African Peer Review for progressive change

On Wednesday 28 September, meeting at Gallagher Estate in Midrand, Gauteng, representatives of the people of South Africa began a two-day National Consultative Conference that is of the greatest importance to the future of our country.

Present were delegates from government, business, trade unions, academia and the entire spectrum of civil society, the latter represented by the South African chapter of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) of the African Union.

The conference marked the beginning of the African Peer Review process in our country, to which we acceded as soon as the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) resolved formally to launch the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).

The decision to establish the APRM was taken at the founding conference of the African Union (AU) held in Durban in 2002. The fundamental guidelines governing the peer review process are contained in the Base Document of the APRM.

Among other things, this Base Document says:

"The mandate of the African Peer Review Mechanism is to ensure that the policies and practices of participating states conform to the agreed political, economic and corporate governance values, codes and standards contained in the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. The APRM is the mutually agreed instrument for self-monitoring by the participating member governments.

"The primary purpose of the APRM is to foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration through sharing of experiences and reinforcement of successful and best practice, including identifying deficiencies and assessing the needs for capacity building.

"Every review exercise carried out under the authority of the Mechanism must be technically competent, credible and free of political manipulation. These stipulations together constitute the core guiding principles of the Mechanism."

In the context of the foregoing, we must understand that the APRM is itself firmly based on the Constitutive Act of the AU, which was formally legislated into force by the African parliaments, including our own.

Among others, the Objectives Section of the Constitutive Act prescribes that the AU and its Member States are legally obliged to:

• promote peace, security, and stability on the continent;
• promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance;
• promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments;
• promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies;
• promote cooperation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African peoples;
• advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, in particular in science and technology; and,
• work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent.

The "codes and standards contained in the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance" to which the Base Document refers, relate to four areas which each country review must assess. These are:

• democracy and political governance;
• economic governance and management;
• corporate governance; and,
• socio-economic development.

The details spelling out what the African Peer Review process should investigate and assess in each of these areas is contained in another document adopted by the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Committee, entitled "Objectives, Standards, Criteria and Indicators for the African Peer Review Mechanism".

Yet another document that is central to the Peer Review process is the detailed Questionnaire that the APRM distributes to all countries that submit themselves to the review process. But as Dr Chris Stals, member of the Panel of Eminent Persons of the APRM, said at the Consultative Conference, countries are allowed to adapt the Questionnaire to take into account their national situation.

In this context, and with regard to the detailed benchmarks and guidelines it has provided for all participating countries, the APRM says, "this framework is enabling rather than prescriptive, specifying objectives and standards, providing indicative definitions of criteria and examples of indicators to ensure broad coherence in the country level work and uniformity at continental level."

When she spoke to the opening of the consultative conference, the representative of the South African ECOSOCC chapter, Laura Kganyago, said that all documents relating to the Peer Review process had to be made accessible to the people. She said these documents had to be simplified, as well as translated into all the official languages and Braille.

All these are correct demands, given that it is critically important that the Peer Review process should include as many of our people as possible. This also means that we will have to take all necessary measures to popularise and explain the Peer Review process as much as possible, so that the masses of our people and their authentic organisations engage this process enthusiastically and in a meaningful manner.

The objectives we have set ourselves as a country are very much in keeping with those our continent has adopted, as represented by the AU Constitutive Act, NEPAD and the APRM. Among other things, and consistent with the fundamental outlook of our movement, this emphasises our commitment to the vision that the peoples of Africa share a common destiny and must therefore continue to act in partnership and solidarity.

The Peer Review process enables each of our countries to assess the progress it is making towards the achievement of the shared goals we have already mentioned. This is a country review rather than merely a review of government performance. This is simply because national development in any country is driven by a variety of social forces, and not just the government.

Consistent with our movement's commitment to a people-driven process of progressive change, we fully support the approach of the APRM to involve the masses of the people in the peer review process.

This is especially important given that the peer review should conclude with a Programme of Action to address whatever shortfalls would have been identified by the review. It is essential that the people themselves should own this Programme of Action as their own and work to implement it, so that they do indeed continue to act as their own liberators, determined to decide their future.

The APRM also gives the countries and peoples of Africa an opportunity further to strengthen the relations of solidarity among themselves. First of all, they open themselves to mutual critical assessment, departing from the previous African practice according to which everything was categorised as "internal affairs", in which no other country was allowed to "interfere".

This departure from past practice makes it possible for our countries to learn from one another, enabling each one of us to adopt the best successful practice that might have emerged in any one of our countries. This will help to speed up development in our countries, responding to the expectations of the African masses for a faster process of progressive change.

In addition to this, the peer review process will create the possibility for us to help one another in practical ways. Once the APRM has identified any shortfalls in the participating countries, it will be possible, through the APR Forum of Heads of State and Government, for each one of these countries to appeal to its peers, the other African countries, for the necessary assistance to address those shortfalls. NEPAD would also intervene to give the necessary support to enable each one of our countries to meet the benchmarks set by the APRM.

There are still some people in our country who think that the African Peer Review system will be ineffective because it is voluntary and does not include sanctions. Clearly, these sceptics have not understood the commitment of the masses of the African people to overcome the problems that have afflicted our continent for a number of decades. They believe that these masses and their leaders should be threatened with punishment to persuade them seriously to engage the challenge of the renaissance of Africa.

We know that the masses of our people need no compulsion to persist in the struggle for the achievement of the goal of a better life for all and the fundamental social transformation of our country. Neither do the masses of the people anywhere else in Africa.

As has already been demonstrated in two of the countries that have been reviewed, Ghana and Rwanda, the people of Africa have responded to the APRM with great enthusiasm, understanding the potentially powerful impact the African Peer Review system can make in helping to change their lives for the better.

In a paper published in January 2003, Fabrizio Pagani, Legal Adviser of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), said:

"Best practice is a fashionable term in policymaking these days. Governments and agencies will say they do all they can to ensure their policies are not only in the best interests of their electorates, but that they follow the best tried and tested experience available. But how can we be sure that governments really make such best choices?

"One tried and tested instrument is the peer review. It is the assessment of the policies and performances of a country by other countries. The goal is to help participants to improve their policies and comply with established standards and principles. It is often through this process that best practices are identified.

"Peer reviews show that international organisations can indeed be creative, for it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the OECD "invented" the modern peer review process. Since it began in the 1960s, it has been adopted by other organisations such as the EU [European Union], IMF [International Monetary Fund] and WTO [World Trade Organisation]. Now it is in the process of being adapted to the needs of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

"Compared with some arguably harder edged private-sector country studies, there is a distinct prospect that (peer review) conclusions, however negotiated, will be acted upon. From an international perspective, this 'soft law' quality of peer review can prove more effective in encouraging compliance with recommendations than any traditional enforcement mechanism like a court or other judicial body.

"But a peer review can function properly only if there is a commitment to act by the participating countries - and that means not only supplying enough money to carry it out, but also being fully engaged at every stage in the process.

"Far from being excessively procedural and impotent, as some critics have argued, peer review can create a catalyst for policy enhancement and far-reaching change."

We too must ensure that the people and all the organisations, institutions and sectors that were represented at the consultative conference that launched our APR process on 28-29 September, remain fully engaged at every stage of the peer review process.

Through this engagement, in which our movement structures must involve themselves, we must ensure that our peer review process serves as a catalyst for policy enhancement and progressive change.

Human Settlement

Housing the poor requires innovative thinking, design and planning

Three critical areas of housing policy currently form part of a national dialogue in South Africa. These concern the ways and means in which to address a housing backlog that is being impacted upon by the process of urbanisation and population growth; how to increase access to finance; and how to roll out an effective consumer education strategy. Being a middle income country with high levels of income inequality that are affected by high rates of unemployment these are matters that naturally are in the public domain for debate and the formulation of solutions. In other words, these are matters that are at the centre of the immense housing challenge presently confronting the country.

Having devised policies in these areas since 1994, which policies were enhanced through the adoption of a new strategy in September 2005 - namely, the Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable Human Settlements - government is now seeking partnerships domestically, continentally and internationally to help us address the challenges.

Last week, for example, we concluded a social contract with 46 of our country's large and influential institutions and companies, including trade unions and community organisations and civil society, to help us achieve the vision of eradicating all informal settlements by 2014. The contract provides for all of us a vehicle through which to collectively determine the challenges and solutions.

Apart from the 46 institutions that have signed the document we expect more institutions to indicate their readiness to sign. At national, provincial and local level, government has, as part of the contract, committed itself to removing obstacles that stand in the way of the rapid delivery of housing for the poor.

This moment in the history of our country is particularly exciting. For perhaps for the first time since we began the transition very clear signs are being given by all South Africans, black and white, rich and poor, that the burden to sustain and increase the political stability we have achieved collectively in the last ten years fully rests on all of us.

As South Africa, this is undoubtedly the best practice we would like to share with the world. It has given confidence that we all share equally the solutions to our housing challenge. At the same time, we hope to benefit more from international experiences.

When we, as African Ministers dealing with housing and urban development, met in February to form the African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development we had been pinning our hopes on increased international and continental interactions and partnerships to help confront the prevailing housing challenge in Africa as a whole. A few weeks after the formation of this structure, the Commission for Africa (established by British Prime Minister Tony Blair) favourably looked at some of the proposals that we had given as African Ministers to solve the housing challenge within the continent. These related to increased financial resources and aid, including matters related to debt cancellation within the context of partnerships.

South Africa, as chair of the African Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development, was given the opportunity to advance these positions to various international forums, including the 20th Session of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-HABITAT) and the 13th Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. The recently concluded workshop in New York that was convened by India, Brazil and ourselves on mobilising resources for human settlements in middle-income countries had these same intentions of mobilising partnerships and creating possibilities for effective cooperation within the international community in helping us better the lives of all our people.

The achievement of the creation of sustainable human settlements through innovative designs that make for rapid implementation is our priority. These, however, must not sacrifice quality, for indeed it is this aspect that is key in the factors responsible for failures to achieve decent and secure human settlements.

The seriousness of this problem is indicated in research conducted in May 2003 on the reactions, attitudes, concerns and preferences of beneficiaries of subsidy housing. This revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of housing as we began the process of developing a new housing strategy for the next ten years.

According to the research report: "Numerous anecdotes signify shoddy and weak construction. This was raised as a major issue in 25 out of the 28 focus group discussions. Many respondents feel their structures will not last into the future. Key complaints pertain to flimsy roofs, cracks in walls, weak doors, as well as the generally 'unfinished' nature of the house - such as unplastered walls and no floors. The issue of weak and leaking roofs was highlighted in almost every settlement. People mentioned roofs being blown off by wind, leaking roofs, roofs being fastened inadequately, holes in roofs and poor quality sheeting. 'Thin walls' or walls through which damp and water seeps present problems of cold and weakening walls in many areas. In addition, foundations that do not withstand water seepage are frequent complaints. The anecdotes surrounding cracks in walls suggest that there are often extremely large cracks, causing wind to blow into houses."

"Doors coming off their frames or frames separating from the walls are mentioned in several settlements as are perceived poor quality doors that expand in wet weather. In some cases identical door locks are used throughout a settlement with the result that beneficiaries have identical sets of keys and can access each other's houses."

The report concludes: "There are a number of issues that can be grouped under the broad heading of 'dignity'. Firstly there is clear indignation where people have the perception that they have been fobbed off with poor quality products just because they are poor."

As government we are committed to enhancing the standard of living of our people by providing them with decent and secure living spaces. Thus, through our national regulator of norms and standards we have worked to improve on the specifications and the quality of housing we need. We believe this would also help us achieve one of the cornerstones of our policy of creating real assets in the hands of the people.

A further priority for us is to achieve integrated communities. One of the ways in which we would want to achieve integrated communities is to optimally utilise available resources and infrastructure and, where these do not exist, establish new ones. As the three key pilot projects we have implemented this year for the new strategy - the N2 Gateway, Cosmo City and Brickfields Housing Development - demonstrate we aim to achieve this through innovative planning and design that will densify our residential areas to ensure we are catering for the diverse housing needs that exist. We are contemplating higher density development interventions in partnership with the private sector and communities. Social or rental housing has been prioritised as well as programmes that will create opportunities for individual households to own higher density units that will enhance income-generating opportunities.

We recognise housing as a basic human right. Hence, against the background of redressing past practices we need innovative thinking, innovative design and planning, taking into account the diversity of needs. Also important are the needs of the disabled members of our communities and pensioners.

We continue to look to international experiences and achievements to enhance the current policy direction. Of critical importance in this regard would be policy proposals emerging from the experiences of countries, some of whom are found in East Asia and Europe, that fundamentally underwent reconstruction and needed to provide solutions for rapid housing delivery as a result. We would like to see how in these experiences massive resources were mobilised, and how technology was put to effective use to stem a housing backlog and prevent new slum formations by governments in collaboration with the private sector and the rest of society and how best practices were developed in the areas of planning and designing, including architecture and financing.

** Lindiwe Sisulu is an ANC National Executive Committee member and Minister of Housing. This is an edited version of a speech prepared for the opening of the IAHS World Congress on Housing, 27 September 2005.

Return to Index