“Towards Strengthening the Role of Parliament in Curbing Corruptionand Promoting Accountability in the SADC Region: Engaging Parliamentarians on how to use Public Finance Management to Execute Measures to Fight Corruption ’’

 INTRODUCTION

A sound, transparent and effective public financial management (PFM) system is a critical component of good governance and democratic accountability. PFM systems include the mechanisms through which public resources are collected, allocated, spent and accounted for, and comprises the whole budget cycle, public procurement, audit practices and revenue collection. Given the large amount of money and discretion involved, the management of public finances is particularly vulnerable to corruption. Corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis. For instance, the increasing link between politics and grand corruption means there is real risk not only to lose billions of dollars, but also the potential to destabilise the political systems through the hijacking of public policy. This calls for streamlined Parliamentary action to enhance accountability in PFM by ensuring that robust public financial management systems are established and that there is effective monitoring for compliance through oversight.

 LEVERAGING THE SADC MODEL LAW ON PFM TO CURB CORRUPTION

Against the background of generally weak PFM frameworks across the SADC region and the attendant challenges including corruption, elicit financial flows and tax evasion, the SADC PF has yet again embarked on a landmark intervention to assist Member States to bridge legislative, policy and implementation gaps by developing the SADC Model Law on Public Financial Management. The Model Law will assist Member States in benchmarking and setting of best practice in PFM.

The PFM Model Law is a new addition to the body of regional and international instruments that offer an array of strategies to mitigate the effects of corruption for SADC Member States and propel the region socioeconomic transformation as espoused in the region’s long-term vision –SADC Vision 2050 and the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).These instruments include the SADC Protocol Against Corruption adopted in August 2001 and entered into force in 2003, the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption adopted in 2003 and entered into force in 2006 and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

THE NEED FOR GREATER PARLIAMENTARY ACTION TO CURBTHE NEED FOR GREATER PARLIAMENTARY ACTION TO CURBCORRUPTION

Parliaments are the fulcrum of upholding the rule of law, constitutionalism Parliaments are the fulcrum of upholding the rule of law, constitutionalism and ensuring democratic accountability. They do this by reviewing, debating and enacting legislation, scrutinising government actions and holding the government accountable. Indeed, Parliaments, as public forums for scrutiny and key institutions for acquiring democratic legitimacy, are critical inbreaking the patterns of social traps and the vicious cycle of corruption. However, when Parliaments are tainted, they tend to be a breeding ground for corruption rather than serving as democratic institutions of accountability that deliver on the aspirations of citizens.

Parliaments are duty-bound to ensure that adequate progressive laws and Parliaments are duty-bound to ensure that adequate progressive laws and policies are put in place to enhance transparency and accountability in the management of public finances. It is important that the laws enacted by Parliament in this regard provide mechanisms and safeguards for effective budget execution, efficient management of collected revenues as well as fair, competitive and transparent public procurement processes. Thus, along side the domestication of the of the PFM Model Law based on national context, Parliaments should strengthen their respective anti-corruption legal frameworks in critical areas of prevention, criminalisation, international cooperation, extradition, and assets recovery.

Another essential aspect in fighting financial related corruption is effective Another essential aspect in fighting financial related corruption is effective law enforcement so that the corrupt are indiscriminately punished and the cycle of impunity is broken. This requires a strong legal framework, efficient law enforcement branches, an independent judiciary and a media and vibrant civil society. Parliaments can use its convening powers to ensure a collaborative approach towards effective law enforcement.

In the keynote address during the SADC PF consultative meeting on the SADC PFM Model In the keynote address during the SADC PF consultative meeting on the SADC PFM Model Law with the Committee of Central Bank Governors of SADC Member States on 22nd March2022, the former Minister of Finance and ex-Central Bank Governor of South Africa, Tito Mboweni, reiterated the symbiotic relationship between strong PFM and anti-corruption legal frameworks: “Corruption eats into all that money that our laws are trying to manage. So, side-by-side with a good PFM law, must be a very strong anti-corruption legislation that will be mutually reinforcing for the citizens of SADC.”

It is also important for Parliament to establish relevant portfolio committees It is also important for Parliament to establish relevant portfolio committees such as the Budget Committee and Public Accounts Committee and for these Committees to be given meaningful opportunity to engage in effective oversight on the budget. Parliament should enhance its internal technical capacity to review the budget and quarterly financial reports from government ministries and agencies, including through the establishment of Parliamentary Budget Offices. Parliaments can utilis resources such as the SADC PF Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures in Southern Africa (2010), which provides minimum standards on the constitutional and legal framework, political imperatives as well as institutional, financial, material and human resources requirements for truly democratic Parliaments, to guide their institutional strengthening initiatives so that they can effectively combat corruption.

STATUTORY MEETING OF THE DGHR STANDING COMMITTEE

SADC PF has, through its Strategic Plan (2019-2023), committed to be the SADC PF has, through its Strategic Plan (2019-2023), committed to be the Flag-Bearer of Democratisation and Socio-Economic Development for Southern Africa and this is achieved through the implementation of various parliamentary initiatives including on curbing corruption. Regarding the combating corruption, the Constitution of SADC PF inter alia, enjoins the Forum “to promote the principles of … economic governance … through collective responsibility within the SADC Region.”3 This is the context in which the forthcoming DGHR Committee meeting will focus on the theme “Towards Strengthening the Role of Parliament in Curbing Corruption and Promoting Accountability in the SADC region: Engaging Parliamentarians on how to use Public Finance Management to Execute Measures to Fight Corruption.’’

The meeting will build on previous and ongoing initiatives on strengthening he role of Parliament in promoting accountability by combating corruption. For instance, currently the Forum is developing Principles and Guidelines for Parliaments in Curbing Corruption in the SADC Region to assist Member Parliaments.

MEETING OBJECTIVES

 The objectives of the statutory meeting are as follows: The objectives of the statutory meeting are as follows:

 i) Strengthen the capacity of Parliamentarians on how they can utilize parliamentary control in PFM to foster democratic accountability, openness and curb corruption;

ii) Deliberate on the linkages between the SADC PFM Model Law and the SADC Protocol Against Corruption as well as other regional and international instruments on combating corruption with a view to identify and pursue opportunities for domestication at national level;

iii) Promote peer learning, experience-sharing and building of consensuson priority areas for parliamentary action to enhance the role Parliament in curbing corruption and promoting accountability in the Parliament in curbing corruption and promoting accountability in the SADC region; and

iv) Adopt specific recommendations to the Plenary Assembly on priority areas for action by Parliaments at national and regional level to strengthen the role of Parliament in curbing corruption and promoting accountability through PFM in the SADC region.

METHODOLOGY

The statutory meeting will be a strategic platform for the DGHR Standing Committee to receive presentations from various subject experts and thereafter extensively deliberate on the theme and make recommendations to the Plenary Assembly. Accordingly, the meeting will receive presentations from the following experts:

i) Mr Jay Kruuse, Director, Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University in South Africa and Member of the Technical Working Group on the PFM Model Law;

ii) Adv. Ishara Bodasing, Managing Director IBodasing Governance Consultants, South Africa;

iii) Mr. Ipyana Musopole, Anti-Corruption Enforcement Officer, SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Affairs, SADC Secretariat; and iv) Mr Titus Gwemende, Team Leader, Africa Regional Office – Open Society Foundation Africa.

VENUE AND DATES

The Meeting will be held physically in South Africa on 1st May 2022 from 09:00 to 17:00, (GMT+2) and simultaneous interpretation will be available in the three official languages of SADC PF, namely English, French and Portuguese. There will be a provision for stakeholders to join proceedings virtually.

PARTICIPANTS

The Session will be attended by Members of the DGHR Standing Committee, RPMLOC Members and Members of the Technical Working Group who will join virtually.

Concept-Note-Engaging-MPs-on-how-to-use-PFM-to-Execute-Measures-to-Fight-Corruption

• Background

The effects of climate change - persistent drought, flooding and pests – compounded by economic challenges, poverty, conflict, gender disparities, and gaps in social accountability, have all contributed to the SADC region’s food security crisis. The Covid-19 pandemic has reduced incomes and disrupted supply chains, further exacerbating poverty in the region. According to the SADC Synthesis Report on the State of Food and Nutrition Security and Vulnerability in the Southern Region, released in July 2021, up to 47.6 million people (approx. 13% of total population) in the SADC region are food insecure. While many Member States experienced a bumper maize harvest in 2021, the above-average rainfall was coupled with a destructive cyclone season. In the ten SADC Member States that submitted data, an estimated 47.6 million people are food insecure, a 5.5% increase from 2020 and 34.3% above the 5-year average.^[1]

Smallholder farmers, who produce most of SADC’s food, have been impacted by the effects of Covid-19, including lower household incomes, limited access to inputs (seeds, fertilisers) and lack of extension services to combat the ongoing threat of pests and diseases. In particular, the pandemic has affected multiple aspects of the lives of women smallholder farmers, who supply about 50% of total agricultural labour in Sub-Saharan Africa, from undermining their food security and eroding their savings, to increasing their unpaid care workload and heightening their risk of gender-based violence.^[2]

In 2003, African Union (AU) member states signed the Maputo Declaration, which committed to increasing agricultural budget allocations to 10%, pursuing agricultural growth of 6%, and to setting up the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).^[3] Soon after, SADC member states signed the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration in 2004, which established priority areas for achieving food security, including short-term approaches such as ensuring access to quality seeds, fertilisers, and agrochemicals.^[4] Additional regional instruments followed, guiding both regional and national actions: Regional Agricultural Policy (RAP) 2013; Regional Agricultural Investment Plan (RAIP) 2017-2022; SADC Food and Nutrition Security Strategy (FNSS) 2015-2025; and SADC Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCSAP) and Strategy, 2015 – 2030.

According to the African Centre for Biodiversity, however, practices that emanate from CAADP which have been implemented by African governments, such as input subsidies through farm input subsidy programmes (FISPs), have not always had the desired effect.^[5] While international, continental and regional (SADC) commitments promote support for smallholder farmers as a key strategy for achieving household food security, agricultural policy making in the region has failed to adequately respond to the needs of smallholder farmers.

Instead, large portions of national budgets are directed towards FISPs by providing subsidies that reduce the price of fertiliser and seed (usually hybrid maize). Aside from providing a partial economic safety net, the subsidies have been found to not directly benefit the poor and most vulnerable, who are mostly women. Instead, the FISPs have led smallholder farmers to direct scarce resources towards hybrid maize production, effectively reducing the diversity of food available.^[6] In a 2021 global report, the FAO acknowledges that current agricultural support “is biased towards measures that are harmful and unsustainable for nature, climate, nutrition and health, while disadvantaging women and other smallholder farmers in the sector.” FAO advocates that by “repurposing agricultural producer support, governments can optimize scarce public resources to support food systems in ways that make them not only more efficient, but also more supportive of healthy lives, nature and climate. This can also be an opportunity to achieve a strong economic recovery in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world.”^[7]

With the effects of climate change causing droughts and flooding throughout the SADC region, the need for long-term measures to reduce the impact of climate shocks and build the capacity of communities and countries to withstand them have become even more urgent. Covid-19 has further highlighted the need to support local, sustainably produced food with shorter value chains to ensure countries are resilient, even in the face of disasters.

• The Potential Role of Agroecology

The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) in the United Nations (UN) Committee on World Food Security (CFS) recently defined agroecology as follows:

“Agroecological approaches favour the use of natural processes, limit the use of purchased inputs, promote closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stress the importance of local knowledge and participatory processes that develop knowledge and practice through experience, as well as more conventional scientific methods, and address social inequalities. Agroecological approaches recognize that agri-food systems are coupled social–ecological systems from food production to consumption and involve science, practice and a social movement, as well as their holistic integration, to address [food and nutritional security].”^[8]

Among the key benefits of agroecology, include:

• Year-round access to healthy, fresh, diverse and culturally-appropriate food for local populations;
• Reduced poverty and a key contribution to the realization of the right to adequate food and nutrition;
• Increased climate resilience and reduced greenhouse gasses (GHG) emission;
• Empowerment of women and reduced workload burden;
• Diversified livelihoods and valued local, tribal and indigenous knowledge and culture;
• Improved health through reduced exposure to harmful agrochemicals;
• More resilient ecosystems, healthier soils and improved water management;
• Lower costs, less debt and greater autonomy;
• Enhanced stewardship of seeds, crops, biodiversity, forests and natural resources.^[9]

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) have highlighted the key role for agroecology in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).^[10] The FAO has recognised it as a “promising option to implement the Paris Agreement,” as it addresses climate change adaptation and mitigation simultaneously.^[11] Recent reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),^[12] the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate (IPCC),^[13] and the HLPE,^[14] all urge support for agroecological systems for smallholder farmers, as opposed to high external input industrial systems, and indicate these can be highly productive, highly sustainable, empower women, create jobs, engage youth, provide greater autonomy, climate resilience, and multiple social, cultural and environmental benefits for women and men in rural and urban communities.

Increasingly, evidence is showing that peasant-based agroecological systems have clear advantages over high external input industrial agriculture. While, historically, there has been a gap between the yields of conventional (high-external-input) agriculture and organic farming, this gap has often been overstated, especially when considering: a) the strong performance of highly developed agroecological farming systems; b) that agroecology produces high yields (especially over time) of a variety of crops, while also generating additional social and environmental benefits. A growing body of research indicates that when appropriately supported and in the right economic conditions, agroecology can outperform conventional systems of agricultural production, especially in dryland areas but also in many other contexts, for example^[15] A recent meta-analysis found that alternative agriculture increased yields in 61% of the studies when compared to conventional agriculture, with 20 percent showing no difference.^[16] Additionally, the diversification practices used in agroecological practices can reduce or eliminate any yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.^[17]

Despite the urgency and clear benefits of adopting agroecological approaches towards the transformation of food systems, the quality and quantity of finance for agricultural research and development, and food security is woefully inadequate. Globally, there is a shortfall in funding for sustainable food systems, and very little of that is allocated to smallholder farmers. Additionally, almost all of that funding is allocated to encouraging farmers to adopt detrimental forms of high-energy, high-input industrial agriculture. Agroecological approaches are clearly marginalised in existing funding streams, and when they are supported it is often done in unhelpful and even damaging ways.^[18]

In its policy brief Agroecology: Scaling Up, Scaling Out,^[19] ActionAid identifies key barriers that need to be challenged and seven key steps required to achieve agroecology at scale: ideological barriers, international trade and export orientation, marginalisation of women, monopoly seed laws, lack of agricultural research and development on agroecology and concentration of power amongst agribusiness trans-national coroporations (TNCs).

3.0    What SADC PF and National Parliaments can do

National parliaments play an important oversight role in informing and interrogating the use of national budgetary allocations and foreign contributions towards agricultural development and climate change adaptation.

Already between 2018 and 2021, SADC PF FANR Standing Committee members have considered and acted on issues related to the impact of climate change on agriculture and food security. Among the actions were:

• Successfully proposing a motion at the SADC PF Plenary Assembly in December 2018 urging SADC Member States to accelerate the implementation of the Malabo Declaration, with a focus on improving social accountability in agricultural services for smallholder farmers.
• Passing resolutions in 2020 and 2021 calling on governments and donors to strengthen resilience to buffer ever-increasing climatic shocks, and to challenge the current intensive industrial model of agriculture being supported across the region.

Outside SADC, the Caribbean to the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (PARLATINO) is in the process of developing a Model Law on Agroecology, informed by newly developed FAO guidelines on the development of legal frameworks to promote agroecology in the Latin American and Caribbean region.^[20]

• Objectives of the FANR/TIFI Standing Committee Joint Meeting

The FANR/TIFI Standing Committee meeting will specifically seek to achieve the following objectives:

• Review evidence on the potential of agroecological approaches to ensure sustainable and productive agricultural development in the southern African region.
• Assess the level of national and regional investment in SADC on agroecological approaches, and potential opportunities to increase this investment.
• Reflect on national parliament and SADC PF interventions that could contribute towards expanding investment in agroecology in the SADC region.

• Participants and resource persons

The session will draw upon the expertise of resource people from ActionAid, Eastern and Southern Africa Small-Scale Farmers’ Forum, the UN Food and FAO, and the Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA). A panel of experienced resource persons will make presentations, followed by an interactive session focusing on possible policy interventions that could be made by SADC PF and national parliaments.

Download

Concept Note for FANR and TIFI Meeting

^[1] SADC Synthesis report on the state of food and nutrition security and vulnerability in Southern Africa: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Synthesis-Report-2021_English.pdf

^[2] FAO SOFA Team & Cheryl Doss, (2011). The Role of Women in Agriculture’ ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, FAO. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/265584/; FAO, (2011), 2010-2011 The State of Food and Agriculture. Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2010-11/en/; ActionAid, (2020), Covid-19 Food Crisis: Monitoring research. https://actionaid.org/publications/2020/covid-19-food-crisis-monitoring-research

^[3] For the Maputo Declaration, see: https://bit.ly/2PQ4EhX

^[4] For Dar-es-Salaam Declaration, see: https://bit.ly/2EzVRPc

^[5] African Centre for Biodiversity (2016). Farm Input Subsidy Programmes (FISPs): A Benefit for, or the Betrayal of, SADC’s Small-Scale Farmers? https://www.acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Input-Subsidies-Report-ACBio.pdf

^[6] African Centre for Biodiversity (2016). Ibid; PSA Alliance (2019) PSA Policy Brief on Social Accountability

of FISPs in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. http://www.copsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SAfAIDS_PSA_PolicyBrief_FISPs_FINAL.pdf

^[7] FAO, UNDP and UNEP (2021), =;l https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en

^[8] HLPE (2019), Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf

^[9] ActionAid International (2018), Agroecology: Scaling up, scaling out. https://actionaid.org/publications/2018/agroecology-scaling-scaling-out.

^[10] IFAD (December 2019), How agroecology can respond to a changing climate and benefit farmers. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/story/asset/41485825 ; FAO (2018), FAO’s work on agroecology: a pathway to the SDGs. http://www.fao.org/3/I9021EN/i9021en.pdf.

^[11] FAO (2018). Ibid.

^[12] IPBES (2019), Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329.

^[13] IPCC (2019), IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/Fullreport-1.pdf.

^[14] HLPE (2019).

^[15] ActionAid (2021 – to be published), Shifting Funding to Agroecology for People, Climate and Nature. Written by Colin Anderson and Janneke Bruil;  Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., Hine, R.E. (2003), Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95, 217-234. 10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00087-7; Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc Biol Sci 282, 20141396. 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

^[16] Alonso-Fradejas, A., Forero, L.F., Ortega-Espès, D., Drago, M.n., Chandrasekaran, K. (2020), Junk Agroecology. TNI, Friends of the Earth International, Crovevia. https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/38_foei_junk_agroecology_full_report_eng_lr_0.pdf

^[17] Ponisio (2015).

^[18] CIDSE (2021) Policy Briefing – Making Money Move for Agroecology: Transforming Development Aid to Support Agroecology. https://www.cidse.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EN-Making-money-move-for-agroecology.pdf

^[19] ActionAid (2018).

^[20] FAO (2021), Legislation to promote agroecology in the Latin American and Caribbean region. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1438599/