Briefing by Department on Regional Indicative Strategy Development Programme

Meeting report

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
26 October 2005
BREIFING BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE REGIONAL INDICATIVE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (RISDP)

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department Presentation on Regional Indicative Strategic Development Programme (RISDP)
Summary of the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Programme from SADC (see www.sadc.int)

SUMMARY
After the presentation on the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Programme given by the Department of Foreign Affairs the Committee raised concerns in relation to the programme. There was concern as to the realism of the timeframes which was allayed by the emphasis on this programme as in process of development. It should be viewed as a living document. There was particular concern from a number of Members as to the role of the SADC Parliamentary Forum in the process as there was no reference to this in the document. There was a need for SADC to address this. Other areas of concern included the relationship of resources between the various countries of the region under this programme; the harmonisation of existing treaties that may conflict with the programme; the resolution of conflicting policies across the region on issues such as GMOs; the need for a monitoring mechanism within the programme in relation to good governance; the question of South Africa’s responsibility to Lesotho as a Least Developed Country; the HIV/AIDS crisis; and the establishment of a joint military activity across the region.

MINUTES
Presentation by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
Mr C Rubushe (DFA Chief Director: Africa, Multilateral) and Mr H Short (DFA Acting Director: SADC) briefed the Committee on the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Programme(RISDP).

The presentation began with an introduction to the RISDP, which outlined its objectives. The RISDP was a 15 year plan which aimed at setting the priorities, policies, and strategies for achieving the goals of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). It also intended to review the main areas for cooperation and integration among member states. The background and context of the plan and its rationale was provided. The link between the RISDP and other programmes such as NEPAD was explained. The RISDP should be understood as the regional manifestation of NEPAD. The scope, purpose and salient features of the RISDP gave further detail as to the aim of the plan. Key integration and development enablers were highlighted. Peace, Security, Democracy and Good Political Governance, along with Economic and Corporate Governance were particularly emphasised. Timeframes for the establishment of the SADC Customs an Monetary Union were outlined.

The RISDP priority intervention areas were introduced under two categories: cross-sectoral intervention areas and sectoral cooperation and integration intervention areas. The second category was made up of four areas which correspond to the 4 Directorates within the SADC Secretariat. Of these, trade and economic liberalisation and development was seen as the catalytic key that would drive the process. Success in this area would reinforce success in all other areas. Other sectoral intervention areas were cooperation in infrastructure development; cooperation in sustainable food security; and human and social development.

Of the cross-sectoral intervention areas the RISDP accorded top priority to poverty eradication. Other areas for consideration were HIV and AIDS priority intervention; gender equality and development priority intervention; science and technology; environment and sustainable development; private sector development; and statistics.
The presentation went on to discuss implementation and coordination, which was predicated to a large extent on the capacity that existed at national and regional levels. At the political level the Council of Ministers through the Integrated Committee of Ministers would provide policy direction and oversight to the implementation, and at the operational level, the management and coordination of the RISDP would primarily be the responsibility of the Secretariat.

Financing of the RISDP was explained. Monitoring and evaluation was to be coordinated through an integrated system set up by the Secretariat and SADC National Committees. The presentation concluded with a discussion of the ongoing process of the implementation of the RISDP since its approval in August 2003.

Discussion
General B Holomisa (UDM) asked about the economic policies of SADC countries. He asked how the gaps between these would be narrowed. He did not envisage a situation where there would be one monetary system.
He also asked, in relation to electricity, how national interests would be protected. He recognised that hydro-electric power had been replaced by the use of nuclear infrastructure. He questioned what would happen if other countries, such as Mozambique, refused to join the electricity system because of nuclear usage. He enquired if South Africa would promote the use of nuclear energy as a way of providing the region with electricity.

Ms S Camerer (DA) commented that the rationale for the RISDP was interesting but questioned how realistic the timelines were. In relation to the governance aspect she felt there were glaring situations among other SADC member countries which clearly did not fit the proposed model. She asked if there was a monitoring and evaluation mechanism to monitor governance issues. The emphasis on trade as the key driving factor was understood but there was concern as to what extent the governance issues would get attention in this context.

Ms M Njobe (ANC) stated that the timeframes outlined did not seem achievable, particularly as implementation had not started. She asked if it was true that South Africa did not have a NEPAD programme as such and, if so, how Parliament was meant to monitor whether South Africa was implementing NEPAD.

Ms S Motubatse-Hounkpatin (ANC) noted that Parliament had been left out of the monitoring mechanisms outlined. She asked if it was not Parliament’s role to be involved in this programme.

The chairperson agreed, noting that no references had been made to the SADC forum and the extent to which Parliament would be integrated into the SADC community. He questioned what that relationship was.

Mr Short said that the RISDP timelines were not fixed. The approach taken was from the bottom up to allow for market activity and realities within the region that influenced progress. Working towards the implementation of a customs union and beyond was of advantage to South Africa. The push was needed by those countries that could provide it. The eventual levelling of the playing field was catered for within the Trade Protocol.
On the question of energy, the spare capacity in the region was running low mainly through the effect of climate change on hydro-electric stations in the north. This would need to be looked at. The document was a "living" document and so would be able to accommodate necessary changes.

Mr Rubushe said, on the question of governance, that within the structure of SADC the issue was addressed by the organ dealing with security and politics. The responsibility for election monitoring, for instance, had initiated within this organ. However, the RISDP should be understood as being in the process of development. At the current stage it was not possible to state how governance issues would be monitored, but it was possible to say that they would be. Good governance was regarded as a keystone in the success of the programme.

Mr Short added that the RISDP was primarily concerned with economic development. It should be remembered that it was a programme within a larger structure that included various systems for the monitoring of good governance, such as the Strategic Indicative Plan of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (SIPO).

Mr Rubushe emphasised again that the RISDP was a living document. The timeframes would therefore be adjusted as needed through the progress of the programme. As far as NEPAD was concerned, Parliament needed to create a strategy that included all Departments to ensure proper implementation.

Ms Njobe asked when this was likely to happen.

Mr Rubushe replied that the first workshop was due to take place before the end of the calendar year and would provide a better timeframe. The aim should be to both ‘South Africanise’ NEPAD and ‘NEPADise’ South African government. It should be remembered that Parliament would only monitor the South African aspect and not that of other countries involved in SADC.

Mr Short responded, on the role of the SADC Parliamentary Forum, that it was an issue requiring consideration. The SADC Parliamentary Forum was not reflected in the SADC treaty, despite amendments in 2002 to increase the list of institutions established under SADC. The Protocol established by the Pan African Parliament allowed regional Parliaments to integrate and act as the building blocks of the wider Parliament. Given the context of the Pan African Parliament acting as the legislative arm of the AU, perhaps the SADC Parliamentary Forum should follow suit.

The chairperson stressed the importance of this issue. The members of the SADC Parliamentary Forum had historically been treated as an ‘illegitimate child’. At the last Summit of the Heads of State the proposal that the Parliamentary Forum be converted into a Parliament had been rejected. It had been a strange situation where a decision was taken on the future of a body that was not acknowledged by the SADC treaty.

He also asked how the body would be able to spend money legitimately as part of the monetary union if they were not regarded as an institution of SADC. He foresaw problems with this. An explanation of why the Forum did not feature was needed. The SADC community assumed that legislatures did not exist. While the document spoke of harmonisation, he questioned how this could occur without the legislature’s involvement. He asked if the legislation were expected to ratify documents that they had had no part in making, and what the envisaged role of the legislature was.

He noted that the document dealt mainly with economic and trade issues and enquired as to the extent that the region would benefit from each country’s resources. For example, he suggested the region invest resources in Angola in order to benefits from Angolan oil reserves that were currently being shipped to the US. Steps were required to bring the regions capabilities together.

In relation to the SADC free trade agreement, he questioned the extent to which South Africa’s trade agreement with the EU might impact on SADC and be a hindrance to other SADC countries. He asked if the potential impact on SADC of other existing agreements between individual countries and/ or organisations had been factored into the programme. He enquired if these agreements needed to be amended and asked how they would be harmonised.

He raised the issue of Lesotho. With the discussion of regional integration, it was of concern that South Africa had not been better able to address the issue of Lesotho, which was classified as a Least Developed Country, and yet was found within South Africa’s borders. He questioned if it was realistic to envisage wider integration within the region when this situation was still existed.

Lastly, the chairperson asked whether South Africa was engaged in joint military exercises so that capacity as a region would be build, if there was a request by the international community to intervene. He felt that forces should be contributed as part of the region, and not just from South Africa.

Mr W Seremane (DA) reiterated the chairperson’s concerns as to the attitude of SADC regarding the Parliamentary Forum. He felt that SADC must be challenged to come up with an honest attitude as to how they regarded this entity. He was concerned that the issue of HIV/AIDS needed to be taken more seriously. The document had referred to the issue as a challenge when the reality was that it was a crisis. He asked what was being done, particularly taking into consideration the migration of populations in the area.

Ms Motubatse-Hounkpatin raised the issue of funding of the programme. She asked if South Africa would contribute more funds because it had a higher GDP. She enquired as to whether gender issues were being looked at, and expressed the need for a clear monitoring system, as was had in Parliament.

The chairperson brought up the potential problems that might be caused by inconsistency within the community on various issues, for example genetically modified produce. South Africa had invested in research and development in this area and yet other countries were in opposition to such developments. He asked how such conflicting policies would be harmonised across the region.

Mr Rubushe said that when the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had been accepted into SADC, one of the issues had been the use of DRC’s water to generate electricity beyond SADC. The situation was not as openly discussed as the sharing of all resources across the region but it did take place and was part of the vision. As for the issue of existing agreements, there would always be an attempt to harmonise various protocols. However, sometimes countries had to be allowed to strike their own deals. For instance some countries, such as Zambia, were also members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), which had its own protocols. Other protocols would therefore continue to be made, but as conflicting ones came up there would be an attempt to harmonise.

Regarding Lesotho, he agreed that it was a short-coming for South Africa. He was aware of a decision by the SA-US Bi-national Commission (BNC) in 2001 to pull Lesotho out of the category of Least Developed Country within five years but had not followed the progress on this. He did not feel positioned to answer the question on joint military exercises and expressed a need to consult with the Department of Defence on this issue.

Mr Short added that in a recent report to the Summit, President Mbeki had reported that the region was enjoying relative peace and security. A planning element had been established called the SADC Brigade. An early warning system had also been operationalised in Gaberone, and would allow for time to set up the Brigade and begin exercising in preparation for whatever was envisaged for it.

Mr Rubushe added that the establishment of a training centre in Zimbabwe would also facilitate this process.

Mr Rubushe felt that he was not in the correct position to answer the question in relation to HIV/AIDS. There had been a number of workshops with the Department of Health in various SADC countries, such as Tanzania and Swaziland. He did not have detail regarding the outcomes, or any plans or proposals, resulting from these.

Mr Short said that the question on genetically modified produce was a question for the Department of Agriculture but he believed there was some continental/AU programme in place to define policy on this.

Mr Rubushe said that South Africa did contribute more than other countries to the budget. Contributions were based on each country’s GDP so that as they developed their ability to pay would increase. Their contributions would increase accordingly. It would be unfair to make everyone pay the same. This would leave some countries in debt. A country should pay what it could afford.

Mr Short added that the ownership of SADC could be understood in terms of the budget. Until the current time, the component owned by international donors had been bigger than that owned by SADC member states. He felt that SADC members should be the majority shareholders as it was their organ.

The chairperson suggested that the Department provide further information to the Committee on Lesotho; the joint military activity; genetically modified produce; and HIV/AIDS in conjunction with the relevant departments.

The meeting was adjourned.