This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 17 October 2014, At: 07:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian PlannerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Growing pacific towns and citiesPaul Jones aa Director of the Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment , SamoaPublished online: 22 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Paul Jones (2002) Growing pacific towns and cities, Australian Planner, 39:4, 186-193, DOI:10.1080/07293682.2002.9982318

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2002.9982318

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PAUL JONES is a Pacific Urban Management consultant based in Albury-Wodonga;TUUU LETI TAULE'ALO is the Director of the Department of Lands, Surveysand Environment in Samoa; and JUDE KOHLHASE is a postgraduate student in theEast West Center, University of Hawaii.

GROWING PACIFICTOWNS AND CITIES

Samoa's new planning and urban management system

Growing Pacific towns & cities

The Pacific region has great diversity andcomplexity in its three geographic divisionsof Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia.

The scattered islands in the Pacificregion may contrast in their socio-eco-nomic settings, geography, culture andresource base, but high rates of urbanisa-tion and an absence of urban manage-ment practices, skills and commitment tocomprehensively tackle urban problemsare commonplace ( J o n e s 1996). Thegrowing need for effective urban manage-ment as a result of urbanisation willbecome one of the most significant devel-opment issues for Pacific Island countriesin the 2 1 s t century. Governments and

TABLE I: PACIFIC ISLAND POPULATIONS 2 0 0 0 - SELECTED COUNTRIES

communities are increasingly unable tokeep pace with the rapidity of urbangrowth. Approximately 40 per cent of thepopulations in Pacific Island countries arenow living in urban areas, a proportionthat continues to rise.

Of increasing concern is the fact thaturban growth rates continue to outstripnational growth rates in most PacificIsland countries (see Table 1). Education,lifestyle choices, increasing centralisationof government bureaucracy as well asmoderate industrialisation and private sec-tor development have all fuelled the move-ment of population to Pacific Island citiesand towns, further reflecting the perma-nency of the rural-urban transformation(Connell & Lea 2002, Jones 1996).

Pacific IslandCountry orTerritory

Fiji Islands

New Caledonia

Papua New Guinea

Vanuatu

Solomon Islands

Guam

Kiribati

Marshall Islands

Palau

American Samoa

Cook Islands

French Polynesia

Niue

Samoa (a)

Tonga

Lastcensus

1996

1996

1990

1999

1986

1990

1995

1999

1995

1990

1996

1996

1997

2001

1996

Population ascounted atlast census

775,077

196,836

3,607,954

193,219

447,900

133,152

77,658

50,840

17,225

46,773

19,103

219,521

2,088

176,848

97,784

Urbanpopulation

(%)

46

71

15

21

13

38

37

65

71

48

59

53

35

35

32

Annual inter-censal urban

growth rate (%)

2.6

2.7

4.1

4.3

6.2

1.9

2.2

1.8

2.9

4.6

0.6

1.4

1.2

2.0

0.8

Annual inter-censal national

growth rate (%)

1.6

1.8

2.3

3.0

3.4

1.0

2.5

2.0

2.2

2.9

-0.5

1.6

-3.1

2.3

0.6

Population figures have been soutced from South Pacific Community, Noumea.

See www.spc.org.nc/demog/pop_data2000

(a) The official results of the Household and Population Census 2001 have been used for the most recent popu-lation for Samoa. The urban area comprises the four political districts that represent the built up urban area.

The problems of urbanisation and lackof commitment to effective urban plan-ning and management are evident inmany ways in all Pacific Island towns andcities. Urban populations have grownenormously, squatter settlements areincreasing and housing densities continueto rise, whilst domestic household andindustrial waste is increasingly visible ascollection systems (if they exist) try tomatch supply, crime and family break-downs including youth suicide are nowcommonplace, numbers of urban landcases before the courts continue to esca-late, and access to basic water, sanitationand road infrastructure cannot keep upwith the demand for services (Connell &Lea 1998, Jones 1995, World Bank 2000).

Importantly, urban governance in thePacific continues to be weak, ineffectiveand inadequate. Pacific Island govern-ments continue to stay at arms length fromtheir urban futures, often because of theprevalence of the strong traditional socio-cultural order side by side with the mod-em decision making structures of govern-ment within the urban areas (Jones 1997).In Polynesia, for example, separate urbangovernance structures of a formal natureare almost non-existent. There are severalreasons. Often the countries are small. Andthe socio-cultural sensitivities and politi-cal implications of modifying traditionaldecision making structures which decidewhere and how lands, primarily custom-ary lands, are used and developed are toogreat (Connell & Lea 1995, Storey 1999).

Resolving land tenure issues and bal-ancing traditional customary rights toland with those of the "public interest' arerecurrent themes that lie at the heart of

1 8 6 A I M T t A L I A N F I A N N E K 1 0 L 3 9 N 0 4 2 0 0 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

many attempts to improve urban manage-ment and land planning generallythroughout the Pacific. However, the real-ity is that the urban environment — thatis, the biophysical and social, cultural andeconomic fabric of Pacific towns andcities including land — is increasinglyfragile and under enormous pressure forchange. The need for government andcommunities to work together to findnew solutions to improve the urban qual-ity of life is now paramount.

Despite the above trends and indica-tors of urban change, there has been anabsence of assertive urban managementthroughout the Pacific. There is little con-sistency in approaches to the planningand management of urban environmentsat both the national and regional levels(Jones 1996, Storey 1998). While this paperpresents a positive approach to dealingwith growing urban problems, aid agen-cies, development banks and the like con-tinue to focus in Pacific Island countrieson strengthening and supporting individ-ual development components such ashealth, water, sewage and agriculture andthe 'natural' environment. There is not amore integrated approach to national orurban and rural planning and manage-ment. Thus, the emphasis is on individualcomponents rather than addressing urbanmanagement per se, including the needfor effective institutional arrangements.

In the context of the need to docu-ment recent initiatives for improvingurban management as a means of tackling

FIGURE I: SAMOA — LOCATION

increasing development problems associ-ated with the process of urbanisationin the Pacific (see, for example, Connell& Lea 2002), this paper presents the keyoutcomes of an Urban Planning andManagement Project in Samoa1 under-taken from June, 2001, to April, 2002.The project focused on developing a newplanning and urban management systemto address land use, development andinfrastructure coordination issues in Apia,the capital of Samoa, but with potentialapplication of the system at the nationallevel. A key outcome of that project, thedevelopment of new institutional arrange-ments for planning embodied in the formof a new Planning and Urban ManagementAgency (PUMA) for both urban Apia andSamoa, is currently being implemented.

This paper is organised into three sec-tions. First it provides an understandingof the setting for growdi in Samoa includ-ing the urban planning and developmentissues arising in Apia. Second it presentsthe constraints and opportunities of thecurrent planning and management frame-work as a basis to move forward to a newplanning system. Third, it outlines theframework of the proposed system includ-ing institutional arrangements via PUMA.

The contextual settingfor urban growth

Samoa is the largest of the Polynesiancountries in the Pacific. It comprises twomain islands, Upolu and Savaii, where the

bulk of the population resides, as well asseven small islands (see Figure 1). Thetotal land area is 2,828 km2 with anexclusive economic zone of 98,500 km2,the smallest in the Pacific. The rapidlygrowing capital, Apia, on Upolu Island,clearly dominates the country's settlementpattern. But it is supported by over 350smaller rural villages. This includes thesmall government designated towngrowth area focused on Salelologa insoutheastern Savaii. The strong develop-ment pattern that has emerged is onewhere both rural and urban villages aregenerally located close to the coast alongthe fringing plain. Approximately 98 percent of the population live within this nar-row coastal plain and in or around greaterApia with produce gardens and agricul-tural lands located inland (ADB 2000).

Samoa's population has nearly doubledin the last 40 years, rising from 97,000persons in 1956 to 176,848 persons in2001 (Government of Samoa 2002a). Thenatural rate of population increase is esti-mated at approximately 2.3 per cent perannum, a rate that is associated with therelatively moderate population growth.Key features of Samoa's demographicsover the last two decades have been sus-tained out migration, primarily to NewZealand, Australia and the United States,a net population growth rate of just under0.9 per cent per annum and the dominantinfluence of Apia and North West Upoluin attracting population from otherregions within Savaii and Upolu. On an

140°

PALAU ."

Equaloi

160°

": NORTHERN;• MARIANA IS

GUAM

180°

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

./MARSHALL IS

:" KIRIBATI- 0°

NAURU

^ „ |s , ;TUVALU

HAWAI'I

20°

SAMOA

10 20

• WAUJS IsAMOA " O

VANUATUFUTUNA .

FIJI &

NEW V " « .CALEDONIA ^ • "

AUSTRALIA

160°

SAMOA•NIUE

FRENCH

•* vr-»r • * •

140°

POLYNESIA

20°

cv NEW\LZEALAND Exclusive Economic Zone

A U S T K A l l t K P L A N N E R V O L 3 9 H 0 4 2 0 0 2 1 8 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

island share basis, Upolu and Savaiiaccounted for 76 per cent and 34 per centof the population respectively in 2002.The population share for Upolu has con-tinued to rise throughout the 1990s.

The rate of urban growth in Apia andthe pattern of regional development inUpolu are to a large degree a reflection ofthe manner in which the urban boundaryof Apia is defined. Like many towns and citiesin the Pacific, the issue of defining theurban area of Apia is problematic given:

E The coverage of "urban* type services —water, electricity, transport and wastedisposal - is widespread in the census-defined Apia urban area, North WestUpolu and Upolu generally;

B Population is growing both within andoutside the narrow census-definedApia urban area; and

B The coastal road corridor between thesmall census-defined Apia urban areaand Faleolo airport in North WestUpolu contains contiguous villagedevelopment where one village abutsthe other, thus complicating defining aprecise urban boundary for Apia.

The 2001 census indicates the popula-tion share for Apia and North West Upoluhas risen from 46 per cent in 1991 to 52per cent in 2001. The narrowly definedApia urban area as (defined by the 2001census) had marginally increased from35,489 persons in 1991 to 38,836 in2002. However, if the two census districtsto the east and west of the core urban areaare added to reflect the contiguous Apiaurban area, then the population of theexisting built-up urban area of Apia is60,872 persons or approximately 35 percent of the 2001 national population.

The implication of the above is thatthe population of Apia and its adjoiningareas is rising. Its growth corridor on theundulating coastal plains of North WestUpolu will be the area in which thisgrowth is accommodated. Estimates ofApia's urban share of national growth forplanning purposes should be seen in thecontext of the extent to which the grow-ing North West Upolu corridor (includingApia) is effectively defined as urban incharacter. The clear trend is that popula-tion growth will lead to continued pres-sure on the resources of Apia as well ascontinued economic, social and environ-mental change within the wider regionsof Upolu and Savaii. These changes willcontinue to lead to increasing demandsfor land, infrastructure and services aswell as for housing, changes in village

size, home ownership and village andfamily social organisations and patterns,as is currently being experienced.

The villages are growing rapidly in theurban hinterland. Many have expanded tothe extent that their village boundaries blurthe 'urban-rural' divide. As a result, villagesnow form one linear strip of urban devel-opment between Apia and the internationalairport at Faleolo some 30 kilometres tothe northwest of Apia. Traditional hous-ing and plantation lands are being supple-mented by modem housing and smallergardens. This is especially obvious oncustomary lands where open walledhousing (fale) and large areas for garden-ing traditionally characterise householdsthat support their livelihood based on acontribution from the subsistence sector

There is a high level of serviced provi-sion of water — 94 per cent of householdsin the Apia urban area had piped reticu-lated water (2001 Census) — as well asmain roads in urban Apia, despite increas-ing concerns about road maintenance.There is also a solid waste household col-lection service, not only for Apia but alsofor both main islands. Significantly, sanita-tion in Apia is by septic tank, pit latrine ora handful of package sewage treatmentplants for commercial buildings. There isno reticulated sewerage system for theurban area of Apia or elsewhere in Samoa.This is despite the central business area ofApia and die adjoining customary villagesbeing built on the floodplain, having ahigh water table and being subject toannual wet season flooding.

Land tenure is the dominant factor inshaping settlement patterns and land usein both the Apia urban area and Samoagenerally. Understanding the pattern andhistory of land tenure helps explain thecurrent fragmented pattern of developmentas well as the difficulties in implementinga more formal planning and urban manage-ment system. The primary influence on Apia'sdevelopment has been the land tenureand ownership systems introduced andlegislated from the mid 19th century ratherthan an integrated planning system. Thereare three primary types of land tenure inSamoa. All are present in Apia. They are:

B Public (16 per cent of all Samoanland). Land vested in Samoa that isfree from customary title and from anyestate in fee simple (freehold). Thisland is reserved for public purposes.

m Freehold (4 per cent of all Samoanland). This is land held from Samoafor an estate in fee simple. Freehold

land was originally customary landwillingly sold by villagers and regis-tered as such under New Zealand andGerman administrations in the late1800s and early 1900s. There are largetracts of this in Apia.

B Customary (80 per cent of all Samoanland). Land held from Samoa in accor-dance with Samoan custom and usageand with the law relating to Samoancustom and usage.

In Apia, alienation of customary landsfrom traditional owners to freehold andGovernment lands began in the 1850s asEuropean setders — including missionar-ies and traders — sought land for hous-ing, churches and warehouses aroundApia harbour, as well as for agriculture.The largest areas of alienated lands wereon the gentle plains and foot slopes onlands above Apia harbour as well as inNorth West Upolu. The latter lands weresuitable for coconut plantations. In 1893,Britain, Germany and the United States setup a Land Commission under the BerlinAct of 1889 to assess land claims by non-Samoans (Ward & Ashcroft 1998). As aresult, freehold as well as Governmentlands were registered as being alienated,with further alienation except for Govern-ment purposes finally prohibited by lawunder the Samoa Constitution in 1962.Alienation of new lands to freehold has notoccurred since this time. Notwithstandingthis, disputes on the status of existingalienated lands continue to be heard bythe Lands and Titles Court of Samoa.

There are significant differencesbetween customary and freehold landsthat have determined where and howdevelopment has occurred in Apia and itshinterland. Customary land can be devel-oped by its customary owners in accor-dance with the authority of the familymated or chief and any conditions set bythe village council or fono. Customaryland cannot be subdivided or sold forfreehold development - its developmentpotential is thus severely limited. Con-versely, freehold land — representingapproximately 70 per cent of the landtenure in Apia and the wider urban fringe— can be sold, subdivided and leased.Customary land can only be leased.

Because of this the urban morphologyof Apia constitutes a loose assembly ofareas of freehold properties interspersedwith villages on customary lands. There isno independent local government admin-istration. As a result development offreehold land 'leap-frogs' customary land.

1 8 8 A U S T K A L I A K P L A N K E J V O L 3 9 N 0 4 2 0 0 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

The emerging urban settlement growthpattern in Apia is clearly one where:

B The dispersed nature of developmentmeans high servicing costs and amajor lag in service provision, as isprevalent in the Government's ownfreehold subdivisions;

B There is no effective sewerage systemfor the highly populated areas withinApia. The flood prone Apia centralbusiness area has septic tanks thatempty into storm water drains ordirectly into the harbour;

u There is a fragmented distribution offreehold land for private development;

B There is an extensive network of waterand electricity services in the ruralareas, which blurs the division betweenthe Apia urban and rural areas;

E There is minimal cost recovery or 'userpays' charging for services such aswater supply. No direct costs are yetcharged for domestic rubbish collec-tion. User pays is still a foreign con-cept for many, especially those livingon customary lands. Water rates wereintroduced only in 2001.

These issues and concerns cut acrosssocial structures, community needs anddemands, land and land use and servicesand infrastructure provision. Yet the Apiaurban area is the commercial and indus-trial centre of Samoa. In this context, theimportance of urban Apia to the economycannot be understated, with the urbanarea generating 70 per cent of the nationalincome (UMPT 2001). Population growth,economic development, increasing stresson environmental resources, declininginfrastructure levels, poor service coordi-nation and concern over community andvillage well-being, are all recurrentthemes in the development of Apia. It wassuch concerns that prompted the call bygovernment in 2001 to seek more effec-tive arrangements for planning and urbanmanagement in the face of falling urbanquality of life standards in Apia.

The current planning &management frameworkUnderstanding how decisions on land useand development are made is fundamen-tal to the question of whether the currentplanning system needs to be merely 'finetuned' or replaced. There are three levelsof planning responsible for urban devel-opment in Apia, namely the national,Apia and village level arrangements. Theyall involve a range of stakeholders. Theseinclude villages, government agencies and

the business community. The interplay ofthese institutions represents the interac-tion between modern government andtraditional decision-making structuresthat is determining the social, economicand environmental outcomes, includingthe spatial patterns of development, nowemerging in Apia.

NATIONAL PLANNING

The Government of Samoa has a clearstatement of its economic, social andenvironmental development aspirations.This is based on macroeconomic stabilityand efficiency of the public sector combinedwith sound investment in social services,good natural resource management, ahealthy private sector and support frommigration (Government of Samoa 2002b).The performance of the economy - from arecent low of 0.8 per cent growth in GDPin 1997 to 3.1 per cent in 1999 and anestimated 7.3 per cent in 2000 - has beendie result of an extensive program of con-tinuing economic, financial and publicsector reforms. As a result, Samoa's grow-ing economy is widely recognised as oneof the success stories of the Pacific.

National level economic planning isthe responsibility of die Treasury Depart-ment and has four major components:

s National strategic planning, embodiedin the Strategy for the Development ofSamoa (SDS);

a Performance budgeting;E Sectoral planning; andE Project planning.

The SDS is the overarching strategy forachieving objectives at the national andsectoral level in Samoa and is the outcomeof a well developed national planning

process commenced in the mid 1990s. Itcomprises a concise vision for long termnational development, a macroeconomicframework addressing fiscal, monetaryand balance of payment policies, and asummary of priority strategies and poli-cies to guide sectoral development for theten identified sectors. However, whileSamoa has the national SDS it does nothave any comprehensive system for set-ting urban planning, policy and manage-ment objectives at the Apia level. Theemphasis there is on policy setting for thenational sectors identified in the SDS suchas health, education and infrastructure.The result is that policy analysis and goalsetting for the increasing urban planningand development problems of Apia areconspicuous by their absence.

APIA LEVEL

Legislative and institutional arrangementsfor managing urban change and growthare absent at both the Apia and nationallevels. There is no lead agency such as adesignated Government agency or munic-ipal authority for Apia with the responsi-bility for urban planning and manage-ment activities currently fragmentedacross many national agencies. There areno bureaucratic structures for widerurban planning and management such asplanning for future growth areas on thenorth western Apia fringe or for coordi-nating the activities of service and regula-tory authorities that underpin Apia'sexisting and future urban growdi.

With the exception of the villagecouncil (fono) and the mayor (pulenu'u)located within the Ministry of InternalAffairs (MIA), there are no political struc-tures for ensuring that planning and

TABLE 2: MAIN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR KET URBAN SERVICE — APIA

Main Institution Key Area of Service Responsibility

Department of Lands, Surveys andEnvironment (DLSE)

I Management of Government landsI Collection and disposal of solid wasteI Environmental impact assessmentI Environmental management plansI Subdivision approval

Department of Public Works (PWD)

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,Fisheries, and Meteorology (MAFFM)

Electric Power Corporation (EPC)

Samoa Water Authority (SWA)

Samoa Land Corporation (SLC)

Transport Control Board

Village/ono

• Roads and drainage• Public buildings• Approve building plans and monitor construction

• Watershed management• Meteorology• Hydrology

• Electricity services

• Water supply• Proposed sewerage scheme

• Supply and development of government land

• Transport policy

• Guidance, control and provision of a range of village communityand development activities

A U S T R A L I A N P L A N N E R V O L 3 9 N 0 4 2 0 0 2 1 8 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

development activities are responsive towider community and public values andconcerns. Political and social organisationhas centred on the urban village, with thechurch, women's committees and othergroups playing a key role in village affairs.In a planning context, there is no formallink between the urban villages, nationalgovernment agencies and other keygroups. The implication is that no oneagency has the responsibility of definingand coordinating the urban outcomes thatstakeholders are increasingly seeking.

While development controls and aregulatory framework exist in a basic andfragmented form, primarily in the Depart-ment of Lands, Surveys and Environment(DLSE) - for example, subdivision con-trols exist under the Survey Ordinance -and the Department of Public Works(PWD), the fact that there is no legislativeor administrative systems for preparing,adopting and administering integratedplans has resulted in there being no recog-nised plans for the Apia urban area. In theabsence of any agreed urban plan and out-comes, the existing planning and develop-ment process operates within an urbanpolicy vacuum and on a piecemeal basis.The key agencies and their main areas ofresponsibility are summarised in Table 2.

VILLAGE LEVEL

In contrast to the range of Governmentagencies who operate independently atthe Apia level, there is a clear structure ofsocial systems at the village level that areresponsible for the control and manage-ment of village level activities. To a largedegree, the type of land holding definesthe organisational structure that domi-nates village decision-making. The landin the villages of Apia is a mix of tenuretypes (customary and freehold). Landtenure type determines both the decision-making structure and its process.

Villages designed along traditionalforms occupy customary lands owned byextended families or the aiga. A matai orchief represents each family and partici-pates in the village council or jono. This isthe overall decision-making body respon-sible for community affairs and develop-ment in the traditional or customary vil-lage. The jono comprises all of the mataiwithin the village. Freehold communities,however, are comprised of individual landparcels whose owners are generally fromother villages that have resettled to apiece of freehold land. Government repre-sentatives (sue o le malo) monitor andfacilitate programs in these communities.

" 0 A U S T I A I U K P L t N N E t I 0 L ] 1 |

There are also mixed village communitiesconsisting of customary land with pock-ets of freehold land acquired by house-holds primarily from the sale of govern-ment, church or individual lands.

The traditional Samoan community isbased on the aiga or extended family sys-tem (O'Meara 1990). There are threemajor groupings in a traditional or cus-tomary village. These include:

B The alii majaipule or village jono whichis made up of various strata of matai;

B The women's committee or komititumama composed of different women'sgroups called sa'o tamaitai, jaletua matausi (females married within the vil-lage group), and aualuma (femalesbom and raised within the village); and

e The untitled men or aumaga.

The mixed communities - freeholdlands within customary villages - areheaded by the village jono due to ties tocustomary land, but in practice this varieswithin each village. In traditional villages,the village jono primarily carries out theadministration of village affairs such asbroad land use planning and development- for example, use of plantation lands, landfor schools and churches, construction ofaccess roads for villagers to work the plan-tations - as well as village beautification,waste disposal and peace and order. How-ever, due to the presence of freehold landsin the mixed community villages and lackof household kin ties in the village, thejono can only exert a limited influenceregarding village planning and develop-ment, including social order and control.

There are a number of social groupswithin the customary village that performvarious functions as they relate to villageand family activities, the main groupsbeing the matai and village jono. Thematai has authority over land use anddevelopment of family lands that areunder their title. Family members seekthe permission of the matai before build-ing a house or developing non-residentialactivities. The aiga or extended familyusually selects a matai to represent thefamily in the village jono. An average of15 families form a village and the matairepresentatives form the village jono.

The jono make rules and regulationson nearly all aspects of village life rangingfrom development matters on villagelands to social behaviour such as curfewtimes, mode of dress for women, length ofhair, and times for youth watching televi-sion and videos. Each jono chooses apulenu'u or a mayor to head the village

council and they are confirmed for a threeyear term by the MIA. The pulenu'u repre-sents the village to the government,bringing the different community con-cerns to the government and govern-ment's response back to the village jonofor discussion.

While Samoa has no legislation pro-viding for elected local councils (whichhave traditionally played a major role in landuse planning and development systems inmany other Pacific countries includingFiji, as well as Australia and NewZealand) it would be misleading to concludethat it has no form of local governmentsystem. As noted above, the villagejono system builds on to an institutionthat plays a fundamental role in theSamoan socio-cultural order, especially oncustomary lands, with linkages withthe government well established throughthe pulenu'u and the sui o le malo. Localvillages have a strong system of control,regulation and guidance that impactsdirectly on both village and family activi-ties, but primarily on customary lands.

Shaping the new planningand urban management systemIn the context of the issues above -increasing urban concerns, a patchworkof decision making structures and littlecoordination or overall urban policydirection — the government undertookan extensive consultation program withstakeholders during the six months fromJune to December, 2001. The aim was toidentify clearly the range of urban issuesas they relate to planning and develop-ment, focusing primarily on Apia but alsowith some rural consultation. A numberof common findings have emerged. Thesecan be summarised as:

a A change in attitude and understandingis needed to understand Apia's growth.There are villages on customary lands,villages based on a mix of customaryand freehold land and new emergingvillages on freehold lands, all exhibit-ing varying characteristics. The chang-ing social systems operating withinthese villages need to be understood;

e Coordination and planning by a pro-fessional and resourced body is a pri-ority. Development in many areas,including the population movementinto the Apia north western fringe andsoudiem catchments, is happening inan ad hoc manner without any plan-ning framework at the village or widerlevel. This includes a lack of coordi-

2 0 0 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

nated provision of community andinfrastructure services;

m There is an increasing need for partici-pation in the planning process. Devel-opment is happening without any con-sideration of the impact on adjoininglandowners - for example, loss ofexisting road access has been raised asan issue by the pulenu'u. Rather thanbeing raised as a complaint by villagersafter development has started, it wouldbe resolved prior to development if aproper planning process existed;

B There should be equal opportunity inaccess to services such as education andhealth. Combined with employmentopportunities, access to better educa-tion is seen by many as a key driver inprompting population drift to Apia;

• A need for support systems for villagedevelopment such as land for plantations,recreational facilities and good transport;

a A need to meet the demands of vary-ing interest groups in the urban areasuch as business, youth, the elderlyand the disadvantaged;

H A need to consider all the costs ofurban growth - financial, social andenvironmental. This needs to includethe cost of not doing anything to man-age urban change. Community con-sultation indicated a clear distinctionbetween 'ability to pay' and 'desire topay', hence the political sensitivity inintroducing user pays charges on indi-vidual services too quickly; and

e A need for transparency and account-ability. The public service has mademajor gains in this area over the lastdecade and similar values shouldbe considered for any new urbanplanning and management system.

Based on these findings, and in thecontext of a desire to improve the qualityof urban life, four key outcomes havebeen identified that stakeholders wish toachieve from the urban planning andmanagement system:

B Safe, healthy and cohesive communi-ties that meet people's needs andsupport and enhance village character;

a Sustainable natural resource manage-ment in Apia and the catchment;

a A supportive environment withinwhich business can develop andwhich assists in opportunities foreconomic growth; and

B Appropriate urban structure and formso as to provide equitable access totransport, services, recreational facili-ties and jobs.

TABLE 3 : EMERGING URBAN OUTCOMES — KEY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS

Emerging Outcomes ofthe Urban System - Apia

Key Planning and Development ElementRelevant to Achieving Outcome

Outcome 1: Safe, healthy and cohesivecommunities that meet peoples needs andsupport and enhance village character

I Planning guidelines and standards (land use, setbacks, access, layout,open space, noise/air quality)

I Infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, sanitation, drainage, wastedisposal)

I Services (school, health centres, shops)I Building guidelines and standardsI Village council/community focus/participatory process

Outcome 2: Sustainable natural resourcemanagement in Apia and the catchment

I Land use guidelinesI Watershed protectionI River/stream water qualityI Infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, sanitation, drainage, waste

disposal)I Village council/community focus/participatory process

Outcome 3: Supportive environmentfor business

I Planning guidelines and standards (parking, pedestrian access, urbandesign, open pace, footpaths, setbacks)

I Infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, sanitation, drainage, wastedisposal)

I Building guidelines and standardsI Business council/participatory focus

Outcome 4: Appropriate urban structureand form for Apia

I Equitable land use (transport, roads, housing, commercialdevelopment, industry, schools, health centres, ports, open space,airports)

I Equitable land use (transport, roads, housing, commerciallnfrastruc-ture (electricity, water, roads, sanitation, drainage, waste disposal)

Table 3 outlines these emerging outcomesand the possible planning and developmentelements that could be relevant to achiev-ing desired urban outcomes for Apia:

The proposed systemcomponents and core functionsAn integrated urban planning and man-agement system is the means to managethe environment and the use of resources.The system provides the overarching toolfor planning sustainable forms of devel-opment that will meet community andgovernment's desired outcomes andexpectations for social and economicdevelopment, as well as environmentalprotection. As noted earlier, the spatialpattern in villages in Apia has not hap-pened just by chance. They result fromthe interplay of social, cultural, economicand political processes and institutions onthe natural and biophysical environment,including historical decisions made toalienate land in the 1800s.

The planning and urban managementsystem for Apia has five identifiable com-ponents. These are indicated in Figure 2and are necessary to achieve the out-comes recognized above. The five compo-nents can be summarised as:

n A set of actions that results in die iden-tification of and agreement to goals forurban development and improvement;

B A set of actions that leads to the for-mulation of a set of agreed policiesand plans;

n Actions that establish and implementthe set of regulations and other plan-ning tools diat have been developed toprovide solutions to the urban issuesand concerns identified by stakeholders;

a A set of activities that will result in thecoordinated provision of urban man-agement services; and

B Activities that are needed to finallyachieve the agreed urban outcomes.

The purpose of the integrated planningand urban management system is toimprove die quality of life in the Apia area.This is the priority area requiring soundand effective planning. The system haspossible application at the national level,however. For this to occur, die major func-tions based on diese core components ofdie new planning and urban managementsystem have been identified as:

B Making plans and policies for effectiveplanning and urban management;

B Operating a regulatory framework for diecontrol and assessment of development;and,

m Undertaking an urban managementfunction to strengthen and providecoordinated urban management ser-vices between key infrastructureproviders.

Institutional optionsThe review identified die possible mecha-nisms and processes needed to achievethe system components and outcomes.These are:

A U S T R A L I A N P L A N N E R V O L 3 9 H O 2 0 0 2 [ 9 I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Developing plans& policies

Function 1: Generatingurban policies andplans

Setting goalsfor urbandevelopment

Regulatingdevelopment

Function 2:Regulating

Mobilising resourcesfor urbanimprovement

Function 3: Managingurban services

Achievingdesired urbanoutcomes:monitor and

Implementingimprovements throughAnnual Operating Plans

tion and with thecoordination of theprovision of urbanservices, or possibleboth urban and ruralplanning functions.However, by thenature of the issuesand concerns that thesystem is dealingwith, the Division isa shor t to mediumterm option that willneed to evolve overtime.

FIGURE I: PROPOSED SYSTEM COMPONENTS

0 Institutional options;c Strategic planning framework;B Regulatory framework;E Coordination mechanisms, andB Legislative framework.

In terms of institutional arrangements,the possible range of models to accommo-date an urban planning and managementsystem in Apia is extensive. Two possibleoptions for the short to medium term are:

B A Planning Division within an existinggovernment institution; or

ts An independent Planning Authority orCommission.

OPTION ONE: A PLANNING DIVISION

One possible pragmatic approach wouldbe to establish a Planning and UrbanManagement Division within an existinggovernment institution. One of theadvantages of this initial approach is thatit builds on existing resources and capa-bilities. Potentially it enables a quickerstart to addressing urban planning andmanagement challenges. It could alsoprovide a learning phase that may provevaluable prior to the creation of a newinstitution such as a Planning Commis-sion or municipal authority in themedium to longer term. The Divisioncould be responsible for all matters asso-ciated with coordination of urban plan-ning and management and would bringtogether all the key decision makers intoone group to achieve a more integratedand coordinated approach. The Divisionwould deal with urban planning, regula-

OPTION TWO: A

PLANNING AUTHORITY

OR COMMISSION

Another institutionalmodel with potentialis an independentPlanning Authority

or Commission respon-sible for land use and development plan-ning for a region such as the greater Apiaurban area or Samoa at the national level.Instead of being accountable to a towncouncil or other form of local council, thePlanning Commission may be directlyaccountable to the state or central govern-ment. In Australia, examples include theLoddon-Campaspe Regional PlanningAuthority, the Albury-Wodonga Develop-ment Corporation and the former Gee-long Regional Commission. These agen-cies provide integrated development plansfor the region through the use of expertisecovering social, economic and environ-mental issues. They are generally notresponsible for the administration ofplans but leave this function to local gov-ernment bodies.

OTHER OPTIONS

In the medium to longer term, say 5 to 10years, the Planning and Urban Manage-ment Division (proposed in Option One)might progress to be a separate account-able entity such as that proposed in OptionTwo. In addition to the two options dis-cussed above, there may be opportunitiesto combine the institutional arrangementsin various ways as the preferred optiondevelops over time. In the longer term, itmight be possible to attach a PlanningCommission or Authority to an UrbanDistrict Council in the form of a MunicipalAuthority or establish a Council of Fono.

Institutional possibilities such as aformal Local Government or MunicipalAuthority have been canvassed for imple-

mentation in the short term. Various mod-els of local government and regulationhave been tried in the past in Samoa bythe colonial administrations, includingNew Zealand and Germany in the late1800s and early 1900s. Even as recendy as1994, an Apia Municipalities Bill wasdrafted to establish local government butwas never passed through Parliament.Project consultation suggested thatissues of costs, who pays for services andimportantly the political implications ofintroducing another competing layer ofgovernment in a small country are sensitiveissues. Councils are generally empoweredto raise revenue through the imposition ofcharges for services, levies on service usersor more broadly through rates levied onproperty owners in the agreed Councilarea. Cost recovery by such direct meansas imposing rates on the community arenot acceptable to stakeholders at thispoint in time. A move towards a form ofCouncil, however defined, is a medium tolonger term option.

Preferred institutionalarrangementsThe preferred institutional arrangementsfor a new planning and urban manage-ment system for Apia, but with potentialapplication at the national level, as agreedby government on the 27 March, 2002,were based on the establishment of a newDivision within DLSE. It was agreed that:

n Initially at least, the institutional struc-ture should provide for all three coreplanning and management functionsdealing specifically with the increasingplanning problems in Apia — that is,plans and policies, regulation andurban management and urban servicescoordination — to be within onebody;

E The body should have the capacityand authority to act as a purchaser ofboth planning and management servicesand that it would only provide thoseservices which could not be providedmore efficiendy by others;

E Initially at least, the structure wouldbe established as a relatively indepen-dent and autonomous body whichwould be part of the DLSE. At a laterstage, some or all of the structuremight be transferred from DLSE andplaced into a new single purpose bodysuch as a Municipal Authority or Plan-ning Commission; and

a The preferred structure should haveresponsibility for land use and devel-

1 9 2 A U S T M L U N P L A N N E R V O L 3 9 1 0 4 2 0 0 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4

opment policy and planning at all lev-els - that is, in the priority Apia urbanarea and as resources and capacityallow, in the rural areas — given thatthe skills required for planning andpolicy work at these levels are similarand are in short supply. In a'countrythe size of Samoa and with the limitedresources available, it would be costlyand inefficient to duplicate the provi-sion of planning and policy inputs atthe national, urban and rural levels.

The result is that government agreed tothe establishment of a Planning and UrbanManagement Agency (PUMA) to dealprimarily widi urban issues in Apia as wellas with rural, regional, and national plan-ning and policy concerns. It was agreedthat PUMA would be an identifiable andaccountable body and would have aPlanning and Urban Management Boardcomprising six government representa-tives and six community representatives.Organisationally, PUMA will have staff ofapproximately 25 professionals comprisingprimarily of existing staff from DLSE andPWD, thus making it potentially efficient,effective and low cost. A new Planning andUrban Management Bill has been preparedto ensure the key system functions andobjectives as outlined earlier in the paperare achieved. A draft of this Bill asprepared in April 2002 consisted ofthree primary components, namely theobjectives of planning in Samoa, strategicplanning, and development assessment.Significandy, the draft Bill places a strongemphasis on the need to reach consensuswith stakeholders and the making ofagreements with individuals as well asvillages including the fono.

ConclusionIn the context of lessons to be learnt formanaging other Pacific towns and cities,this paper has looked at recent initiativesto establish a new planning and urbanmanagement system to address growingurban development issues in urban Apiaand as resources and expertise improve,in the rural areas of Samoa. What hasemerged is that there are three levels ofresponsibility in the current planning anddevelopment system in Apia that lackcoordination and integration. Importantly,there is no land use or environmentalplanning system and as such, there is nosingle piece of legislation to deal withintegrated planning and developmentprocesses and resulting environmentaloutcomes. At the national level in Samoa,

there is no comprehensive mechanism forsetting urban planning and developmentobjectives at the macro level that can beapplied at the Apia urban or wider level.

At the Apia level, there is no leadagency such as a municipal authority ordesignated government agency, with thecurrent responsibility for urban planningand management activities fragmentedacross many national agencies. At thelocal village level, what emerges is a strongsystem of control, regulation and guidancethat impacts directly on both village andfamily activities, primarily on customarylands via the matai and village fono.

Stakeholders have now agreed to keyurban outcomes that they wish to beachieved, including key system compo-nents, core functions and institutionalarrangements. The result was the agree-ment by government on the 27th March,2002, to establish PUMA as the key leadplanning and urban management body forApia but with the ability to take a role inthe planning of rural areas where develop-ment pressures such as tourism arise.

Why did government agree to PUMAwhilst so many earlier attempts wereaborted? A combination of factors havemade the timing right, with the funda-mental driver for change being a strongfeeling in the community that now is thetime for planning - people want betteroutcomes and they want government tomake planning a priority (Taule'alo2000). Other key factors include theinstitutional emphasis in PUMA on anincremental approach which utilisesexisting human resources more effectivelyand efficiently, the need to match govern-ment spending with community needsand priorities derived through a creditableplanning process, and the likelihood ofmajor World Bank loans for road andasset maintenance in the Apia urban areawhich need coordination and a goodstrategic planning base.

Implementation of PUMA is now underway and all those with an interest in theplanning and management of Pacific townsand cities will follow the developmentof Samoa's recent planning and urbanmanagement model with much interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the two referees fortheir constructive comments that were made on thedraft of this paper. The project this report is based onwas jointly funded by the Government of Samoa andthe Asian Development Bank as pan of a capacitybuilding technical assistance project in urban plan-ning and management.

REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank (ADB)(2000) Samoa 2000:Building on Recent Reforms. Pacific Studies Series.Manila, Philippines.

Connell J & Lea J (1995) Urbanisation in Polynesia.Pacific Policy Paper No. 14, National Center forDevelopment Studies, Australian National Univer-sity, Canberra.

Connell J & Lea J (1998) Urban management inMicronesia: learning from Kiribati? DevelopmentBulletin, Number 45, Australian National Univer-sity, CanberraConnell J & Lea J (2002) Urbanisation in the IslandPacific: Towards sustainable development. RoutledgePacific Rim Geographies, LondonGovernment of Samoa (2002a) Household and Popu-lation Results - 2001 Census. Department of Statis-tics, Government Office Buildings, Apia Samoa.Government of Samoa (2002b) Strategy for theDevelopment of Samoa, 2002-2004 - Opportunities forAll, Treasury Department, Economic Policy andPlanning Division, Apia, Samoa.Jones P (1995) Responding to Urban Change: Obser-vations on Urbanisation, Urban Planning and UrbanManagement in the Pacific, Ministry of Home Affairsand Rural Development, Tarawa Atoll, Republic ofKiribati.

Jones P (1996) 'Changing Face of the Islands:Urban Management and Planning in the Pacific',Australian Planner, 33(3): 160-163Jones P (1997) The Impact of the Socio-CulturalOrder on Urban Management in the Pacific, Unpub-lished PhD. Department of Geographical Sciencesand Planning, University of Queensland, BrisbaneO'Meara T (1990) Samoan Planters: Tradition andEconomic Development in Polynesia. Holt, Rinehartand Winston, USA

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP) (1993) National Environment and Develop-ment Management Strategies. Apia, Samoa.Storey D (1998) 'The politics of managing urbandevelopment in Pacific Island states - The case ofSamoa and Tonga'. The Journal of Pacific Studies, 22.School of Social and Economic Development, Uni-versity of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Storey D (1999) 'Sustainability and the urbanPacific: The case of Samoa and Tonga', in Overton,J. & Scheyvens, R. (eds) Strategies for SustainableDevelopment, UNSW Press, SydneyTaule'alo T (2000) Urban planning in Samoa — issuesfor decision-making, in Environment Forum, No.2.Proceedings of the National Environment Forum2000, Department of Lands, Surveys and Environ-ment, Apia, Samoa.Urban Planning and Management Project Team(UPMPT) (2001) An Integrated Urban Planning andManagement System for Samoa. Treasury Depart-ment and the Department of Lands, Survey andEnvironment, Apia, Samoa.

Ward G & Ashcroft P (1998) Samoa - Mapping theDiversity. Institute of Pacific Studies, University ofthe South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, and the National Uni-versity of Samoa, Apia Samoa.World Bank (2000) Managing Pacific Towns. Volume2 of the Series, Cities, Seas and Storms - ManagingChange in Pacific Island Economies. Washington, DC.

ENDNOTES1 The Project was jointly funded by the Governmentof Samoa and the Asian Development Bank as part ofa capacity building technical assistance project inurban planning and management.

A U S T R A L I A N P L A N N E R V O L 3 9 N 0 4 2 0 0 2 1 9 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:03

17

Oct

ober

201

4