Aid to Africa; African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 November 2003
AID TO AFRICA; AFRICAN RENAISSANCE AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION FUND: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson: Dr Z Jordan (ANC)

Relevant Documents:
African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund Presentation

Summary
The Foreign Affairs Department presented its challenges, achievements and proposed future projects of the African Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund. Discussion topics included the implementation of the Africa Renaissance and International Co-operation Act, the operations, capacity and income statement of the Fund, the functional difficulties facing the Secretariat, proposals to amend the legislation to ensure more effective organisational structure, and relations to other African countries through the Fund.

MINUTES
Dr Jordan introduced Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo (Deputy Director-General: Africa) who would discuss the implementation of the African Renaissance Fund.

Feedback on Africa Renaissance and International Co-operation Fund
Ambassador Mamabolo gave the background of the repealed Economic Co-operation Fund, started in 1968. The South African government identified the Fund to proactively fund projects in Africa. Its main mandate was to promote good governance and democracy, resolve conflict and humanitarian assistance. Donor countries preferred South African involvement all over Africa because this would ensure that Funds were not mismanaged. This spoke to the mechanisms that had been created to channel donor Funds to recipients. The Ambassador outlined the operations of the Fund such as government-to-government assistance, and problems such as the low correlation between activities of the Secretariat and the finance section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. See attached presentation for more details.

Discussion
Mr Colin Eglin (DA) questioned the political issue of the African Union (AU) and peacekeeping. Peace keeping had benefits but was there a policy decision to cap expenditure? R30 million had been spent in Sierra Leone which did not leave much for other assistance. Furthermore, was there a mechanism to monitor the money spent? Who looked after the domestic and international political reconciliations?

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that the Peace and Security Council in the AU planned to pay a standby African Army to deal with conflicts. The issue of the alleviation of poverty instead of peace was explained through the example of the DRC. South Africa brought stability to the country but there were no services or systems to collect taxes and revenue, for governance, drafting constitutions etc. If South Africa did not get involved, the country would return to violence. South Africa alone could not eradicate poverty and the international community had to be involved. The R30 million used in Sierra Leone was an initiative of 3 African countries. Although there had been other pledges, it was an African initiative to encourage reconstruction. NGO participation was encouraged.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) expressed concern as to who co-ordinated spending. Would the AU or SADC be responsible? Were NGOs part of democratic reconstruction processes or did they subvert the actions of particular governments? In relation to the new access of Brazil, India and South Africa, US$200 million had been allocated. In relation to the rest of the world how much had been committed and how much had arrived? He expressed concern about the emphasis on military spending and not enough on infrastructure. When would the emphasis shift and what percentage of the Renaissance Fund was going to infrastructure?

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) asked how South Africans were involved and who monitored the effective use of the money donated? In relation to Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo,how long did the Ambassador envision South African involvement? Currently the United Nations would reimburse 40% of the assistance. Were other donors assisting or was South Africa carrying the burden alone?

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that one conference would be held in Pretoria and one in Brussels, which would be a pledging conference for post reconstruction development in Burundi. Thus far, US$ 220 million had been pledged but $230 million was needed. Of that, 40 million had been received from the European Union (EU). For the first time, the EU had committed to being involved in issues of conflict, which was a move towards reconstruction. Although pledges had been given, they had yet to be collected. The United States had pledged US$50 billion to AIDS in Africa, with the United Kingdom (UK) increasing their pledge from 75 million to 1 billion Pounds. The issue was one of capacity to deal with the money. South Africans were getting involved in the projects, such as in NILISA, which involved Nigeria, Liberia and South Africa using R30 million. There were funds allocated to operating costs to oversee implementation. The EU had proposed taking 1% of all funds allocated to developing countries and redirecting them to conflict resolution.

Dr P Mulder (FF) asked if the Department reported back to the countries that made pledges and how the conditionalities impacted on the allocation of Funds. Of the 149 000 troops in the DRC, how many were South African soldiers?

Ambassador Mamabolo stressed that South Africa was a struggling country and the money was nowhere near enough to resolve all the issues in Africa. The money was thus used selectively. Strings were inevitably attached to all funds received. A positive move had been the shift in EU policy to fund projects supporting conflict resolution. The number of troops was clarified as 1 550 specialist elements and 1 269 troops in task teams. The number of troops was roughly 1 406. He apologised for the error.

Mr D A Mokoena (ANC) asked who appointed and served on the Advisory Committee. Secondly, tackling poverty prevented migration to South Africa. He suggested that a Historical Liberation Conference be held to deal with many countries. Through a holistic continental conference, debt could be written off. The historical liberation donor conference could assist in helping countries to balance their books through NEPAD. This could be done through the DPSA or the Foreign Affairs office. Cuba should be included.

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that donors wanted specifics before they would support a project, so it should be a specific conference as opposed to the whole continent. The Advisory Committee consisted of 5 people, 2 from Treasury and 3 from Foreign Affairs.

Mr O Bapela (ANC) said that South Africa's expected leadership put greater negative and positive demands on the country. Besides the donors and the pledges,was the budget enough to deal with all the issues? The Department had spent R1 million monitoring the elections in Zimbabwe. Was there a selective element to assistance with elections? Nine countries were soon to hold elections, five of which were in Southern Africa. He also asked for clarity on peacekeeping and defence. Was there any relationship between the two departments. He asked how the Department had been involved in the negotiations between the Congo and Burundi. Criteria had to be defined so there was no backsliding. The Fund had not clearly defined the programmes that they would be funding.

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that the Fund was using money that had been created by the previous regime. Currently the Fund was owed 76 million that had not been returned. Some governments could not pay back and in some cases, had not even acknowledged the loan. A way forward had to be discussed. The Fund did not specify the programs that could be funded. Objectives had been set out to enable the South African government to identify proactive programmes that promote democracy and good governance. Both the government and the Advisory Committee scrutinised each project as it was submitted. In regard to the Department of Defence, the two bodies wanted to be separate. Currently Foreign Affairs was separate to the Fund. On the issue of elections, the Fund did not assist in every election. The Zimbabwe case had been very sensitive because it had an impact on the stability of the region.

Mr G McIntosh (DA) raised questions around changes to legislation. The committee recognised the need for a Trust Fund but there was a concern over accountability. He asked about a press release from West Africa in the 'Daily Champion'. It had been suggested that South Africa was giving US$1 million a year for the upkeep of Charles Taylor in Nigeria.

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that some adjustments were needed for the better functioning of the Fund because the current structure was causing many problems. Projects usually came up through Foreign Affairs, which were monitored by Finance. Treasury was not involved at the political level but they were taking decisions. The motivation to change the Act was based on the practical problems of functioning. The Fund was also delayed in taking decisions because of long bureaucratic procedures. He stressed that no money was being given to Charles Taylor.

Mr D J Sithole (ANC) questioned the debt owed by African countries. An Act had been passed where it was agreed that countries that had no capacity to pay, did not have to pay. Money owed had to be pursed if the capacity to pay was there. He asked which countries had paid and about the reasons the Department wanted the law amended. The question of accountability had been debated in the Committee and it had been agreed that not only one person would be making the decisions. He was not comfortable with changing the law because people were not attending meetings or lacked understanding.
On the issue of Southern Sudan, could the committee put forward a proposal? How close was Foreign Affairs to the Sudan situation and where did the government fit in? Visits to the country had resulted in enquires into South Africa's self-imposed distance from the situation. He highlighted Rwanda as a serious issue. He also asked where the programme involving doctors from Cuba was being implemented.
Writing off debts was a tricky issue. Namibia's and Mozambique's debt had been written off. Some countries had ignored the issue completely and some cases they only wanted acknowledgement. They needed much consideration on a framework to decide who paid and who didn't.

Ambassador Mamabolo said that the whole of Africa looked to the Fund for assistance. This was not realistic. South Africa was involved in Sudan through the process of regional bodies' consultation. A mission was being opened in the Sudan but for the moment they were involved through facilitation in negotiation and consultation. The doctors in Rwanda had made an impact but he was not sure how big the impact was yet.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked about the problems of Fund management. It seemed as if the Secretariat was having difficulties keeping up with decisions taken elsewhere. Where was the Fund being monitored and when did the Auditor General look at the Fund? There had been so much corruption around the Lesotho Hydro Project with many cases currently being dealt with in courts. What had the R5 million been used for?

Ambassador Mamabolo explained that this was one project among many that had come up in their interactions with Lesotho. There was a desire tabled by the President to help Lesotho out of their economic situation. He did not know about the corruption situation but the only way to guard against it was to have a system to account for the money spent.

Dr Jordan asked the Ambassador to look into the Charles Taylor issue.

The meeting was closed.