Development Bank of South Africa quarterly performance report and challenges in executing mandate

NCOP Finance

06 September 2022
Chairperson: Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Select Committee on Finance met to be briefed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) on its performance and the implementation of its mandate.

The DBSA presented that it had an overall successful financial year, with a specific focus on green growth, the just transition infrastructure for economic growth, inclusion in its investments in the rest of Africa and overall operational excellence. The DBSA also highlighted that there had been R13 billion dispersed, R15 billion of funds catalysed and R3.3 billion delivered on infrastructure. The DBSA also had a return on equity of 8.8% from revenue of R5.8 billion, making the net profit R3.8 billion. The DBSA mentioned the new initiative of DLabs which substantially impacted the poorest communities around the country.

The DBSA delivered a strong financial performance in infrastructure for 2021/22. The DBSA was able to achieve record financial performance levels. Non-interest income was R276 million, with a net interest income of R5.8 billion. The return on average equity amounted to 8.8% for 2021/22. The net profit of the DBSA was at R3.8 billion.

The Committee expressed concerns regarding engagements with the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) to mitigate flood-affected areas, whether the DBSA was a true Development Finance Institution (DFI) or a DFI operating in a commercial space, support and collaboration with other entities and work conducted in municipalities.

The Committee asked what the DBSA’s current relationship was with BRICS Bank. Were there any overlapping mandates between the two entities, as BRICS Bank was also tasked with economic and social infrastructure development? Had the DBSA felt it was on track to deliver its developmental mandate?

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the meeting with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) was for the Select Committee to receive an update on the entity’s performance and the implementation of its mandate.

Foreword by DBSA Board Chair

Prof Mark Swilling, Board Chairperson, DBSA, spoke to the achievements gained and the challenges that the DBSA faced. The DBSA had the overall strategic focus on green growth, the just transition infrastructure for economic growth, inclusion in its investments in the rest of Africa and overall operational excellence. The DBSA’s highlights for the financial year included R13 billion that was dispersed, R15 billion in funds that were catalysed and R3.3 billion delivered on infrastructure. The DBSA also had a return on equity of 8.8% from revenue of R5.8 billion, making the net profit R3.8 billion.

On strategic priorities, Prof Swilling mentioned the work accomplished in setting up the infrastructure fund to leverage R900 billion from the private sector of the fiscal allocation of R100 billion. Prof Swilling also noted the ongoing support for the renewables programme by the Independent Power Producers (IPP) office, of an initial investment of R80 million, of which R18 billion of its own funding was used to further support 25 of the current projects.

He mentioned the new initiative of DLabs which had a substantial impact on the poorest communities around the country. Five DLabs were established on a R60 million budget to launch the significant experiment. On support for a just transition, considering Cabinet approving the President’s Coordinating Council (PCCs) just transition framework document, the DBSA experience, coupled with that support, brought together the initiatives.

Update on Performance and Implementation of the DBSA Mandate

Progress on Strategic Action

Mr Patrick Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), DBSA, reported that the DBSA has been on track in terms of progress since June 2022. There was progress across all the strategic initiatives. In instances where the progress was not on track with the projected timelines, corrective actions were put in place to ensure that the DBSA reached those targets by the end of the financial year. The DBSA felt comfortable with the pace of the progress thus far.

Performance Report - Value Chain

Mr Dlamini said that in 2021/22, the DBSA had a total dispersal of almost R13 billion, with the value of funds catalysed at R15.1 billion. The DBSA also reported that infrastructure unlocked R2.1 billion, with R3.3 billion of infrastructure delivered by the Infrastructure Delivery Division (IDD).

Disbursement

Across the various sectors in the metros, the DBSA was sitting on R4.5 billion for the 2021/2022 financial year. Out of the small and medium-sized secondary cities, only R44 million in funding was given in 2022, which decreased when compared to 2019. That spoke to the deterioration of skill sets and governance in small municipalities as the capacity had dwindled. On economic infrastructure, the DBSA reported R3.4 billion rand, while social infrastructure acquired R700 million.

Solid financial results under tough economic conditions

The DBSA delivered a strong financial performance in infrastructure for 2021/22. The DBSA was able to achieve record financial performance levels. Non-interest income was R276 million, with a net interest income of R5.8 billion. The return on average equity amounted to 8.8% for 2021/22.

The net profit of the DBSA was at R3.8 billion. The cost-income ratio was sitting at 24% which was among the lowest, even globally; reinforcing that the DBSA had to take on higher risk.

SADC and the Rest of Africa Operations

There were very positive outcomes during difficult conditions that required enhanced frugality and oversight by the board to ensure sustainable footing for the DBSA. Energy remained the highest form of exposure for the bank.

Financial support to municipalities

The DBSA was able to disburse a total value of R41.1 billion from 2012 to 2021, R7 billion of which went to secondary under-resourced municipalities. R1.3 billion of the disbursement went to the Metro municipalities for electricity, water, sanitation, ICTs and asset management sectors.

DBSA as an implement of government

On DLABS, Since 2014, the DBSA has implemented infrastructure to the value of R25.1 billion. The DLABs had massive potential to create jobs and unlock promising projects and businesses for communities, including various opportunities for youth. He said there were five DLAB projects across the country working with various social partners in South Africa and internationally.

Government collaborations and support

The three pilot sites which implemented the District Development Model (DDM) were successfully delivered, with R210 billion catalytic projects identified. Challenges included intensive discussions between National Treasury (NT) and the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCoG), inter-governmental challenges such as stakeholder engagement and fostering a uniform understanding of the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders.

On the IPP office, the DBSA continued to support and manage that programme in conjunction with the NT, though the DBSA believed that more could be done in that regard. 25 projects were submitted for the current round and round six bidders were supported by the DBSA in April 2022.

On water sector programmes, the DBSA was currently engaging with the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), NT and the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA). The DBSA entered the recruitment phase of the programme to capacitate technical, financial and procurement work streams.  

Response to recent floods

The DBSA had offered responses in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape in the worst affected flood areas. The affected infrastructure included social, economic and municipal infrastructure. A total of R116 million was provided to assist with water interventions, bridges and replacement housing.

Matters impacting the implementation of mandate

On governance, the DBSA was working with NT. Regarding remuneration policies, it was difficult to maintain high skillsets within the bank, considering that the DBSA was a public sector institution. Maintaining the entity’s competitiveness was important as it competed with commercial banks.

The new Development Finance Institution (DFI) scorecard impacted the DBSA BEE rating. The DBSA needed a special dispensation to not align with the commercial banks. The DBSA wrote to the Minister of Finance, Minister of Economic Development and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition to provide that special dispensation.

On the construction mafia and vandalism that had spread from eThekwini to the rest of the country and posed massive risks as some people had come branding assault rifles. The DBSA hoped that law enforcement agencies would work with it to maintain order. The DBSA feared that those individuals may not respect the authorities.

Discussion

Ms D Mahlangu (ANC, Mpumalanga) said that the serious engagements with the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) gave a sense of hope to the Committee. She asked how far the DBSA was in the engagement process as it was crucial that poor communities receive access to those water services. How far was the DBSA, while working with CoGTA, on progressing those initiatives on the ground? The Committee was looking for improvements which had positive impacts on poor communities.

What was the DBSA’s current relationship with BRICS Bank? Were there any overlapping mandates between the two entities, as BRICS Bank was also tasked with economic and social infrastructure development?

She acknowledged that the DBSA felt equipped to deal with issues, with the DWS, regarding the poor status of infrastructure, specifically related to matters of loadshedding. She questioned how far away the goalposts were on those issues due to their significant negative impact on the country.

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) said the presentation reflected positive signs for the DBSA and the country. He acknowledged the conflict in determining whether the DBSA was a true DFI or a DFI operating in a commercial space.

On infrastructure, Mr Ryder asked for more details on how the initiative was being carried out. He cautioned that local government spaces were difficult places to invest in due to the inability of the local municipalities to repay their debts. He asked the DBSA how it found its customers in local government, especially given the competitive situation.

He explained that where entities had a good credit risk, in terms of local government entities, those entities competed with commercial banks. He asked how that was going and cautioned against getting involved with commercial banks out of fears of the risk.

How was the DBSA managing and identifying projects? How had the DBSA determined which borrowers it would like to provide funding for and how was the tender process going? What issues were problematic in preventing the DBSA from fulfilling its mandate surrounding the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA)?

On bridging finance, the NT formed part of the process of providing finance to various entities. He felt that the NT was not as involved as it should be due to other issues. He asked whether bridging finance was a better way of consolidating two to three years of ground funding into one big project.

He was disappointed to see that only R44 million rand was dispersed in secondary cities in 2022. He questioned whether that figure was for a full financial year or a year-to-date number. The drop in funds dispersed in secondary cities was substantial, especially compared to the other reported levels.

When considering risk and impact, Mr Ryder said that he would have thought that the DBSA would prefer to work with metros, although the needed development resided in secondary cities which were not able to access commercial funding. He asked the DBSA to speak further on that.

On return on earnings (ROE), he appreciated the proper trend, despite that it was far off from that of commercial banks. Concerning the DDM, he said that there were issues unblocking some of the communication. He felt that that was not surprising as there was uncertainty regarding what exactly was being done in the DDM. Other concerns related to an unconstitutional reallocation of powers and functions. He felt that considering that, it would be expected that municipalities would be reluctant to engage.

Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) asked the DBSA whether any municipalities in the Free State asked for assistance with water accessibility, excluding Naledi and Mafube municipalities. On restoring collapsing post offices, he asked how far the initiative was in that process.

Mr E Njadu (ANC, Western Cape) asked the DBSA whether it felt it was on track to deliver on its developmental mandate. He further asked whether the funding had been acquired from African banks to support projects and programs.

Mr Njadu said that the Members previously recommended that DBSA have an active policy to reduce the gap, considering the great provincial inequalities. Members also encouraged closer cooperation with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), CoGTA and the Houses of Traditional Leaders and Councils in the interest of intergovernmental relations. He asked what the progress was in terms of that.

He asked for feedback from the DBSA on support and funding of technical infrastructure investment in rural local municipalities in the previous financial year.

The Chairperson said, on the extent of involvement of the DFI in the commercial space, that there had been many complaints on the fees charged in the local government sphere. Some complaints said that the DBSA fees were not significantly less expensive, or in some more expensive, than commercial banks. The issues had been addressed, though not clearly.

The Chairperson disagreed with the view that the DDM was unclear. However, he agreed with the issues concerning the consistency of policy approaches to the distribution of powers and functions as set out in the Constitution.

He presumed that CoGTA would not Chair there. That was as the municipalities led by the governing party would not easily concede any powers and functions. He asked that the DBSA go further into that. He referred to the time it took for the NT and CoGTA to sort out their differences and educate councillors and staff. He felt that the presentation was vague in that area. He asked the DBSA to clarify its progress on the DDM in that regard.

The Chairperson said that the DBSA had managed to stay afloat despite the several downgrades. He acknowledged the good performance of the DBSA, especially with respect to other public entities. He asked the DBSA to elaborate on the areas that it felt worked well in contributing to its performance.

On the Land Bank and the problems which had affected the credibility of the DBSA, he asked whether those had been receded. He further asked about the relationship between the Land Bank and the DBSA. The Committee received research on the support staff’s overview of the bank.

On the just transition, the Chairperson asked for more details. He said that the information given gave many different ideas for the initiative. He acknowledged that finding all the balances required to make the transition just was an enormously difficult task, and asked for further clarity on that.

DBSA Responses

Mr Mohale Rakgate, Chief Investment Officer: Infrastructure Fund, DBSA, said, on DWS engagements, that significant progress was made since the beginning of the calendar year, after the appointment of the Director-General (DG). The DBSA said that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed two and a half months prior. The MOA was signed by the Department, DWS, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), as a representative of the municipalities, and the DBSA. The idea was to build capacity to support the underlying municipalities, water boards and some of the national entities that design, develop and implement the programs in the water sector.  

The DBSA secured an operational budget from NT to run the operations of the partnership. A portion of the funding was from the Green Climate Fund. The DBSA also established a governmental oversight committee consisting of executives from the three entities.

The DBSA was currently in the process of recruiting the Head of the Partnership office. Mr Rakgate said the goal was to have the appointed Head in office by November 2022. The process was in the initial phase, though the DBSA looked forward to seeing the results coming from that.

The DBSA’s Infrastructure Fund, with the DWS, had had a very good pipeline which had gone through the approval processes. That referred to projects, such as the Umkomaas project being implemented by the Tans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) on behalf of the department.

R24 billion in capital was availed and mobilised as the Infrastructure Fund, of which R12 billion came from the Department. There were numerous projects in various areas, including Limpopo with its water board. The Department contributed R4.5 billion towards that project. In the North West province, there were two projects amounting to a total of R6 billion, which were still in the approval process.

Mr Rakgate mentioned the Lanseria wastewater treatment plant project and reported that the DBSA was working closely with the City of Johannesburg and the DWS to implement that project. The relationship with the DWS had started to bear tangible fruits which could only be enhanced going forward with the partnership office being operationalised and staffed.

The pipeline of projects mainly came from the municipalities under-capacitated in terms of skills and resources. The DBSA planned to assist those municipalities in ensuring that those projects were implemented.

On flood damages with the assistance of CoGTA and DDM, Mr Dlamini said that R128 million was spent on assisting the two provinces, and the identified municipalities, damaged by the recent floods. Support was offered in terms of infrastructure, housing and water projects to help restore the damage in those areas.

On the DDM, that was a political issue, though the DBSA had worked well with CoGTA in finalising the one plan for the three pilot distribution parties, including the Metros. That would be very difficult due to the number of issues ranging from the powers afforded to the local municipalities through districts, the powers afforded to provinces through local municipalities and districts, and the powers on a national level reflected in other spheres.

That was challenging to navigate, especially when trying to reserve powers afforded through legislation. That would be challenging for the DDM, though the DBSA had made headway as the one plan was submitted and projects had been highlighted to the value of R210 billion in the three pilot districts. Those projects would require further preparation and feasibility studies to ensure they were driven to investment targets.

The DBSA corresponded with SALGA and CoGTA. Going forward, rolling out those projects, the DBSA would continue to work with those entities to see how the projects could be better navigated. The DBSA hoped that CoGTA would have a stronger lead from their pilot project at a national level.

On the DBSA operating as a commercial bank, the DBSA still regarded itself as a financial institution. The difference between the DBSA and commercial banks was that the DBSA took longer term projects. That was because the DBSA could fund projects for up to 40 years, while commercial banks were limited, by the Banks Act, in funding projects for up to seven years.

DFIs in other parts of the world, including Europe, Brazil and China, received ongoing national support from the governments to support projects and provide further assistance. However, the DBSA had not received any budget allocation from government. The DBSA generated revenue from the returns from its commercial projects.

The DBSA still funded and worked with under-resourced municipalities and marketed three on cost recoveries, which were sometimes subsidised, while Metro and private sector projects were charged more.

The DBSA was limited by the DBSA Act to only two and a half times the risk, although other DFIs were able to take on higher risk, enabling them to do more. The DBSA was pursuing some of those issues with the NT and the Reserve Bank to investigate how it could take on higher risk.

The Reserve Bank was able to conduct oversight over the DBSA as a DFI. Mr Dlamini listed examples including the KFW from Germany, AFD in France and CDB of China. Those banks, oversighted as DFIs, could take on higher risk. That was done with caution to prevent untenable risk for the country.

On expenses compared to commercial banks, the DBSA said that it depended on many factors. The DBSA said it submitted tenders for funding for the Metros and the local municipalities. The DBSA occasionally lost out to commercial banks due to them being more competitive on account of their deposit-taking.

The DBSA reassured Members that it remained a sustainable development finance institution. The institution continued to strive for efficiency, strived to manage risk and hoped to adopt a new approach in the future as the challenges facing South Africa required quite a lot of risk-taking from the DFIs. It was noted that South Africa took on much more risk when compared to the rest of the continent.

Mr Rakgate acknowledged the massive issues regarding municipalities in the country. He referenced the Auditor-General’s (AG) report which spoke to governance and internal control challenges in municipalities.

Mr Dlamini was of the view that the DBSA had to investigate leveraging technology to improve the internal control measures in the municipalities and compensate for the lack of skill sets. He also felt that the DBSA had to investigate leveraging the available skill sets.

He said the municipal and local government systems required an element of review to investigate how to sustain the municipalities given the current challenges that were faced. He said that the DBSA had to investigate how to curtail infrastructure deterioration. All the money allocated for infrastructure grants had to be accounted for and elements of wastefulness and corruption had to be avoided.

On PFMA challenges, Mr Dlamini acknowledged the challenges and emphasised the need for strong governance to mitigate the current unfair competitive landscape. The DBSA engaged with the NT and the Minister of Finance to see how the DBSA could be accommodated to ensure that it could be more competitive and efficient.

That would require engagements, reviews and pilots created by the National Government through legislation. That would support and capacitate government to conduct its work in a manner that ensured that governance would be adhered to without wasting public resources.

Mr Dlamini recognised the current experiences regarding the DBSA in the courts. He acknowledged the difficult position that that placed the DBSA in.

The risk was higher for the rest of the continent, resulting in greater returns. The DBSA was quite frugal in its risk management systems which it continued to put in place to prevent reckless lending. The DBSA felt that the presentation reflected that its risk management systems were strong enough to mitigate and ensure that the sustainability of the bank was not compromised.

The DBSA acknowledged that the R44 million for under-resourced municipalities in 2021/22 could have been higher, and that R4.5 billion was required for the municipalities. The DBSA said that in instances where it lost tenders, it was due to not being competitive enough in its tendering system. The entity reported that sometimes municipalities did not come to the market, given the limitation in their skill sets.

That was an issue the DBSA continued to work on and provided further support for municipalities to access greater funding. He hoped to report improved performance in the future as he was confident in the strength of the pipeline for market trading disparities.

On working with the Free State on water shortage issues, he said that the DBSA was working with several municipalities in that province. The DBSA would provide a report detailing the affected municipalities it was working with.

The post office project was a SALGA initiative, and the DBSA was unsure how far it would go. That was due to concerns about the function of investments that the entity was prepared to make, technology available to be employed and invested in, and the requisite skill sets.

Mr Dlamini said that other post offices around the world had been able to adapt and were very competitive. However, in Africa, many post offices were as good as dead. He felt that spoke to the collapse of governance, lack of investments in its infrastructure and platforms, and failure to observe the competition.

The introduction of Amazon in courier services and express deliveries promised some interesting opportunities. The DBSA noted that the private sector post offices seemed to outperform government post offices. Government post offices required government investments and it was uncertain whether government had to make those investments.

On challenges experienced and whether the DBSA was on track to deliver on its mandate, Mr Dlamini acknowledged fatigue. Though the DBSA understood the risk given the threat of recession, it observed monetary tightening. It observed the food and energy inflation resulting from the geopolitics of the Russia-Ukraine War. That has impacted a number of countries on the continent.

The DBSA anticipated countries to default, which would inspire financial restructuring leading to improved performance, like in the case of Zambia. The DBSA said it was one of the parties in terms of the Zambian debt restructure as part of the G20 initiative. The Chinese government was able to engage in that respect as one of the biggest lenders to the South African economy.

That was a good development, and it was hoped that it would improve the economic performance and possibilities for the continent.

On technical support to new municipalities, the DBSA had done a lot to support its infrastructure in the last financial year. The DBSA said that the large provincial inequalities and requests from the Committee for the entity to work with SALGA and CoGTA were still in the works. It would require different interventions to stand a better chance in those areas.

He said that addressing provincial inequality would take a concerted effort and strong partnerships in all spheres of government, especially nationally and provincially. The DBSA had to investigate the competitive advantages of the provinces.

The provinces were importing way too much externally. Mr Dlamini felt encouraged by other countries that had migrated from importing to producing for themselves and creating jobs for their populace. That also contributed to very strong foreign reserves for those nations and reflected strong governance and internal controls. The DBSA had to ensure it was getting the best possible value for its money.

Concerning the DBSA operating in the commercial space, he emphasised the need for support and that the entity hoped to take on higher risk than it currently took. That would occur through the DBSA work with the Minister of Finance, various Government ministries and the provincial and local governments.

That would be to improve the potential of the DBSA to aid in economic recovery. The DBSA believed it was performing below its true potential as a DFI, and the equity acquired over the years could be used better. Issues of support, regulation and oversight in the DBSA would have to be addressed to unlock that potential.

On the Land Bank, the DBSA had been limited from accessing funding from some of the international players because of their exposure to the Land Bank. The DBSA and the Land Bank are related as sister DFIs and by the just transition commitment by the sovereign. The DBSA was still looking into how it could work with the Land Bank on water infrastructure matters.

That was because 60% of potable water was required for agricultural water supplies compared to global standards. South Africa was a water-scarce country. “We could learn from other nations that have employed technologies to minimise agricultural water usage while optimising agricultural outputs”.

Mr Dlamini used the example of the drip irrigation system and technologies to assist small-scale farmers. He noted that urban farming had developed globally to employ several people, using cost-effective means and ensuring food security for the people. There was a lot more room to explore those opportunities with the Land Bank.

Some projects were currently under review to see if DFIs and the private sector could cooperate to improve infrastructure.

On the DBSA operating as a commercial bank, Prof Swilling said that the DBSA formed part of the international development finance club. He explained that that was a club of international development finance institutions. The DBSA led an initiative within that club to research how DFIs could invest in the just transition, not just decarbonisation.

He explained that what was emerging from the research was a very significant identity for DFIs, which had tripled in size since 2007 in terms of their total assets. That was attributed to their long term development, a higher risk appetite and blended finance to leverage the private sector funding into development processes. He felt that those three qualities defined the DBSA as a DFI.

The DBSA was looking to prioritise its development position which informed its investments in the D Labs and other initiatives. Prof Swilling explained that the just transition was about the developmental position on the energy transition, which involved decarbonisation.

On the commercial position of the DBSA, Prof Swilling said that the Land Bank contagion had not affected the trust in state-owned enterprises. Financial institutions went down. The DBSA was dependent on access to capital in the South African capital market. However, that had become increasingly difficult due to the decline in trust as a result of what happened to the Land Bank.

The DBSA had started to explore the possibility of shifting its prudential authority from the ministry of finance to the South African Reserve Bank to ensure that other banks recognised it. The DBSA hoped that through that, it could return to accessing the South African capital markets.

Until then, the DBSA said it depended more on accessing foreign capital markets in euros or dollars. That had resulted in increased costs which, in turn, contradicted the prioritisation of development. Prof Swilling said that development could not be done on a large scale if the DBSA’s cost of capital was rising. The DBSA was making progress in resolving that conflict.

On the just transition, South Africa had led the dialogue by including the just transition in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The just transition involved four different views. One view was to rapidly decarbonise, to increase economic growth with trickle-down benefits for the poor. The second view involved the need to invest in mitigating the negative social consequences for workers and communities dependent on the call value chain.

The third position involved the need for decarbonisation, social mitigation and upstream industrialisation to reindustrialise the South African economy. That position argued that renewables-led industrialisation could be the biggest industrialisation program since 1994, creating thousands of jobs in many areas, particularly in Mpumalanga.

Prof Swilling said that was an ambitious vision which depended on the price of renewables being right. If the price got too low, building renewables would require importing from China, which would not assist South African workers.

The fourth position emerged from the union movement: the just transition is about a post-capitalist transformation. The DBSA was in closest alignment with the third position. Practically, that entailed connecting three of its initiatives including the infrastructure fund, continuing to support IPPs and D Labs. In a systemic way, those three concepts formed the building blocks for the just transition in practice.

On what could be learnt from the DBSA’s experience, the Chairperson said that building a collective board culture was critical, recruiting talent to be part of a productive board and managing the political interface. He said that had been his biggest challenge as board Chairperson. The DBSA required sufficient autonomy on setting bonuses or appointing new board members and the Zondo Commission reports enhanced that.

Mr Dlamini said that ensuring the just transition was especially important for marginalised communities. The DBSA was working on that with local and international partners.

The DBSA would share a written submission from the NT on the limitation of the PFMA.

The Chairperson thanked the DBSA for its comprehensive presentation. He said it was a pity that the DBSA had not implemented its shared insights. He wished the DBSA well for the future of its projects. The Chairperson also emphasised the need to implement all the skills available, including those from civil society, to support government as was done after the onset of democracy.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: