Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA) on its regulations & accreditation of Social Housing Institutions; Committee Report on Kigali Conference

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

01 September 2011
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Social Housing Regulatory Authority presented its Draft Regulations for the Social Housing Act as the Act stipulated that Parliament had to be consulted about the Regulations. The briefing first looked at the Social Housing Act, secondly, the accreditation of Social Housing Institutions, thirdly, it explained what accreditation meant, and lastly it dealt with the Regulations.

In terms of the context, the Social Housing Act promulgated on 1 September 2009, established the Social Housing Regulatory Authority. The mandate of the SHRA was to invest in social housing and be able to regulate the sector. The vision was affordable rental homes in integrated urban environments through sustainable institutions. Its mission was to regulate and invest to deliver affordable rental homes and renew communities. SHRA aimed to interpret the Minister’s vision that people should be able to live, work, play and pray in their own areas, which implied social, economic and spatial restructuring. SHRA’s social housing projects embodied the vision of the Minister

Structurally SHRA was divided into an Investment wing and a Regulation wing. SHRA had invested to date in 2 342 units (initial target 1 705), with a possible 1 500 still to come. There was huge interest from the private sector. Capacitation grants had been recommended. SHRA was engaging service providers for proposals and quotations. The 2011/12 accreditation cycle was complete. SHRA was preparing for the 2012/13 cycle. The Draft Regulations were ready for presentation to Parliament as required by the Act. The monitoring and evaluation of accredited Social Housing Institutions had started.

The Auditor General evaluated SHRA after three months of operation and on the dashboard that represented the report graphically; it allocated only yellow and green faces. Yellow meant ‘ok’ and green meant excellent. There were no red faces, which would have indicated problems areas. The Act said that all institutions which have undertaken housing development with the benefit of a state subsidy, and which continued to provide rental or cooperative low-cost housing received provisional accreditation for a period of time. During that time, they had to apply for full accreditation. The three categories were social housing institutions, municipal-owned social housing institutions and cooperatives. To initiate the process of accreditation, SHRA had invited applications using national newspapers and by writing letters to prospective candidates. This had happened during December 2010 to January 2011.

There were now a list of four fully accredited and several conditionally accredited housing institutions and the period of accreditation lasted for one year. There were clearly stipulated procedures to follow to become accredited as social housing institutions. Full accreditation for an institution meant that an institution could participate in the investment program and receive grants. The institutions had to have good governance, had to be financially sustainable, and had to have efficient property and tenant management systems in place.

The accreditation assessment process determined whether an institution could accommodate more growth and at what level, so that by the time the investment program made its investment decisions into the projects, it already had the information available. SHRA had to balance the regulatory function with enhancing the growth of the sector, in order to make sure that it reached its Outcome 8 target, that was set at 24 000 units. To date the program had received an annual application figure of 30 000 units. This meant that accreditation had a positive impact. There was sufficient appetite for the investment programme, which meant that Outcome 8 could be realised through this process.

The draft regulations had been developed in 2010 and published on 10 September 2010 with a deadline for comments on 20 September 2010.The goal of the draft regulations was to complement the Social Housing Act. The regulations determined that a social housing institution had to be a non-profit organisation, demonstrate good governance, financial sustainability, effective service delivery and its main business had to be providing low cost housing for low to medium income households. The structure of the Regulations, broken down by the chapter, were explained. There were subcommittees within the SHRA that dealt exclusively with the matter of Accreditation (Chapter Two), Investment Criteria (Chapter Six), and there were also the appropriate review committees. A special committee was needed for the matters in Chapter Eight, Agreements.

Members asked why some Social Housing Institutions had been declined when they applied for accreditation and whether they knew what to do to become accredited; why only one Social Housing Institution operated in Ekhurulenu Municipality, which was a big municipality, while there were seven operating in the whole of Gauteng. Members asked what the difference was between rental and cooperative housing projects and why the National Department of Human Settlements (NDHS) was not promoting housing cooperatives more vigorously with clear policies to advance its agenda. The discrepancy between the NDHS reporting there were five accredited Social Housing Institutions and Social Housing Regulatory Authority reporting there were four was questioned.

Meeting report

After introductions, Mr Morris Mngomezulu, NDHS Acting Chief Director, thanked the Committee for inviting SHRA to make this presentation on its regulations. He asked Mr Ngwenya to give the meeting a brief outline of the process.

Mr Kwezi Ngwenya, Legal Advisor in the NDHS, said the primary legislation required that certain processes and procedures had to be followed by the NDHS before the Minister could promulgate the regulations. He remembered when the Committee was dealing with the primary legislation it was very clear on the matters it wanted reflected in the Act. One of the points the Committee raised was that ‘the Minister must, after consultation with Parliament, make the regulations’. This was to ensure that the regulations, which were the responsibility of the executive, were lawful. In the case of the regulations, due process had been followed by both SHRA and the NDHS. It was currently at the point where the draft regulations had to be presented to the Committee.

Ms Zohra Ebrahim, Chairperson of SHRA, thanked the Committee for altering its programme in order to accommodate SHRA in having this meeting. She reiterated what Mr Ngwenya had said regarding the legal process that had to be followed, that it was absolutely important that the process followed could not be faulted. Any imperfections in the end product would be addressed at a later stage. The process for the particular meeting would be to make sure that all the Committee’s questions about accreditation were fully answered within the ambit of the Social Housing Act (SHA). Also the process around draft regulations needed to be clarified, the draft regulations had to be presented and all questions concerning them had to be answered. She outlined the different parts of the presentation and who would present it.

The Social Housing Act
Mr Brian Moholo, SHRA CEO, thanked the Committee for its support willingness to adjust its program in order to accommodate SHRA. It was a significant process for SHRA because it had to make sure that it dealt with institutions within the ambit of the law. He was going to give a brief overview of how SHRA was doing and was going to relate it to the Social Housing Act.

In terms of the context, the Social Housing Act was the main piece of legislation which established SHRA. There was also existing legislation namely the Housing Act and the Rental Act. The Rental Act was being reviewed to determine its relevance. SHRA needed the regulations in order to effect the Act and do its work. In terms of the Housing Act, there was the Housing Code that also related to the Rental Act. There was also Social Housing Policy, and together with the Department, SHRA would have to look at the relevance of the Social Housing Policy. The Minister of Human Settlements then approved the regulations, the code and the policy through his own structures. The regulations gave rise to the rules for which the SHRA Council was mainly responsible.

The Social Housing Act (No 16 of 2008) was promulgated on 1 September 2009.
The SHA had six purposes:
▪ To establish and promote a sustainable Social Housing Environment.
▪ To define the functions of National, Provincial and Local Governments in terms of Social Housing.
▪ To establish the SHRA.
▪ To allow for the undertaking of approved projects by other delivery agents.
▪ To provide for the statutory recognition of Social Housing Institutions.
▪ To provide d for matters connected to Social Housing.
The briefing document explained the structure of the Act, broken down by chapters. It provided the legal framework, created the regulatory authority and defined who the role-players in the sector were.

The Act introduced three new instruments:
▪ Legislative and Regulatory Instruments of which SHRA is the most prominent.
▪ Financial instruments in the form of grants, tax incentives and risk mitigation measures.
▪ Capacity building instruments to assist the social housing institutions in running viable projects.

Chapter Three of the Act established the SHRA. It stated that the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) applied to SHRA and that SHRA was accountable to the Minister of Human Settlements and Parliament. It was a Schedule 3(a) organisation. The Act further set out the composition and functions of SHRA. The Mandate of SHRA was to invest in social housing and be able to regulate the sector. The Vision was affordable rental homes in integrated urban environments through sustainable institutions. The Mission was that SHRA would regulate and invest to deliver affordable rental homes and renew communities. SHRA aimed to interpret the Minister’s vision that people should be able to live, work, play and pray in their own areas, which implied social, economic and spatial restructuring. SHRA’s social housing projects embodied the vision of the Minister.

Structurally SHRA was divided in an Investment wing and a Regulation wing. The Investment wing was divided into a Capital section and a Capacitation section. The Regulation wing was divided into an Accreditation section and a Regulation section. For further details, see the presentation.
SHRA had invested to date in 2 342 units (initial target 1 705), with a possible 1 500 still to come. There was huge interest from the private sector. Capacitation grants had been recommended. SHRA was engaging service providers for proposals and quotations. The 2011/12 accreditation cycle was complete. SHRA was preparing for the 2012/13 cycle. The Draft Regulations were ready for presentation to Parliament and for gazetting (after noting Parliament’s comments). The monitoring and evaluation of accredited Social Housing Institutions had started.

The Auditor General had evaluated SHRA after three months of operation and on the dashboard that represented the report graphically; it allocated only yellow and green faces. Yellow meant ‘ok’ and green meant excellent. There were no red faces, which would have indicated problems areas.

Accreditation
Mr Eugene Perumal, SHRA Corporate Services Manager, noted that the Act said that all institutions which have undertaken housing development with the benefit of a state subsidy, and which continued to provide rental or cooperative low-cost housing received provisional accreditation for a period of time. During that time, they had to apply for full accreditation. The three categories were social housing institutions, municipal-owned social housing institutions and cooperatives.

To initiate the process of accreditation, SHRA had invited applications using national newspapers and by writing letters to prospective candidates. This had happened during December 2010 to January 2011. Some institutions asked for more time due to the stringent standards. SHRA then went through an extensive assessment exercise using professional skills. It went through the accreditation process, and now it was in the compliance and monitoring process. There were now a list of accredited housing institutions and the period of accreditation lasted for one year. Institutions had to apply for accreditation annually, because during a year things could happen that could impact on its status. These would be monitored through the required quarterly reporting (including financial) to SHRA. There were institutions which had applied for accreditation that had been declined because they did not meet the minimum criteria. There were also institutions that did not apply. The NDHS provided SHRA with a list of institutions which had received state subsidies in the past.

At this stage, three institutions had full accreditation. They were Communicare based in Cape Town, Madulamoho based in Johannesburg and the Johannesburg Housing Company (JHC). There were lists of institutions with conditional accreditation and those which applied, but were declined. The institutions that received conditional accreditation, or were declined, were given a list of items that they had to respond to within a certain period of time, in order to receive full accreditation. There was also a list of non-accredited institutions (see document for all these lists).

There was a process of internal review for which institutions had to apply. The cycle was displayed in the presentation. One other institution achieved full accreditation after this process, bringing the total of fully accredited institutions thus far, to four.

There was a list of 12 non-accredited institutions that did not apply for accreditation. SHRA had communicated to them that it did not matter whether they applied for accreditation or not, they would still be regulated, and in terms of that regulation there were rules and regulations that they had to comply with anyway.

SHRA asked the NDHS for a list of institutions that had received state subsidies in the past. SHRA received a list of 378 current projects from the NDHS. It included old-age and special needs homes, as well as rent-to-buy schemes. Some stock did not belong to government anymore and belonged to the individuals. SHRA was in the process of obtaining and collating information received from the provinces in order to identify the institutions administering those projects. There was a separate process underway to accredit and regularise these projects.

Ms Ebrahim said that these 378 were not done under SHRA, and were not regulated by SHRA yet, but in terms of the Act, any project that had received a state subsidy historically, would fall under SHRA to regulate. There was a work plan in place to accredit the non-accredited Social Housing Institutions (see document for details). If an institution resisted the process to regulate it, there was a process in place that would lead to its foreclosure.

Section 19 of the Social Housing Act provided information about the regulations:
Regulations
19. (1) The Minister, by notice in the Gazette and after consultation with Parliament—
(a) must make regulations prescribing—
(i) any matter required to be prescribed by regulation under this Act;
(ii) a code of conduct, the investment criteria and the qualifying criteria for social housing institutions;
(b) may make regulations—
(i) in respect of the required provisions of the agreements between the Regulatory Authority and other delivery agents;
(ii) in respect of the required provisions of the agreements between the Regulatory Authority and provincial governments;
(iii) in respect of the required provisions of the agreements between the Regulatory Authority and the National Housing Finance Corporation: or
(iv) any other ancillary or administrative matter that is necessary to prescribe for the proper implementation or administration of this Act.
(2) The Regulations may provide for offences in cases of contravention thereof or non-compliance therewith, and for penalties not exceeding a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both a fine and such imprisonment.

In terms of the hierarchy of legislation, the founding documents were the fundaments of the legislation. It spelt out the police and the guidelines and gave rise to the Act, which was the primary legislation. The primary legislation, the Act, gave rise to the Subordinate legislation from which the regulations, rules and notices, instructions, directives and the rest have their origin.

Mr Perumal demonstrated the website to the Committee, which had an active map providing links to the SH projects within a particular province.

Ms Ebrahim reminded the Committee that the last time SHRA presented, it gave a copy of what the accreditation certificate would look like. The accreditation certificates were issued to the institutions when they received accreditation, they were entered into a register and their information was updated monthly.

Mr Perumal confirmed that there were currently four institutions which achieved full accreditation.

What Accreditation Meant
Ms Vengadajellum Gaffee, SHRA Regulations Manager, said that full accreditation for an institution meant that an institution could participate in the investment program and receive grants. The institutions had to have good governance, had to be financially sustainable, and had to have efficient property and tenant management systems in place.

The accreditation assessment process determined whether an institution could accommodate more growth and at what level, so that by the time the investment program made its investment decisions into the projects, it already had the information available. SHRA had to balance the regulatory function with enhancing the growth of the sector, in order to make sure that it reached its Outcome 8 target of 24 000 units. To date the program had received an annual application figure of 30 000 units. This meant that accreditation had a positive impact. There was sufficient appetite for the investment programme, which meant that Outcome 8 could be realised through this process.

Draft Regulations
Mr Ephraim Lusenga, SHRA Compliance Manager, referred to the processes preceding the current process. The draft regulations were developed in 2010 and published on 10 September 2010 under Government Gazette No 33518. The deadline for comments was 20 September 2010.The goal of the draft regulations were to complement the Social Housing Act.

The regulation determined that a social housing institution had to be a non-profit organisation, demonstrate good governance, financial sustainability, effective service delivery and its main business had to be providing low cost housing for low to medium income households.

See the document for the structure of the Regulations, broken down by chapter.

Ms Ebrahim added that there were subcommittees within the structure of SHRA that dealt exclusively with the matter of Chapter Two (Accreditation), Chapter Six (Investment Criteria) and there were also the appropriate review committees. A special committee was needed for the matters in Chapter Eight, Agreements.

Discussion
Ms M Borman (ANC) said that according to the presentation the invitation for applications went out via the press as well as letters to institutions. Did SHRA receive any replies to the letters?

Mr Brian Moholo replied that SHRA advertised its application process in two national papers, because it wanted to catch everybody’s attention. It also advertised on its website. Social Housing institutions kept records and were kept on record by SHRA. SHRA communicated with those it had on record by letter. Social Housing Institutions (SHIs) were also organised in a federation. SHRA had also communicated with them through the federation. SHRA alerted the provincial housing departments as well as the municipalities. He did not have the details of all the institutions that were invited by letter, which had applied. Some unaccredited SHIs made no effort to apply.

Mr A Figlan (DA) said that SHRA had to communicate with structures such as the Khayelitsha Development Forum which had to know about these issues. The community press and radio stations also had to be used to distribute information on issues like these, not only national newspapers.

The Chairperson said that the presentation stated that the regulations were published. She asked the NDHS where were the comments from the public. The Committee had to see the comments by the public in order to see whether SHRA took into consideration reasonable comments by the public, in formulating the regulations. She wanted to place on record that the Committee asked for this. The Committee would scrutinise the comments one by one, comment on them and follow the process as it had to happen.
Mr Mngomezulu replied that the NDHS would, through the office of Mr Kwezi Lusenge, provide the required information.

The Chairperson asked Mr Lusenge when the Committee could expect the requested public comments.

Mr Lusenge replied that it would reach the Committee by 6 September 2011.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would look at the comments and report on them at the next meeting. She had looked at the application form and was not sure whether it was user friendly. If it were necessary to have a meeting on another Friday, the Committee would do so, because this matter had to be dealt with.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked what the difference was between rental and cooperative projects.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) also wanted clarity on cooperatives.

Mr Moholo replied that the difference between the two models was in the form the tenure took. In the case of rental properties, there would be a property owner and a property manager. In the case of a cooperative, the property was jointly owned by its members. There were cooperatives in the City of Cape Town. In terms of the definition of social housing in the Social Housing Policy, social housing was constituted by developments of high density and had institutional management. The cooperatives fell within that definition.

Ms Ebrahim added that she dealt with the National Federation of Cooperatives to find out why they have never applied for subsidies. One comment that emerged strongly was that the law as it stood was more in favour of agricultural than housing cooperatives. The closest approximation to what housing cooperatives were, were a concept called ‘share-block’. Also most communal ownership of housing happened in non-urban and non-traditional areas, and therefore fell outside of the ambit of this Act. More research was needed in that area.

The Chairperson said that she was happy that this was raised. She alerted Mr Mngomezulu to listen carefully. It was a concern of the Committee that the NDHS was not doing enough to promote housing cooperatives. She said that the NDHS was failing, not SHRA. The Committee requested the NDHS to come up with a broader policy regarding cooperatives. Regulation rested with the Department of Trade and Industry. The NDHS did not have a clear policy on the advancement of cooperatives. She said the NDHS was not doing its job in this regard.

Mr Moholo replied that the NDHS had approached SHRA on cooperatives. A body of knowledge existed in the archives and the situation was not as dim as it looked.

The Chairperson said that as long as it was not presented to the Committee, it did not exist.

Mr Mngomezulu replied that there was a unit within the NDHS which was working on cooperatives. A certain Ms Tembani was working with SHRA on this matter. The fact that the unit was understaffed, explained the lack of progress with the cooperatives agenda. The NDHS was still turning around.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was not convinced. The NDHS had to legislate cooperatives. It had to follow the same route it followed with sectional titles. It had to bring back the objective of the cooperative. The NDHS was currently out of order. It promoted the rental model of housing more than the cooperative model. The rental model was private sector in a way. The NDHS had an obligation to provide affordable housing to low income families. Cooperatives provided affordable housing. It had to start with the few that existed. The DTI had to register these and they had to be managed and administered by the NDHS. The NDHS had to come up with a Bill.

Mr Steyn said that in the presentation by the NDHS on its expenditure, it reported to the Committee that there were five SHIs with full accreditation. There was only four according to this presentation. What caused the difference?

The Chairperson said that Mr Steyn raised the fact that there was a discrepancy in the number of accredited institutions reported by SHRA as opposed to the number reported by the NDHS. She wanted an explanation.

Mr Moholo replied that the NDHS would have to clarify. SHRA would have to consult with the NDHS and come back with a written response.

Mr Steyn asked, regarding the list of 378 projects, if they were all old. How many of them were current and busy developing? If they were current they had no option but to apply for accreditation.

Mr Moholo replied that they were in the register. SHRA had obtained the information two weeks previously. He told management that somebody had to be assigned to go through all these SHIs with a fine comb to find out what their status were. In some cases the houses would belong to private individuals currently, but they were built with government subsidies in the past. Their status had to be ascertained in order to update the register. The instruction had gone out to management to do it.

Mr Steyn asked for an example of the type of agreement that SHRA had with the Housing Development Agency (HDA).

Mr Moholo replied that SHRA was in the process of negotiating agreements with the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC), the HDA and the provinces. There was a National Social Housing Task Team meeting convened for 16 September 2011. SHRA would be able to report on the outcome of those agreements. It was very difficult to get to a point of agreement. SHRA had a workshop with the Eastern Cape and was concluding that agreement. It had a workshop lined up with KZN and would conclude that agreement soon. However, it was taking time

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) asked whether the non-accredited institutions knew what to do in order to become accredited.

Ms Mnisi asked why certain institutions were declined.

Ms Gaffee said that the ten SHIs that had been declined and the 12 that did not respond failed the good governance criterion as stated in the Regulations. To a lesser degree it was about efficient property management and financial sustainability. With regards to the non-accredited HFIs, the lists of 10 and 12, they were categorised into two groups. The first category was projects that had to be closed down. As the CEO indicated, they had defective loans in excess of ten years. The NHFC had to write off the loans, the projects had to be closed and the units taken off the books of SHRA. The second category was the one where the SHIs were still managing stock which still qualified as social housing. They had to be rehabilitated. The end user’s rights had to be maintained and they had to be within the social housing income group. SHRA was working with the second group on their rehabilitation. Not all municipalities were participating in the social housing programme. SHRA had a programme through the CEO’s Office to work with municipalities where there were no social housing programmes, but the demand was present.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) noticed on the national list of institutions that there were seven SHIs operating in Gauteng, but only one in Ekhuruleni, which was a huge municipality. He asked why.

Mr Moholo agreed that Ekhuruleni in Gauteng had only one SHI. SHRA would meet with them to investigate why.

Mr Sithole asked where the offices of SHRA were located.

Mr Moholo replied that SHRA only had one office in Parktown, Johannesburg. SHRA was very young and was not in a position to think about expanding.

Mr Ebrahim added that this was the case to keep costs down.

The Chairperson said that the NDHS reported that there were five accredited SHIs. She asked why so many projects were allocated to one out of the five accredited SHIs and requested them to communicate the message to SHRA.

The Chairperson asked the NDHS to clarify the conflicts and controversies around some of the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) - funded projects.

Mr Moholo replied that some projects were not really designed to be rental projects. Some of them were part of the 378 projects and they were started long ago. It looked more like ordinary individual tenure with owners occupying RDP-type units, but because they were funded as rental projects, they were still on the books of the NHFC, but the loans had not been paid up. At some point all the parties concerned had to agree that those projects had to be released. Some of the children born in Thabong, Welkom, when the project was initiated, were starting to work already. How did one resolve those disputes of 12 to 15 years ago? SHRA would discuss with the NHFC the viability of the projects that it had funded and their current status. The disputes would always continue.

Ms Ebrahim added that the Act stated the NHFC had to provide access to loan funding for social housing, it had to give SHRA financial information to enable it to assess the institutional health of any institution that applied for money, and where possible, provide access to financial guarantees for SHIs supported by SHRA and to play a facilitating role in finding additional funding for projects. There was discretion with the national government as shareholders, for both institutions to know what the priorities were, so in terms of Outcome 8, to know what the responsibilities had to be. SHRA was guided in that regard to some extent by the NDHS in terms of the finalisation of that agreement.

The Chairperson said that SHRA inherited an ‘animal’. It had to sort out the issues it inherited from its predecessors and make processes clear and transparent. At the end of the day, the consumers were exploited. If the processes were not clear, the legislation was open to abuse.

Mr Figlan asked what the nature of the relationship was between SHRA and the HDA. He asked if the N2 Gateway Project rentals were being managed by SHRA or the HDA.

Mr Moholo replied that both SHRA and the HDA were entities under the NDHS. The two parties then had to enter into an agreement on how and where the parties would cooperate. The HDA’s mandate was about the acquisition of land and buildings. Historically the Social Housing Foundation funded the N2 Gateway Project. Thubelisha Home Loans was appointed property managers at the time. The HDA had succeeded Thubelisha Home Loans and took on some of its responsibilities. SHRA succeeded the Social Housing Foundation and took on some of its responsibilities. He asked whether Thubelisha had accreditation. The answer was ‘No’. The two succeeding entities had not discussed each other’s role and responsibilities yet.

Ms Gaffee said that SHRA had written to the HDA saying that as the property managers of the N2 Gateway project, it had to report to SHRA in terms of the Act. A day or two ago it received a reply from the HDA saying that it was not the property manager; it was merely facilitating a process between the Western Cape provincial government and the City of Cape Town to undertake the rectification only. It was not in a position to report on the project. SHRA now had to consider the correspondence and decide how it was going proceed.

Ms Mnisi asked SHRA to break down the SHIs into provinces so that it could be easy to see where they operated. She asked whether SHI Govan Mbeki was in the Eastern Cape.

Mr Moholo said that SHI Govan Mbeki was in Nelspruit.

Ms Gaffee said that Govan Mbeki SHI was managing old public housing stock. It had no current social housing project.

The Chairperson on behalf of the Committee, thanked the management of SHRA, and expressed its appreciation for SHRA’s remarkable progress.

Ms Ebrahim thanked the Committee and NDHS for their support.
 
Committee Report on the Kigali Conference
The Chairperson said that a delegation from the Committee consisting of herself, Mr Steyn, Mr Mdakane, the researcher and the Committee secretary attended a conference in Kigali, Rwanda. The Chairperson, Mr Steyn and Mr Mdakane agreed that the report was a true reflection of what the delegation experienced and learned on the trip, but there were corrections to be made. She asked Mr Steyn to give a summary of the report.

Mr Steyn said at the conference there were many presentations and they happened simultaneously. The Committee delegation split up in order to cover as many presentations as possible. The report contained summaries of all these presentations attended.

It was the third conference of its kind. The previous two were held in South Africa, Johannesburg and Ethekwini respectively. This was a follow-up on the Ethekwini conference in terms of the resolutions taken. It was informative. There were references made to various documents that could be accessed via various websites. The Committee secretary could also provide some of these documents.

The Committee delegation itself went there to learn and not to deliver any presentations. There were also delegations from the NDHS as well as the Department of Water Affairs. There was an expectation that especially the delegations from African countries had to present reports. There was no report by the South African delegation, although it was big. It was a great disappointment. The Committee Chairperson would like to have an explanation from the NDHS as to why no South African report had been delivered.
His first correction was in clause 4.1, the second last bullet point, where the report said:’Despite the lack of a country report, South Africa is nonetheless on track to reach the MDG target on sanitation by 2050’. He was concerned about how this claim could be substantiated in the absence of a report. He wanted the sentence to be taken out.

His second correction was a suggestion that what was termed ‘Conclusion’ at the end of the report, had to be termed ‘Recommendations’.

The Chairperson agreed that the NDHS had to submit a report on the Ethekwini Declaration to the Committee. The Committee had requested the NDHS to submit a report by 19 August 2011. The Committee wanted a copy of that report. The NDHS also had to look at the policies for the Sanitation Act, because there was a feeling that the NDHS did not take sanitation seriously.

Mr Steyn asked that a deadline be attached to the NDHS submission of the report but the Chairperson did not attach a deadline.

The Committee Report on the Kigali Conference was adopted with corrections.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: