SA foreign policy execution: expert analysis; DIRCO performance analysis by DPME

Meeting report

Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO): Annual report

Mr Joy Rathebe, International Relations Outcome Facilitator: Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) said the DPME delegation would present its findings on DIRCO’s Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) covering the 2014-2019 period.

Ms Monica Kenneth, International Relations Outcome Manager with DPME, explained what the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) was. She said that DIRCO’s MTSF was a high-level strategic document, and had 14 outcomes which were aligned with the 13 Chapters of the National Development Plan (NDP).

DIRCO MPAT 1.5 Results

Mr Henk Serfontein, Chief Director: Management Performance, Monitoring & Support (DPME) explained that if individual departments implemented the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) self-assessment plan, they were far more likely to improve their performance, and it would ultimately lead to better departmental outcomes.

He clarified the MPAT score card, which ranks each governmental department on a scale of one to five, with one being not implementing the DPME recommendations at all, and a five being perfect implementation. A one meant no evident change, a two was some implementation, three was about half implementation, and four and five were clear evidence of changes being implemented. However, if one aspect of a level was not met, such as poor diversification within a department, they would not be bumped up to the next level until that aspect had been met.


Discussion

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) asked for clarification on why DIRCO had got a one for risk management, but a four for corporate governance. How was this possible -- if they were doing so poorly in risk management, how could they handle corporate governance well? Why was it rated so low on the issue of diversification? It should be performing well, especially because it handled global management. She also asked why the Department had got only a three on professional ethics, commenting that on the issue of their budget, it was doing quite poorly. However, it should be commended in the areas it was doing well.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that what worried him was that this report had come up with different results from those in the report of the Auditor General (AG). Were the AG and the DPME using the same tools for evaluation? Looking at the AG’s report, it was clear that senior management was lacking, and was not enacting the necessary changes. How had they been given a three, when these were the same issues that had come up in 2013? The same issues were being repeated, and DIRCO was not learning. On the issue of information communication technology (ICT), the AG had also been very critical of the Department. On the issue of disposal management, the reports from the AG and the DPME were not coming up with the same results. He asked if some of the difference lay in the fact that the AG and the DPME were not using the same mix of qualitative and quantitative data.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that the final analysis stated that there was a lack of leadership in the Department, and asked if the report had possibly rated it too highly. For three consecutive years, the DPME had come up with the same findings.
This Committee wanted a hybrid mix of quantitative and qualitative assessments of the Department, as a solely quantitative approach did not provide enough nuance. If one used only a quantitative method, then it may look like DIRCO had overachieved, but without a qualitative look, what they had achieved may not have been useful. In every other sense, the Committee was worried about using solely quantitative methods to assess issues of asset management, heritage management and consequence management. With financial management, it seemed that procedures and recommendations on issues of supply chain management had not been followed, and there were additional issues with unauthorised expenditure and over expenditure.

Ms T Kenye(ANC) stated that she was concerned about issues of accountability from the heads of departments and senior management, as well as about how nuanced the scoring was, and the matter of outdated documents.

The Chairperson commented that DIRCO’s financial management was poor, and that the DPME was the third entity that had noted this weakness in the Department. He argued that there were serious issues regarding lack of payment, and of senior management service (SMS) members not submitting their performance management reports. He asked why the number of South Africans in regional organisations was declining. South Africa was hosting the Pan-African parliament, yet there were very few South Africans working with that organisation, as well as with the African Union (AU). South Africa paid a lot of money to those regional organisations, but there were very few South Africans working in them. South Africa had unemployed graduates, but still South Africans were not taking up positions with these organisations, even at the junior levels..

Mr Rathebe said that South Africa played an important role in institutions such as the AU, and it would benefit the country as a whole if more South Africans went to work there. However, conditions of service may not be as favourable in those organisations as in the South African private sector. He commented that South Africa did not fill the individual country quota in those organisations.

Mr Serfontein said that the DPME used different measurements and criteria, compared to the AG. When the DPME had started in 2009-2010, compliance to policy had been quite bad, with only a 35% compliance rate. Policies, however, had been well-designed; the issue was with the implementation. Compliance rates were now 65% across the public service, with departments meeting the gender diversity targets, with females in senior positions, but not meeting the disability compliance rate. He said that putting in place appropriate structures was not a guarantee that change would happen. However, it was far more likely that performance would improve if they were put in place. He understood the Committee’s frustration, and agreed that it could be confusing that the DPME and the AG had different measuring tools. Regarding fraud prevention, the DPME did not measure whether fraud was happening, just that a Department had the strategies in place to deal with fraud, such as whistle-blowing procedures.

The Chairperson asked how enforceable the recommendations that the DPME made to the different departments were. Every year the DPME presented to the ministers and their departments, but who was assigned to enforce those recommendations?

He commented that issues of lack of accountability were continent wide, with African politicians saying there must be “African solutions to African problems”, but there was a serious challenge of funding. There was unhappiness among certain governments when the African Peer Review Mechanism showed that certain things could have been done better.

Mr Serfontein said that if one looked at the standards the DPME was measuring, they were not very tough. The DPME would be happy if they saw improvement, and then they would recalibrate the standards. Departments were normally open and willing to receive assistance from the DPME. However, the DPME was most concerned with serial offenders, and those that were not showing signs of improvement from year to year.

Mr Rathebe concluded by asking the Committee for suggestions on how they would like to see the DPME improve in the future.

The Chairperson said that in the case of the DPME, scheduling more meetings -- at least twice a year -- would be an improvement. Oversight was not just being adversarial, but it was also helping the departments to know what government would like them to improve on, and departments had to know how to improve. He wanted more meetings on many issues, such as the War in Syria, the United States election, the importance of Brexit, what was happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and what was going on in Lesotho.

Mr Rathebe said that the DPME realised that not all information could be made available to the public. For example, the government may not want its strategic position on an issue made known. He said that an organisation like the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) practiced oversight, and the government may not want to make its strategic position available.

The Chairperson addressed this point, and said that it was actually very desirable for government have its strategic plans known.

On the issue of language, the Chairperson stated that it was desirable to have South Africans fluent in other languages, such as Portuguese or French, in international organizations like the AU. Having these people would give South Africa an advantage when dealing with other countries, both in Africa and abroad. An example of the importance of this was the shift from the apartheid government to the majority black South African government in 1994, which had resulted in many white South African politicians quickly realizing that it was advantageous to speak other South African languages.

DIRCO annual report: Analysis 

Ms Dineo Mathlako, Head: International Cooperation Fund, put forward the pertinent issues raised by stakeholders. She said that DIRCO had overspent by R112 million, which was unauthorised expenditure. The Department had had a clean audit in 2009/2010, but by the reporting years of 2013/14 to 2015/16 there were serious issues.

The Department had 126 missions worldwide and dealt with 270 000 pieces of assets, but records of those assets were not updated, resulting in inadequate information capturing. The Auditor General had stated that there needed to be an asset audit. This issue had recurred since 2010/11, with the AG recommending that the Committee conduct verification visits to SA’s missions abroad.

Referring to an AG report, she said that issues of leadership and senior management problems had existed since 2010/11, and that there were issues of accountability at those levels. The committee had also uncovered financial mistakes each year, which were sent back for corrections, but the reports were still returned with mistakes. Senior management was responsible for these issues, and should be held to account.

Treasury had helped the DPME clarify some of the issues of overspending, noting that the Department had said it was due to foreign exchange fluctuations and allowances to SA officials abroad, which were paid in foreign exchange. The Department had stated that if it budgeted for R100 million, but then the Rand fluctuated in relation to other currencies, then the budget fluctuated.

Ms Mathlako said another issue was the Locally Recruited Personnel (LRP) in foreign missions. There were 1 698 of them, and they were paid in foreign currencies. This also meant that the budget changed when those people were paid in a foreign currency. The report noted that there had been a long term strategy in place to reduce those numbers.

There was also the matter of foreign exchange relating to the missions’ rented properties, which numbered 700 and were paid for in foreign currency. DIRCO had commissioned a study to see if it was better to continue renting, or whether it should consider acquisition as a long term strategy. DIRCO managed 133 state-owned properties, which were managed in foreign currencies. This had led to a suggestion that DIRCO should conduct a study of which properties should be sold or upgraded.

The risk management report had indicated that it was unclear if the maintenance plans were being adhered to. It had noted that a number of properties were an embarrassment, and badly needed intervention.

There were serious problems with supply chain management. For example, contracts being awarded before the bidding process had ended. Senior management regularly did not hold wrongdoers accountable, and slow response times by management had led to other issues, which made it difficult to compile qualified audits.

Ms Mathlako commented that the National Development Plan (NDP) advocates that South Africa should strive to assume a position of leadership in Africa. However, it seemed that the AU resolution, “African Solutions to African Problems,” was expected to be financed disproportionately by the economically developed African countries such as South Africa, Ethiopia and Egypt. The report also touched on the impact of South Africa’s participation in meetings such as BRICS, the G20, European Union (EU) meetings, Bretton Woods institutions, etc. It was DIRCO’s view that the issue of UN reform needed to remain alive.

President Zuma had stated that South Africa’s foreign policy was anchored in internationalism and solidarity with Palestine, Cuba and Western Sahara. Western Sahara was a key issue in South Africa’s foreign policy, especially in light of Morocco’s recent communication that it wanted to return to the AU. However, the report had found that the conditions which had led to Morocco leaving, had not changed. This begged the question: if Morocco returned, was Western Sahara forced to leave the AU?

In the Latin American region, South Africa did not have enough missions, especially in the light of the region’s rapid economic development. The DIRCO should decide whether or not it was going to try to add more missions, to take advantage of this rapid growth.

Ms Mathlako closed by noting that SA had committed its support to the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), which was an interim measure pending the operationalisation of the African Standby Force (ASF) and its Rapid Development Capacity (RDC).

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Ms Mathlako for her very comprehensive and well-organised presentation. A number of MPs had arrived late, and he explained what had transpired up until this point.

He raised three issues. Firstly, he asked Members how frequently they would like to meet with the Risk Management and Audit Committee -- once a quarter, or every six months? Secondly, he asked the other MPs if a once-off presentation was helpful, or if smaller, more regular presentations would be better. Thirdly, he said that he would like to see more experts come and present on different international issues, such as the aforementioned war in Syria and Brexit. This Committee was expected to know about international affairs, and there should be more participation in that area.

Mr M Mncwango (IFP) suggested that it would be better if those presentations could happen quarterly.

Mr Mokgalapa seconded the proposal, noting that when the Committee had met last year it had asked that these oversight meetings happen quarterly, but so far that had not happened.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.