The sad demise of the needy and vulnerable (code content with a hint of genocide)

By now we've probably all read through the codes. If you're like me then you might concentrate on some codes whilst cursorily reading the others. I'm not much of a fan of ownership so I've not really read through that code, although I do find it extremely humorous that three pages have been devoted to black VCs and private equity companies and nothing new is devoted to the broad-based element, which is what Rob was driving in the beginning of this process. I got stuck with the ridiculousness of the skills development and ED codes and didn't read the SED code properly. It was therefore with much shock that someone pointed out to me that the socio-economic development code is limited to "facilitating income generating activities". This is a change from the current definition that states that a contribution must be with the aim of "facilitating sustainable access to the economy".

Five years ago we would not have worried about this narrow requirement because it's easy to argue that donating to a crèche is providing an opportunity for those children to gain sustainable access to the economy. Verification agencies allocated points under SED and were not too concerned about 75% beneficiary rule either. These days any verification agency undergoing their annual SANAS accreditation process knows that SANAS will give them non-conformances if a SED contribution does not fulfil the 75% beneficiary rule and as a result a disgusting practice has arisen where unscrupulous verification agencies are charging NPOs to conduct a beneficiary audit. (I will say that some don't charge for this service but we do know that EVS does). This brings up two points of concern.

1. SANAS (I don't know about IRBA) has become the de-facto race enforcer. Anecdotal evidence tells us that unskilled SANAS agents (whatever they call them) will make pronouncements on business and empowerment issues that are not supported by the codes, Udge's Bible (the verification manual) or any of the other official supporting documentation. In fact it seems that these people behave in a decidedly arbitrary fashion in the allocation of non-conformances. It's this lack of uniformity that strikes fear in verification agencies who do their best to follow the established norms only to be greeted with a subjective and unsubstantiated non-conformance pronouncement.
2. Genocide

Genocide you say. I'll explain.

Genocide defn ( gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]; noun - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group)

Anyone in the NPO, NGO, charitable etc. sector will tell you that government funding for the most vulnerable has all but dried up and that that is available is erratic and prone to corruption and theft. The Lottery is no better – it too appears to be sitting on mountains of cash that it won't distribute because of some ideological reason or other. When I questioned a very senior ANC person as to why the Department of Social Development was not forthcoming with money to NPOs his response was "are these white NPOs!". Trust me, this is one of the more level-headed ANC people.

The main source of funding comes from either overseas donors or socio-economic development contributions, with the former donating less or setting up local branches that will compete with the local ones for funds. We are now talking about NPOs that assist the MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE in our society. These range from orphans to child-headed homes to AIDS sufferers, rape victims and the plain destitute (and this is just a small number of them). Almost every single one of these charities live from hand to mouth and are happy to provide a meal for their dependents on a day-to-day basis.  Because funding is so erratic they cannot guarantee that they'll be able to support their dependents on a weekly basis let alone channel money into "income generating activities."

Now we return to the SANAS accreditor (to flog this horse a little more). This person will issue non-conformances to verification agencies that award SED points to a company that contributed to anything other than "income generating activities". Logic dictates that any SANAS-accredited agency will not award the points for this because they might be closed down (just like EMEX was). It's long been known that BEE points were a wonderful by-product of a charitable donation. Most of these charities will not be able to attract donations under SED because corporates won't risk the BEE points. And times are tough, a 1% of NPAT contribution is pretty much all a corporate can afford these days. Similarly the 100% black beneficiaries requirement excludes large numbers of white people or anybody who does not fulfil the definition of black. Some charities look after white people who form less than 25% of their beneficiaries and conform to the current definition. Even if they do facilitate "income generating" activities" under the proposed codes they will not be able to provide any BEE points because the 100% black beneficiaries requirement is all or nothing. Do these types of causes then dump their white beneficiaries, to ensure their on-going funding?

Herein lies the potential genocide - to do this let's return to the definition. It could argued that AIDS orphans, rape victims etc. are a national group. White people are certainly a race group. The proposed SED code, if gazetted in its current form, would then be "deliberate and systemic". By ignoring this large group of destitute and vulnerable people (and it is HUGE – in excess of 50% of our population) and proposing such heartless and racist legislation, Rob Davies is advocating a form of genocide. In Rob's defence (and this is the first time that I have ever defended anything Rob has done or said as minister) I have my gravest doubts that this is his intention – it's just an unfortunate potential consequence of being advised by the wrong people.

And let's not forget that the five points that SED offers under the new scorecard won't make a dent in the remaining 35 points you need to get onto the scorecard – and even if you thought you got those points there is the negative marking which will take you in negative points territory. Hardly an incentive to contribute anything under SED really.

This is perhaps the most drastic consequence of a document that lacks logic, business-sense, constitutionality and basic empathy. The proposed codes must be prevented at all costs. Please submit your comments to the DTI and don't be nice either. I know that I will ask for Rob, the BEE Council and the BEE division of the DTI to resign immediately.

Comments can be sent to [email protected] or [email protected]

Comments

[Leila]

Hear, Hear Paul. Fully agree with you on this. The proposed Codes are appalling to say the least.

Besides your comments above, Enterprise and Supplier Development (or Procurement as we know it) now only allows you to score procurement points from suppliers that are Value Adding Suppliers. So if you business is not a VAS, why do BEE anyway.

[Paul Janisch]

Yes but 'tis a strange thing this. Thank you for the comment

[Deidre]

I fully agree with you Paul!