Sunday Times

Policy direction is promising, but it has to survive the politics

- By Hilary Joffe

About an hour and a half into the state of the nation address, President Cyril Ramaphosa was still only on task three of his “five most urgent tasks”. Fortunatel­y, he sped up and finished just shy of two hours after he began. His charm and mastery of the subject matter meant Ramaphosa’s second state of the nation wasn’t too tedious. And there was evidence of fresh policy thinking — two years of free and compulsory early childhood education, a new specialise­d unit in the National Prosecutin­g Authority, a plan to lift SA’s ranking on the World Bank’s doing-business index from 82nd to the top half of the table. There were clear commitment­s, too, to measures to get economic growth going again, and to rebuild key institutio­ns.

Yet the length of the speech seemed to reflect the compromise politics behind it, and the difficulty of getting the cabinet to agree on really tough decisions or trade-offs. This was nowhere more evident than in what Ramaphosa had to say about the economic issue that was top of mind for the markets — Eskom.

As expected, big announceme­nts were made. But what they mean exactly could puzzle us for some time. Ramaphosa acknowledg­ed that Eskom is in crisis and could severely damage the economy, and there is a need for bold decisions that could have painful consequenc­es.

At the same time there is a need to minimise adverse economic costs to consumers and taxpayers — and the fiscal framework must be safeguarde­d. He also talked about the need to pay attention to the rights of Eskom’s funders and the need to take urgent steps to cut Eskom’s costs, but without saying which costs and how they might be reduced

(and who would take pain).

Crucially for the markets he confirmed that the government will support Eskom’s balance sheet — but, intriguing­ly, that this will be done in a way that will not burden the fiscus (with extra debt). Details will come in the budget but it seems that the government will bail out

Eskom, which wants the government to take over R100bn of Eskom’s

R440bn debt because it cannot afford to pay the interest on it. But what might such a bailout look like, and is it a bailout at all if it’s fiscally neutral? The whole point, surely, is that the government should take over the responsibi­lity of paying at least part of the interest that Eskom doesn’t have the cash flow to cover, and that means money from the public purse, regardless of whether and how the debt is engineered off Eskom’s balance sheet.

There are various versions floating about of the planned restructur­ing of Eskom’s debt — shifting it into a special-purpose vehicle, or getting developmen­t finance institutio­ns to take back their Eskom loans, or extending guarantees — and the idea seems to be a mix of bailout and tariff increases to get the utility out of its financial hole, for now. The economy clearly cannot afford a cumulative tariff increase of 70% over the next three years, which is what Eskom is effectivel­y asking Nersa for. Costs need to be cut and the reliabilit­y of supply restored, and the market was looking for clarity on those too.

Ramaphosa announced the splitting of Eskom into generation, transmissi­on and distributi­on, still under Eskom Holdings, to ensure costs can be isolated and operationa­l responsibi­lity given to each. This “new business model” will no doubt be welcomed by business. But it is likely to take at least three years to implement, so it is no solution to Eskom’s immediate operationa­l crisis or its bloated cost base — and far from fixing Eskom’s operations, the disruptive effect in the short term could be to make them worse.

Ramaphosa mentioned hiring good people at state-owned entities. He talked about strategic equity partners and selling nonstrateg­ic state-owned assets, if necessary — but definitely not strategic ones, whatever that means. There’s evidently some bold thinking going on. But the politics look as complicate­d as ever; the outcome is as yet entirely unclear.

The length of the speech seemed to reflect the compromise politics behind it

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa