Gold: Constructors lament unfair competition

MBABANE – Stakeholders in the construction industry say that the Construction Industry Council (CIC) Act’s vague approach to quality standards and unfair competition collectively point to a regulatory framework that may inadvertently favour a status quo where a few large entities dominate.

This imbalance reportedly not only affects the equitable distribution of opportunities but also places smaller entities at a significant disadvantage, limiting their ability to contribute to and benefit from the industry’s growth

These were some of the findings of gaps within the CIC Act contained in the construction industry: Stakeholder engagement report prepared by the Eswatini Economic Policy Analysis and Research Centre (ESEPARC). The report was compiled after the consultative meetings held over four months beginning in November 2023 to February 2024, and encompassed a diverse range of stakeholders including government entities, non-governmental organisations, community representatives, industry experts and other relevant parties.

Through structured meetings, surveys and interviews, stakeholders were provided with opportunities to voice their opinions, express concerns and contribute to the review of the construction industry policy and legislative framework.

Another critical concern highlighted by 45 per cent of stakeholders was the lack of enforcement of the CIC Act and regulations. This gap suggests a pervasive issue, where nearly half of the industry perceives inconsistencies in the application of standards and a deficiency in compliance oversight. The survey results indicate a notable deficiency in the Act’s provisions for small businesses, with 65 per cent of respondents citing insufficient support and prioritisation.

This lack of focus on small enterprises can severely limit their growth and competitive ability, potentially stifling innovation and entrepreneurship within the sector. The concentration of projects among larger firms could, as a result, diminish the industry’s diversity and resilience. This leads to a monopolistic environment that hinders competitive pricing and quality improvements.

Furthermore, during the survey, an overwhelming 80 per cent of stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with the CIC’s transparency and accountability, particularly in financial and operational management. Coupled with 70 per cent of stakeholders feeling sidelined in engagement processes, this highlights a critical need for the CIC to foster a more inclusive and transparent dialogue with its constituents. Such engagement is essential to ensure that the Act’s implementation and the council’s decisions resonate with the industry’s diverse needs and expectations.

Moreover, the administrative burdens associated with registration and licensing, deemed cumbersome by 50 per cent of respondents, reveal an area ripe for reform. To address the gaps identified in the CIC Act, it was suggested that a comprehensive approach to improvement

was necessary. It has been suggested that it was crucial to strengthen enforcement mechanisms and clarify regulations to ensure compliance and effective governance. To maintain a fair playing field, it was essential to ensure equitable tender processes and mitigate the risk of monopolies.