Estrutura organizacional do Secretariado da SADC_Botswana

                                                                                                                                                                                 FINAL SENT 9/12/2016

RECORD OF THE MEETING OF SENIOR OFFICIALS, HUMAN RESOURCES AND ORGAN EXPERTS FROM MEMBER STATES ON REVIEW OF SADC SECRETARIAT ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

HELD AT PHAKALANE GOLF RESORT, GABORONE, BOTSWANA, 

1-3 DECEMBER 2016

(DRAFT)

1.            INTRODUCTION

1.1         As mandated by Council at its meeting held at Lozitha, Kingdom of Swaziland in August 2016 and in line with Article 14, Section 5 of the SADC Treaty, Senior Officials including Human Resources Experts and Senior Officials from the Ministerial Committee of the Organ met to consider the gap analysis report on SADC Secretariat organisational structure review by Ernst & Young.

1.2         The meeting took place at Phakalane Golf Resort in Gaborone, Botswana from 01-03 December 2016. The meeting was chaired by Ms Khethiwe N. C Mhlanga of the Kingdom of Swaziland and was attended by representatives of the following Member States: Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kingdom of Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, Kingdom of Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Annex1).

2.            BACKGROUND

2.1      Senior Officials recalled that Council, at its meeting held in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, in August 2014 directed the Secretariat to engage an Independent Consultancy Firm to review the Organisational Structure of the Secretariat to align it to the Revised Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP)  2015-2020.

2.2      Senior Officials also recalled that Summit, at its meeting held in Harare, Zimbabwe in April 2015, endorsed the Ministerial Task Force recommendation that an appropriate institutional framework to support the implementation of the SADC Industrialisation Strategy and Roadmap should be developed and aligned to the Revised RISDP 2015-2020, within a comprehensive and consolidated organisational structure.

2.3      Senior Officials further recalled that Council, at its meeting held in Gaborone, Botswana in August 2015, approved the Terms of Reference towards the review of the SADC Secretariat organisational structure and institutional infrastructure. Ernst & Young was engaged to undertake the review.

2.4      Ernst & Young submitted the inception Report to the Secretariat in March 2016, which was discussed with the Secretariat and later submitted to Member States Experts for input at their meeting, in Gaborone, in April 2016.

2.5      The [..] Draft Report was presented by Ernst & Young and considered by Senior Officials and HR Experts from Member States at their meeting, in Matsapha, Swaziland from 20 -21 August 2016.

3.    AUGUST 2016 COUNCIL DECISION

3.1      Senior Officials and HR Experts recalled that Council, at its meeting held at Lozitha, Kingdom of Swaziland in August 2016 noted that:

(i)            In the light of Member States still needing to interrogate the Consultant’s report, a Progress Report be submitted to Council in August 2016 for noting;

(ii)          Member States to provide feedback on the Consultant’s Report to the Secretariat by 15^th October 2016;

(iii)         The Secretariat to analyse and forward consolidated comments from the Member States by 30^th October 2016;

(iv)         Senior Officials, Human Resources Experts from Member States together with Senior Officials from MCO to meet by mid November 2016;

(v)          The proposed structure for the Organ Directorate should be referred to the MCO by January 2017 prior to submission to Council in March 2017;

(vi)         Financial implications based on the revised Report from the Senior Officials and HR Experts to be submitted to the Finance Sub-Committee in November/ December 2016;

(vii)        The revised structure to be presented to Council for consideration and approval in February/ March 2017; and

(viii)      Submit the revised structure to Summit during the Industrialisation and Economic Integration Summit meeting in March 2017; and

3.2 Senior Officials and HR Experts further recalled that Council, at its meeting held at Lozitha, Kingdom of Swaziland in August 2016 made the following Decision:

(i)            noted the progress report;

(ii)          approved the roadmap as proposed by the Member States Experts;

(iii)         directed the Secretariat to submit the Consultant’s Report to all Member States by 30^th August 2016;

(iv)         urged Member States to submit comments on the Draft Report to the Secretariat by 15^th October 2016;

(v)          directed the Secretariat to:

(a)          consolidate comments and update the report;

(b)          convene a meeting of Senior Officials including Human Resources Experts and Senior Officials from the Ministerial Committee of the Organ in mid-November 2016; to finalise the review report; and

(c)          submit the Final Report to Council for consideration at its next meeting in February/March 2017.

4.0       OBSERVATIONS FROM GAP ANALYSIS REPORT

[..]

4.1 Senior Officials considered the Comments from Member States and Consultants Response on the Gap Analysis Report (Annex 2) and made the following comments.

4.1.1 General Comments

Considering that the proposed Structure has additional positions which will result in increased costs by US$4 million annually according to Ernst & Young, Senior Officials made the following comments on the Gap Analysis and response to Member States Comments on the Report (Annex 3):

i)             Structure review should remain within current budget and human resources be rationalized as was directed by Council.

ii)            Structure to be filled by core SADC Secretariat employees. Seconded and Projects staff should be considered for specific assignments, under special circumstances.

iii)           Performance and productivity related challenges as identified in the report be addressed through strategies and mechanisms geared towards improving performance, and the use of modern technology (such as paperless meeting, tele and video conferencing). 

iv)           More effort should be placed on improving planning, monitoring, skills and competencies, and as such enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

4.1.2 Specific Comments

Senior Officials examined the Gap Analysis Report by the Consultants and agreed on the following:

	AREA	RECOMMENDATIONS
1	Executive Secretary’s Office	·         Maintain one Executive Assistant as provided in the current structure ·         Deputy Executive Secretaries and Directors to provide vital support to the Office of the Executive Secretary (ES)
2	Legal Unit	·         Stand-alone Unit reporting to the ES
3	ORGAN	·         Maintain the current name of the Directorate. ·         Include position of Deputy Commandant for Regional Peace-keeping Training Centre (RPTC). Inclusion of this position is based on RPTC’s specific requirements as discussed and agreed by the MCO in its August 2016 meeting. (Decision 26), and is not to be taken as a precedent for other SADC institutions.
4	Internal Audit	·         Combine Internal Audit and Risk Management functions into a Directorate ·         Create the position of Director Internal Audit and Risk Management. (Decision 31, of Council March 2015, Gaborone Botswana).
5	Deputy Executive Secretary – Regional Integration (DES – RI)	Maintain the Job title as DES –RI
6	Food Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR)	·         Maintain the name of the Directorate as FANR  ·         Tourism to move from I&S to FANR.
7	Infrastructure & Services (I&S)	·         Directorate to be renamed Infrastructure ·         Tourism to move from I&S to FANR ·         Meteorology to remain under Infrastructure
8	Policy Planning and Resource Mobilisation (PPRM)	·         Maintain the name of the Directorate ·         Restructure PPRM by separating Monitoring and Evaluation from Planning and Resource Mobilization; and include a Project Management Support Unit. ·         Man the Directorate with multi-discipline experts
9	Trade Industry Finance and Investment (TIFI)	·         TIFI will be replaced by two Directorates; i)              Directorate for Industrial Development and Trade with prominence on Industrialisation in line with the SADC Industrialisation Policy Framework. (Decision 26 of Council August 2013 Lilongwe, Malawi) ii)            Directorate of Finance and Investment to focus on         Finance, Investment and Customs. ·         The position of Science Technology and Innovation should move to the Directorate of Industrial Development
10	Social Human Development and Special Programmes (SHD&SP)	·         Directorate to be renamed Gender, Social and Human Development (GSHD) ·         Gender to be moved to GSHD as a Unit ·         Creation of a Programme Officer position on Gender based violence ·         The position of Science Technology and Innovation should be moved to the Directorate of Industrial Development.
11	Deputy Executive Secretary – Finance and Administration (DES-FA)	·         The title be changed to DES-Corporate Services.
12	Public Relations Unit	·         Maintain the current reporting line to the ES ·         The unit be renamed Communications and Public Relations Unit
13	Human Resources and Administration	·         Maintain Human Resources and Admin Directorate as in the current structure ·         Improve effectiveness and efficiency through the use of modern technology such as paperless meetings, tele and video conferences.
14	Budget & Finance	·         Rename to Directorate of Finance, and ·         Include unit to provide grants/projects oversight.
15	ICT Support	·         Maintain as stand-alone Unit reporting to DES-Corporate Services
16	Procurement	·         Maintain as a stand-alone unit reporting to DES-Corporate Services

           

5.0  Way forward

   Senior Officials directed the Secretariat to:

a)    Revise and cost the Structure based on guidance provided in section 4 above by February 2017;

b)    Submit the financial implications to Finance Sub-Committee in [..] February/ March 2017; and

c)    Submit the revised Structure with its budgetary implications to the Council of Ministers in March 2017.

6.0  Any other Business (AOB)

There was no any other business.

Annex 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

              

COUNTRY	NAME	DESIGNATION/ ORGANISATION	EMAIL ADDRESS	TELEPHONE NO	FAX NO
ANGOLA	Dra Beatriz Morais	SADC National Contact National Director Point from Ministry of Planning and Territorial Development Rua Conego Manuel Das Neves, Predio 40234, 9th Floor, Andar, Luanda	bmorais-@hotmail.com	+244 928302247	+244 222431260/61
	Flavia Chimossanda Isaac Lutucuta	Angolan Embassy in Botswana P/Bag 111 BR, Gaborone	Ftulucuta22@hotmail.fr	+267 75018519 +267 3900204	+267 3975089; +267 3181876
BOTSWANA	Mr Kelapile Ndobano	Deputy Secretary, Macroeconomic Policy Ministry of Finance & Economic Development P/Bag 008, Gaborone	kndobano@gov.bw	+267 3950391	+267 3959846
	Ms Kelejwang Moichubedi	Director, International Economic Policy Coordination Ministry of Finance & Economic Development P/Bag 008, Gaborone	kmoichubedi@gov.bw	+267 3950187	+267 3959846
	Ms Lesego Mathoma	Economist I Ministry of Finance & Economic Development  P/Bag 008, Gaborone	ldinale@gov.bw	+267 3633693	+267 3959846
	Ms Maipelo Ragalase	Senior Assistant Director Directorate of Public Service Management MOPAGPA P/Bag 0011, Gaborone	mragalase@gov.bw	+267 3622673	+267 3918395
	Mrs. Tiny Mothibedi	Senior Manager, Corporate Services Ministry of Infrastructure & Housing Development P/Bag 007, Gaborone	tkontle@gov.bw	+267 3958534	+267 3913303
	Mr Osenotse Seeketso	Assistant Director Ministry of International Affairs & Cooperation	oseeketso@gov.bw	+267 3600700
DRC	Ms. Jacky Masebe Nzomini	Directeur des Etudes et Organisation INSS C/O INSS, 95 Boulevard du 30 Juin, BP 8933, Kinshasa I, RDC	jackynzo@yahoo.fr	+243 999911551
LESOTHO	Mrs Mookho Moeketsi	Director Regional Integration Ministry of Finance, P O Box 395, Maseru	directorriles@gmail.com	+266 22321015
	Mr. Theko Alphoncy Mohau	Director HR Ministry of Finance P O Box 395, Maseru	thekoam@yahoo.com	+266 63114100 +266 57184328
	Motjoka Daughty Ramonono	Director of Political Affairs and Africa Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Relations P O Box 1387, Maseru	ramononomd@gmail.com	+266 63128789 +266 58858789	+266 22310378
MOZAMBIQUE	Domingos Fernandes	HE High Commission of Mozambique in Botswana Phuti Crescent, Plot 2638, Gaborone, Botswana	fernandesd190@gmail.com	+267 76084530	+267 3191262
	Alfredo Fabião Nuvunga	Director Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Av. 10 de Novembro 620, Maputo	nuvunga2305@gmail.com	+258 824238165
	Fernando Chorma	Minister Counsellor Mozambique High Commission in Botswana Phuti Crescent P/Bag 00215, Gaborone	fernando_chomar@yahoo.com	+267 74513255
	Sergio M Baloi	Deputy Director – HR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Av. 10 De Novembro 620, Maputo	smgbaloi@gmail.com	+258 21327020/1
SOUTH AFRICA	Mdu Lembede	High Commissioner DIRCO 29 Queen Road, Gaborone	lembedem@dirco.gov.za	+267 3904800	+267 3905501
	Lydia Maredi	Economist National Treasury 240 Madiba Str, Pretoria	Lydia.Maredi@treasury.gov.za	+27 123956635	+27 123155108
SWAZILAND	Ms Sibongile Margaret Mdluli	Programme Officer NCP Ministry of Economic Development and Planning P O Box 602, Mbabane	mdluli.sbs@gmail.com	+268 24042601	+268 24042669
	Ms Khethiwe N C Mhlanga	Director Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Trade P O Box 451, Mbabane H100	mhlangak@gov.sz	+268 24043201/2	+268 24044711
	Ms Cebile Amanda Nhlabatsi	Principal Human Resources Officer Staffing & Compliment Control Ministry of Public Service P O Box 170, Mbabane	cebile.nhlabatsi@gmail.com nhlabatsic@gov.sz	+268 24049743 +268 76062718
TANZANIA	Mr Msafiri Marwa	Assistant Director President’s Office – Public Service Management	marwajr@gmail.com	+255 784752223
	Ms Sakina Bakari Mwinyimkwu	Assistant Director President’s Office – Public Service Management Utumishi House, 8th Kivukoni Road, 11404 Dar Es Salaam	claratone@gmail.com	+255 756075252
ZAMBIA	Patricia M Munyoro	Director Organization Design & Systems Cabinet Office P O Box 30208, Lusaka	patriciamunyoro@yahoo.co.uk	+260 968402582
	Mrs Emelia Sharon Lungu Bwalya	Management Analyst Cabinet Office – Management Development Division P O Box 30208, Lusaka	emelia.bwalya@gmail.com	+260 211259026
	Ng’andwe A Kapaya	First Secretary Zambia High Commission P O Box 362, Gaborone  Botswana	kapaya@gmail.com	+267 3951951
ZIMBABWE	Mrs Petronellar Nyangura	Acting Director Human Resources Ministry of Foreign Affairs Munhumutapa Building Harare	pnyagura@zimfa.gov.zw	+263 4794681 +263 712324374
	Mr Kingstone Ziyera	Acting Deputy Director – Regional Cooperation Box 4240, Harare	kingstonziyera@yahoo.com	+263 4794681-5 +263 774104497
	Mr Tapiwa Roy Rupende	Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Munhumutapa Building, 2nd St & St Machel Ave, Harare	trupende@zimfa.gov.zw sadczim@zimfa.gov.zw	+263 4792797 +263 772858376
INTERPRETERS	Ms Rodah Nthapelelang	French Interpreter Gaborone	rodahsn@yahoo.fr
	Mr Moemedi Nthapelelang	French Interpreter Box AD60ACJ Gaborone	nthaps@yahoo.com	+267 71848623	+267 3166566
	Ms Julia dos Santos	Portuguese Interpreter P O Box 1957, Northwood 2155, South Africa	juliados8@gmail.com	+27 833260176	+27 865099380
	Ms Maria Fernanda Lopes Teixeira	Portuguese Interpreter 7 Wingate Street Dawnview	nandi@nilb.co.za	+27 734300825
SADC SECRETARIAT	Dr S L Tax	Executive Secretary		+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Dr T Mhlongo	DES-RI		+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Ms E Mushobekwa	DES-FA		+2673951863	+267 3972823
	Jorge C Cardoso	Director – Organ	jcardoso@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Tracy Zinanga	Ag Director – PPRM	tzinanga@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Lomthandazo Mavimbela	Ag Director – SHD	lmavimbela@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Bentry P Chaura	Ag Director – FANR	bchaura@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Sadwick Mtonakutha	Ag Director – TIFI	smtonakutha@sadc.int	+267 3951863 +267 71737881	+267 3972823
	Hendrix Tonde	Ag Director – HR	htonde@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Alex Banda	ES-A	abanda@sadc.int	+267 3951863 +267 72939726	+267 3972823
	Dr Edson Chikati	Senior Finance Officer	echikati@sadc.int	+267 3641639	+267 3972823
	Moses Ntlamele	SPO – Energy I&S Directorate	mntlamele@sadc.int	+267 3641951	+267 3972823
	Patson Kuntambila	Finance Officer (Disbursements)	pkuntambila@sadc.int	+267 3641762	+267 3972823
	Mukundi Mutasa	PO – Research, Info and Documentation	mmutasa@sadc.int	+267 3641675	+267 3972823
	Gift Mike Gwaza	Acting Head – Procurement	ggwaza@sadc.int	+267 3641842	+267 3972823
	Robin Unuth	Senior Officer – ICT	runuth@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Mojakisane Mathaha	Programme Officer – ICP Coordination PPRM Directorate	mmathaha@sadc.int	+267 3641706	+267 3972848
	Jocelyne Lukundula	Acting Head – Public Relation Officer	Jocelyne Lukundula@sadic.int	+2674641863	+267 3972823
	Molefi Kelefang	Human Resources Officer – Payroll & Staff Benefits	mkelefang@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823
	Tebogo Mogotsi	HR Officer – Projects	tmogotsi@sadc.int	+267 3951863	+267 3972823

Annex 2

               SUMMARY OF MEMBER STATES COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

               FROM CONSULTANTS 2^nd Report

1.1                         Senior officials noted that Member States provided their written comments on the report and that Consultants prepared a summarised gap analysis including detailed comments made by each Member State and prepared their final recommendations as follows:

(i)             Progress Report (PR): The report does not clearly articulate the weaknesses of the current structure, therefore, the rationale of the new structure is not understandable;

EY Comments: 

Challenges and weaknesses are well documented in the final report Volume 1, Chapter 4&5, pages 26 to 45 Challenges and weaknesses are well documented in the final report Volume 1, Chapter 4&5, pages 26 to 45

(ii)            PR: Council mandated the Secretariat to rationalise the structure to effectively deliver on the Revised RISDP and the industrialisation strategy whilst remaining within the approved budget ceilings;

EY Comments: 

This is noted and the Consultants will rationalise further focussing on immediate priorities

(iii)          The proposed structure included positions which were previously rejected by Council in March 2014 such as Officer ‘Politics and Diplomacy’ and Officer ‘Socio Economic’ under the Office of the Executive Secretary.  There is no need for additional posts in the office of the Executive Secretary as the Executive Secretary can effectively be served by the technical directorates;

EY Comments: 

The consultant has done the restructuring taking into account various council decisions. The consultants were however also commissioned to provide an independent opinion on the gaps in the structure that need to be addressed with appropriate structures and measures. Also, the Council in March 2014 decided that as an interim arrangement the office of the ES be capacitated using available resources, and the additional positions be considered in the restructure review.  It is to be noted that the 2 DES and their technical departments are thoroughly engaged in their respective operational tasks, and are not always easily and readily accessible to play a prominent role in advising the ES. The Consultants are of opinion that at least one Technical Advisor supported by a Senior Assistant is required to support the ES in her day-to-day affairs.  Also appropriate platforms/bridges have to be established so that meaningful information are fed to the ES office.

(iv)          The position of “Private Sector/Non State Actor Liaison Officer” under the Office of the Executive Secretary is not essential;

EY Comments: 

This is noted, position will be dropped

(v)            There is a need to realign the restructuring process with the ongoing recruitment as mandated by Council;

EY Comments: 

The consultant has done the restructuring taking into account various council decisions. The consultants were however also commissioned to provide an independent opinion on the gaps in the structure that need to be addressed with appropriate structures and measures.  Current ongoing recruitment efforts have been launched more than 6 months back and in certain instances well before the current restructuring exercise started.  There is a possibility that the some of these recruitments are not aligned with the consultant’s recommendations.  This is discussed with management of SS

(vi)          The proposed structure for the Organ Directorate should be referred to the Organ prior to submission to Council;

EY Comments: 

Noted and agreed

(vii)         The Gender function should not be subsumed in a Directorate but to be given prominence as a standalone Unit;

EY Comments: 

In order to give more prominence in a pragmatic approach, the consultants have strengthened and capacitated this unit with proposal for 2 additional resources namely; (i) programme officer gender and (ii) programme officer gender based violence which is to be financed by projects.  There is more synergy to have this unit in the Directorate social and human development.

(viii)        The non-structural issues such as organisational culture and systems need to be taken into consideration when determining the staffing levels;

EY Comments: 

Regarding “systems” these have been highlighted in our recommendations regarding proposed institutional infrastructure change, in the final report, Volume 1, Chapter 9, pages 79 to 87.

Regarding “organisation culture” this is not part of the consultants TOR, but agreed that the Secretariat should address it.

(ix)          The current Directorates of HR and Admin, Budget and Finance and Policy Planning and Resource Mobilisation must remain unchanged;

EY Comments:

Changes are required in line with the gaps that were identified. Please refer to gap analysis and EY comments to MS comments on each directorate mentioned

(x)            Regional/National linkages should be strengthened to amongst others ensure the visibility of SADC Programmes at the national level;

EY Comments: 

Noted and agreed

(xi)          The SADC Secretariat could take advantage of the advent of the principle of subsidiarity and additionality in order to ease its work in the field, thereby relieving itself of some of the cost burdens and allowing separation of functions;

EY Comments: 

Noted and agreed

(xii)         The Finance Sub-Committee be tasked to determine the financial implications of the proposed structure;

EY Comments: 

Noted

(xiii)        The current Directorate title of FANR should be retained;

EY Comments: 

Noted. Directorate title has been retained

(xiv)        The TOR’s of the Consultant must be attached to the Report of the Consultant;

EY Comments: 

Noted

(xv)         Member States could consider changing the Job Title of the Executive Secretary in order to reflect the mandate of the office and be in line with current trends in similar organisations; and

EY Comments: 

The Executive Secretary is provided for in the treaty

(xvi)        HR is a strategic function in the Organisation and has to be capacitated appropriately.

EY Comments: 

Noted and Agreed

Annex 3

SADC Secretariat Organisation Structure Review

GAP ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO MEMBER STATES COMMENT ON THE REPORT

Abbreviation

ZA	South Africa
SZ	Swaziland
SOM	Senior Official Meeting of Member States in Swaziland (held on 21st and 22nd August)
ZW	Zimbabwe
BW	Botswana
ZM	Zambia
AO	Angola
SC	Seychelles
LS	Lesotho
MU	Mauritius

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Office/ Unit	Gaps observed in current structure	Main Changes Proposed	Comments from Member States	Consultant Comments
1.      ES Office	The ES is involved in several administrative tasks which do not allow it to fulfil its strategic roles.  Administrative work encroaches over strategic work. The ES office does not have adequate resources and with the right skills mix to effectively fulfil its role.	►    The ES Office has been capacitated to handle strategic matters. It is being structured with the necessary resources and skills mix to assist the head of the Secretariat to be more responsive to Member States on economic, political, and diplomatic matters. ►    The mix of resources can collectively keep the ES abreast of multi-dimensional regional matters, and support the ES in delivering comprehensive and pro-active engagement via-a-vis decision makers at Member State level. ►    3 new positions have therefore been proposed namely: -       Officer Politics and Diplomacy -       Officer Socio Economic -       Private/NSA Liaison Officer	1.1    The proposed structure includes the restructuring of the Office of the Executive Secretary with the creation of positions covering “Politics and Diplomacy” and “Socio-Economic”. These positions were not approved by the March 2014 Council of Ministers 1.2    The restructuring should ensure that the Executive Secretary, Deputy Executive Secretaries and Member States are served by technical departments. 1.3    Proposed decision of the Private/Non State Actor (NSA) Officer is not essential. The work of the SADC National Committees, NCPs and National Planning Entities will facilitate engagement with Non-State Actors. 1.4    It is a fact that the ES Office is crowded with operational work. Decongesting the ES Office can be resolved by transferring the public relations function to Deputy Director General Administration and macro-economic convergence and gender functions to the Deputy Director General Regional Convergence. 1.5   The 3 new Officer positions proposed in the ES Office (Politics & Diplomacy, Socio Economic, Private/Non State Actors are likely to duplicate functions currently being undertaken by Officers in the Directorates. The Private/NSA Liaison Officer position is not necessary at the present given that consultations with NSAs are done at the MS level through the SADC National Committees. 1.6    AUC Senior Liaison Officer be supported by one locally recruited Officer, plus driver, instead of the proposed Admin & Finance Officer and Programme Officer. 1.7    The Office of the Executive Secretary should be efficient and permanently engage the Member States, but we think there is no justification to have a Liaison Office at the African Union Commission, considering that these matters are handled by the Director of the Organ. 1.8    We do not agree that the Office of the Executive Secretary should have Political, Diplomacy and Social and Economic Experts/Senior Officers taking into account that technical advisory in these areas should be provided by the functional Directorates or Units, in order to avoid duplication of functions, disputes in the performance of duties and increased financial burden resulting from their remuneration. (AO)	1.1    The consultant has done the restructuring taking into account various council decisions. The consultants were however also commissioned to provide an independent opinion on the gaps in the structure that need to be addressed with appropriate structures and measures. Also, the Council in March 2014 decided that as an interim arrangement the office of the ES be capacitated using available resources, and the additional positions be considered in the restructure review.   1.2    This is a correct statement in so far as operational matters are concerned. However our analyses, discussions and consultations have clearly revealed that this arrangement is not working as intended in practice. The 2 DES and their technical departments are thoroughly engaged in their respective operational tasks, and are not easily accessible to play a prominent role in advising the ES at all times. The Consultants are of opinion that at least one Technical Advisor  supported by a Senior Assistant is required to support the ES in her day-to-day affairs.  Also appropriate platforms/bridges have to be established so that meaningful information are fed to the ES office. 1.3    The proposal to include 1 officer looking after Private/Non State Actors (NSA) was made following consultations between SADC Secretariat and XYZ trust fund. Having considered these views of both parties, and the fact that the SNCs are not appropriately engaging with segments of stakeholders[CR1] , the consultant have proposed this position.  However in light of other priorities and the limited resources available, the consultant is considering to drop this position. 1.4   We are assuming the 2 positions which are referred in the comments are those of DES RI and DES FA. The functions referred to in this comment are already transferred to the following directorates: ►    Public relations to DES Corporate affairs ►    Gender function to Social and Human development directorate ►    Macro-economic surveillance to TIFI directorate 1.5    See comments under 1.1 and 1.2 above. 1.6    Agreed. We further suggest that the Programme Officer currently assigned to the AUC Liaison Office may be redeployed to another part of the structure subject to reviewing his/her profile. 1.7  The AU Liaison Officer has an expanded mandate to act as a liaison for both socio economic integration, and political, and thus cannot report to organ. The AULO would also require at least two officers to assist the expanded regional-continental agenda. 1.8 Refer to our comment under point 1.1 and 1.2 Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views ►    We are suggesting only 1 Technical Advisor supported by a Senior Assistant for the ES instead of 2. The position for non-state actors will be reconsidered subject to further discussion at High Official meeting. ►    AUC liaison will have only 1 locally supported staff in addition to the Senior Officer. ►    No need for a liaison officer to be responsible for NSA
2. Legal Services	The legal services unit under the DES-FA is not able to do a thorough monitoring of the implementation of treaties and protocols and to provide legal advice to the Secretariat and  Member States, which is due to the following main reasons: Diversion of the legal unit resources from their core function to concentration of their time in dealing with many recurrent legal matters of an operational and contractual nature covering aspects of procurement, projects, financial agreements, employees, court cases; Lack of adequate resources in the unit.	In line with our redesign principle to establish a clear delineation between strategic, operational and administrative function, we propose a two-tier legal function as follows: ►    All legal matters related to treaties and protocol to be handled by a dedicated counsel under the ES Office; ►    All corporate/operational/contractual/project based legal matters to be dealt by the legal services unit under the DES Corporate Affairs (as is the case today). However, management has opted that all legal matters should be centralised under one unit under the direct report of the ES.	2.1    All legal service functions should move to the office of the Executive Secretary. 2.2    Recommended that the legal functions be consolidated into one unit under Deputy Executive Secretary – Corporate Affairs (DES- CA), to ensure that the ES is not burdened with transactional legal matters. 2.3    We do not agree with the proposal of the study, whereby Legal Affairs are to be handled on two level.	Our preferred option refers to a two tier legal function. However the preference of MS is for a consolidated Office.. In our professional opinion, this should therefore be housed under the DES FA, as per option 2 proposed in the report  There is also the possibility to centralise under ES in which case the head of legal has to be empowered to deal will all legal operational.  This entails that the scope of responsibility of the latter has to be defined.  Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views Matter to o be discussed and finalised in the High Official Meeting.
3.Organ	Organ was not fully aligned with the defined SIPO objectives.	We have rationalise the existing structure in line with the strategic pillars of the SIPO and proposed individual units namely; the political, defence, state security, public security and police sector.	3.1    The proposed structure for the Organ should be referred to the Ministerial Committee of the Organ (MCO) on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation prior to submission to Council in March 2017. 3.2    The position of Deputy Commandant at RPTC as per MCO decision should be included. 3.3    The proposed structure for organ Directorate should be referred to the Organ prior to submission to Council.	3.1    Agreed. 3.2    Our professional advice is not to add intermediary level as it will create a precedent for all other units in the Secretariat.  Member States should also appreciate that the organ is already the biggest Directorate, and there have already been comments on budgetary constraint of the SS, and proposing this additional position is contradictory to this statement.  As proposed under 3.1, we believe this should be referred to the MCO. 3.3    Agreed. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
4. Internal Audit Unit	The Secretariat has over successive count been challenged on the way it is managing its risk. Focus has been more on internal audit, whilst the risk management element has not been given its due consideration. Furthermore the Secretariat does not have a framework to identify, assess, evaluate and report on corporate risk. The ability of the Secretariat to deliver on the RISDP will be largely depend on its ability to identify and address risks facing the secretariat.	►    Elevation of the unit to Directorate level to reflect the importance of managing risks for the Secretariat to achieve its objectives, and subsequently elevate the post of Head of Internal Audit to Director Risk Management Coordination and Internal Audit, in line with Council Decision March 2015. ►    The Director will oversee both the risk management and internal audit functions. ►    We have therefore proposed to elevate of Head of Internal Audit to Director; and 1 new position of Senior Officer Risk Management Coordinator proposed	4.1    Consultants have proposed the creation of the position of Director, Risk Management Coordination and Internal Audit in the office of the Executive Secretary. This is contrary to Decision 24 of the Council reached at the meeting that was held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 6 to 7 March 2015 which provides amongst others for the creation of a position of Risk Management Coordinator at Senior Officer level in the Office of the Executive Secretary. 4.2    There is no justification for the establishment of a Risk Management and Internal Audit in the Office of the Executive Secretary.	4.1   Consultants have made this recommendation on the review of the organisation as a whole, paying particular attention to risk management practices and the maturity level of officers towards risk management concepts.  Also there are lasting benefits to synergise the risk management function with the internal audit function.  This is detailed in the report.  Therefore we recommend that Member State appraise Council on the merits of our proposal. 4.2    Risk Management and Internal Audit does not form part of the ES Office, but rather administratively reports to the ES. Also refer to our response under point 4.1. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
5.DES RI	The Secretariat operates as Silo Organisation, with fragmented system of separate Directorates and units, due to lack of adequate oversight from the DES RI on the planning element.	►    The Strategic Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (SPME) be created under the DES RI to directly assist the DES in providing the necessary leadership on planning, budgeting, resource mobilisation and M&E.	5.1    The name of the DES – RI, remains as is, instead of the DES Programming and Monitoring. This would have implications to amend the Treaty.	5.1    This has already been changed. We will check the report again to confirm if the change is reflected anyywhere in the report. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
6.FANR	All functions related to sustainable development were not regrouped together under the same Directorate to achieve stronger linkages and synergies. Resource constraints to deliver on the revised RISDP.	►    The main redesign principle is to regroup all areas of focus in the revised RISDP that cover a broader range of sustainable development issues. Hence the creation of a multidisciplinary Directorate with a conservation and resource management focus and essentially responsible for the effective and sustainable management and conservation of the natural resource systems. ►    Meteorology and Trans Frontier Tourism which were previously under Infrastructure & Support transferred to this Directorate. ►    The Climate services Centre is a Centre of Excellence in the area of Meteorological Early Warning and we are proposing that it be converted into an autonomous centre of excellence. ►    The SADC Regional Gene Bank (SPGRC) to become an independent centre outside the structure of the Secretariat. ►    The Directorate further capacitated with 8 new positions to be funded by projects/MS.	6.1    Given the RISDP priorities, it is not necessary to create new structures or replace those structures currently functioning optimally. In this regard, the current FANR Directorate should be retained. 6.2    SADC is an agricultural region and food security remains a top priority for all SADC member states. It is therefore important that the priority we give to Agriculture and Food Security continues to be reflected prominently in the organisations Directorate. We are therefore not in agreement with the proposal to change the nomenclature of this Directorate. 6.3    To retain the current name of the FANR rather than changing it to Directorate Resource Conservation and Management. 6.4    The current Directorate title of FANR should be retained.	Our analysis has clearly demonstrated that none of the structures of the SS are functioning optimally. The nomenclature of FANR can be retained with the inclusion of 2 units namely trans frontier tourism and meteorology and climate change.  Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views Nomenclature to revert back to FANR – Food, Agriculture and Natural resource.
7.Infrastructure	Related functions were not regrouped together under homogenous groups to achieve stronger linkages and synergies. Resource constraint to deliver on the revised RISDP, whereby Infrastructure is a critical area of focus.	►    The current structure of this Directorate remains more or less the same, except that 2 units namely (i) trans frontier tourism, and (ii) meteorology have been transferred to the newly created Directorate of resource conservation and management. ►    Directorate further capacitated with 7 new positions, 4 on establishment and 3 to be funded by project/MS	7.1 The Directorate of I&S should be retained as is because the name indicates that there are two aspects to the functional areas, the built infrastructures in relation to hotels and other facilities, supermarkets, meteorological equipment and installations as well as the service such as car hire, travel agents, early warning systems, tourist and meteorology information.  Thus it is fitting that the functions related to the two be coordinated in one directorate. 7.2 Regarding the Infrastructure Directorate, we agree that it remains with its components (water, energy, transport and ICTs). However, we believe that being cross-cutting, the Tourism Sector may remain under this Directorate. On the other hand, Meteorology and Climate Change may be part of the newly proposed Directorate for "Resource Conservation and Management".	7.1    The comments do not relate to current functional areas of the I&S Directorate. 7.2 In the appreciation of the facts presented to us, we do not see the operational links between the tourism sector and I&S.  It is also our observation that tourism in Africa has always been linked with resource conservation. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
8.PPRM	The Secretariat operates as Silo Organisation, with fragmented system of separate Directorates and units. Each unit/Directorate operates quasi-independently from each other when it conceptualises, develops and sets up its plan, even when there are cross cutting issues. Tracking of progress and the process of evaluating the achievements of RISDP implementation have been weak in the Secretariat due to an inadequate M&E Systems & Framework.	►    Renaming of the PPRM to Strategic Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Directorate (SPME) Directorate under the DES RI to directly assist the DES in providing necessary leadership on planning, budgeting, resource mobilisation and M&E.  ►    Senior Officer Planning, Programming, Monitoring & Reporting has been split into 2 functions namely; (i) Planning & Programming and (ii) Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting ►    New function proposed for project management support. ►    The Directorate which is core to the steering the secretariat towards achieving the RISDP through improved synergies among Directorates, has been further capacitated with 4 additional positions to be equally funded by the Secretariat and Seconded/MS.	8.1    Strategic Planning and the Monitoring and Evaluation functions should be separated as these are two distinct core functions that have to be given prominence in the structure. 8.2       Unfreeze two posts from the Department of Policy, Planning and Resources mobilisation to strengthen Strategic and Scenario Planning in the Executive Directors’ Office. 8.3       There is need to create a Project Unit in the SADC Secretariat to oversee the programmes and projects the Secretariat is responsible for. 8.4       There is need to strengthen monitoring and evaluation with the Directorate by having assigning structures within the Directorate to perform this important function. 8.5       We agree with some of the major changes contained in the proposals of the consultants' study, in particular on strengthening the current Planning, Programming and Resource Mobilization Directorate, in so far as such a structure constitutes the backbone of the Secretariat and that its weak operation has affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization in these matters.	8.1    The two functions are distinct but they are operationally linked, which is why they are separate units within the same directorate. 8.2    Consultants need more clarification on the comment made. 8.3    This is exactly the role of the project management support unit proposed in the report. 8.4    The monitoring to be done by Directorates are the responsibilities of their respective Programme Officers. The coordination for the whole Secretariat will be done by the M&E unit. 8.5 Noted. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
9.TIFI	Industry and trade being under the same Directorate ‘’TIFI’’, though having a strong synergy, if industry is bundled together with an already established portfolio like trade, there is a risk that trade will take over and industry will not be given the emphasis that is required. Furthermore it is important to give industry its prominence in line with the revised RISDP.	Industrial Development Directorate ►    Remove industry from trade and create a full-fledged Directorate. The rationale is to give industry its prominence in line with the revised RISDP. ►    The following units have migrated from other programme Directorates to the new industrial development Directorate -            Agriculture from FANR -            Industry from TIFI -            Science, Technology & Innovation from SHD&SP. ►    Proposition for 4 new positions on establishment and 9 new positions to be project/MS funded, to further capacitate the Directorate.	9.1    We do not support the split of the TIFI Directorate. Instead, similar or related functions could have been regrouped and Directorates compressed. 9.2    We support the proposal of the consultant for the creation of the Directorate of Industrial Development. However considering the importance Summit attributes to Industrialisation, we wonder what the logic is for having the Directorate staffed in the majority by project funded/seconded staffs instead of permanent staffs. 9.3    Given that the creation of a new Industrial Development Directorate, there is need to rationalise posts in TIFI with the view to reducing costs. 9.4    Trade and customs should be combined together and moved to the Industrialisation Directorate.  Trade was central to the Industrialisation debate in SADC and it can be argued that they both move in tandem.	9.1    This comment is contradictory with comments received from Member States both in meeting of high officials held in August 2016 and written comments received. 9.2 In the context of Member States concern to contain costs, we are mindful to increase permanent positions. Based on our discussion with officers of the SS and other stakeholders, we find it appropriate to adopt an incremental approach.  Member State can review the need for additional permanent positions in light of progress made in the Directorate. 9.3    There are only 2 officers dealing with industries in the TIFI Directorate, and they have been moved to the new Industrial Development Directorate. 9.4    Point noted. To be discussed further in high official meeting. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed until further discussion.
10.Gender ,Social and Human Development and Special Programmes SHD & SP	Related functions were not regrouped together under homogenous groups to achieve stronger linkages and synergies. Gender was previously under the ES office. Resource constraint to deliver on the revised RISDP, whereby Infrastructure is an area of focus.	►    The main redesign principle is to regroup all intervention areas that are critical to enhance human capabilities, address human poverty at its roots and reduce vulnerabilities of the SADC citizens. ►    SHD and SP has been renamed to Gender, Social and Human Development Directorate. ►    Science, Technology and Innovation has been moved to the Industrial Development Directorate. ►    Employment and Youth has been merged to form a single unit dealing with youth empowerment, employment and entrepreneurial development. ►    Directorate further capacitated with 5 new positions which will be project funded/seconded from MS.	10.1       The Gender function should be given the necessary prominence and should not be subdued into another Directorate but be a stand -alone unit. 10.2       The Gender function should not be subsumed in a Directorate but to be given prominence as a stand-alone unit. 10.3       We agree, considering the need to group issues under all social areas in one structure. 10.4       We support the proposed structure of this Directorate as recommended.	10.1 & 10.2 Gender is still a stand-alone unit. However, it has been shifted under the Director social and human development. In order to give more prominence in a pragmatic approach, the consultants have strengthened and capacitated this unit with proposal for 2 additional resources namely; (i) programme officer gender and (ii) programme officer gender based violence which is to be financed by projects. 10.3 & 10.4. Noted. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
11.DES Corporate Affairs	Current naming as DES Finance & Administration does not portrait the all the support services currently under its responsibility.	►    To regroup all support functions of the Secretariat under a single Corporate Affairs cluster, headed by the DES CA. ►    Renaming of the DES Finance & Administration to DES Corporate Affairs in order to reflect the true nature of all support functions falling under its responsibility and not only F&A.	11.1     The new name proposed for the Deputy Executive Secretary - Corporate Affairs, seems to us to be acceptable for this position will oversee and manage all matters related to human resources management, administration, finance and conferences, thus eliminating the position of Deputy Executive Secretary for Administration and Finance.	Agreed. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
12.Communication/PR	The ES is involved in several administrative tasks which do not allow it to fulfil its strategic roles.  Administrative work encroaches over strategic work.	Communication/PR transferred from under the supervision of the ES to DES CA	12.1       Communications/Public Relations Office should remain within the office of the Executive Secretary as this is a corporate function that needs vetting by the highest office.	12.1 It has already been clearly explained in the report that the ES should not be burdened further in administration matters. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
13.Human Resources, Conferences & Administration	►    HR, conferencing and administration were all housed under the same Directorate resulting in resource diversion. Operational work takes precedence over strategic work, resulting in the HR and Administration Director being unable to give enough time to Strategic human capacity building.	►    The HR and Administration Directorate split to form two separate Directorates: HR Directorate focusing on strategic people management and the Conferencing and Administration Directorate focusing more effectively on programme support and office administration ►    The HR Directorate further capacitated with 4 additional positions on establishment to handle strategic HR management and development functions in a more effective manner. ►    Conferencing Directorate further capacitated with 6 additional positions on establishment.	13.1           We do not support the split of the HRA Directorate.  Instead, similar or related 13.2           functions could have been regrouped and Directorates compressed. 13.3            The current Directorate of HR and Admin must remain unchanged. 13.4            Council, at its meeting held in Gaborone Botswana from 14 to 15 March 2016, noted the advice by the Secretariat that some of the positions, specifically the support services Directorates will not be affected by the organisational review whilst the technical Directorates may change significantly. It therefore follows that support services Directorates particularly at Director level were to remain unchanged in line with the above mentioned Council Decision. We therefore propose that Conferencing and Administration should not be standalone Directorates but instead be a unit within the Human Resource and Administration Directorate headed by a Senior Officer. 13.5            The current Directorate of HR and Admin must remain unchanged. 13.6           HR and Admin can still be managed in one Directorate.  For it to be functional, performance management should be institutionalise so that there is delivery in the two functional areas. -	The report clearly establishes that conferencing is not a support function but rather a core function of the Secretariat. We have also clearly explained the resource diversion arising in the Programme Directorates due to lack of adequate conferencing support. In the past 2 years, Council has approved to increase substantially the conferencing resource capacity. The resulting size of the unit can therefore no longer be accommodated in HR & Admin. We have also explained that this combination will further divert HR from its strategic role. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
14.Finance & Contracts	Current Directorate organised between 2 units namely; ►    Management Accounting ►    Financial Accounting Apart from an increase in staff base from 15 in 2008 to 24 in 2016, there has been no structure change in the Budget & Finance Directorate. It is essential that the finance team be reorganised to better respond to the operational, control and reporting environments that have become more complex.	1)       Re-organisation of the finance Directorate under 3 main pillars namely; -          Accounting & Services -          Treasury & Budget -          Grants, Contracts & Project Accounting 2)       Introduction of a new unit in the Finance Department ‘’Grants/Contracts & Project’’ based on the following rationale: ►    Increasing number of grants/projects closure processed by the finance team; ►    The management of audits for the different grants has to be diligently managed in order to minimise potential ineligibles; 3)      Renaming the Directorate from ‘’budget & finance’’ to ‘’finance & contracts’’, given the increasing number of operational and financial contracts that the finance team oversees and devolving of planning and budget to budget holders in Directorates.	14.1            The proposed Finance & Contracts Directorate should include aspects of Administration and Conferencing due to budgetary constraints facing SADC. Conferencing should remain as a unit until such a time that funds permit for its elevation to Directorate status.	14.1 The same comments as mentioned in 13.1 to 13.5 above apply. Here it will affect the finance function’s ability to operate effectively. Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed.
15.ICT Support	The IT team will be expected to play a prominent role in developing appropriate information systems to facilitate communication and information flow across the Secretariat. Further system development will be required and this should be owned by internal personnel who understand the specificities of the Secretariat.	All IT professionals must be transferred under the responsibility of the IT unit. ICT Officer currently under organ be repositioned and made to report to the Senior Officer ICT.	15.1  No Comments	15.1  No Comments Implication on the structure based on consultants professional views No change proposed

OTHER COMMENTS BY MEMBER STATES

Comments from Member States	Consultant Comments
16. South Africa (ZA)
16.1        The proposed structure should be aligned to the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) 2015-2020 and should be communicated to Sectoral meetings accordingly to avoid the creation of new units outside the approved structure and in line with the RISDP.	This will be looked after by the SADC Secretariat.
16.2        The Consultant’s report does not clearly articulate the weaknesses and challenges of the existing structure and the rationale for certain elements of the proposed new structure being proposed is not clearly defined and aligned to the overall objective of the restructuring process.	Challenges and weaknesses are well documented in the final report Volume 1, Chapter 4&5, pages 26 to 45. The proposed principles guiding the new structure are in the final report Volume 1, Chapter 7 Moving Forward, pages 51 to 59.
16.3        The decision by the SADC Council of Ministers to rationalise the structure in order for it to optimally and effectively deliver on the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan 2015 – 2020 (RISDP) and the Industrial Development Strategy and Roadmap, whilst remaining within the approved budget, seems not to have been adhered to.	The restructuring has been done having taken consideration of the budgetary constraint indicated. However, past experiences of the SADC Secretariat as highlighted in the report, indicate areas that have to be strengthened in order to achieve value for money at the Secretariat. In this regard, the consultants have proposed additional capacity which will lead to additional budget. Also the consultants have made provision for flex positions, which when fully implemented will considerably alleviate member states’ burden going forward. However, if the Member States want the budget not to increase, then positions will have to be further rationalised.
16.4        Non-structural challenges and weaknesses, as identified by the Task Force on Operational Challenges and Weaknesses in the SADC Secretariat (with its recommendations endorsed by the August 2015 Council) and highlighted in the Consultants’ report should be addressed through endorsed systems and process. In addition, the non-structural issues such as the organisational culture and systems should be taken into consideration when determining the staffing levels.	Agreed. These have been highlighted in our recommendations regarding proposed institutional infrastructure, in the final report, Volume 1, Chapter 9, pages 79 to 87.
16.5        The new SADC structure to inform the engagement and interaction with International Cooperating Partners (ICPs). ICP resources should be implemented using SADC structures, capacities, systems and processes with financial support to be focussed on addressing the financing gap in identified priorities with ensuring that such support follows the approved SADC Resource Allocation Framework with emphasis on priority areas A and B, in particular industrialisation and infrastructure of the RISDP.	Agreed.
16.6        In addition, the focus of thematic groups within the SADC/ICP relationship should be aligned to the SADC Regional Integration agenda.	Agreed.
16.7        The proposed structure, with the implication that the staff complement will have the necessary expertise, skills and capacity to deliver on its mandate, should eliminate the regular appointment of consultants. Something which, in addition, will have a cost saving benefit. It may thus be prudent to consider a process to re-evaluate SADC’s policy guiding the appointment of consultants.	Agreed.
16.8        The proposed structure should also address Secondments.	Policies regarding flex positions which have already been proposed during this restructuring exercise and future ones have to be drafted and approved at council level.
16.9        A comprehensive financial breakdown should form part of the supporting documents and discussion on the proposed structure to be presented to Council.	Financial breakdown will be provided.
17. Zimbabwe (ZW)
17.1        The proposed structure represents a 15% increase over the current committed structure costs, which MS can hardly afford. An effort should therefore be made to realign existing positions to the new priorities where the requisite skills exist before opting for the expansion of the organisation.	We acknowledge that the proposed restructuring will have a considerable impact on the financing costs of Member States. However, we should also be mindful that over the years, the Secretariat has been heavily supported by projects staffs, without whom implementation of the SADC agenda would have been compromised. Currently there are 120 project staffs at the Secretariat. While we will reassess the proposed structure and assign priorities, we shall re-iterate our stance for some proposed positions which we consider as fundamental for the Secretariat to commendably deliver on the RISDP, as lengthily discussed in our report. We will review proposed new positions and re-assess priorities and recommend after having a clear way forward from Member States.
17.2        There is need for the Secretariat to also attend to non-structural issues such as the organisational culture and mindset so as to ensure that the Secretariat is fit for purpose.	This is not part of the consultants TOR, but agreed that the Secretariat should address it.
18. Botswana (BW)
18.1        The 9 re-design principles proposed by the Consultants as a solution to these challenges lacks specificity and detail. The Secretariat needs to be guided on how to implement the proposed solutions by the Consultants by way of step by step processes and procedures. Templates           and               samples should            also              be provided where appropriate.	Step by step guide can only be provided, which is outside our scope of work.
18.2        The consultant reports that the root causes of most of the challenges are not structural but operational. The expectation was therefore to see more focus on solutions to issues such as organisational culture, systems and processes and capacity building rather than on the functional structure itself.	In addition to the recommended structure, the consultants have highlighted in Chapter 9, proposed recommendations on the institutional infrastructure, pages 79 to 87.
18.3        The creation of additional positions is not cost effective considering the financial status of most SADC Member States. We therefore do not support the creation of 11 Directorates.	Refer to comments on point 16.3 and 17.1.
18.4        The mandate of the Secretariat requires a Matrix Organisational Structure whose main focus should be on programme planning.	Noted.
18.5        The Consultants proposes that a ratio of 3:2 should be applied and used as a basis to determine the size of the non-core support staff. However, this is not reflected in the proposed staffing levels whereby non-core positions exceed core function positions.	As explained in the report, this should be attained progressively over time, bearing in mind that conferencing should be counted as part of the core functions and that the support function is also servicing project staffs. Currently 122 project staffs are working in the Secretariat.
18.6        The report notes that close to half of professional/line management staff’s time is spent on attending meetings and administrative tasks linked to those meetings. This has to be taken into account as it implies that the problem is not the head count but how things are done within the Secretariat.	Agreed. Refer to comments in point 16.4
19. Lesotho (LS)
19.1       The major concern and observation is that the organogram is so huge to the extent that it will erode away the Secretariat budget if implemented as suggested by the consultants. Therefore, advice is that the little staff available be reorganised and utilised wisely until such time the budget will permit to accommodate some of the suggested changes which will ideally be implemented in phases.	Refer to comments on point 16.3 and 17.1
20. Seychelles (SC)
20.1       Several measures should be adopted to improve the institutional infrastructure and culture, for example Building positive organisational culture, Development and implementation of Performance Reward System, Development of engagement strategies which allows the Secretariat to determine the needs and expectations of different stakeholders, Plans and targets should be aligned with that of the Secretariat strategies. Etc.	Agreed. Refer to comments on point 16.4
21. Zambia (ZM)
21.1       The functionality of the structure must be strengthened through business process reengineering, roust performance management and electronic systems as highlighted in EY report.	Agreed (Also refer comments on point 18.1 and 18.2)
22. Senior High Official Meeting, Swaziland (SOM)
22.1       Council mandated the Secretariat to rationalise the structure to effectively deliver on the revised RISDP and the industrialisation strategy whilst remaining within the approved budget ceilings.	Refer to comments on point 16.3 and 17.1
22.2       The non-structural issues such as organisational culture and systems need to be taken into consideration when determining the staffing levels.	Refer to comments on point 16.4
22.3       Regional/National linkages should be strengthened to amongst others ensure the visibility of SADC at the national level.	Agreed.
23. Angola (AO)
23.1       The analysis of the said document shows that the organizational structure presented for the Secretariat does not suit the hierarchical system of SADC, thus causing certain ambiguity in the established functions, so we suggest that the reporting system be better distributed in the organizational structure.	This comment is not clear.
24. Mauritius (MU)
24.1       In realising its regional integration agenda, SADC needs to garner support of the African Union and converge its objectives towards the Continental FTA which is on-going.  Hence, the focus of financial support of ICPs will also channelled to implementing SADC’s programmes in favour of AU’s CFT.	Noted.
24.2       At the level of the AU, a system of alternative sources of financing has been developed and modalities for implementation is currently in progress.  However, there is indication that till date, the private sector stakeholders have not indicated their willingness to participate in such a regional resource mobilisation system.  Hence, considering integrating such a capacity within Secretariat should be well investigated to avoid redundancy in both human and financial capital.	Noted.
24.3       A cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken for more visibility on the benefits that will accrue in adopting the new structure.	The benefits/underlying reasons for the proposed structure has been outlined in in the final report, Volume 1, Chapter 7 & 8, pages 51 to 78. Also the benefits of the structure cannot be quantified.
24.4       Costs for flex-positions should be met from current budget of Secretariat.  It is to be noted that a Contingency Fund has been established following the August 2015 council decision to meet unforeseen expenditure.  It is strongly recommended that expenses for these positions, if over the budgeted figure of USD 4.4 m be met from the Fund.	Flex positions are to be financed outside the Secretariat by Member States or ICPs.

---

 [CR1]We said we are maintaining our proposal for 1 officer contrary to what the ES understood! I rephrased it slightly.