GCIS, Media Development & Diversity Agency; Brand South Africa: Strategic Plan 2012, in presence of Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Deputy Minister: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation briefing
Mr Obed Bapela, Deputy Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, apologized that the Minister in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation was unable to be present.

Prior to the presentation of the Government Communications and Information System (GCIS), Mr A  Steyn (DA) noted that the agenda of the meeting made reference only to the strategic plan, and not the performance plan of the GCIS, and noted that the performance plan could be done at a later stage.

Ms M Shinn (DA) also commented that Members only got the documents late on the evening of the previous day, and would base their questions only on those documents.

Government Communications and Information System (GCIS) Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017
Mr Jimmy Manyi, Chief Executive Officer, GCIS, noted that the GCIS was mandate to provide strategic leadership in government communication and to coordinate a government communications system that ensured that the public was informed about government’s policies, plans and programmes. The GCIS was the pulse of communication excellence in Government. The major entity of the GCIS, the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA), had achieved a clean audit for 2010/11. 

The Corporate Strategy focused on the five main national priorities which included creation of decent work to ensure sustainable livelihoods, improved quality of basic education, healthcare for all South Africans, reduction of crime, and rural development, land reform, food production and security.
The situational analysis outlined six major challenges faced by the GCIS in the execution of its duties and noted what had been done to respond to and resolve these problems. The first challenge related to public perceptions on government performance regarding the five national priorities, and the GCIS planned to communicate more to the public on government achievements. A challenge of cluster/client relations would be resolved by GCIS attempting to improve stakeholder engagements and cluster supervision. The challenge of limited fiscal resources was resolved by the practice of reprioritisation within the GCIS. The response to the challenge of uneven skills in communication was that the GCIS had set a credit–bearing qualification. The office space constraints had been responded to by GSIC making plans for new office premises. The challenge of inefficient media bulk buying had been responded to by encouragement of in–house media buying for government.

Mr Manyi presented the highlights for the 2011/2012 financial year. These highlights included the approval by Cabinet of the Government Communication Strategy, aggressive State of the Nation Address (SoNA) campaign, and communication support for COP17. The GCIS hosted the first engagement between the Deputy President and the Press Gallery Association, introduced non–Cabinet week media briefings, reconfigured Vuk’unzenzele and increased its print run and frequency, launched the Public Sector Manager (PSM) magazine, and created the GOvComms newsletter for government communications. It also established a dedicated Government Communications training unit.

The five strategic objectives of the GCIS for 2012–2017 were outlined. GCIS intended to build people, products and processes, and a reliable knowledge base to ensure an effective government communication system. It hoped to offer a well-functioning communication system that proactively informed and engaged with the public. It aimed to be the efficient and effective production and advertising agency for government. It would provide a responsive, cost–effective, compliant and business focused corporate services. Finally, all of this was aimed at projecting, defending and maintaining the image of government and of the state.

Mr Manyi then stated that the GCIS fitted into government’s 12 outcomes, with particular alignment to Outcome 12, which centred around an efficient, effective and development-oriented public service that empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship. He also outlined the structure of the GCIS, and stressed the professionalism, experience and qualification of the team.

Mr Vusi Mona, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, GCIS, presented the core programmes of the GCIS.

His presentation on the Communication and Content Management programme outlined the key indicators, objectives, sub-programme objective, outputs and targets (see attached presentation for details). He noted that the strategic objective was to build people, products and processes and a reliable knowledge base, to ensure an effective government communication system. He outlined the content of the sub-programmes, noting, in particular, the aims to create a consistent government communication system, communicate through media monitoring, research, surveys and analysis to understand the media environment, assess the impact of GCIS’ communication interventions, and conduct reviews into 20 years of democratic governance in South Africa, a synthesis of departmental achievements and plans for SoNA, do assessments of the media environment, national and international media monitoring and develop key messages and communication content. GCIS played a very important role in the success of the SoNA and other state public events. GCIS met at 08:00 every day, to verify what had been said about the government and responded to those statements as authorised.

GCIS also developed the South Africa Yearbook and Pocket Guide to grow the voice of government, and there were other communication products in support of the National Orders Campaign. 1.7million copies of the Vuk’uzenzele were produced monthly, including 420 Braille copies and 12 versions of the monthly website version were updated. 120 000 copies of the PSM magazine were produced annually and 40 000 copies of the GovComms were also produced annually. The PSM magazine targeted the managerial level civil servants who, considering their financial capability, constituted a potential market for this product of the GCIS product. Other sub-programmes focused on effective and efficient marketing and distribution for government, and managing corporate identity of government.

Ms Nebo Legoabe, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, GCIS, covered the programmes on government and stakeholder engagement. The main strategic objective was the maintaining and strengthening of a well-functioning communication system that proactively informed and engaged the public. There were five sub-programmes. The first aligned messages across the three spheres of government to ensure coherence and use national, provincial and district communications forums as a platform for better planning and coordination of content and cluster communication strategies. The second and third focused on informing and empowering the public about government policies, plans, programmes and achievements, and under this programme GCIS had carried out 3600 community and stakeholder liaison visits through distribution, environmental assessments, communication strategising, Thusong forum meetings and newsletters. The fourth programme aimed to develop and entrench strong partnerships with key stakeholders. The fifth set out to have a robust, proactive and efficient rapid response system, to effectively communicate Cabinet decisions, manage communications arising from media reports. GCIS aimed to carry out at least 16 media briefings on Cabinet decisions, while Cabinet was in session, and 140 media engagements a year.

Ms Legoabe then dealt with the Communication Service Agency (CSA) programme, which was to provide media bulk buying services and media production for the entire national government.

Financial Report
Ms Phumla Williams, Deputy Chief Executive Officer:Corporate Services, GCIS, presented on the financial management of the GCIS. She said the Corporate Services department ensured that the other departments of the GCIS achieved their objective smoothly. She tabled the budget for 2012 to 2015, by programme (see attached presentation for full details). Over the medium-term, there was a 17.8% increase in the entire GCIS budget; as 2013/14 showed a 8.3% decrease and 2014/15 showed a 6% decrease. The increase in the first year would support the building of the new GCIS office and salary adjustments. The new GCIS head office would replace to the current head office, in line with the motivation given to the Committee in 2011. The current office comfortably housed about 200 staff but GCIS staff complement had grown to 400. Tenders were issued for the building. The original occupation date of April 2012 had been postponed to 31 May 2013, because of prolonged interactions between the GCIS legal team and the service provider on issues of compliance and service agreements.

Discussion
Ms M Shinn (DA) remarked that the GCIS produced a huge volume of paperwork, and asked for its position on environmental and forest conservation.

Mr Manyi replied that numerous South Africans did not have access to electronic information, and until they did, GCIS would continue to use papers to distribute its information.

Ms Shinn asked what the GCIS was doing to monitor the effectiveness of its communications, and asked if there was any independent audit of the GCIS communication.

Mr Manyi replied that the GCIS had a new and modern technology to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its communication strategies. The editorial policies of the media were also a hindrance to the evaluation of the effective communication of the GCIS, since its profit-driven motives could distort the effectiveness of the information distributed by the GCIS.

Ms Shinn expressed shock at the proportion of the GCIS budget allocated to salaries, which was about 43.5% of budget, and said it was inappropriate. She asked if it could not outsource some of the work more cheaply.

Mr Manyi replied that the high salaries were a reflection of the high quality of staff and professionals at the GCIS. Because GCIS had very high quality professionals, they tended to receive other offers from other companies, and GCIS had to match these with counter-offers.

Mr Vusi said that the GCIS was not necessarily opposed in principle to outsourcing, but would not outsource something that it could do in-house. The perception that “private means best” needed to be corrected.

Ms Shinn asked if the staff working at the provincial and district levels were appointed centrally by the GCIS, or were locally recruited, and to whom they answered.

Mr Manyi said that the GCIS operated both behind the scenes and publicly, and thus had to recruit quality professionals at every level.

Ms Legoabe said that the challenge with local recruitment was that most local employees ended up focusing on local economic development instead of communication, but municipalities were now beginning to hire communication staff to carry out this role at local level. GCIS hired local people to ensure that its staff had an understanding of the local dynamics in the communities.
 
Ms Shinn asked whether the publication of the PSM magazine meant that GCIS was subject to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC).

Mr Vusi replied that the GCIS was registered with the ABC, both for Vuk’uzenzele and for the PSM magazine.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) commended the presenters for the professionalism displayed in the presentation. She asked for clarity on the tender process around the new office building. She asked to know more about the contract, the process and who was awarded the contract. She also asked if the new building would belong to GCIS, and if it would be managed through Department of Public Works (DPW). She asked if there was any suggestion that this project could exceed its estimated cost and what the technological component of the new building would cost GCIS.

Ms Williams replied that the GCIS went out on an open tender, and the cheapest tender was accepted. The new building would comprise of services that were already being hosted by the old offices. The funding for this new office had already been approved and allocated by National Treasury. The Committee was reassured that there was no extravagance in the planning and procurement of the new office.

Ms Kilian asked how the GCIS was doing to deal with the controversy about the luxurious nature of the building, and the need to cut government costs.

Mr Manyi replied that it was important to understand that there needed to be a paradigm shift in the perception that government offices and structures were usually of low quality. Because workers spent more time at work as opposed to at home, it was worth the trouble to invest in a comfortable working place. Furthermore, the pressures of modern technology required that the building should be modern.

The Chairperson remarked that the concern was about the cost of the building, and Members felt that the modernity should not be used as an excuse for overspending.

Ms Killian raised concerns that the ANC had called for the GCIS to popularise government’s work. She asked whether GCIS would be communicating what was being delivered, or if it would be covering up for failure to deliver. If the latter, it would risk becoming a public funded propaganda machine of the ANC.

Mr Manyi replied that GCIS information was public information and that the GCIS welcomed any criticisms as to the purpose of its communications, but assured Ms Kilian that GCIS sought to put out good and credible information on what government had done, was doing and planned to do. The public could always seek verification of this information from elsewhere.

Mr Vusi said that the GCIS was not naïve in its interactions with the ruling party, with whom there was interface, via the political principals.

Ms Kilian suggested that the GCIS should clarify roles with the media. She asked what was meant by “influencing the media agenda””.
 
Mr Manyi said that the GCIS should not apologise for communicating the right information. GCIS had to change the notion that government would only receive mention in the media when there was something wrong or negative. “Influencing the media agenda” meant that the GCIS wanted to provide the media with accurate information about government at all times.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked where the R50 million given by National Treasury was reflected in the presentation on financial management. He asked if the delays and postponement of the occupation date of the building affected the overall cost of the building. He asked what the specific reasons around the delay were.

Mr Manyi replied that there were certain clauses in the lease agreement which were irregular, and the GCIS had to clear these irregularities.

Mr Steyn asked about the current situation regarding the cluster/client relations. The Government communication strategy, which was approved by Cabinet, was requested by the Committee to assist in the oversight duty, in terms of the approved strategy.

Mr Manyi replied that the communication strategy was available and was previously presented to the Committee. GCIS was willing to make the document available to the Committee.

Ms Legoabe said that because departments demanded a lot from the GCIS, the GCIS created two posts of cluster supervisors, whose responsibility was to service the departments and clusters. The departments were so far very satisfied with this improvement.

Mr Steyn asked if the photographs used in the SA Yearbook were GCIS photos or were procured externally. If they were procured externally, he wanted to know why this was done.

 Mr Vusi replied that the majority of the pictures in the SA Yearbook belonged to the GCIS, but, in the spirit of outsourcing, the GCIS would buy some of these pictures.

Mr Steyn asked what the GCIS meant by “ward based distribution of information” and asked how it was carried out.

Mr Manyi said that the ward based distribution of information was a strategy and was still in the planning stages.

Mr Steyn asked if GCIS, in making a rapid response, would consult with the department affected, or if it merely alerted the affected department, and who actually handled the response.

 Mr Manyi replied that there were constant communications between departments and the GCIS. In situations where rapid response was required, GCIS would indicate certain important points but would allow the department to craft and make its own statement. In certain circumstances where there were blatant distortions of information, the GCIS responded directly and then only advised the department that it was already dealing with the matter.
 
Mr Steyn said that assessment was said to be a new initiative, and questioned whether there had not been prior assessments from the time that GCIS was created.

Mr Vusi replied that the GCIS had always done assessments of its work but in this year the assessments were being upgraded to outputs and performance indicators. The role of the GCIS was limited to the assessment of its own products.

Mr Steyn requested, in relation to the review of South Africa’s 20 years of democracy, that the GCIS should not only outline the successes but should also write about the failures and challenges, so that lessons could be learnt for the future. It should provide a factual historical account.

Mr Manyi replied that the assessment would be approached on a broad and all-inclusive scale.

Mr Steyn observed that the presentation noted two men and three women in the top management of the GCIS, but the information in the slides differed. He requested that the GCIS give the right report, even down to the smallest issues.

Mr Manyi replied that the slight distortion arose because some information was received prior to restructuring, and the other related to the position after restructuring.

Mr Steyn asked what caused the increase in the GCIS budget in 2012/2013 year, and then a drastic reduction in the following years.

Mr Manyi replied that the GCIS now only reflected the budget for Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA), and not that for Brand SA. This accounted for the drastic drop in the budget estimate.

Ms W Newhoudt–Druchen (ANC) noted that whilst it was desirable to have a green economy, the communities that were not technologically advanced to access electronic information should not be forgotten. She urged GCIS to make its information accessible to all South Africans. She asked how the Thusong centers were working and wanted an outline of what the GCIS was doing to improve the quality and reduce the cost of the services and training offered at the Thusong centers.

Ms Legoabe replied that the tele-centres in the Thusong centers were run by non-governmental organisations or community based organizations, and had to sustain themselves. They did charge some fees.

Ms Newhoudt–Druchen asked for clarity as to why one of the documents indicated three vacancies but another showed no vacancy.

 Ms Newhoudt–Druchen asked if the GCIS had its own journalists and team who worked for the rapid response unit.

Ms Legoabe replied that the rapid response unit comprised of journalist, a director and deputy director, who worked in collaboration with the other GCIS staff.

Ms Newhoudt–Druchen applauded the GCIS for publishing magazines in braille and she asked where and how these braille magazines were distributed. She noted that nothing else was said in the presentation about how GCIS worked with people with disabilities.

Mr Manyi replied that there was a list of organisations in the database who received the braille copies of the magazines. These organisations were better placed to properly distribute this information. GCIS was very conscious of working with people with disabilities and would provide more information in a future presentation.

The Chairperson asked the presenters to shed more light on the production and distribution of the Vuk’uzenzele. He also asked what the GCIS had done to clear the controversy about the community media initiative.

Mr Manyi replied that the Vuk’uzenzele was a free publication and the GCIS was working hard on maximising the distribution of this publication. The GCIS had a database from MDDA that was used for working with community media. The main challenge lay in identifying and defining who “community media” were; although the MDDA Act was clear, the issues were clouded by certain entrepreneurs who worked with communities and then claimed to be community media.

Media Development and Diversity Agency briefing
Ms Gugu Msibi, Chairperson, Media Development and Diversity Agency, apologized for the absence of some Board members. She said that the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) leadership had done a good job and managed to achieve a clean audit. The background, vision, mandate and objectives of the MDDA had been previously presented to the Committee, and would not be separately presented.

Mr Lumko Mtimde, Chief Executive Officer, MDDA, highlighted that MDDA had a new partner, Radio Pulpit, which was now the only community radio in partnership with the MDDA. He noted some key milestones for 2011/12. MDDA had now achieved eight years of clean, unqualified audited financial statements. MDDA had carried out 407 projects nationwide. 1300 people had been trained. The community radio listenership had increased to 25.4%. MDDA conducted parliamentary oversight project visits to six provinces and had successfully lobbied Parliament to conduct public hearings on the issue of transformation of the media and of advertising. He tabled some pictures of some of the major MDDA projects.

Mr Mtimde said that the state of affairs in the media landscape in South Africa necessitated the present strategies. Realities such as access to media and information, language challenges, advertising questions, skills challenges, lack of development strategies for sustainable projects and the lack of research and information specific to the sector all had to be taken into account.

Mr Mtimde presented the stakeholders’ identification and classification chart. He noted that the revenue sources of MDDA were government, broadcast service licences, print media owners and international donor funding. MDDA’s partners were government departments, the various state owned companies and service providers. The beneficiaries were community media, small commercial media and research and training bodies.

Mr Mtimde outlined the budgeting regulations and challenges. MDDA must support small and community media and not commercial stations. The funding agreements were divided between print and broadcast agenda. There continued to be a challenge where some of the fiscal funding went to the Department of Communication and some reached the MDDA through the GCIS. Another challenge was the declining contributions from the mainstream media.

In 2011, the Committee had raised questions on the role of the MDDA in the transformational agenda, and also on the question of government advertising in small and community media. He said that MDDA was currently very active in those areas, and was making valuable contributions in these areas. The online booking system was actually being finalised and the business case/cost analysis was being completed. Research had been initiated in 2011 on the broader media transformation question, and this was ongoing.

MDDA had approached the GCIS and National Treasury to increase MDDA funding and strengthen the Agency, but was unsuccessful. It was hoped that the Presidency would assist with future planning. MDDA had various plans to ensure sustainability of projects, including coaching and mentoring, training, skills development, partnerships and general advocacy for an enabling environment for media diversity and, in particular, support for sustainable community media. The overall objective over the medium term was to ensure that all citizens could access information in a language of their choice. There were also plans to transform media access, ownership, and control patterns in South Africa.

Mr Mtimde outlined five priorities for the next three years, and the budgets (see attached presentation for details). These included grant funding, estimated at R24 267 964, fundraising and resource mobilisation estimated at R700 000, research, knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation estimated at R1 940 000, advocacy for media development and diversity, estimated at R2 563 376, and diverse quality and content management, estimated at R2 000 000. All these figures were guided by the regulations, in terms of which 60% of the funds had to go into community media, 25% had to go to small commercial media, 5% to research and 10% to other matters.

The budget summary against predetermined objectives showed totals of R31 471 340 with regard to programme/project cost and R7 515 728 for operational costs. 

Mr Nkopane Maphiri, Programs Director, MDDA outlined the key result areas, strategic objectives and outputs (see attached presentation for details), which related to growth of the small commercial print and community media, growing the capital base, enhance sustainability of community and small business media, and contribute to improved operation of the sector. It also had to strengthen relations with MDDA contractual and non-contractual stakeholders, promote media literacy and a culture of reading, strengthen its own operational efficiencies to deliver sustainable media development and diversity content and impact, and maintain its image and relationship with stakeholders.

Two main risks  were outlined – namely the sustainability of funded projects and the lack of adequate funds for print media. MDDA had taken action to mitigate these risks. It had adopted an integrated development approach that it hoped would lead to improved socio-economic conditions of the targeted communities. It would continuously engage with the print media sector and seek increased government funding.

Mr Mshiyeni Gungqisa, Chief Financial Officer, MDDA, presented on the human resource plan and finances. Currently, the staff was at 36, and was estimated at 28 in 2012/2013, 31 in 2013/2014 and 34 in 2014/2015. The budget summary showed the projected income for 2012/2013 as R52 208 059, whilst total expenditure was R52 208 059. The 2012/2013 budget projected total expenditure rising to R32 225 577 by 2015. 

Ms Msibi noted that the strategic plan had been tabled on 7 March in the National Assembly.

Discussion
Mr G Schneemann (ANC) asked if the MDDA was able to identify when funded projects were able to survive on their own and were able to continue operating after the funding ceased.

Mr Maphiri replied that there was provision to fund projects a second time, so as to ensure growth and sustainability. The MDDA had certain technical support mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of projects. 

Mr Mtimde said that the dynamics of economic challenges also caused uncertainty and unpredictability in the funding model.

Mr Schneemann asked how the budget presented would ensure that the MDDA was accessible by all communities around the country. He asked how the unfunded posts would be filled, when they were not funded.

Mr Mtimde replied that the publicity of the MDDA was not very high profile, explaining that an increase in these costs would not leave the MDDA with enough resources to respond to the numerous applications that it would receive. This would negatively impact on the image of the agency and government. MDDA was targeting rural and semi-urban areas. This rural outreach was done in collaboration with the GCIS.

In relation to the unfunded posts, he said that the Board had to ratify the organogram of the agency before the posts could be filled.

Mr Schneemann noted that the budget was balanced because there was neither a deficit nor a surplus, and asked if this meant that MDDA was planning to spend everything given to it.

Mr Gungqisa replied that, as a government agency, MDDA was not allowed to budget for a deficit or a surplus.

Ms Shinn asked about the funding model of the community media, and particularly how MDDA determined who justified receiving funding, and who did not. She asked what kind of checks the MDDA did on the community who owned these media, and what kinds of agreements were set up.

Mr Maphiri replied that the MDDA probed the ownership of the media structure and also did site visits to establish the physical status of the project. The MDDA also made sure that there was a focus on primarily rural provinces, and the projects that supported indigenous languages.

Mr Mtimde said that the duration of the funding depended on the nature and content of the project.

Ms Shinn asked what the benefits were to small commercial media, as opposed to community media, in terms of MDDA funding. She asked how the MDDA planned to get the extra money it had budgeted for, and what was the total amount that it expected to gain by fund-raising, in view of the budget of R700 000 for fundraising activities.

Mr Mtimde replied that the community media were non-profit, and were not regulated by South African Revenue Services (SARS), whereas something classed as small commercial media was subject to SARS regulations. This was reflected in the benefits. The fundraising capability of the MDDA was reflected in the increasing yearly income, and fundraising methods focused on national sources as international fundraising was relatively costly.

Mr Steyn asked why the administrative costs in the finance department were so high.

Mr Gungqisa replied that the bulk of that amount was allocated for rental and electricity. 

Mr Steyn asked if there was any follow on the placement of people who were trained , and asked also how the MDDA used its database of 1 700 trained individuals.

Mr Mtimde replied that the MDDA trained people who were in the project, and they were part of the media and communication system.

Mr Steyn asked how the MDDA saw the media bulk buying strategy of the GCIS assisting the small and community media.

Mr Mtimde replied that it was decided by government that a percentage of the bulk buying should go to community and small commercial media.

Mr Steyn asked what monitoring mechanisms the MDDA set for evaluating their performance.

Mr Mtimde answered that National Treasury had supported the MDDA to set a monitoring and evaluation unit. This unit was still small, with only two staff, but the MDDA hoped to improve it.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked for examples of projects that the MDDA was willing to fund.

Mr Mtimde replied that there were currently six radios in the country supported by the MDDA.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked if there were any vacant top positions in the agency, and also asked for details as to the employment of women and people with disabilities.

Mr Gungqisa replied that the MDDA currently had 20 staff, of whom 11 were female and 9 were male. The MDDA did not have employ any people with disabilities.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen reminded the MDDA that it was required to meet the statutory employment of 2% people with disabilities, as stipulated by the Employment Equity Act.

The Chairperson said that there seemed to be a duplication of roles between the MDDA and the Department of Communication, regarding community media. 

Mr Mtimde replied that the original role of the MDDA was supported by a joint partnership between the South African and Danish governments. The role of the MDDA, which was initially played by the Department of Communications, was supposed to be transferred to the MDDA in 2002, but this transfer had never happened. Currently, the MDDA and the DoC played a joint role with regards to the original role of the MDDA.

Presentation by Brand South Africa
Ms Anitha Soni, Chairperson, Brand South Africa, acknowledged the supportive role of the Portfolio Committee on Communications. Brand South Africa (BSA) had, over one year, become institutionalised and had grown into a renowned and well established institution.

Mr Miller Matola, Chief Executive Officer, BSA, presented the strategic plan for 2012–2 016. The 2010 Soccer World Cup, had raised much awareness and consciousness about South Africa and its people, heritage and tourism, and there was an increased need to focus more on South Africa as a market destination, investment and trade.

The strategic outcomes of BSA were outlined. There had to be brand alignment by stakeholders which focused on pride levels, commitment levels, social cohesion and active citizenship. This was geared to achieving increased pride and patriotism. He also noted the need to articulate and contextualise South African policy that impacted on competitiveness, through targeting audiences. South African policy positions impacted upon its competitiveness, so there was a need to achieve positive change in the perceptions amongst international audiences. Brand SA itself wished to achieve economies of scale and scope, and to build itself as a sustainable organisation.

BSA had identified six major partners who were essential to cooperation and its full functioning. These were trade and foreign missions, South African government, influential people who might include economists, trade unions, tertiary institutions and civil society, the media, businesses and regional bodies such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC), African Union and New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).

The strategic thrusts and key initiatives domestically were outlined. Brand SA would continue brand alignment and its coordinated approach to internal marketing, to build social cohesion and citizenship. The domestic strategy included stakeholder engagements and partnerships. Brand SA would drive campaigns aimed at inspiring and encouraging positive social change. It would leverage events such as the international investment conference, to further the position of South Africa as an ideal investment destination.

On an international scale, BSA’s main strategic initiative was to expose media from various markets, to create better awareness of South Africa’s attractiveness. Furthermore, its strategy included facilitating marketing of South Africa in a coordinated manner, through partnerships with those agencies tasked with marketing South Africa abroad.

Mr Matola outlined the human resources plan for the 2012/13 year, noting that BSA had 31 filled positions and 8 vacant posts. The organisation had not employed any people with disabilities, because its staff were required to have high mobility. However, one administrative post was to be designed for a disabled person. BSA announced a large scale recruitment programme to drive the filling of all vacant positions by the end of June 2012. A talent management programme was also underway to improve attraction, retention and succession.

The budget was presented. In 2012/2013, 59% of the budget was allocated for the international market, and 41% for the domestic market. From 2013/2014, 60% was allocated for the international market and 40% was allocated for the domestic market.

The Chairperson of BSA remarked that the South African brand was the strongest national brand in the world, and this illustrated the serious work that BSA was doing.

Discussion
Ms Shinn asked what the challenges were in effectively branding and marketing South Africa and what needed to be done to effectively face these challenges. She asked whether there was coordination, but not duplication, between BSA and Tourism South Africa.

Ms Soni replied that a main challenge was the conflict of jurisdiction and competence among local institutions and organisations, which resulted in people spending money and sending out messages in a way that was not aligned with the country’s overall messaging.

Mr Matola added that BSA worked very closely with SA Tourism. The organisational review of 2008 was actually meant give more clarity on the roles of the various organisations so as to avoid duplication of functions and roles. 

Mr Steyn commended Mr Matola on the presentation. He asked if there was consultation with Tourism SA in the messages spread abroad. He wondered why BSA and other stakeholders did not prepare every South African travelling abroad to be an effective ambassador of the SA brand.

Ms Soni replied that BrandSA had been frequently called in, by many departments, to provide assistance with preparing delegates, missions and individuals for trips abroad. It had actually become a matter of course for sports delegates to be prepared by BSA.

Mr Matola said that BSA had also designed toolkits to facilitate the preparations of diplomats and SA Brand ambassadors for trips abroad.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the term “high mobility”, which was proffered as a reason for not employing people with disabilities, was discriminatory.

The meeting was adjourned.