Indian external affairs minister doubtful about a single Brics currency:
India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has expressed scepticism about the Brics grouping adopting a single currency, saying he would not hold his breath over such a development.
Jaishankar told a media briefing in Delhi, India, this week that it was important to be realistic about the extent of alignment among Brics members and that it was more likely that they would continue trading using their own national currencies.
Several issues would have to be considered before a single unit became a possibility, he added.
“The whole idea is, many of them say, ‘Why do I need a third currency between us?’ which is completely understandable. Sometimes it’s a liquid issue, sometimes it’s a cost issue, it’s an efficiency issue,” he said.
“From time to time, people have raised that there should be a Brics currency but remember for countries to have a common currency, you need an enormous alignment of the very fundamentals of fiscal policies, the monetary policies, economical policies or even have to check the political policies.”
The idea of a single currency was first mooted in 2011, when South Africa joined Brazil, Russia, India and China as a member of the group, and the government initially backed the idea of a potential counterbalance to the US dollar.
But last year, ahead of a Brics summit hosted by South Africa, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana said it was premature for the country to enter the discourse about de-dollarisation, underlining that its trade was still largely skewed towards the West.
At last year’s summit, Brics announced the inclusion of Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the bloc. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates joined on 1 January 2024, while Saudi Arabia is yet to officially do so.
Responding to questions about Israel’s war in Gaza, Jaishankar said India had long supported a two-state solution.
“We are very concerned about the state of affairs in Gaza and that it is important to create a sustainable humanitarian corridor and relief for, and rehabilitation provided for, people who have been affected by all of this,” he said.
“There is such a thing as international humanitarian law that should be observed.”
The reporter’s visit to Delhi was sponsored by the government of India.
TotalEnergies: Who really benefits from regulating environmental NGOs in South Africa?:
Recent comments in the Mail & Guardian (19 July 2024) by Sampson Mamphweli, the head of the energy secretariat at the South African National Energy Development Institute — a government agency tasked with promoting energy research and development — should send a shiver down the spine of all citizens interested in living in a healthy and vibrant democracy.
Commenting on TotalEnergies’ recent statement that it may abandon its Brulpadda-Luiperd gas find in South African waters (TotalEnergies has since confirmed it is abandoning the gas find), Mamphweli blamed environmental activists for driving the company away. While providing no evidence to support any of his claims, Mamphweli argued that environmental NGOs were spreading “misinformation” in South Africa and stopping “development”, which meant that the time had come for the government to “regulate environmental activism”.
Apparently oblivious to the fact that it appears that Total Energies could not find a buyer for the gas due to the expense involved in risky ultra deep-water extraction, Mamphweli’s comments mirror those of Gwede Mantashe, the minister of mineral resources and energy (now mineral resources and petroleum). He has repeatedly blamed environmental NGOs for blocking “development”, stating that they should be “registered”, and be forced to declare who funds them. He has repeatedly blamed environmental NGOs for blocking “development”, stating that they should be “registered”, and be forced to declare who funds them.
These calls to regulate environmental NGOs are deeply worrying because they are, in effect, calls by the government to narrow and restrict the space within which people and organisations of people can voice their opinions on environmental matters that affect them.
The Constitution guarantees the rights to hold and express opinions, to associate with others, to protest and to access the courts to let them decide if these rights are being properly upheld. Furthermore, section 24 of the Constitution states that “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing” both now and in the future.
Within this constitutional context, what does it actually mean to “regulate” environmental NGOs? Does regulation mean preventing environmental NGOs and environmental activists from voicing their opinions? Does it mean preventing them from protesting or from accessing the courts with communities who are tired of the environmental harms that are making them sick? Does it mean preventing environmental activists and organisations from aligning with communities, such as those in Musina Makhado in Limpopo or Xolobeni in the Eastern Cape, who want development, but not the kind of “development” that the government is trying to force on them?
These are important questions, especially considering the ongoing restrictions being placed by governments throughout the world, and particularly in Africa, on NGOs and the spaces within which they operate. Over the past several years, governments on the continent have adopted deeply anti-democratic laws to constrain the activities of NGOs.
Watchdog organisation Freedom House, which has monitored the spread of these laws, states that “restrictions that hamstring NGO activity form part of a broader strategy adopted by regimes to narrow democratic space and prevent challenges to the rule of strongmen and governing parties”. When calls are made to “regulate” environmental NGOs in South Africa, is the objective to similarly “narrow democratic space”?
The 2023 General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill waiting for the president’s signature suggests that the regulation of democratic space is already on the government’s agenda. This bill expands the definition of state security away from one narrowly focused on threats to South Africa’s people, the constitutional order and the country’s territorial integrity. It states: “National security means the capabilities, measures and activities of the state to pursue or advance any threat, any potential threat, any opportunity, any potential opportunity, or the security of the Republic and its people.”
Within the context of state security, what does it mean to “pursue” and “advance any opportunity or potential opportunity” in the interests of national security? Could this be read to mean that any person or institution opposing the exploitation of gas by TotalEnergies could be considered to be opposing the state’s pursuit of an “opportunity” which it considers to be in the interests of national security? Does this then make that person or institution a potential threat to national security?
The wider definition of state security could be applied to all NGOs and activists in South Africa.
We would do well to remember that the victory over apartheid was in no small part due to the courage and organisational capacity of numerous NGOs in civil society. As Nelson Mandela remarked in 1996, “Non-governmental organisations played an outstanding role during the dark days of apartheid.” If we are to retain the hard-won dividends of our democracy, we must wholeheartedly resist any attempts to “regulate” NGOs because an overwhelming amount of evidence from throughout the world shows that they play a vital role in making sure that authorities act in the public’s best interest.
Therefore, the critical question that should be at the forefront of all our minds is: whose interests are actually likely to be served by the “regulation” of NGOs in South Africa? Will it be the public, the government, or corporations?Dr Neil Overy is an environmental researcher, writer and photographer. He has worked in the nonprofit sector for more than 20 years and is particularly interested in the intersection between environmental and social justice issues. He is a research associate in Environmental Humanities South at the University of Cape Town.
Mays Chemist is a bright, bustling pharmacy on Main Road in Melville, Johannesburg. Since July last year, a small revolution has been taking place there — and one that could make a real difference to HIV prevention in South Africa.
With the support of pharmacists and an in-house nurse, 210 people have started getting PrEP (short for pre-exposure prophylaxis) here, which is medication that can protect someone from contracting HIV. PrEP has been available in South Africa since 2016 and over a million people have already started taking it to help protect them against HIV infection.
So, why are the new clients getting their medication from Mays so important?
Because they’re taking part in a project that’s looking at whether letting people get HIV prevention medicines from healthcare facilities that are part of their everyday routines, such as pharmacies that are near to where they work, study or shop, can work. At the moment, people have to go to a government clinic or hospital to get PrEP.
So far, the project has proven popular — over 1 200 people across 10 pharmacies have started PreP.
The medicine is a Schedule 4 drug under the Medicines and Related Substances Act and so a private pharmacy can only give it to someone who has a prescription from a doctor or a specially licensed nurse who works at a state clinic or hospital.
We think that also allowing pharmacists and nurses working at private facilities to prescribe PrEP and other anti-HIV drugs, which are also Schedule 4 medicines, is more than an urgent medical need — it is a human right.
Take your pick — then tell your pharmacist
Around 90 000 women and 50 000 men were infected with HIV in South Africa last year — on top of the 7.8 million who already have HIV. We have to prevent new infections with every tool we have and to do this we have to make it as easy as possible for people to get anti-HIV drugs.
But more than that, we have to give people a choice about how they want to take their medication.
Until now, PrEP has been available only as a daily pill. It contains the two antiretrovirals emtricitabine and tenofovir (drugs that stop the virus from multiplying in your body). It works so well that it lowers your chance of getting HIV through sex to almost zero — but for that level of protection you have to take it diligently every day.
In December, though, an injectable form of the drug cabotegravir, called CAB-LA for short, was approved as PrEP in South Africa. The first two injections are given four weeks apart and then one every two months, which makes it convenient to use because you don’t have to remember to take a pill every day.
Studies have shown that taking the injection virtually wipes out someone’s chance of getting HIV through sex.
CAB-LA will be available from some state health facilities before the end of the year, with the health department also looking to buy more — if the price is right, Bhekisisa reported as part of their coverage of the International Aids Conference in July.
Our project also offers CAB-LA as a PrEP option in a substudy called Axis, which is run at some facilities in Gauteng, under the umbrella of our bigger PrEP project.
We want to see whether people prefer to take the daily tablet or the two-monthly injection and also want to know what people think of the injection and how practical a PrEP option it would be in real life for people in South Africa.
Since we started the Axis study in March, 143 out of the 200 people enrolled chose CAB-LA over the daily PrEP pill and 108 came back for their first follow-up shot a month later.
In in-depth interviews, people told us they prefer the long-acting injectable form of PrEP over the daily pill because it’s convenient, easy to take, more attractive than having to swallow a big pill and they know that they’re protected against infection.
But the prevention pill is still useful to people who are scared of needles and those who are used to taking tablets every day.
Why the focus on private pharmacies?
Participants told us they like private pharmacies because they’re conveniently located at malls and near busy taxi ranks, are open on weekends and the service is fast and efficient. Moreover, people said, they trust the professionalism of the staff and the confidentiality of their relationship and that they faced less scrutiny from other customers.
In our project, people who want to start PrEP speak to a pharmacist, who refers them to an in-house nurse for advice on things like contraception and lowering their HIV risk and to do tests for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis B and kidney function, as set out in the health department’s guidelines.
Once all that is done, people have a phone conversation with a doctor, who then writes the prescription.
If pharmacists and in-house nurses could issue the prescriptions themselves, the process could be cheaper and faster. Although this is a change from the current way things are done, it’s not a radical one.
In South Africa, pharmacists are already part of the process to get people started on treatment for a health condition, give advice on using medicines, check how well someone sticks with their therapy and follow up with clients to make sure that they know what to do in case of a missed dose or how to deal with possible side effects. They also dispense emergency contraceptives without prescriptions.
The South African Pharmacy Council, the regulatory body to which pharmacists belong and which audits practitioners’ service level, backs the Pharmacy Initiated Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (Pimart) course. This programme, which has been part of pharmacy practice since August 2021, trains pharmacists and in-house nurses to prescribe ARVs, HIV prevention medicines (whether taken before or after sex) and tuberculosis treatment.
But Pimart is on hold for now after the Independent Practitioner Association Foundation, a network of general practitioners and dentists, took the pharmacy council to court to stop the programme from running. Even though the Pretoria high court ruled in favour of the council in August last year, the network of doctors and dentists was allowed to appeal and a new court date for that is yet to be set.
Dara Vucevic, a pharmacist at Mays, completed the Pimart training, but because the programme has been stalled, she’s not received a certificate and isn’t allowed to add the tasks to her day-to-day work.
But, she says, with her four-year pharmacy degree, 28 years’ experience and this extra course under her belt, she understands what clients need and that she could put that knowledge and skills to good use when prescribing HIV prevention medicine.
And because she’s able to build up a relationship with clients, she can guide them through starting a new treatment. They can pop in and ask questions, which is often not possible in busy clinics, and she knows immediately if they don’t arrive to pick up a refill.
Excluding the close to 3 600 private pharmacies in South Africa from delivering HIV prevention services will be a wasted chance to halt new infections in the country.
Angela Tembo is a social scientist with extensive experience in implementation research at Ezintsha, a research and policy unit based at the faculty of health sciences at Wits University.
Tsitsi Nyamuzihwa is a pharmacist with experience in clinical trials at Ezintsha.
This story was produced by the Bhekisisa Centre for Health Journalism. Sign up for the newsletter.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
