African Peer Review Mechanism: Department of Public Service & Administration briefing

Meeting report

African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) briefing
Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director General, and Mr Alex Mahapa, Deputy Director General, Department of Public Service and Administration, presented the APRM findings on the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). This was the third report, the first having covering November 2007 to December 2009 and the second January 2009 to November 2010. This report spanned from October 2010 to January 2013. According to the presenters, the main issues and challenges raised in the country review report included the following:
- Marginalised and vulnerable groups experienced difficulties in making use of the institutions of justice
- There remained several blockages in service delivery
- Racism, sexism, marginalisation, lack of awareness and poor access to information impaired the full enjoyment of human rights development
- Corruption undermined national integrity
- Racism prevented many citizens from realising their human potential and contributed to unequal access to valued goods and services, also reproducing acute social inequalities
- There were underdeveloped capacity and skills in public expenditure management and monitoring
- There was inadequate public consultation, education and feedback in policy making
- The legislation around companies was not transformative and needed to be reviewed
- Lack of deeper economic integration within the SADC hindered progress
- Consumers and shareholders failed to assert their rights, were ill-informed and inactive
- Civil society structures sought increased opportunities to contribute to and participate in the delivery and monitoring of public services. However, weakness in civil society reduced its participation in, and impact on, social-economic development processes and outcomes, and hindered their increased contribution to South Africa’s national development imperatives
- Unemployment posed a huge challenge
- Key institutions and certain social groups were underdeveloped and needed to become more effective
- Governance in civil society needed development
- There were continuing challenges of crime and violence, particularly against women and children
- There was no consensus among stakeholders on definitions and measurements of poverty
- There was a need for more effective land use that would contribute to sustainable livelihoods, especially for the rural poor
- There was a need for integrated and holistic approaches, and appropriate resourcing, to combat HIV and AIDS. Furthermore, there was a need to strengthen and ensure also an integrated and holistic approach to combating TB, malaria and other communicable diseases
- The strategies for ensuring children’s nutrition, health and development needed improvement
- Without universal access to basic rights and services, citizens cannot participate in and benefit from socio-economic development

These points were then summarised under four main categories: Democracy and Political Governance, Economic Governance and Management, Corporate Governance, and Socio-Economic Development. Xenophobia and racism were the “cross-cutting issues” that did not specifically fall into a particular category, and the presenters explained that because xenophobia had been the main focus area for 2013, it also formed a major emphasis of the report.

Specific resolutions were set out for each category, and these included the need, overall, to improve public participation and access to information, such as outreach programmes and Green/White papers, which would help to counter both xenophobia and racism and promote better democracy and political governance. South Africa was rated in 2012 as the second best country (dropping from its previous top rating) on the Open Budget Index, which measured budget transparency and accountability. This was important to drive public expenditure management capacity development within the “Economic Governance and Management” category. Unemployment, also in this category, had marginally changed by one percentage point. Since the completion of the second Progress Report, government had intensified its efforts to create jobs and reduce unemployment by releasing the Framework of the New Economic Growth Path in November 2010, which was geared to “enhancing growth, employment creation and equity.” Additionally, a Presidential Job Summit in March 2011 addressed the issues of unemployment, and the role of the private sector, government and public/private partnerships in fulfilling these goals and combating unemployment.

In addition to these government initiatives there was specific legislation aimed at better corporate governance. The Companies Act 2008 aimed to pursue an agenda of transformation and enhance monitoring of compliance and contraventions of financial reporting standards. Certain implementation aspects of the Companies Act were overseen by bodies whose had a mandate to monitor special issues, such as the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission. Good corporate governance was needed also to improve key institutions and certain social groups’ effectiveness. The presenters offered examples of the role of the Public Protector of South Africa, the efforts to transform State Owned Entities and the private sector, to increase the number of women in executive positions, the role of the Chamber of Mines, and the institutionalisation of integrated reporting.

The Socio-Economic Development category included matters such as the need to increase the pace of land reform and access to rural land, and combating HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases such as tuberculosis. Between 2009 and 2011, approximately 823 300 hectares of land were acquired and allocated to 20 290 beneficiaries through the redistribution programme. The Recapitalisation and Development Programme was intended to revitalise and resuscitate land reform farms in distress, as well as defunct irrigation schemes in the former homelands. The HIV/AIDS figures were improving since the rate of new HIV infections had declined, and HIV incidence dropped from 2% in 2004 to 1.4% in 2012 (a 30% reduction). However, the estimated prevalence of people living with HIV in the country, drawn from the HIV Household Survey, had increased from 10.6% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2012. Complete figures and analysis on HIV/AIDS were set out in the attached report.

Government was attempting to combat xenophobia and racism with the assistance of universities, research councils and research NGOs. The result had been the strengthening of law enforcement agency interventions and support for community building initiatives. One major initiative for positive change would be the review and strengthening of the South African Human Rights Commission’s campaign “Rolling Back Xenophobia”. 49 community dialogues, aimed at encouraging nation building and social cohesion, had been hosted by the Department of Arts and Culture. According to the 2011 Reconciliation Barometer of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, 18% of South Africans associated most strongly with others who spoke the same language, 19% with those of the same ethnic group, and 19% with others of the same race. Unfortunately, race was still the main factor in inter-group experiences and relations. Mechanisms used in South Africa to combat racism included the Equality Court, policy documents and the Social Cohesion programme.

Discussion
Mr S Marais (DA)asked if the references to land reform beneficiaries included those who opted for or were offered financial compensation instead of the return of the land successfully claimed, and wondered if they should be included in attempts to assist all beneficiaries.

Mr E Nyekemba (ANC) agreed that there was a need to check the full report for whether the options in regard to land reform beneficiaries were fully addressed.

Mr Marais noted the references to migration, particularly in the region and expressed his opinion that there was a need to address the trend of uncontrolled migration to South Africa.

Mr Marais also expressed concern over inadequate wildlife protection, which was not mentioned in the presentation, and asked if this was covered in the more detailed report. He was concerned with the many cross-border reserves and how the challenges with them would be addressed, with an emphasis on rhino poaching.

The presenters reassured Members that rhino poaching issues were to be addressed in Tanzania’s next report. They had used this example to illustrate that the APRM report basically highlighted what the issues were and what was being done to resolve them.

Mr Nyekemba wanted to know what was being done to enhance cooperation with provincial government, and how local and provincial government were coordinating, and whether this was covered in the report.

The presenters answered that it was the responsibility of the provinces to ensure that provincial governance committees, and coordinating mechanisms were working well, but the APRM focused on national governance issues. There was the possibility that some provinces may be reluctant to institutionalise APRM mechanisms.

Mr L Ramatlakane (COPE) was concerned that the presentation still bore the heading “draft” and asked why it did not appear to be the official or complete report. He furthermore asked if it had been submitted to the relevant body, and was concerned whether this suggested that the Department may be reluctant, unsure, or if there was still a chance that goal posts may be shifted on some issues. He wondered if this report was also dealing with the position of other countries in relation to South Africa, and asked if the comments and research on migration and broader diaspora issues were addressing foreign economies.

The presenters highlighted that South Africa was seen as the example for many other countries, who learned from it. South Africa had sent many delegations to manage crisis situations throughout Africa. This APRM used the results of its findings to try to correct what was not working well. They explained that not all countries were required to participate in APRM reports so issues like migration may not be able to be tracked and monitored fully. However, questions around migration had been raised since 2005, when the first report was prepared, and it had been addressed in all subsequent reports. Migration and xenophobia were paired as issues.

Mr Nyekemba said there was a need for greater public awareness about the report and the decisions of the Cabinet so that the reports could be more effective and beneficial, and people need to know what was and was not covered in the APRM. He too would have preferred that this Committee see a complete, reviewed report, which would be taken seriously, but he made the point that the 2011 draft had contained some issues that were later translated into legislative amendments, by way of the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEE Act).  

Mr Ramatlakane referred to page 65 of the APRM Report, pointing out that this meeting and presentation dealt with the draft, not the B-BBEE Act.

The Chairperson stated that evaluations were based on the report. She emphasised that xenophobia issues were closely linked with poor governance of neighboring and other countries that led to migration to South Africa, and she felt that the emphasis needed to be changed or clarified. The APRM Report was quite complex and assumed that those in the country fully understood  current issues. However, she was concerned that many people were not benefiting because they were unable to comprehend the full content and pointed out that the Report dealt with issues that directly affected them, such as HIV/AIDS. She concluded by suggesting the need for cooperation with the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, so that South Africa could take a full overview and ensure that the government was collaborating with others on the African Peer Review Mechanism, as evaluated in this report.

The presenters asked for clarity whether Members were suggesting the need for “an assessment of an assessment”. Many of those interviewed had assumed that South Africa was the best place to which to move, regardless to xenophobia. In regard to whether the report reached its intended target audience, they explained that attempts to enhance more understanding and clarify matters did include use of illustrations and pictures, particularly when imparting information on HIV/AIDS. They understood the need to make this more accessible but pointed out that funding was not sufficient to ensure that it was published in all languages.

The Chairperson asked if anyone had further questions, and said that the Committee now needed to deal with the implementation process.

The presenters indicated that implementation would take the form of provincial consultation with various groups. The extent to which the APRM could be fully explained and publicised was, however, dependent on available budget.

Members moved, seconded and adopted the Report.

The meeting was adjourned.