4.

To minimize service arrears and ensure the basic needs of households are met, theDepartment of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) mandated in 2001 that households receive

up to 6 000 litres of free water per month. The subsistence level of this free water, however,

still needs to be measured in the context of larger families, those living in backyard shacks onthe same property and people involved in subsistence activities.

45

89

55

92

21

2

20

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

African Others ¹ African Others ¹

1996 1996 2001 2001

Race group and year


Formal Informal Traditional Backyard Other ²





21

Source: Department of Water Affairs

and Forestry (2004)51

Figure 9.7: Levels of access to

water supply infrastructure

The safe disposal of human wastereduces the vectors for disease.

Although there has been progress inthe delivery of clean water, there are

evident lags in the delivery of

sanitation facilities52

. Many

households do not have access toadequate sanitation facilities.

(Figure 9.8). Although there has

been a varied but small improvementin the access to flush toilets, and an

increase in the number of households with access to adequate sanitation from 7.5 million to 9.2

million, the proportion of households without adequate sanitation has not changed markedlysince 1993. At the time of the 1996 Census, approximately one in every eight households didnot have access to sanitation. By 2001, this figure had increased to one in every seven

households. In line with policy, however, there has been a decline in bucket toilets from 5.3%

in 1993 to 1.9% 2003.

Source: Statistics South Africa (200153 , 20049 )

Figure 9.8: Access to sanitation and incidence of water-borne diseases from 1993 - 2003

The apparent lack of progress in sanitation provision is due to a combination of a growing population and number of households, as well as relatively low delivery

52. Consequently, in

many areas inferior forms of sanitation persist resulting in high incidences of water-borne

diseases, for example cholera and typhoid. The outbreak of cholera in KwaZulu-Natal in 2001

is an example of the results of poor access to sanitation (Figure 9.8).

46.4

35.4

6.1

4.9

47.4

37.3

5.7

4.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Census population

Access to infrastructure at basic

level or higher

Access to basic services - below

RDP service levels

No access to infrastructure

L e v e l o f a c c e s s

Number of people (millions)

2003 2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

P e r c e n t a g

e o f h o u s e h o l d s ( % )

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

N u

m b e r o f c a s e s

Bucket Pit Flush/Chemical

Cholera Typhoid Not adequate

Linear (Not adequate)





22

Box 9.3: South African progress in meeting Millennium Development Goals relating to

human settlement

MDG 7 focuses on ensuring environmental sustainability. Targets 10 and 11 are as follows:

! Target 10: Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation; and,

! Target 11: Have achieved by 2020 a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slumdwellers.

Reviews of South Africa’s performance in terms of target 10 and 11, suggest variable success. Despite

significant improvement in the number of people with safe drinking water over the past decade, the water services in non-urban areas are still in need of improvement

54. Distinguishing between adequate (piped to

house of stand) and inadequate water supply (all other categories), a report by Crankshaw and Parnell55

on target 11 comes to a similar conclusion. They also indicate a decline in the access to water in urbanareas, suggesting an increase in household growth. With sustained delivery, it would appear that South

Africa stands a good chance of meeting the water delivery target.

Assessments report less satisfactory progress in the provision of sanitation. With over 21% of

the population still without sanitation, much needs to be done if South Africa is to meet its target. TheDWAF 2004 Annual Report estimates that some 17 million people are still without sanitation.

Crankshaw and Parnell indicate that South Africa had performed well in improving the

conditions of slum dwellers through several initiatives, including the provision of new houses andhousing subsidies. Shack settlements however increased by 5.8% between 1996 and 2001. Progress with

respect to tenure security was found to be excellent, with over 2 million new households obtaining access

to individual freehold housing during the review period. Tenure reform for slum dwellers living in other

categories of shelter (e.g. hostels, domestic quarters, informal settlements) was found to have been slow.

9.2.7.3 Waste collection and disposal

Local authorities are mandated to collect, handle and dispose of domestic waste from all

households and to ensure an equitable service to their communities. The Gauteng, WesternCape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces service the greatest number of households, while the

Western Cape, Gauteng and Northern Cape provinces service the greatest percentage of households in their provinces (Figure 9.9). Municipal waste collection has improved

countrywide by only 2.7% between 1996 and 2001, and almost 50% of the population is still not

receiving a regular waste collection service. The metropolitan municipalities deliver an almost100% service, while local municipalities in many remote rural areas deliver no service at all.Yearly assessments of the ability of local municipalities to perform their refuse removal and

disposal functions, which is undertaken by the Municipal Demarcation Board56

, show that thereis a growing inability of municipalities (e.g. staff, capacity, budget) to deliver efficient waste

collection services.


Figure 9.9: Municipal service provision of waste collection facilities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

WC GP NC FS KZN MP EC NW LP

P e r c e n t a g e o

f h o u s e h o l d s ( % )

1996

2001





23

Landfill sites are currently an important aspect for implementation of the cradle to grave

approach of waste management. However if not sited, engineered and operated correctly, as isthe case in many parts of South Africa, negative impacts can be numerous and of long duration.

Communities residing close to these landfills, can be impacted on as follows:

! Streams situated close to a site can be contaminated from leachate generated by the landfill;! Borehole water can also become contaminated if leachate percolates into the groundwater;! Burning of waste releases particulates and other gases which could be harmful to health and

could affect respiration among other things;

! Contamination of surface and groundwater resources and soil;

! Emissions and releases of contaminants into the air from incineration, illegal burning of waste and releases of volatile organic carbons (VOCs) poses human health risks;

! Poses health and safety risks;

! Attracts vermin and harbours vectors; and! Litter and illegal dumping is aesthetically unpleasant and can lead to urban decayImproved

operation can have a marked decrease in environmental impacts.

The Townlands landfill in Rustenburg shows the negative community impacts of poor landfill

management.Over the last five years, planners have ignored landfill permit conditions and have built

residential areas, closer and closer to the landfill. Prior to June 2004, no access control, poor on-

site operations, dust and the burning of waste and tyres by a growing informal salvager

population negatively affected nearby residents. In addition to the growth in the number of informal salvagers, there was a noticeable increase in wind blown litter, odour and an increase in

the fly population. Informal salvagers were in constant contact with waste and machinery, which

exposed them to various health and safety risks posed by general and health care waste andcondemned food stuff.

Although the site’s aesthetics, odour and operation have improved with the appointment

of an on-site contractor, the planning department has given permission for low cost housing to be

built five to ten metres from the toe of the landfill. This presents another set of dangers such as

the migration and threats related to methane gas and the stability of the landfill. These potentialhazards would persist long after the landfill is closed.

Source: Specialist Study on Waste by Jarrod Ball and Associates (2005)

Once collected, waste must be properly disposed of to protect human health (see Box 9.4). 475

general landfill sites have been granted a permit from the DWAF, while 12 new applications arein process. This represents 64% compliance with Section 20 of the Environment Conservation

Act, as more than 760 sites (legal and illegal) are currently known to DWAF. There could

however be up to 15 000 unrecorded communal sites in the rural areas57

. In 1997, more than

300 incineration facilities were in operation in South Africa, many of which could then not meetthe required emission standards for human health and environmental protection58.

Waste has direct and indirect impacts. Waste, if not removed, attracts vermin, whichact as vectors for disease. The effects of waste on the environment are primarily negative, such

as contamination of surface and groundwater resources and soil, with certain social and

economic benefits, e.g. job creation through recycling, use of waste as a resource in terms of

fuel and input raw material. Emissions from incinerators and the illegal burning of wastecontribute to air pollution, thereby contributing to the release of volatile organic carbons that

pose human health risks.

Box 9.4: The impact of a landfill on surrounding communities – A case study in

Rustenburg





24

Steps taken to date to ensure environmental rights in relation to waste management

include: the publication of the Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (1998); the

White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management (1998); the National Water Act(1998); as well as the promulgation of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)

(1998) which emphasizes the concept of waste minimization as well as environmental social

and economic sustainability of developments such as landfills. The White Paper on Integrated

Pollution and Waste Management (NWMS) defines government’s ‘cradle to grave’ approach tothe management of waste. Currently implementation of the NWMS is being undertaken on the

following selected components: the Waste Information System, Recycling, Health Care Wasteand Capacity Building. These initiatives will soon be supplemented by the promulgation of an

Integrated Waste Management Bill, which is scheduled for promulgation in 2006.

As a component of the NWMS, local authorities have been developing their Integrated

Waste Management Plans (IWMP), to address current shortfalls in service delivery andimproving on environmental compliance. By 2004, 50% of metropolitan municipalities, 31% of

District Municipalities and 27.5% of local municipalities had completed an IWMP. Althoughthis represents only 28.72% of all municipalities, another 54.55% are in the process of

developing their waste plans59.

The first DEAT National Waste Summit held at Polokwane in September 2001

highlighted the need for urgent action to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste in order to protect theenvironment. The outcome of the Summit was the signing of the Polokwane Declaration, of which the main goal is to stabilize waste generation and reduce waste disposal by 50% by 2012

and to achieve zero waste by 2022. Box 9.5 presents the key opportunities for waste and waste

management.

Box 9.5: Opportunities for waste and waste management

! Waste should be seen as a resource and the potential for various uses investigated.

! Separation at source can result in the creation of work opportunities and assists in preventingcontamination of recyclables thereby improving usability.

! Alternative product packing methods could instill creative entrepreneurship and means of storage.

Products such as biodegradable packaging products (e.g engineered starch) could be developed and amarket could be established for these goods.

! Cleaner technology improves cost effectiveness, reduces waste, improves product development and

design which could lead to reduced emissions (air and water).

! Alternative uses of waste streams as resources for other products (ash in brick making, gypsum for

gypsum board, pulverized rubber waste integrated into bitumen/tar, etc.).

! Opportunities for job creation in supplying services, reuse of waste products to create usable products, art, etc..

! Opportunities can be found in the harvesting of landfill gas for heating, electricity and an alternative

fuel source, which also reduces emissions of greenhouse gasses.

! Industrial waste exchange systems between industries.

! Carbon credit projects (where carbon credits could be sold as an income for local municipalities in

particular).

! Diversion or reduction of the waste stream to disposal sites, reduces potential pollution problems.

! Where waste information systems are lacking, entrepreneurs/companies can design and market

systems to assist local authorities in particular.

!

With so many historical sites, not properly rehabilitated and closed, opportunities exist for SMMEsto reshape and rehabilitate these sites, which could have a long-term beneficial use for the localcommunity. Pikitup (Johannesburg) are currently rehabilitating 6 sites in Soweto with end uses

varying from sports fields, open spaces for communities, subsistence agricultural farming to the

establishment of recycling facilities.





25

9.2.7.4 Energy

The South African economy is energy-intensive, using a large amount of energy for every Rand

of economic output60i

. South African energy is dominated by coal j, which contributes 70% of

primary energy and fuels 93% of electricity production61 (Figure 9.10). As much of the coal

mined is of low quality it is often beneficiated resulting in large quantities of solid waste

discards. Producing 1 Kilowatt hour of electricity requires 0.5 kg of coal, 1.29 litres of water,

and results in the generation of 142 g of ash and 0.9 kg of carbon dioxide. A ton of coal wouldtherefore produce 284 kg of waste ash62. In 2003 about 6.3 million tons of waste ash was

produced in the country63.

In addition to the waste ash production, energy supply in South Africa is also carbondioxide-intensive. Approximately 209 tons of carbon is used for every international dollar of

GDP produced in South Africa, compared to 164 tons for the USA 64. Sulfur related emissions

from power stations, though significant at about 1.5 million tons per year 65

, are tapered as the

sulfur content of local coal is low.Local coal is cheap and this results in low energy costs, particularly for electricity

k ,

which is the cheapest in the world - about one US cent per kilowatt hour. In addition to being amajor exporter of coal, South Africa’s access to low-cost energy has helped develop a

competitive advantage by, among others, setting up energy-intensive industry such as

aluminium smelting and mining. Heavy industry and mining operations are, however, a major

contributor to high ambient air pollution levels in many major urban centres.South Africa has little oil and most of its crude is imported at expense to the country.

The country obtains useful amounts of energy from biomass (14%) and nuclear power (6%),

with smaller amounts from hydropower l, natural gas

m, solar and wind (Box 9.6). Much of the

primary energy is transformed into final energy, which is convenient to use, such as electricity

and liquid fuels. The country’s final energy demand in 2005 is estimated to be 2400 PJ

(excluding marine bunkers and non-energy fuel use), consisting of electricity (24%), coal

(24%), liquid fuels (26%), bioma ss (15%) and with natural gas and other renewables less than1%66.

Figure 1 illustrates the energy flows through the South African energy-economy, from

supply to the end use of energy. As a result of the high reliance on fossil fuels, much carbon(.87 tons) is released per unit (1 tonne of oil equivalent) of energy consumed. The use and

transformation of energy accounts for 75% of South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions.

iIt requires 240 tons of oil (equivalent) to produce only one international

i(intl) dollar at purchasing

power parityi (ppp) of GDP. Per capita consumption is still however much lower than that of the United

States. Annual per capita consumption in South Africa is 2.4 tons of oil equivalent compared to 8 in theUnited States (WRI 2005). j

South Africa has coal reserves of 34 billion tonnes.k

South Africa’s electricity generating plants are special in that they burn very low-grade coal.lLocal hydro reserves are limited.

mLocal gas reserves are limited. Should gas be used on a large scale it is likely to be imported into South

Africa.





26

Source: DME (2004)67

Figure 9.10: The structure of the South African energy sector

Box 9.6: Renewable energy in South Africa

South Africa has excellent renewable energy resources. Its solar resources are known to be among the best in the world, and its wind energy, although not fully assessed, have high potential particularly in

coastal areas and along the escarpment.

Solar power

The Kalahari has some of the most favourable solar radiation conditions in the world, and is an ideal

siting for a large-scale solar thermal plant. There re already a number of programmes installing

photovoltaics in rural areas: for homes (Solar Home Systems); rural clinics; and schools. By 2001 therewas over 8MW installed capacity in South Africa, with about 2 000 systems having been installed in

schools and 200 in rural clinics. As domestic water heating consumes one third of total domestic power

used, Solar Water Heaters could potentially save the country 2 000MW of capacity – the equivalent of one coal-fired power station.

Wind power

Most of South Africa’s wind resource is in mountainous areas like the Drakenberg and in coastal areas.There are about 860 small-scale (500W) remote installations throughout the country. The first

commercial windfarm for grid generation is due for implementation in Darling in the Western Cape. The

first phase will comprise four 1.3MW turbines and yield 5.2MW at a cost price of 38c/kwh. It isenvisaged that in the second phase the windfarm will expanded by a further 6 wind turbines, making a

total installed capacity of 13MW. In the short-term the Darling Wind Farm will require some subsidy

from the Global Environmental Facility. Eskom has announced plans to develop another 5MW windfarm.

HydropowerIn South Africa large-scale hydro energy generates only 1.7% of total energy. Current installed capacity

is about 660MW, with the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme projected to provide an additional 600MW.There is a further 1 400MW of pumped storage scheme generation capacity, most of this located in theDrakensburg and the Steenbras Dam above Cape Town.

Other options

Options such as landfill gas and wave energy are being tested in South Africa. The coastline is potentially very favourable for wave energy with an estimated 56 800MW available. A few projects

using methane gas from landfills are being developed such as in eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality.

Source: The Energy Book for urban development in South Africa by Sarah Ward (2002).





27

Energy consumption patterns in human settlements are distinct. 77% of urban households

across South Africa are electrified. It is clear that electricity is by far the largest single source of

energy used by households for lighting, heating and cooking (Figure 9.11). The overall percentage of households with electricity increased from 50% in 1996 to 66% in 2001. Over

the same period, the largest growth in household electrification was recorded in rural areas,

which increased from 21% to 49%68

. There was a marked increase in the percentage of

households using electricity for lighting: from 57.3% in 1996 to 6.7% in 2001.


Figure 9.11: Energy source by household for lighting, heating and cooking in 2001

Despite the increased access to electricity, large numbers of people are reliant on other forms of

energy for lighting, heating and cooking (Map 9.6). In 2001, 2.5 million households usedcandles for lighting and 737 000 households used paraffin. On average 24.8% of households

used wood fuel for cooking and heating and 17.9% used paraffin for the same purpose in 2001.

11% of these households used coal for heating purposes. What this shows is that a significantnumber of people still rely on wood, coal and paraffin to meet their energy needs.

The use and production of energy in South Africa has significant local, national and

international environmental impacts. The coal cycle is the major source of air pollution andoverall waste generation. Because of it reliance on fossil fuels, South Africa is among the top

20 emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change (refer to Chapter 8 on

Atmosphere ). Apart from greenhouse gases, energy production and consumption also

contributes to air pollution. Some of the worst air pollution has been recorded in and adjacentto Gauteng due to the high concentration of industries. Liquid fuels used in the transport sector

are the second largest polluter. Air quality in major urban centres is exacerbated by the use of

wood, paraffin and coal for heating and cooking in poor settlements. The health effects of

indoor air pollution are extreme69

. Some of the worst air quality in South Africa is therefore

found inside poorly ventilated dwellings in informal settlements and rural dwellings4.

The White Paper on Energy Policy (1998) commits the government to the provision of

affordable and sustainable energy services, which is focused on demand side issues. Itacknowledges that energy production and distribution should not only be sustainable but should

lead to the improvement of living standards of all South Africans. Recently the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) has developed an energy efficiency strategy in order to help realize policy goals. A renewable energy strategy has also been adopted which will have the net effect

of displacing fossil fuel and reduce emissions, in many cases at a premium. The promotion of Basa Njengo Magogo clean burning stoves and the deployment of “Energy Centers” dispensing

clean fuels are being explored in low-income areas. DEAT in cooperation with Danish

International Development Assistance (Danida) has developed an Urban Environmental

Management Programme to lend support air quality initiatives (including demonstration projects) in certain provinces and cities. This programme will start up in early 2006.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E l e c

t r i c i t y G a

s W

o o d

C o a l

P a r a f f i n

C a n d l e s

O t h e

r

Energy source

P e r c e n t a g e o f h o u s e h o l d s ( % )

Lighting Heating Cooking





28

Locally, some cities have begun to assess their energy profile with a view to developinglocal energy strategies, which aims to help local authorities to institutionalise sustainable energy

approaches and practicers within a framework that provides clear vision and direction. This

approach has been spearheaded by Cape Town in partnership with Sustainable Energy Africa – a local NGO promoting integrated energy planning. In 2003, the city produced its first State of

Energy Report that highlighted the priority energy issues for Cape Town70. This report formed

the basis for producing the city’s Energy Strategy71

as a component of its Integrated

Metropolitan Policy. Since then other cities (e.g. Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg) have expressed aninterest to follow suit.

9.3 THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SETTLEMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

Settlement and environment are related in complex ways. On the one hand settlement is often

strongly influenced by access to resources in the environment, hence the concentration of human settlements in the relatively well-watered parts of the country, along the eastern and

south-eastern seaboard and interior. The distribution of minerals – for metals and for energy

(coal) has been the other important driver of settlement location in South Africa, resulting in the

Highveld becoming the most densely populated part and economic heartland of the country. Onthe other, settlements and the activities that take place in them alter the environments in which

they are set. Through processes of production and consumption human settlements impact onthe natural environment; they necessitate the exploitation of biophysical resources and services

and generate pollution and waste. The nature and extent of the impact is determined by, among

others, the scale of the settlement, the level of infrastructural development, rates of resource

consumption and the types of human and economic activity4. A deteriorating biophysical

environment poses potential threats (e.g. public health, flooding) to settlements and their

residents. The section that follows looks at some of the settlement-environment interactions inSouth Africa.

9.3.1 Ecological footprints

Ecological footprint (EF) analysis is a tool designed to measure ecological sustainability.

Ecological footprints refer to the human natural resource consumption and waste output within

the context of nature’s regenerative and absorptive capacity (or biocapacity)72

. EF analysis

calculates the total resource consumption (water, land, food, energy) and waste generation(solid, liquid, gaseous) of a person, city, or nation (e.g. in tonnes), and using productivity

absorption factors (e.g. output in tons/hectare) converts this to a corresponding area needed to

produce the resources and consume the waste. The final figure, in hectares per person, is theecological footprint. Figure 9.12 conceptually displays the spatial and process manifestations of

urban ecological footprints. It shows how resources are appropriated from a pool of availableresources and funnelled to the city where they are processed and consumed. Excess materials

and waste products are exported into the environment.

As the economic engines of nations, cities occupy a central position in the pattern of

resource-waste flows. Globally they consume 75% of all resources and produce 75% of allwastes73. As such, cities are one of the keys to improved environmental sustainability. A global

study in 2004 assessed the relative global footprints, in hectares per person, of 139 nations. Itfound a strong positive correlation between a country’s GDP and ecological footprint, with

GDP implying higher levels of consumption. South Africa displayed a global per personfootprint of 5.2 ha, considerably higher than the global average of 2.3 and five times that of

Bangladesh, the country with the lowest global per person footprint (of 0.5 ha). Like other

middle-income countries, South Africa’s sizeable per person footprint is mostly attributable tothe scale of fossil fuel consumption and the transformation of land.





29

Source: Luck et al. (2001)74

Figure 9.12: Schematic diagram of the of the urban funnel ‘ecological footprint’

conceptual model

In the absence of a comprehensive study of the country’s national ecological footprint, it isuseful to focus on the ecological affects of the country’s human settlements. Box 9.7 presents

the findings of a recent analysis study undertaken of the city of Cape Town.

Box 9.7: Ecological Footprint Analysis: case study of Cape Town

A recently developed tool for measuring sustainability is Ecological Footprint analysis. It is based on the

fact that the earth is a closed system in which all material inputs required by humanity (air and water,

food and fibre, energy and minerals) and supplied by a finite area of productive land and water. Equally,all waste outputs have to be absorbed by natural systems. Nature, functioning as a system of sources and

sinks, is therefore our ecological life support system.Ecological Footprint analysis calculates the total resource consumption and the waste generation

of a person, city, or nation (in tons) and, using absorption factors (e.g. output in tons/hectares) converts

this into the corresponding area needed to produce the resources and consume the wastes. The ‘areal’

figure, in hectares per person, is the ecological footprint of the individual, city or nation.In 2000 Barry Gasson at the University of Cape Town’s School of Architecture and Planning75

;

conducted an Ecological Footprint Analysis of the City of Cape Town. Covering an administrative area of

2 487km2

and a built-up area of 774km2, Cape Town depends upon an area of about 128 300km

2for the

supply of its resources and the absorption of its wastes. This is equal to about 10% of the total surface of

South Africa (1 225 815km2) or approximately the area of the Western Cape, which is 129 370km

2.

With a population of about 3 million this translates into an Ecological Footprint of 4.28

ha/person, indicating that Capetonians are consuming more than double the ‘fair Earthshare’ of 1.9

ha/person – the amount of productive land on the planet available to supply each person’s resource needsand absorb their outputs.

The energy footprint, in particular, was estimated at 10 920km2

comprising 8.5% of Cape

Town’s overall Ecological Footprint. It includes the area needed to supply the fossil fuels and absorb thecarbon dioxide emissions. Cape Town’s industrial-urban metabolism depends on the flow of fossil

energy (40%) and nuclear-electrical energy (58%).

Source: State of the Cities Report 2004

9.3.2 The use of natural resources

9.3.2.1 Water use

Minerals-led settlement and economic growth in the northern and eastern interior has brought

about a serious mismatch between development and water resources. To serve Highveld cities,

the mines and the power generation facilities, massive inter-basin water transfers have become





30

necessary, diverting water from many catchments areas (including the Orange, Usutu andTugela) into the Vaal River system. This affects downstream development potential and

environments, extending to the ocean and, in many cases, across international boundaries.

South Africa in 2000 displayed a per person water consumption of over 28 700 m3

per year, including all uses, that is, residential, industrial, irrigation and forestry (irrigation uses

75% of the country’s used water). The availability of water is unevenly distributed, with more

than 60% of water in rivers arising from only 20% of the country’s land area4. Major urban

conglomerations like Gauteng and the Cape Metropolitan Area are situated where there is

inadequate water to support their human populations and economies4.

9.3.2.2 Land use

All settlements change land use. From this perspective, the footprint is as large as the

settlement itself. However, changed land use also restricts other potential uses, and this can

extend the footprint beyond the area of land use change itself. For example, urban andindustrial development may consume high potential arable land, which is very scarce in South

Africa, which might place pressure on less suitable land elsewhere. However, it must also beacknowledged that good agricultural land close to markets can be intensively farmed, possibly

reducing pressure elsewhere.

Analyses of urban land cover in 1996 and 2001 shows that the surface area covered byurban land uses has increased for the country as a whole by 25%

9. Although urban land-cover

accounts for only 1.51% of the total land-cover, it is concentrated in parts of the country that

have good agricultural potential, for example in Gauteng.

9.3.2.3 Energy Use

Energy is central to settlement functioning. The energy footprint varies in scale depending on

its source. Whereas biomass use is usually localized, the footprint of electricity use extends

over large areas. Fossil fuels supply 90% of South Africa’s national energy needs. Many

settlements are located at great distance from the sites where coal is mined and electricity

generated. However, renewable energy sources account for about 10% of all energy use4.

Approximately three million households make use of firewood to meet their basic energyrequirements. As mentioned above, electricity remains the primary source of energy in the

country. South Africa has a per person use of electricity of 3.5 MWh.

9.3.3 Pollution and waste

Footprint areas range in size, but are largest where pollution is distributed by air or water. Air

pollution and water pollution are addressed in the Atmosphere and Inland Water chapters,

respectively. The section that follows focuses on solid waste generation.

9.3.3.1 Waste generation

The growth in human settlements and corresponding increases in economic activity and

consumption results in the generation of various forms of waste (Box 9.8). Despite a lack of

recent data, the profile for waste generated in 1997 (Figure 9.13) shows that mining by far

generates the most waste.





31

Source: DWAF (1998)76

Figure 9.13: Waste generation profile for South Africa in 1998

Box 9.8: Tyre and electronic waste

With the growth of its economy, and the expansion of secondary and tertiary economic sectors, SouthAfrica has to deal with increased volumes of specialised waste. The generation of waste from used tyres

and outdated electronics, for instance, is becoming commonplace in the country’s landfill sites. These

wastes are discussed in more detail below.

Tyre waste

South Africa's vehicle population stands at over 7 million and is growing at a rate of about 2 % per year.According to the rubbersa.com site, if each vehicle has a set of tyres replaced each year, a total of 28

million tyres will either be reused (retreads) or be disposed of in 2005. Tyres are seen as a problematic

waste, in terms of disposal and the pollution potential it poses. The increased use of tyres as an energy

source in the cement industry is becoming a popular disposal or reuse alternative, with a great deal morealternative uses and recycling options available for this waste type. The Department of EnvironmentalAffairs & Tourism plans to promulgate a Waste Tyre Regulation.

The primary objective is to establish a Regulation to control the collection and disposal of waste

tyres in South Africa through a network of registered waste tyre collection agents and accredited wastetyre users. It also aims to encourage the establishment of a sustainable, environmentally sound, waste tyre

user industry, promoting component recycling and energy recovery, with a view to attaining the goal of

zero waste tyre disposal to landfill and for positive job and wealth creation.

Electronic waste

Electronic waste (e-waste), refers to electronic products nearing the end of their "useful life." Computers,

cell phones, medical equipment, televisions, VCRs, stereos, copiers, and fax machines are commonelectronic products. Many of these products can be reused, refurbished, or recycled. Unfortunately,

electronic discards is one of the fastest growing segments in the waste stream. There are about 12.5 to 15

million computers alone in South Africa, with a life cycle of only 7 years. Very little e-waste is disposedof at landfills, with storage of these items common place. Hazardous wastes as well as precious metals

such as gold, are components of this waste. There are only a few recycling companies who recycle thiswaste at an average of more than 4000 t/a.

Total general waste generation from households, commerce, institutions and the manufacturing

industry was approximately 13.5 to 15 million tonnes per year , which increased over the last 7

years due to population increases and economic growth76

. In addition, industrial wastes

Mining

87.7%

Industrial

3.0%

Power

generation

3.9%

Agriculture

and forestry

3.8%Domestic

and

commercial1.5%

Sewage

sludge

0.1%





32

generated, handled and disposed of in-house (on-site) amounts to approximately 22 milliontonnes per year.

Gauteng, followed by the Western Cape, generates the most waste person (761

kg/person/year), and also produces the most waste of all provinces (42.4%) (Figure 9.14). It isevident that the provinces that are the most urbanized and affluent generate the greatest amount

of waste.

Source: DWAF (1998)76

Figure 9.14: Proportion of general waste generated and waste generation rate per

province

On average, 8 864 000 tonnes of domestic waste requiring collection and disposal is generatednationally (2004/2005)

77, and is based on the variables used to calculate domestic waste for

high, middle and low-income levels Table 9.3. Domestic waste is predicted to rise by 1.1million tonnes to 9 982 304 tonnes or more over the six-year period 2004 to 2010.

Table 9.3. Variables used to calculate the amount of domestic waste generatedIncome levels Waste

generation

rates

(kg/person/day)

Percentage

population

distribution

(%)

2004/2005

population

distribution (#

people)

Domestic waste

generated

(tonnes/year)

Low 0.41 73.97 34 471 562 5 158 669

Middle 0.74 21.44 9 989 795 2 698 244

High 1.29 4.59 2 138 644 1 006 981

TOTAL 100 46 600 002 8 863 894

Source: DWAF (1998)57 , GDACEL (2004)78 , Rustenburg (2005)79

Domestic, industrial and mining activities generate hazardous waste. Presently, hazardous

waste comprising mainly domestic waste with some industrial sludge mixed in accounted for

309 556 t/a80

. In 1997/1998 the total hazardous waste generated in the 4 largest industrial sector

groups (non-metallurgical manufacturing industries, metallurgical and metal industries, serviceindustries and mining) was over 418 million tonnes, of which approximately 90% was from

mining76

(Table 9.4). In 1997, the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) indicated that inthe region of 470 million tons of mining waste (general and hazardous) was generated, with

gold contributing to almost half of this57. The only additional work undertaken since 1997 was

by the Western Cape where 68% increase in generation was documented from 1997 to 2002.

761

675

158

518

113

199

68103

547

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

GP WC KZN MP EC FS NW LP NC

P e r c e n t a g e ( % ) g e n e r a t i o n

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

G en er a t i onr a t e ( k g / c a p / y r )

Percentage generation by province Generation rate





33

Table 9.4. Division of hazardous waste generated per industrial group and classification

Hazard ratingIndustrial sector

group Hazard

Group 1*

Hazard

group 2*

Hazard

Group 3*

Hazard

Group 4*

Hazard

Group 5*

Total per

sector

Non-metallurgical

manufacturing

22 313 148 205 281 167 4 772 190 10 149 134 15 373 009

Metallurgical and

metals

0 11 334 698 4 566 830 0 4 901 539

Service 0 33 300 14 001 1 654 098 20 190 000 21 891 399

Mining 180 1 046 489 12 317 34775629 34 0807 436 376 642 051

Total 22 493 1 228 005 642 183 45 765 747 371 146 570 418 804 998

*Hazard Group 1 = Danger Group 1 – High hazard waste: presents a very severe risk

*Hazard Group 2 = Danger Group 2 – Moderately hazardous waste: presents a serious risk

*Hazard Group 3 = Danger Group 3 – Low hazardous waste: presents a relatively low risk *Hazard Group 4 = Danger Group 4 – Potentially hazardous waste: presents a very low risk

*Hazard Group 5 = Danger Group 5 – Non-hazardous waste

Source: DWAF (1998b)57 , SABS (1995)

81

Medical waste (health care waste) generation is currently not recorded by most of the provincialhealth departments or environmental departments. However, the NWMS health care waste

project initiated by the national department is looking at obtaining generator information. Other

notable wastes include radioactive waste, agricultural waste, asbestos waste and power

generation waste. For instance, waste ash generated by the nine coal-fired power stationsoperated by Eskom has increased from 24.7 million tonnes per year in 1999

82to 58.65 million

tons per year in 2003.

9.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter has attempted to provide an overview of the nature, state and impact of humansettlements in South Africa. Whilst acknowledging that settlements are both rural and urban in

nature, and that over 42% of the total population resides in rural areas, it is evident that

urbanization and migration have played (and continue to play) a key role in shaping the urbanexperience. The growth in scale and influence of urban settlements is reflected in their corresponding footprints. Rapidly expanding urban centres require more natural and human

resources to drive economic production and development.

South African settlements are still socially and economically divided. The growth in

the size and number of informal settlements in urban and peri-urban areas has entrenched thesedivisions. In spite of achievements in certain areas of service delivery, government, especially

local government, remains hard pressed to meet the growing demand for basic services andreduce existing backlogs. As a result, many millions of the poorest households still do not have

access to adequate basic services, which in turn deepens the impact of poverty and undermines

human well-being. Unserviced settlements in urban and rural areas are more vulnerable to

health risks caused by environmental pollution. Although access to health care (especially

clinics) and social services such as schools has improved in recent years, the distribution and

quality of health services and schools remain varied and unequal thereby restricting the accessof many poor South Africans to these.

Over the past decade, South Africa has introduced a wide range of policies,

programmes, strategies and plans to address the country’s many developmental challenges.

These attempt to enhance the sustainability of human settlements by improving the planning,

service-delivery, monitoring and regulation functions of local authorities. However, thegovernment is faced with severe resource constraints and increasing levels of corruption, which

are undermining these efforts.There has also been a growing recognition of the inter-relationships and interaction

between people and place; the linkages between human activity and the environment. Whereas





34

urban and rural development programmes have focused on alleviating the poverty,environmental legislation and policy aims to, among others, improve the management of natural

resources and control and reduce the impacts of pollution that are felt most intensely by the

poor. A Sustainability Settlements Strategy, which is presently undergoing debate withingovernment, places the issue of settlements and their sustainability firmly on the South African

political agenda.

It is hoped that in time the settlement imprint will change as will its implications for

human development and the environment.

9.5 REFERENCES

1South African Cities Network (2004). State of the Cities Report 2004. South African Cities Network,

Johannesburg.2

United Nations Environment Programme (2003). Africa Environment Outlook: Past, present and future

perspectives. UNEP, Nairobi.3

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (1999). The State of Human Settlements: South Africa1994-1998. Prepared for the Department of Housing by CSIR Building and Construction Technology,

Pretoria.4

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (2002). Sustainability Analysis of Human Settlements in

South Africa. Prepared for the Department of Housing by the CSIR Building and ConstructionTechnology, Pretoria.

5Government of the Republic of South Africa (1998). The White Paper on Local Government. Ministry

of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development, Pretoria.6

Department of Housing (2002). Housing Atlas 2001-2002. Produced by the Department of Housing,Pretoria, http://www.housing.gov.za/Content/housing_atlas/Atlas%20Index.htm.

7United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development 12

thSession (2004). South Africa’s Progress

Report: Human Settlements. Compiled by Department of Housing, 14-30 April 2004.8

Statistics South Africa (2003). Census 2001: Investigation into appropriate definitions of urban and rural

areas for South Africa (Discussion document). Statistics South Africa Report Number 03-02-20,

Pretoria.9

Statistics South Africa (2004). Primary tables South Africa Census ’96 and 2001 compared . Statistics

South Africa Report Number 03-02-04, Pretoria.10

Collinson, M.A. et al (2001). Moving to Mkhuhlu : Emerging patterns of migration in the new South

Africa. AHPU Working Paper Series, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.http://healthpop.agincourt.wits.ac.za/agincourt_hdss.htm

11Dorington, R., Bradshaw, D., Johnson, L. and Budlender, D. (2004). The demographic impact of

HIV/AIDS in South Africa: National Indicators for 2004. Report prepared by the Centre for Actuarial

Research, UCT, The Burden of Disease Unit, MRC and the Actuarial Society of South Africa.12

Department of Housing (2005). Housing Atlas 2005: National Spatial Investment Potential Atlas for Housing. Department of Housing.

13Crush, J. et al (1991). South Africa’s Labour Empire: A History of Black Migrancy to the Gold Mines.

Westview Press and David Philip, Boulder and Cape Town.14

Crush, J. and Williams, V. (2002). Regionalizing International Migration: Lessons for SADC . Southern

African Migration Project, Migration Policy Brief No. 11, Queens University.15

Chikanda, A. (2005). Medical Leave: The Exodus of Health Professionals from Zimbabwe. SouthernAfrican Migration Project, Queen’s University, Canada.

16Migration Policy Institute (2004). Regional Integration and Migration Policy Challenges in South

Africa. MPI report on the round table meeting held on 9 November 2004.http://www.migrationpolicy.org/events/110904.php.

17Community Agency for Social Enquiry (2003). National Refugee Baseline Survey: Final Report.

Undertaken by CASE for Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and United Nations High

Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), Johannesburg.18

Dodson, B. (1998). Women on the Move: Gender and Cross-Border Migration in Southern Africa.Migration Policy Series Number 9, Southern African Migration Project, Queen’s University, Canada.

19Crush, J. and Williams, V. (eds.) (2002). Transnationalism and African Immigration to South Africa.

Migration Policy Number 9, Southern African Migration Project, Queen’s University, Canada.20

South African Cities Network (2004). State of the Cities Report 2004. South African Cities Network,

Johannesburg.





35

21Centre for Development and Enterprise (2005). Land reform in South Africa. A 21

st century

perspective. Centre for Development and Enterprise.22

Kotze, L.J. and van Rensburg, L.J. (2002). Legislative protection of cultural heritage resources: A

South African perspective. Paper presented at the 8th

Annual Qualitative Methods Conference:

“Something for nothing”, September 2002. http://www.critical methods.org/p108.mv.23

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005) World Heritage. UNESCO’s

official website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/za.24South African Heritage Resources Agency (2005). Inventory of the National Estate.

http://www.sahra.org.za/inventory/htm.25

The National Monuments Council (1998). National Monuments and Provisional Declarations.

Information accessible on www.nationalmonuments.co.za26

ICOMOS (2000). H@R: Heritage Risk, South Africa. www.international.icomos.org/risk/south-afr_2000.htm.

27Department of Transport (2001). “Live” vehicle population of South Africa. Department of Transport,

Pretoria. www.transport.gov.za.28

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1999). Results from Testing of CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development in South Africa, Report to the Commission on Sustainable Development,

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.29

Medical Research Council (2003). 2003 Health Review. Health Information Systems: Progress withCaveats – an integrated perspective. Health Information Systems Programme.

30

Health Systems Trust (1998 – 2004). Health Statistics. www.hst.org.za/healthstats/31Ntuli, A. and Day, C. (2004). Ten Years On – Have we got what we ordered? National Health Systems

Survey 2003/04. Health Systems Trust, Durban.32

United Nations Development Programme (2003). South Africa Human Development Report TheChallenge of Sustainable Development in South Africa: Unlocking People’s Creativity. UNDP South

Africa, Oxford University Press.33

Day, D., Reagon, G., Irlam, J. and Levin, J. (2004). Facilities Survey 2003: Selected findings from thefourth national survey of primary health care facilities. National Health Systems Survey 2003/04.

Health Systems Trust, Durban.34

Health Systems Trust (2004). South African Health Review 2003/2004. Health Systems Trust, Durban.35

Torres, L. (2000). We are emerging; emerging slowly and painfully. Fafo Institute for Applied Social

Science, Report 336.36

Quinlan, T., and S. Willan. (2005). HIV/AIDS: finding ways to contain the pandemic. In: Daniel, J.,Southall, R., & Lutchman, J. (2005). State of the Nation South Africa 2004-2005. HSRC Press.

37

Jansen, J. (2002). The sustainability of education reforms in South Africa: a critical assessment 1994-2002. Report prepared by the United Nations Development Programme.38

Chisholm, L. (2005). The state of South Africa’s Schools. In: Daniel, J., Southall, R., & Lutchman, J.

(2005). State of the Nation South Africa 2004-2005. HSRC Press.39

Statistics South Africa (2004). Census 2001 Primary Tables South Africa: Census 1996 and 2001.

Compared . Report Number 03-02-04. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.40

Delius, P. and Schirmer, S. (2001). Towards A Workable Rural Development Strategy. Trade andIndustrial Policy Secretariat, Working Paper 3

41Makhanya, E. (2003). Demographic Dynamics and Sustainable Rural Development in South Africa.

Paper by the Working Group for Sustainable Livelihoods, University of Natal, Durban.42

Ntsika Enterprise Promotion (2002). The State of Small Business Development in South Africa: Annual Review 2002. Pretoria.

43Statistics South Africa (2004). Comparative Labour Statistics: Labour Force Survey. Statistics South

Africa, Pretoria.44 Rogerson, C.M. (2000). Local economic development in an era of globalisation: the case of South

African cities. Tydschrift vir Economische en Sociale Geografie, 91: 397-411.45

Peberdy, S. and C.M. Rogerson (2003). South Africa: creating new spaces? In: Kloosterman, R. and

Rath, J. (eds). Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of Globalization, Oxford

University Press.46

Chandra, V., Moorty, L., Rajaratnam, B. and K. Schaefer (2001). Constraints to Growth and

Employment in South Africa: Report No 1. Statistics from the Large Manufacturing Firm Survey,

Discussion Paper No 14, Informal Discussion Papers of Aspects of the Economy of South Africa,World Bank Southern Africa, Washington D.C.

47King, K., McGrath, S., Rogerson, C. and K. Visser. (2002). Learning-led competitiveness: a challenge

for South African development. Africa Insight , 32(4): 28-35.





36

48Statistics South Africa (2004). Census 2001 Primary Tables South Africa: Census 1996 and 2001.

Compared . Report Number 03-02-04. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.49

Department of Housing (2003). ABC of Housing . Department of Housing, Pretoria.50

Karuri, G., Macozoma, D. and L. Chege (2002). Sustainability and social infrastructure delivery in

South Africa. Report prepared for the United Nations Development Programme South Africa, Pretoria51

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2004). State of water services report 2004.52

Hemsom, D., and Owusu-Ampomah, K. (2005). A better life for all: Service delivery and povertyalleviation. In: Daniel, J., Southall, R., & Lutchman, J. (2005). State of the Nation South Africa 2004-

2005. HSRC Press.53

Statistics South Africa (2001). South Africa in transition: selected findings from October household

survey of 1999 and changes that have occurred between 1995 and 1999. Pretoria, Statistics South

Africa.54 Banda, K. (2004). Goal 7A: Ensuring environmental sustainability, Draft Report.55

Crankshaw, O. and Parnell, S. (2004). South African Progress in meeting the Millennium Declaration

Goals: (Goal 7, target 11 – impacting positively on the lives of slum dwellers). Draft report.56

Municipal Demarcation Board (2004). The Powers and Functions: District and Local MunicipalityCapacity Assessment Reports (all Provinces - 2003).

http://www.demarcation.org.za/powers_functions2003/index.asp.57

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1998) Waste Management Series. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

58

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1999). Action Plan for Waste Treatment and Disposal . Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

59Jarrod Ball and Associates (2004). Survey of municipalities concerning the status of integrated waste

plans. Undertaken by Jarrod Ball and Associates, Johannesburg.60

Hughes, A., Howells, M. and A. Kerry (2002). Baseline study: Energy Efficiency. Energy Research

Institute, University of Cape Town.61

Department of Minerals and Energy (2005). Energy Balances. Department of Minerals and Energy,Pretoria. http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/pdf/Aggregate%20balance%202001.pdf

62Jarrod Ball and Associates (2005). State of the Environment: Waste. Specialist study undertaken for the

National State of Environment Report 2005.63

Department of Minerals and Energy (2004). SAMI South African Minerals Industry 21 st

Edition.

Directorate: Mineral Economics, Department of Minerals and Energy, Pretoria.

http://www.dme.gov.za/publications/pdf/annual_reports/SAMI2003-4e.pdf 64 World Resources Institute (2005). Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT). World Resources Institute,

Washington. http://cait.wri.org/ 65ESKOM (2004). Annual Report 2004. ESKOM, Johannesburg.

66Energy Research Centre (2005). Unpublished data from Energy Research Centre. University of Cape

Town. 67

Department of Minerals and Energy (2004). Draft Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic of South

Africa. Department of Minerals and Energy, Pretoria.68

National Electricity Regulator (2004). Integrated Resource Plan 2 (NIRP2). National ElectricityRegulator, Pretoria.

69Eberhard, A. and C. van Hooren (1995). Poverty and Power . Pluto Press

70City of Cape Town (2003). State of Energy Report for Cape Town 2003. Sustainable Energy Africa,

Cape Town. http://www.sustainable.org.za/SEEDDownloads.htm71

City of Cape Town (2003). Cape Town Energy Strategy October 2003 Draft . Produced in partnership

with Sustainable Energy Africa (SEA) and International Council for Local Environment Initiatives

(ICLEI), Cape Town.72 Venetoulis, J., Chaza, D. and Gaudet, C. (2004). Ecological Footprints of Nations 2004, Redefining

Progress, March 2004.73

Girardet (1999). Creating Sustainable Cities. Green Books Ltd, Devon.74

Luck, M.A., Jenerette, G.D., Wu, J. and Grimm, N.B. (2001) The Urban Funnel Model and the

Spatially Heterogeneous Ecological Footprint. Ecosystems, 4, 782-796.75

Gasson, B. (2002). The Ecological Footprint of Cape Town: Unsustainable Resource Use and

Planning Implications. School of Architecture and Planning, University of Cape Town.76

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1998). Waste Generation in South Africa: Baseline Studies.Waste Management Series. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.





77Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (2003). State of the Environment Report for

Gauteng . Compiled by SRK Consulting on behalf of Gauteng Department of Agriculture,Conservation and Environment, Johannesburg.

78GDACEL (2004). Guidelines for the Development of Integrated Waste Management Plans for Local

Governments. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs.79

Rustenburg Local Municipality (2005). Status Quo Analysis Report on Waste Management in

Rustenburg . Jarrod Ball & Associates.80Herselman, J.E., Wade P.W., Steyn C.E., and Snyman H.G. (2005). An evaluation of dedicated land

disposal practices for sewage sludge. Water Research Commission Report No. 1209\1\05.81

SABS (1995). Code of practice: The identification and classification of dangerous substances and

goods. South African Bureau of Standards.82

Eskom (1999). Eskom’s Annual Report . Eskom Holdings Limited. http://www.eskom.co.za .

Human Settlement - Background Paper

Documents

Transcript of Human Settlement - Background Paper