Agreement between RSA, India & Brazil on IBSA Fund for Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger

Meeting report

Opening Remarks:

The Chairperson welcomed Members and indicated she does not believe in very lengthy meetings. Long meetings usually delay productivity because people leave exhausted as opposed to solutions to problems and having said that, she urged the Department to make its presentation.

Ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India, the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the IBSA Fund for the Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger

Mr Dave Malcomson, Chief Director: Regional Organisations, Department of International Relations and Cooperatioon (DIRCO), delivered the presentation the purpose of which was to facilitate ratification of the IBSA Fund for the Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger Agreement.

By way of background, the IBSA Fund is a Head of State-level initiative created in 2004 as a pioneering effort by the three emerging market economies of India, Brazil and South Africa to promote South-South Cooperation. Capitalisation for the Fund is derived from contributions of USD$1 million made annually by each of the three IBSA Member States. The Fund Agreement was signed in Durban in 2017.

Objectives of the IBSA Fund:

-the Fund is a concrete expression of SA’s commitment to advancing South-South Cooperation

-support of the international development agenda with special reference to the global South and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in addressing extreme poverty and inequality

The IBSA Fund supports projects across a broad geo-political spectrum (Africa, Asia, Latin America and Arab States). Examples included Burundi –access to reproductive health services including HIV/AIDS treatment for men, women and youth (39,000 impacted per annum), Guinea Bissau – hunger allevtion where 4 500 farmers benefitted from improved rice cultivation techniques and renewable energy (five villages benefitted), Zambia –  2 000 smallholder farmers targeted in improving productivity, income and household nutrition, Sudan –  upskilling of youth to access jobs ( 2 995 benefitted from project, Comoros –food security project supported by the South African Agricultural Research Council (1 140 farmers were targeted), Timor-Leste – 1 437 subsistence farmers benefitted from sustainable production techniques and contributed to food security, Palestine –reconstruction and refurbishment of hospitals in the Gaza strip, Kiribati – enhancing economic opportunities to improve the livelihoods of small farmers, Vietnam – 4 000 household livelihoods enhanced through improved rice production, 3 000 health-care staff competencies were improved to treat non-communicable diseases and additionally the project also culminated in the development of an e-Learning platform as well as an App. 

Mr Malcomson took Members through the analysis of the work of the Fund:

-orientation: people-centered and impact-driven. Direct impact on the lives of people who benefitted from the projects

-The Fund contributes in a practical and tangible manner to advancing South-South Cooperation

-Additionally, South Africa has been able to leverage optimum utilisation of the UN system in effectively implementing these projects through the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC)

-The Fund has made significant and measurable successes through promoting all 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals amongst 21 developing and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in order to improve the lives of those affected

On the way forward, the Fund is recognised as an innovative model for addressing developmental challenges and has received international awards to this end. IBSA member states are considering accessing the Fund to support their own national developmental objectives and the projects are uniquely suited to address developmental challenges of the Global South and can be easily replicated.the projects are uniquely suited for solving development related challenges of the global south and each project assessment is done on the basis of three criteria namely: the project must be replicable, it must be scalable and it must be sustainable.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that looking at the list of projects the Department has, there are not projects of benefit to South Africa and so the Department will need to look at its projects and expand its scope to benefit the country. She asked why the Department is still working at the level of Millennium Development Goals while the world has moved on to the Sustainable Development Goals. She urged the Department to share the common challenges among the centres as this will help to understand the partnership between countries

Mr Malcomson responded that in terms of IBSA funding, observations such as the absence of any projects beneficial to South Africa, is what is informing the request for funding for member states to enable them to solve their own national problems -e until now it has not been done. The IBSA chairperson has to give permission before the funds can be used for projects by the member states themselves. Once that decision has been taken, the process of project identification will begin. There is a gap between the legislation and the presentation. The error was with the drafting as it was never corrected until the appointments in October 2017. This can be resolved by approaching the other members to see if they can agree that wherever reference was made to MDGs, it would now be a reference to the SDGs

On the challenges of IBSA, there has been a lapse in the IBSA from 2011 as that was the last time the countries met at the Committee-level and the Heads of States-level. Coincidentally, this was the period when South Africa joined the BRICS forum so this also contributed to the lapse in IBSA functioning. In 2015, the Department raised the question with the members in India on whether the IBSA was still necessary. Although it did well between 2003 and 2011, not much was achieved between 2011 and 2015. This was when the  IBSA working groups dissolved into BRICS groups, especially at the departmental level. Out of 16 working groups that existed at that time, only about four or five sections of the forum are still working under the IBSA banner. One thing that continued to work even from 2011 to 2017 was the IBSA fund and this is one model that made the IBSA successful.

Between 2015 and 2010, there was a meeting with the then involved Minister and it was decided in 2017 that all three countries must continue with IBSA because it is more focused on the development levels than the more broader mandates of the BRICS, which includes everything (economics, finance, geopolitics, socio-economic development, security health etc.). The Department refined the working groups to seven working groups and developed 21 memoranda of understanding that exist guiding the workings of these working groups.

Mr D Bergman (DA) asked how the decision on who receives funding for projects is reached since the Heads of State are not allowed to sit as trustees on the Board. Who receives the funding for the states? Since the model is a South-South cooperation following a UN agenda, it would be more productive putting it in BRICS since Russia and China are also South-South. This would further add leverage for the projects as they all contribute R1 million a year for their operations with regards to the development of the South-South.

Mr Malcomson responded that Heads of State are not trustees of the projects - rather the projects are handled at the board level among the member states and one or all of the three member states put forward a project proposal for consideration by the board members of all three states. The board members responsible for this are those assigned from the IBSA office in New York - they sit with the Head of Mission and have correspondence with the IBSA chairpersons of the capitals of the member states to discuss the parameters of the projects and whether there are elements of the projects that should be revised. This involves a comprehensive assessment of the proposal. The chairperson in the office in New York demands to have a board meeting with members to decide on whether to approve or deny a project. After that, the UN office for the South-South cooperation is given the mandate to drive implementation of the projects. The member states chose to work like that because the United Nations Development Porgramme (UNDP) has a very strong network across the world – it is represented in every country and its focus is centred on developmental goals. They have extensive experience in the implementation of projects hence it was decided the UNDP would be the ideal partners in implementation of the IBSA projects - this has been a success story.

The idea of putting the IBSA funds into BRICS cannot be an option because a country such as India would definitely object to that. One other critical difference between the IBSA and BRICS is around the global reforms - within BRICS, the two principle approaches says they support the developing worlds in terms of having represenation in the Security Council however this was not clearly stated and as such, does not actually achieve much while the IBSA is stronger in language with regards to what it supports in terms of security under the UN Security Council - this makes the IBSA stronger in terms of tenure and tone than what can be achieved in BRICS. There is a strong agreement among the member states in terms of continuing with the model.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) asked how regular the meetings of heads of states take place and how the projects source funds. He also asked about the synergies between the IBSA and the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) with regards to avoiding the possibilities of duplication of activities and how they achieve this. Where did the budget for funding lie? How is it budgeted? Is it based on tenure or request? He also asked the Department how often its projects were monitored and evaluated to ensure there is accountability and that projects budgeted for were the exact ones carried out. Is there technical support on the ground? To what extent does SA participate in the technical support at the IBSA? Or is SA only a seconder? He pointed out that although India, South Africa and Brazil are part of BRICS, it can be seen that the BRICS structure does not handle specific issues in those countries. He therefore suggested issues affecting the countries be specified as the IBSA is already focusing on poverty alleviation.

On the regularity of meetings, Mr Malcomson said that they are required to meet every quarter but if projects are proposed and have been assessed and recommendations made, the board can meet more regularly. Although the Board members sit in New York, meetings have been made a lot easier through the use of electronic devices and modern technology        

In terms of genertating resources, he explained that one of the three member countries puts forward a project and usually, one is required to put forward the request for one’s own region, for instance the eight African projects were put forward by South Africa. At times the UNDP itself becomes aware of a particular issue and draws the attention of the Department to projects in one of the countries and the three countries assess the projects to find a way forward

In terms of the relationship between the IBSA funding and ARF, he explained they are two completely different things as ARF is South Africa’s own mechanism for development. On the issue double-dipping, the Chief Director of the Department sits in the ARF budgetting committee so if any project being handled by the IBSA is raised, the Chief Director will call the attention of the ARF to this to avoid duplication.

On the issue of where the budget is located, Mr Malcomson said it is part of the Department’s annual transfer payment budget line - $1million is put every year into the account of the Department for the implementation of projects and payments of other international organisations.

In terms of technical support, there are no technical experts per se - rather the project proposals are sent through to the head office in New York and the technical support is recieved via the UNDP and the UN office for South-South cooperation         

On monitoring and evaluation, there is an element of monitoring and evaluation because as the project is going on, a project implementation committee is put together. This Committee is usually comprised of diplomats of the three countries who will guide implementation of the project. For instance, during the project at Guinea Bissau, a diplomat in Guinea Bissau was made to sit in the committee with members of the UNDP and some Indian and Brazillian members in the case of their own countries. These members of the implemetation committee are expected to report on a quarterly basis on the progress of the projects.

Mr T Mpaza (ANC) asked if there were other structures that are particular to BRICS. He wanted to know this as there has been a few misconceptions as people now think the IBSA has been overtaken by BRICS. He asked to know the capacity of the human resources of the Department to run the project, as it is a big one, to avoid a situation where a project is started and along the line abandoned because there was not enough human resources to handle it. He then asked the Department’s expectations of the Committee with regards to assisting the Department in fast-tracking activities because the Committee is a goal-oriented one that has come to work with the intention of turning things around.

Mr Malcomson responded that BRICS has its own institutions such as the New Development Bank and the African Resource Fund which have American and Europe regional centres. BRICS focuses on projects through the New Development Bank. Issues of duplication of projects can be tackled by having the lists of projects by BRICS and IBSA side to side at all times.

On the question of the country’s specifics in BRICS, in the BRICS formation, South Africa plays the role of the bridge builders between the countries by trying to provide common ground in areas of contention where tensions emerge on certain issues between the various countries. For instance where the current Brazillian administration took a slightly different direction from the previous administration. This bridge building role of South africa in BRICS cannot be seen in the IBSA because in the IBSA, there is a formal common ground in terms of the issues they are concerned about and approaches to resolving such issues.

On the area of human resources, the Department has lived up to expectations in that regard because it has the capacity of human resources needed and the Department has never failed to live up to its responsibilities as a result of human capacity. There are currently four persons dealing with issues in the IBSA and to date, this number has been found to be sufficient.

On the way forward, the Minister has written to both the NCOP and the National Assembly asking that both Houses consider the agreement and subsequently ratify the agreement – this is what the Department is now looking forward to. He was not sure whether the Select Committee also required a briefing. The belief was rather that once the meeting was done, the Portfolio Committee will drive the ratification.

The Chairperson noticed the summits held by the Department are not regular and she asked that Mr Malcomson explain why that is the case and why the Heads of States were not meeting as regularly as the Ministers were. According to the modus operandi of the Committee, it wants to ensure the Department is functioning well and that the peoples‘ needs are covered. She pointed out that there was an error in the presentations with regards to section 231(2) of the Constitution and this must be rectified before the Committee can approve. She advised the Department to go and make the amendments that need to be made and return to the Committee to table the Bills, treaties etc  before presenting to the National Assembly. Since the process is that the Department has to present to the Committee before the National Assembly, the presentation should have been brought to the Committee at the beginning of the term and not at the end. Only then can the Committee reject or approve and present to Parliament, As such, the Department needs to have timeframes in terms of correcting the error of presenting issues to the Committee late by prioritising presentation of the Bills, treaties and all other issues that need to be deliberated on to the Committee so that this work can be done at the beginning of the terms and not at the end.

The Chairperson stated the first meeting of the Committee next year should be on this same presentation so that it can then be presented to  Parliament in February in order for the Department to resume work. The Department cannot move to the SOP without the Committe seeing what it has put together first.

Mr Malcomson responded that initially when the forum was founded, the Heads of States used to meet regularly, every three years. However since 2011 – 2017, there has been a lapse. At some point, the Ministers also left. The only explanation he caould give for that is that the focus of the three states shifted from the IBSA model to BRICS. That was why in 2015, the South African question on if the IBSA was still needed, was raised. At that point, it was agreed the IBSA should stay and ways of reviving it must be thought of. The plan is for India to host the summit in 2020 where the Heads of States will be given the political mandates. Hopefully then the meetings will become more regularised.

In terms of the legislation, Mr Malcomson indicated he would report the error at the next AGM to see if a way can be found to meet the requirement of the presentations being made early in the new year. On the area of the error in drafting, the Department will have to look into that to rectify the errors and also consult the other two member countries and then return with the finished work to the Committee in February 2020.

Mr Nkosi suggested that as a way of making progress, it would be good if expertise is built around the people of the member states of the IBSA instead of having to depend on others for expertise and technical support.

Mr Malcomson responded that in this area of building expertise around implementation of projects, it was one of the shortcomings that was discovered when the Department tried to look into how it is monitoring and evaluating projects. Deficiencies were identified in the process so the member countries then decided on finding ways of getting the expertise within themselves instead of relying on the expertise of the UN office. This particular issue is one that they are going to look into to see how it can be achieved. In the National Development Plan, many young South Africans have been put in there to enable them to acquire expertise in project management.

The Chairperson said the Committee is hoping that by the time the Department returns to give another presentation to the Committee, it would have reached ways to rectify the summits to ascertain whether the Department really exists in practice or only on paper.

Section 231(2) of the South African Constitution needs to be followed and if the Committee should adopt the presentation of the Department with the errors in it, it will be problematic as Members are also lawmakers and as such they are also expected to uphold the law. If the Department corrects the errors fast, it will be the first thing the Committee will attend to next year after which it will then be adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.