New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development Progress and Challenges: Deputy Minister’s briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
1 August 2007
NEW ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICA’S DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES: DEPUTY MINISTER’S BRIEFING

Chairman: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Briefing by Deputy Minister Sue van der Merwe  
Progress and Challenges with Implementation of NEPAD Programmes in SADC and other African Union Region

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a presentation on the progress of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The key challenges were also highlighted in order to inform the committee on still needed to be done. The Deputy Minister mentioned that there would be shortly be a brainstorming session that would open up discussion on what more could be done and address current problems. She focused on challenges and priorities for implementation in the forthcoming year, progress in South Africa to internalise NEPAD as an approach to socio -economic and sustainable development, the South African Development Community plans, continental initiatives to meet priority areas and an overview of developments on the African Peer Review Mechanism. She reiterated that NEPAD should be taken as an approach for economic independence for the African continent and that the objective was to be self-sufficient. The contribution of China was noted.
 

Members believed that it was necessary to discuss NEPAD’s involvement with democracy and the African Union with the Department. Concerns were expressed that dissemination of information on NEPAD initiatives was lacking, and this information would be paramount in obtaining public support among South Africans. Noting the calamitous state of Zimbabwe, some questioned NEPAD’s viability and credibility as a method of spreading democratic values, while others questioned NEPAD integration with other regional initiatives.

MINUTES
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD): Briefing by Deputy Minister Sue van der Merwe
Ms Sue van der Merwe, Hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, highlighted the need for interaction amongst NEPAD stakeholders, the constant struggle for funding, and the task of aligning various national development programmes with NEPAD. She stressed that for NEPAD to succeed, it must have the potential to expand, which would only be possible through increased African ownership of the programme throughout the continent.

She then gave a brief summary of ongoing NEPAD initiatives in South Africa and set out the key challenges and priorities for implementation of NEPAD for the year 2007/08. Important projects included the finalisation of the NEPAD Implementation Strategy for South Africa (NISSA). The progress in South Africa on the initiatives undertaken to internalise NEPAD as an approach to socio-economic and sustainable development was given. Science and technology had been areas of focus, and she highlighted the establishment of both the African Laser Centre and the African Biosciences Centre, as well as the expansion of the African Math Institute. She also noted the great expansion of South Africa’s broadband network infrastructure.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Regional Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) was seen as an expression of NEPAD. NEPAD had a number of continental goals and she suggested it should be seen as an African Union programme in the hopes that every African nation would eventually commit 10% of their budgets to its initiatives. She highlighted the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as a clear step in the right direction towards conflict resolution and peace building, noting that five nations had completed the process while an additional twenty-one had acceded to it. The Deputy Minister praised the APRM for contributing to the African continent’s economic growth and stated the outlook was the best it had been in years as a result of more African nations following traditional macro-economic theories.

Her conclusion emphasised the fact that NEPAD was a long-term development programme. African people needed to be convinced that NEPAD was relevant to them and that it addressed all the pertinent issues. They also needed to see proof of the infrastructure projects in order to increase their belief in the success of NEPAD.

Discussion
Mr W Seremane (DA) noted that the dissemination of information came from the top, and wondered how the government might better inform the public in an effort to change negative perceptions of NEPAD.

Ms van der Merwe agreed that the dissemination of information to the greater public remained a challenge, but noted the National Implementation Strategy and its efforts to popularise NEPAD through its civil society wing.

Mr T Leon (DA) noted that there was nothing in the document that mentioned strengthening democracy. He raised that issue specifically in the context of Zimbabwe and its rising inflation. He then asked what effect that would have on the international perceptions of the viability and credibility of NEPAD.

The Chairperson added that the Committee had engaged the Ministry on issues of Zimbabwe and that there was a process to deal with the issue of Zimbabwe. This would be handled at a separate meeting.

Ms van der Merwe responded that the presentation had not perhaps emphasised the processes of the APRM. This process had resulted in development of a programme of action. The APRM addressed the governance aspect. It was not seen a punitive action, but a corrective measure. Participation was voluntary, and twenty-six nations had acceded to the peer review process, and five had completed it. Sessions would be held in Algiers at the end of October 2007 to review the progress that had been made and the lessons learned. It was noted that Zimbabwe was not a signatory, but would still be encouraged to participate. The region was deeply concerned about the Zimbabwean situation and President Mbeki was tasked by SADC with trying to rescue Zimbabwe from its dire position, as there was no benefit to South Africa should the situation continue.
 
Mr Leon noted that recently at the World Economic Forum it was reported that President Wade from Senegal had removed himself from NEPAD involvement, despite being one of the founding members of NEPAD. He asked how had his disaffection affected the progress of NEPAD.

Ms van der Merwe answered that while President Wade had indeed been a critic of NEPAD, he had helped to launch the Millennium Action Plan (MAP), which was later merged into NEPAD. President Wade had committed himself to attending an upcoming meeting about the uses, directions, and problems of NEPAD. South Africa’s approach was to discuss issues until solutions were reached and she believed that South Africa could continue to engage with other African leaders who might have reservations to persuade them of the benefits of the programme.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) raised a question on promoting NEPAD. There was a need to know more about what was happening in the region. She wanted an in depth understanding of what the projects were and where they were based as well as the countries involved. Using the integration of the electricity grid as an example, she insisted that concrete examples were needed in order for the constituency to support NEPAD.

Ms van der Merwe replied that more information could be provided, with a full and comprehensive list of projects, and added that the projects had to be identified as NEPAD RISDP projects. The information would not necessarily include substantial information on the big projects in the rest of the Continent such as the hydro-electricity dam projects for the continent.

The Chairperson mentioned the Omega plan that at some point was merged with the NEPAD plan, asking to what extent there had been committal to either plan, and to what extent international politics played a role.

Mr W Seremane (DA) and Ms S Camerer (DA) cited the dissemination of information as a major component of communication. The common criticism seemed to be that nobody knew what progress was being made in NEPAD. Ms Camerer wondered if there were budgetary constraints limiting dissemination of information.

The Chairperson agreed that South Africans needed to see specific NEPAD programmes designed to help in alleviation of poverty and contribute towards their own economic development. If they did not see its projects and initiatives, they assumed that NEPAD did not exist or was not working. He enquired if the focus of NEPAD was on policy, or on projects.

Ms van der Merwe replied that communication remained a challenge. The NISSA programme was a process that had received wide consultation with civil society and business. There was also a project called ECOSOC that was dealing with the popularising of NEPAD. She said that NEPAD was intended as an approach to socio-economic development, to create economic independence for the African continent, There had to be further engagement on issues. Rather than being a pool of money for States to dip into for development projects, NEPAD represented the commitment of African nations to drive their own development. Ms Hajaig noted that many private sector groups were involved in economic development, such as the NEPAD Business Group, the Commonwealth Business Council, and the World Economic Forum, as well as the NEPAD council of leading African scientists working in the US and Europe. Because of these groups’ ability to help strengthen economic communities, Ms Hajaig again indicated the importance of up-to-date information as a key to the Committees’ role as an oversight body.

The Deputy Minister responded that there was a NEPAD business foundation and that there would be a conference to popularise the programme amongst South African investors. Information would be provided to the Committee as soon as possible.

The Chairperson cautioned that South Africa should not let the European Union redefine its economic policies and asked to what extent NEPAD was used to advance issues of regional integration. There were inconsistencies between the regional issues of SADC and the economic partnership agreement that subdivided the continent according to their needs. He envisioned situations in which countries began negotiating as different entities. In this sense, he recognised the domestication of NEPAD as central to the discussion.

The Deputy Minister responded that NEPAD promoted regional integration through the Regional Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) and had not allowed the EU to define its policies. NEPAD focused on regional communities because at present there was strong regional integration of political and security issues. There were major challenges with the way in which different countries in the SADC saw their future roles in trade and economic development. There was some overlap with other regional organisations. A focus area must be the strengthening of regional communities and economic integration. The Department had begun a very thorough analysis to address these questions.

Mr Sithole questioned the domestication of NEPAD.

The Deputy Minister replied that the Port Elizabeth workshop was the beginning of a process, and had had a deep effect which included a number of role players, to the point there was now a draft document that was being prepared for Cabinet, which would then come before the Committee.

Ms S Camerer again raised the issue of communications.

The Deputy Minister confirmed that there had been some problems. The economic and social angle had been used, but despite enthusiasm in the beginning, there was a dip in the awareness level. The Department was now employing different tactics to ensure that awareness of NEPAD was enhanced, and part of this would be the naming of projects. The African Partnership Forum North-South engagement would shortly report on the commitment of northern countries and progress made.

The Chairperson mentioned that he did not agree with the manner in which SADC had been divided, as it did not seem to advance regional integration. South Africa experienced xenophobia and therefore there was even more of a need for regional education. He also noted that none of the institutions or places of memory were named after liberators from the rest of the African continent.

Ms van der Merwe felt that an important subject was raised with regard to regional integration issues, and that this should form the subject of discussion at the Committee at a later date.

The meeting was adjourned.