Zuma nuclear power plan: Gift from Parliament’s secretive budget office?

How has South Africa come so far down the road to a nuclear power deal that could easily cripple the economy for decades to come and is so obviously laden with benefits for a clique? With so many checks and balances in place in a modern democracy, it is not easy for politicians to access state coffers. One method that has gained currency in South Africa appears to be state capture, which involves setting up companies with friends and family who successfully pitch for state contract work. Other steps are required for state capture, particularly where there are lucrative proposals for projects that are not yet in place – starting with selling the concepts to Parliamentary decision-makers. In this piece, a former insider of South Africa’s secretive Parliamentary Budget Office reveals how a combination of possible incompetence and muddying the waters around mandates appear to have played their role in adding momentum to President Jacob Zuma’s plans to develop a trillion-rand nuclear power programme for South Africa. It is a sobering reminder that the political independence and transparency of offices whose work feeds into national decision-making are essential in adding to the checks and balances designed to keep politicians in a democracy on the moral straight-and-narrow. – Jackie Cameron

By Seán Mfundza Muller 

nuclear_energy_symbolSouth Africa’s Parliamentary Budget Office is a largely unknown but important institution. It was established in 2009 to provide technically credible, independent advice to members of parliament about public finance and economic issues.

Evidence from other countries suggests that the credibility and independence of such an office is only truly tested when it is asked to provide advice about a politically significant issue. South Africa’s Parliamentary Budget Office recently faced just such a test when it advised MPs on the country’s proposed procurement of nuclear energy. The nuclear plan has been estimated to cost as much as R1 trillion.

But an analysis shows that the office’s recent presentation and report to MPs was sorely lacking. It failed to produce a credible analysis of the likely total cost of the proposed nuclear programme or its impact on public finances.

Although the office, contrary to international best practice, does not make its presentations and reports public, it is possible to access them on the Parliamentary Monitoring Group’s website.

Financial implications for future generations

In 2015 the office was asked by the then chair of the Standing Committee on Appropriations in Parliament, Paul Mashatile, to advise on the proposed nuclear procurement. He made it clear that the office’s primary focus had to be public finances:

Where are we going to get this money, the R1 trillion? We are dealing with questions of affordability…when all is said and done…and [not burdening] our children and grandchildren.

Mashatile’s position is compatible with the law. Appropriations committees are supposed to focus on public expenditure.

The Parliamentary Budget Office had 10 months to prepare its findings. Yet its final report was essentially a desktop summary of various other institutions’ work. It compared the cost of producing a given unit of energy across different energy generating sources.

Pic: Twitter @TransAfrica872
Houses of Parliament, Cape Town

This itself is complex terrain. Some experts argue that nuclear is the cheapest of the low emission options. But that conclusion has been challenged. Either way, a public finance-oriented institution like the Parliamentary Budget Office is not well-placed to adjudicate on such issues.

Worse still, the office’s presentation and report were phrased in a way that allowed both proponents and opponents of nuclear to interpret the analysis as supporting their preferred conclusion. This has led some observers to incorrectly report that the office’s findings opposed the nuclear programme.

Besides vague statements about factors related to public finances, the office’s report contained no substantive analysis of electricity demand. It also did not have a total cost of the project or its affordability. MPs were left uninformed about the possible implications for public finances.

Credible, independent analysis needed

In other countries, analysis by parliamentary budget offices fulfils two functions. It informs MPs and provides citizens with a genuinely independent, trustworthy perspective on complex and contested public finance issues.

There’s a wide range of voices arguing different positions on nuclear in South Africa. Power utility Eskom, various nuclear power-related institutions and politicians in one faction of the governing ANC are arguing that nuclear is needed and affordable. On the other side, civil society organisations, opposition parties, renewable energy producers and independent energy experts argue vociferously that nuclear is undesirable, unnecessary and unfeasible.

Read also: Maimane: DA “will do everything” to stop Zupta’s bribe-soaked nuclear deal.

The average, impartial citizen may be unsure who to believe. Meanwhile, statements by South Africa’s president, deputy president and the ministers of energy and finance have made it clear that

(nuclear procurement will only be pursued at) a scale and pace the country can afford.

So the obvious question is: who will give ordinary South Africans a credible affordability analysis? A report by a competent, genuinely independent and non-partisan institution could have carried significant weight.

The Parliamentary Budget Office repeatedly asserted that affordability issues were not in the “mandate” from parliament’s Standing Committee on Appropriations. This is difficult to verify because the office does not publish research requests, final terms of reference or its reports and presentations. But it seems unlikely that the financial feasibility of nuclear was omitted from the terms of reference given the motivation articulated by Mashatile.

So what should the office have done?

Read also: Brilliant – How Zupta’s nuclear deal will sink SA. New video unpacks facts.

What should have been done

First, it should have attempted as detailed a bottom-up costing of the nuclear programme as possible in the time available. This would include:

  • the likely costs of building power plants,
  • the associated costs of financing that investment,
  • nuclear waste disposal costs,
  • future decommissioning costs, and
  • insurance costs or liabilities that arise from adequately accounting for the risk of a nuclear disaster.

There are many international peer institutions the office could have called on. These include, for instance, the US’s Congressional Budget Office.

Nor did the office need to reinvent the wheel locally. The Department of Energy has produced a nuclear project costing and the National Treasury has also drafted one. Although the energy department’s costing is classified, all staff working with parliament recently underwent a state security agency clearance process. This means that, with the support of the relevant committees, the office’s staff could have obtained a copy.

Second, the estimated cost should have been used to assess the likely impact on public finances. It barely requires an analysis to show that, whether it costs R500 billion or R1.5 trillion, funding the proposed nuclear programme directly is unaffordable. Having briefly noted that, a public finance analysis would shift to considering the various public-private partnership and “vendor financing” models likely to be used instead.

Read also: Feinstein: SAs must take to streets or will pay billions in nuclear bribes

These instruments have their uses. The problem is that they shift the risks and expenses to future years. That is when either consumers, government or both would have to start repaying the successful bidder. This potentially allows politicians to take bad decisions now and be long gone by the time the negative consequences become apparent. So an important aspect of the analysis would be assessing the financial implications for future time periods and future generations.

In doing this analysis, it is critical to account for what would happen if the power produced by nuclear plants is not needed for the foreseeable future – which I have argued current evidence suggests. The office should have requested energy demand forecasts from Eskom and the energy department.

These failures further denied South Africans and their elected representatives the opportunity to make a sound, well-informed judgement about the programme. It also raises the question of whether there is any purpose in having independent fiscal institutions if they demur when dealing with politically sensitive topics.

  • Sean Mfundza Muller is Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Johannesburg. He previously worked for the Parliamentary Budget Office from July 2014 until his resignation in July 2016. This article first appeared at The Conversation
(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)