African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): briefing by Department of Public Service & Administration

Meeting report

African Peer Review Mechanism(APRM): by Department of Public Service and Administration
Dr Alex Mahapa, DPSA Deputy Director General, International Relations, delivered the presentation which covered the background of the APRM, South Africa’s approach, progress, issues raised at the tabling of the second progress report, challenges identified, recommendations and the way forward. He reminded the meeting that the APRM was a self monitoring instrument voluntarily agreed and acceded to by member states of the African Union whose primary purpose was to foster the adoption of policies, standards, practices, that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub regional, and continental economic integration through sharing experiences and reinforcement of successful and best practice, including identifying deficiencies and assessing the needs of capacity building.

South Africa as a country had a participatory approach which was led by government but included civil society in the form of business, labour, professionals and others. It was inclusive as it included Community Development Workers (CDWs) and Ward Committees who played an important role in community and local level consultations. It was also technically sound as it involved accredited research partners. SA voluntarily acceded to the APR mechanism in March 2003 and was peer reviewed in July 2007 where a Country Review Report was published. SA’s first report was tabled in January 2009 at the African Peer Review Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The second report was tabled in January 2011. At the 16^th APR Forum in Addis Ababa in January 2012, South Africa presented a candidate to serve in the Panel of Eminent Persons, Ms Baleka Mbete, the former Deputy President of the country, and she was accepted as a member of the panel. SA was mandated to lead the integration of the Continental APRM into NEPAD, a decision of the Africa Union 11th Ordinary Session held in 2008. Some of the things SA was commended for at the tabling of the second report included establishing of the National Planning Commission which was a best practice, progress made in the gender mainstreaming, managing diversity, its fight against corruption, land reform and the development of the King III report on corporate governance. One of the challenges identified included the issue of xenophobia. It was recommended that SA look into the issue of xenophobia seriously, investigate the possibilities of merging the corruption fighting institutions into one, provide a detailed elaboration on the King III intervention. The way forward included plans to convene a national dialogue on Xenophobia in 2012 to engage on the issue, undertake interventions to manage diversity, violence against women, crime and corruption, and unemployment.

Discussion
Mr N Du Toit (DA) asked several questions and said that if the Department could not provide the answers immediately, they could forward them to the Committee as soon as possible. He asked how much money South Africa spent on the programme between 2003 and the present, a period of nine years. He wanted to know how much was SA’s contribution to the programme. He asked for the amount that was budgeted for the current and the next year as an expenditure on the effort.

Dr Mahapa said that they needed to look into their documents for the answers and that they would provide answers in writing to the Committee at a time to come.

Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) suggested that the Committee look into the previous Annual Reports for the answers to the expenditure questions.

Mr A Williams (ANC) asked if Community Development Workers were part of civil society. He asked who else the Department spoke to from civil society

Dr Mahapa said that the CDWs were not part of civil society. They worked together with SANGOCO who was part of the APRM National Governing Council (NGC) and had a outreach to province and local governing councils, business sectors and institutions who were research partners.

South Africa Institute of International Affairs & Partners presentation: Implementing the APRM – Views from Civil Society 
Ms Nicole Beardsworth, Researcher with the SAIIA introduced her team and indicated that the effort was a collaboration amongst the SAIIA, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and the African Governance, Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP), Open Society Foundation, and the Community Law Centre of the University of the Western Cape as well as others who make up a total of thirteen organizations.

Ms Beardsworth highlighted a number of issues the mechanism faced, which included the a lack of effort in designing and instituting of a systematic monitoring and evaluation plan for the implementation of the National Programme of Action, the APRM was seen as a government owned and executive-driven process instead of citizenry centred consultative process.

The first report SA submitted to meet its reporting obligations was criticized as not covering many of the developments that had taken place since accession to the peer review mechanism. The issues raised in the second report was not linked sufficiently to the Programme of Action and the outcomes of the consultative process was not adequately reflected in the final report. Both reports were also criticized due to not having concrete data and statistics and evidence of what had been achieved.

The SAIIA and AfriMAP launched the SA APRM Monitoring Report in June 2011 which monitored government’s commitment to keeping its promises to improve job creation, reduce poverty, fight corruption and economic crimes, improve on service delivery and manage diversity and elections as well. The report used a simple rating system in the form of a green, orange and red light which indicated status of projects as complete, in progress and not done respectively. Most of the areas received an orange rating. The seven areas of corruption, party-state separation, cadre deployment and the politicization of institutions, regulation of private funding to political parties, xenophobia, poverty and unemployment, received red light status as little or no progress had been made.

A theme not represented in the Programme of Action or adequately addressed by the APRM Self Assessment Questionnaire was that of access of information and protection of the media. It was felt that the report should address issues concerning the media in light of plans to establish a Media Appeals Tribunal and to introduce the Protection of State Information Bill.

The Civil Society report’s overall findings were, the implementation of policy was hindered by human and resource capacity constraints. The process had seemed to lose momentum and there was a lack of clarity on how APRM informed governance, policy, budgeting and planning process and success stories were often not linked back to the APRM.

Discussion
Mr Williams asked if the thirteen or fourteen organizations listed in the report represented civil society. He also observed that the list was quite euro centric and did not really represent the best interest of civil society in the country.

Mr Jeaghan Grey-Johnson, Advocacy and Communications Officer for AfriMAP, said that having euro-centric institutions was completely unintentional.

Ms J Maluleke (ANC) asked if the red rating on Cadre Deployment was based on research on ruling party or on all political parties.

Mr Grey-Johnson said that the report was objective and did not look at one particular party but all.

Mr Nyekemba asked how the initiative worked with the National Planning Commission (NPC). He also asked why the ANC was associated with the appointment of Ms Baleka Mbete into the Panel. He objected to using the ANC association as the initiative was for everyone. He also complained that he had just received the SAIIA book which should have been delivered long before.

Mr Grey-Johnson said that the initiative had consulted with the DPSA and NPC in putting together the methodology and in choosing the organizations.

The Chairperson intervened to say that SAIIA book was actually distributed the year before.

Ms Beardsworth said that the use of ANC in the report in association with Ms Mbete’s appointment was completely unintentional.

Ms M Mohale (ANC) said that civil society organizations involved with disability were not represented in the report. She also asked why xenophobia was highlighted as a challenge if the initiative differentiated between what was xenophobia and what was crime.

Mr M Manana (ANC) also raised the fact that people with disability were not represented.

Mr Grey-Johnson replied that it was impossible to include everyone in the representation. Ms Mohale and Ms Maluleke shook their heads in severe disagreement. The issues of xenophobia was raised in the SA Report and the initiative was just reporting it.

Mr Manana referred to page fifteen of the report and wanted clarity on the criteria used to get participants.

Ms Beardsworth said that four events were held which invited participation from a broad section of civil society based on the four themes they were working on. She said that the process was self selective and that there was a lot of discussion and disagreements on many issues.

Mr Williams referred to page five of the presentation and asked why the initiative had raised the issue of the media and asked if the organization was speaking on behalf of the opposition parties.

Mr Manana agreed with the question raised by Mr Williams.

Mr Grey-Johnson said that the reason the media was mentioned was because it touched on all the four areas of the APRM. SA had gold ratings in the area and it was a major concern by the representatives of the media and those who had technical knowledge in the participation process that the media was not mentioned in the APRM at all due to processes such as the Protection of State Information Bill which if it went ahead would threaten the media participation in the country.

The Chairperson said that the presentation was appreciated and she urged the members to open up to the views put forward by other actors from the civil society and to hear their opinions in terms of the issues raised.

The Chairperson advised the presenters that it was important for them (ruling party) to accept and acknowledge who they were. She mentioned the importance of acknowledging the terrible deeds of the past such as the Bantu education system which made sure black people were kept out of proper education system and kept ignorant and therefore needed to enter the political system on the side. But she advised the group to use positive terms in the future instead of Cadre Deployment and encouraged them to report positively. She also remarked that the members reference to issues of xenophobia were due to the fact that such issues were still contested and more research needed to go into it.

Mr Manana expressed that the Chairperson had to say what she said because she had to be inclusive in her capacity as chairperson but he was not happy with the responses he got about his questions. He requested the presenters to look at Second Report tabled on the implementation of the National Programme of Action (POA) and that there had been progress in the fight against corruption. He said that the initiatives presented by the SAIIA and its partners did not say anything different from the opposition party and their processes of self selection really brought about people who would say what they wanted them to say. He remarked that civil society must say the view of civil society and not the view of the opposition party.

Mr Du Toit expressed that he was very confused about participation of civil society and was wondering if it was not better for civil society to engage with government in such a way rather than waging war on the streets like it was seen in Lybia, Egypt and Syria.

Mr Manana said that from his dealings with the concerned organizations and from what he was hearing, they spoke the same language as the opposition.

Mr Nyekemba advised that the civil society organizations needed to report a balanced view and present also what the government had done and not highlight what was not done. It could be that other civil society organistions could not attend their launch and events due to lack of resources and asked the presenters to take that into consideration in the next processes.

The Chairperson said that there were aspects that were coming forward that required attention. She said that public participation was a model that parliament was refining and that Parliament was a representative of the people from the various constituencies. She said that the question was rather where civil society should be located and how Parliament could work together with them in positive discussions that should be taken seriously.

The Chairperson thanked SAIIA and its partners for their presence in Parliament and said that it was much appreciated.

DPSA Quarterly Report presentation
Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director General of DPSA, presented the Department’s quarterly report for the period October to December 2011. He said the report was a response to the Audit Report of 2010/11 in terms of improvements in departmental performance. The period focused on strengthening its role in the cluster including coordinating the outcomes of 2012/13. In reporting on key compliance issues, the department had submitted financial statements, adjusted estimates, national expenditure, completed work on audit performance information, especially on the matters the Auditor General had raised about the 2010/11 financial year. There has been constant improvement. Training had been done on the induction of interns and officials and IT department matters. Other compliance issues included a review of its communication plan and the draft had been submitted.

The Department would develop internal systems for reporting as it had so far not been able to do that due to needed technical IT assistance not being available. It has also started on the identification of fraud and corruption which would be completed by the end of the financial year.

In the Human Resources Management Development Programme, a skills gap analyses at senior management level had been conducted. The Department was consolidating the final report. It was consolidating the draft policy handbook on reasonable accommodation, assisting devices and other measures for persons with disabilities in the public service. It was implementing the sexual HIV prevention programme (SHIPP) in KZN, Mpumalanga and Gauteng has been finalized.

Mr Masilo Makhura, Chief Financial Officer for DPSA, presented the financial report. The budget for the year 2010/11 was R690 million at the end of December. Altogether R 452,957 had been used and the Department was left with R237,196 at December 2011. Sixty five percent of the budget had been spent at end of December.

In terms of spending per programme, Programme 3: Labour Relations and Remuneration Management (LRRM) had a low spending of 36% due to programmes that only kick started in January 2012. Spending was expected to increase in the final quarter of the year. Programme 4: Public Service ICT Management also had low spending as it related to Sector Education and Training Agency (SETA) payments of invoices that had not been issued by SETA for three months. The Department had engaged with the SETAs and it was busy consolidating expenditure.

Discussion
Mr Williams requested the Department use the Public Service Commission (PSC) format for future reporting. He asked what percentage of the goods and services budget was spent on consultants. He asked when would the Department release the PSC from the financial control it had over it.

Mr Diphofa replied that the request for the structure of the report was noted. In relation to the PSC, the only requirement was that the Accounting Officer of the PSC be accountable to that of the DPSA which meant PSC would have to account directly to Treasury.

Mr Nyekembe asked the Department to look at one system for addressing the government employers’ housing scheme as the Department of Human Settlements was trying to cover both public and private.

Mr Diphofa noted Mr Nyekembe’s request, saying it would be done.

Mr Du Toit remarked that given the large expenditure on interest from rent of land, if the Department did not see a crisis looming in this area.

Mr Makhura said that about R146 000 was spent on interest in the year 2009/10 and R207 000 in 2010/11. Machinery and equipment were not bought from overseas and the Department also had to cover the Deputy Minister’s car. The allocation on the line item was low but it related to furniture, computers and cars.

Mr Manana asked on which fields were the consultants working and how much were they paid.

Mr Makhura replid that 16% of the goods and services budget was spent on consultants.

Mr Diphofa said that the use of consultants covered a range of fields including research, highly technical areas where the department did not have the skills. There were also projects of a large magnitude that the Department did not have the capacity to do on its own and therefore had to hire consultants.

Mr Manana asked if the Department had plans to build the capacity of people in the Department to do the work done by consultants.

Mr Diphofa said that the Department was doing a review of the entire organization to see if it was using the resources to the best of its ability. The process was led by a task team that would enable the Department to close the gaps. He noted the point by Mr Williams to provide a report on the breakdown of consultants.

Mr Williams requested that DPSA provide a report on the breakdown of the 16% expenditure on consultants. He said that it was ok if consultancies were given out for work the Department could not do, but if it was cleaning company, then that was another story.

Mr Diphofa noted the point by Mr Williams to provide a report on the breakdown of consultants.

Ms D Boshigo (ANC) wanted to know the difference between the SPS Centre and the Thusong Centre. She also urged the department to establish an anti corruption unit as a matter of urgency.

Mr Diphofa said that the Thusong Centres were part of the SPS Centres.

Mr D Msimang (IFP) said that the amount of the subsidy seemed to be low when compared to the market price of houses and asked if the Department took that into consideration.

Mr Diphofa replied that an assessment had been done and the Department had determined that it was better to use the funds for projects rather than give them out as subsidies. The packages given to people did allow them to buy houses.

The Chairperson thanked everyone for their participation and the meeting was adjourned.