Category: Latest News

Do you want to know what the civil society has been learning about Covid19, join the conversations as per the information below.

Notification on the 40th SADC Summit 17th August 2020 and 40th Ordinary SADC Summit Programme

Dear Distinguished Ambassadors and ICPs,

As a follow-up to the Note Verbale regard the 40^th Ordinary Summit of SADC Heads of State and Governments which will be held virtually on Monday 17^th of August, 2020, with the Republic of Mozambique as the host, we would like to notify you that the live broadcast of the official opening and closing ceremony which will be broadcast live by Televisão de Moçambique (TVM), from 10.am to 11.10am CAT and from 12.30 to 13.30pm respectively will also be streamed live on the YouTube Channel of Televisão de Moçambique TVM https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfRoEW08udEmsPSIt_YDK_w

and Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mocambique.tvm

Arrangements have been made with DSTV to open the Televisão de Moçambique (TVM), Channel 701 on DSTV in all SADC Members States, and on all free to air satellites.

Channel 701 is currently not accessible on DSTV packages in some english speaking countries but we have been informed that this will be open up from 16 – 18 August 2020.

Interested in knowing more about what the frontline leaders are doing during covid19 to hold the government accountable, follow the link below to join the webinar.

Written by Prisca Kowa from Policy Forum on the 23rd of July 2020. The original article can be accessed here

To reach those who are furthest behind in society, it is important to institute a system of just and fair social economic development. This is key especially during these tough times of the COVID-19 pandemic where global health and economic systems have been significantly disrupted. Through the years that I have been working with communities, I have observed how important it is to have groups of people who are empowered and have a voice and the capacity of being active players in raising concerns that affects their wellbeing. In this regard therefore, while pursuing a ‘leaving no one behind’ agenda it is paramount to ensure that community members who are most vulnerable are empowered.

The year 2020 marks a decade of action towards attaining the 17 global goals for Sustainable Development. World leaders have been called to deliver the SDGs by 2030 and to announce actions they are taking to advance the agenda. The implementation of SDGs commenced in January 2016 with a view of accelerating global actions to end poverty, create prosperity and protect the planet. As opposed to MDGs, SDGs are shaped with a unique character of being holistic and universality, bringing onboard people, prosperity, planet, peace and partnerships. The United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres asserted that “The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals are our collective response to building a fair globalization”. This implies that, the national, regional and global collective actions must be well coordinated to ensure SDGs are attained and the promise of having a fair globalization where no one is left behind is achieved by 2030.

Thus, as the pledge to “leaving no one behind” connotes the commitment made by the world leaders, it is an undoubted that people who are the most marginalized cannot be passive and must be empowered and engaged in the monitoring, review and implementation of SDGs so that the realisation of these global goals reach first those who are furthest behind. To advance this, citizen engagement approaches must then be employed, one of the approaches that has been widely used by different development practitioners is Social Accountability.

Social Accountability (SA) encourages citizens to proactively demand for accountability on the use of public resources. It emphasizes the inclusion and participation of citizen particularly those who are marginalized, those who are more vulnerable with social stress and high chances of missing the benefits of services provided by the government. The World Bank (2004) defines Social accountability as actions initiated by citizen groups to hold public officials, politicians, and public service providers to account for their conduct and performance in terms of delivering services, improving people’s welfare and protecting people’s rights.

The common tools used to deploy social accountability include public expenditure tracking, participatory policymaking and budgeting, citizen monitoring and evaluation of services that promote transparency and accountability in budgeting and service delivery. For a successful social accountability intervention, there must be an enabling environment guided by four pillars elucidated in detail below. In light of those pillars the nexus between the social accountability and aspiration of SDGs to leaving no one behind will be established.

The first pillar of social accountability demands having organized and capable citizens groups and a government that is engaging. It is a truism that unorganized citizens can neither exercise their rights nor be able to participate in governance processes including holding duty bearers to account on the use of public resources allocated for service delivery or to ensure progressive and constructive relationships.

Thus, communities must know what SDGs are and what they aim to achieve and hence contribute to it. For example, at the very grass root level, citizens can participate through attending village meetings and it is through such platforms they would know what the government aspires to achieve locally, nationally and globally. However, if the existing structures limit this, it would be difficult for the voices of vulnerable communities to be heard.

The opposite is also true. In my experience through conducting social accountability interventions in Tanzania, I have witnessed that in areas where people were not part of the planning process, delays in development projects and sometimes reluctance by communities to support development projects is commonly experienced. This is no different when it comes to SDGs, communities must be empowered so that they clearly understand what they will offer and hence contributing to their realisation and by doing so the aspiration of inclusiveness will be attained.

The second pillar is responsive government, this is vital to enable social accountability and so is to the implementation of SDGs. Given that the government is the primary actor responsible to deliver SDGs by 2030, it ought to be responsive and ensure that it creates democratic spaces for its people and avail information related to the implementation of the SDGs of which citizen will use to monitor its realisation.

Last year I got the opportunity to participate in the CSO taskforce which was responsible for the country SDGs implementation report writeup (Voluntary National Review report). One of the major gaps observed included the understanding of the SDGs by the communities and mostly the vulnerable groups. This posed challenges into measuring the extent to which the implementation of the SDGs in the country has achieved towards elevating the marginalized groups. Considering that 2030 is just ten years away, it is vital that the information related to SDGs is trickled down to the very grassroot communities so that they own the goals and hence take an active role towards contributing in their review, monitoring and implementation.

The third pillar encourages access to information, the importance of accessing reliable and credible information to exert social accountability cannot be overstated. Governments are obliged to avail information which would enable citizens and other civic actors to constructively engage in the course of participating in the development agenda including SDGs. In light of the experience shared above, CSO actors encountered a challenge of getting latest, credible and reliable information during the process of developing the report on VNR for SDGs, such information would gauge the status of SDGs implementation in the country, as a result we were required to rely on outdated information. Although this was not the case in all goals, goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institution) posed a huge challenge regarding information on implementation progress — this challenge was as well acknowledged by the government in their SDGs VNR report.

The fourth pillar acknowledges the role of culture and context within which SA is practiced. Social accountability requires cultural relevance, it must be understood and framed according to the unique values, language, and practice of the people within which the initiative is taking place. This is the best way through which the practices of social accountability can be initiated, mainstreamed, accepted and sustained in each context. Given that Tanzania is a Swahili speaking nation, deliberate actions must be taken by the government to translate the SDGs to be popularized and to fit our context. This will not only increase understanding of the goals by the communities but also enhances the participation and ownership.

To wrap up on the pillars and the nexus between social accountability and SDGs, it is important to note that, the four pillars of Social Accountability are interrelated, thus, for the social accountability ecosystem and as one of the approaches to empowering marginalized communities, each pillar prerequisite conditions must be observed to consent a systemic operation of the social accountability.

In line with this, Civil Society Organizations which have traditionally been working to empower communities must couple the efforts by the government. Their interventions, therefore, must demonstrate community empowerment to ensure attaining of milestones at the local level where most marginalized communities reside.

Community empowerment, therefore, should be more than the involvement, participation or engagement of communities. It should demonstrate community ownership and action that explicitly aims at social and political change. It should denote the ability of re-negotiating power in order to gain more control, and thus if some people are going to be empowered, then others will be sharing their existing power and giving some of it up (Baum, 2008). It is imperative to note that in empowering communities, power shift must be concentrated into complementing marginalized capacities to be able to organize themselves so as to take more control in making important decisions that affect their lives. This will include deciding on how resources can be distributed and allocated to serve their interest which in turn will uplift their welfare.

Once communities feel empowered, they will be able to organize into capable groups which will be at the forefront of demanding for accountability, this will include the ability to gather information relating to SDGs and use such information to directly engage with duty bearers and demand that the programmes or projects implemented serves community interests in order to leave no one behind. For instance, SDG 3 on good health and wellbeing — encourages communities to be in a position of linking what targets are set and how budgets have been allocated and distributed to ensure the realization of the same.

I therefore conclude by insisting that achievement of inclusive and people centered development, a kind of development that considers those who are furthest behind, communities must be empowered. As highlighted above, application of community empowerment tools must deliberately continue to be employed by all actors in the development ecosystem. This would not only bring about fairness in the development but also reducing inequality gap. Thus, I call upon all actors involved in the monitoring, review and implementation of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development to accelerate efforts through putting in place a well-coordinated mechanism while ensuring creation of community spaces for marginalized to engage is maintained so that no one is left behind.

Originally written by Esteri Msindo on the 07th July 2020

When the Department of Human Settlements deliver a house to its beneficiary, the beneficiary signs a letter called ‘a happy letter’ as he/she gets allocated a house. However, when the house is sub-standard, a few years down the line the joy of owning a state house fades away leaving the poor unhappy. This is the case with the people of IYM ward 3 residents where a programme to fix houses with defects (rectification) started in 2013 to rectify 1350 houses and the target was reduced to 900 due to financial challenges on the main contractor according to the ANC Chief Whip for Inxuba Yethemba Municipality.

On 23 July 2019, the community representatives of ward 3 in Inxuba Yethemba Municipality (IYM) handed over a petition to their local municipality, addressed to the MEC for Human Settlements, Ms Nonkqubela Pieters and the Cacadu District Municipality officials of Human Settlements. Key issues emerged from their list of demands, combating corruption, improving service delivery and job creation. The community alleged that the Department of Human Settlements has failed to deliver quality housing and by doing so fail to create a better living environment for the people. The community demanded close monitoring of the rectification project in order to deal with any corruption on appointing contractors and supply chain. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) must be present during the construction. IYM claims in response, that NHBRC has been involved in the process, which begs the question of why the structures being built are of poor standard.

They called for the Department to practice people centered development that involves the community, which the community feels the Department has failed to do through the rectification programme. They demanded the use of local contractors for the project and an end to giving contracts to undocumented immigrants, in accordance with the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). The EPWP programme seeks to empower local communities and community members were concerned that the project does not benefit the IYM community as contracts are given to outsiders in an area of high unemployment. In response to the issue, IYM identified the main contractor as Veren Builders, who was contracted by the Department, who appointed sub-contractors Takela and Qakazile and the two sub-contractors subsequently appointed local contractors for labour only due to the fact that local contractors had no financial capacity and some were not NHBRC registered.[1]  Although sub-contracting is permissible, the implications of further sub-contracting mean at each level the contractor ensures that they remain profitable and that mean the money directed to construction can eventually be limited and therefore compromise the quality of the house. This can partly explain the continued construction of sub-standard houses.

Among other things, the community demanded speed delivery on title deeds to state houses beneficiaries and for the Department to provide houses to the 4000 people who are still in need of shelter and at least for the MEC to come and engage with those on the waiting list for state houses. The community’s list of demand also included the investigation and dismissal of any officials that are implicated in corruption in the rectification project.

The rectification programme was introduced by the Department of Human Settlements to fix state houses with defects. Initially rectification was targeted at pre-1994 housing stock, but due to continuous construction of poor-quality houses post-1994, the programme extends beyond 1994 housing stock nationally and is currently on going in the Eastern Cape Province.  The Human Settlements Minister, Lindiwe Sisulu pronounced an end to rectification programme in 2015. However, the Eastern Cape Province has continued rectification as per need. The community in IYM alleges corruption in the appointment of contractors, irregularities in supply chain and a general failure on the part of government to be transparent, accountable and to monitor the ongoing rectification project. The rectification project, said to be undertaken by Takela Construction[2] has reportedly been constructing sub-standard houses. Details for the rectification project in question, cost and timeline could not be accessed from the municipality by the PSAM. The community demanded that the MEC visit their community within seven days of receiving the petition.

Seven months after their petition – members of the community indicated that their demands had not been addressed. Instead, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer for the Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlements visited the community on a fact-finding mission and the community leader alleged that he warned them not to work with an NGO, “that is fighting the government”. In August 2019, the community leader approached the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM) to assist in the matter and to visit the place. The striking feature of shoddy work in construction of houses is evident on the ground, not only those constructed in the 1990s but those newly constructed to replace the 1990s are poor quality houses too as the pictures below show.

Figure 1: House with defects constructed in 1996 in IYM, Cradock

The project to fix houses with defects in ward 3, IYM is undertaken on old structures built in the late 1990s. In some cases where the house is totally broken down beyond repair, the programme allows the rebuilding of a complete structure to replace the old one. On some structures, one could see inside the house through holes on the walls. The worse problem in IYM is that the houses that are supposed to replace the old sub-standard structures are also not to a good standard. One could literally touch the walls and plastering begins to peel off (see Figure 2  below).

Figure 2: Newly constructed substandard house in IYM. A community member touching the walls and the plastering falls off.

To make matters worse, some sites of construction have been abandoned for a long time left with foundations only with no hope for completion any time soon (see picture below). The residents in ward 3 are greatly frustrated by what they think is the collusion of ward councilors, the government and other political representatives in acts of corruption, poor administration and abuse of public funds. The community fears that if these issues are not addressed as soon as possible they will result in violent protests that may cause destruction or bloodshed.

Figure 3: Foundation, which IYM residents claim are abandoned

When the Department constructs poor standard houses to replace those with defects, that amounts to wasteful expenditure on public resources as poor structures will require rectification again in the future. The houses are handed over to the beneficiaries; however, the quality of houses makes the beneficiaries unhappy instead of celebrating house ownership for the very first time in their lives. Without addressing the root problem(s) that causes construction of poor quality houses, the Department of Human Settlements is creating a moving target on rectification that will not be possible to clear, as communities will in future call upon government to rectify the same houses.

The community strongly feel that their housing rights have not been met even after receiving the house as the condition of those houses are not of a good quality. The community expressed concerns about how the houses are not suitable for people with disabilities making them vulnerable to injury. Below is an example of such a structure. The current occupant is a community member who is faced with challenges in terms of using his house. The defects on the house pose a risk to the occupant with special housing needs.

Figure 4: A house owned by the disabled beneficiary in IYM

The observations by the PSAM confirms the plight of the people in ward 3.  Their housing rights could be realised if the Department address their concerns because they receive the happy letter but they are not happy at all. The government must investigate the allegations of corruption and mismanagement and address them if confirmed. In addition, the government must adhere for calls to closely monitor the process of building and ensure the houses being built are to the standard expected by the NHBRC. This will ensure the people of IYM have access to adequate shelter.

Esteri Msindo

Human Settlements Researcher: The Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM)

School of Journalism and Media Studies

T: +27 (0) 46 603 8827

16B Prince Alfred Street, Grahamstown, 6139 PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa www.psam.org.za Twitter: @PSAM_AFRICA

[1] IYM Response to the petition of ward 3, 19 August 2019.

[2] The name of the construction company was provided by the leader of the community and was also mentioned in the response to the petition by Inxuba Yethemba Local Municipality.

OSISA aims to assist those organisations in Southern Africa responding to COVID-19. For more information, you can visit their site.

Below are the themes that are supported by this grant:

1. Promoting information democracy in Southern Africa;
2. Building resilient social services systems that deliver equitable and sustainable universal access to health, education and water;
3. Charting pathways to new economic realities in a new world (Dis)Order;
4. Curbing corruption while promoting transparency and accountability;
5. Responding to diminishing human rights protections due to increased securitisation, authoritarianism and constitutional reversals; and
6. Protecting women’s rights: a gender lens to the COVID-19 response.