Committee stands by local loop report

By Damaria Senne, ITWeb senior journalist

Johannesburg, 19 Jun 2007

The South African local loop unbundling (LLU) committee stands by its report, despite the fact that a large portion was lifted from a 2001 European Commission document without assigning credit.

Last month, the LLU committee handed its recommendations as to how the South African local loop should be unbundled to communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri. The minister will use the report to set up policy that will guide the unbundling process.

A close look shows case studies used in the South African report are the same as those in the LLU report developed six years ago for the European Commission. However, the South African report does not credit the source.

"It's straight plagiarism. They haven't even bothered to update the case studies, despite the fact that these are now six years old, with much having changed in the interim," an anonymous source told ITWeb.

The source also questions whether paid consultants wrote the South African report, and what the authors of the original report, who would expect fair use and to be credited for their work, would have to say on the matter.

'Not undermined'

In a written response to ITWeb, the LLU committee acknowledges the case study material in the local document was lifted in its entirety from the EU report without assigning proper credit to the source.

Committee chairman Tshilidzi Marwala says the "minor" problem does not undermine the report and the recommendations made to the minister on how SA's local loop should be unbundled. He also argues there was no need to update the case studies, as the information still applies to current circumstances.

"The recommendations are flawless. The only way the report could be undermined is if the case studies used were flawed, affecting the premise on which the committee based its recommendations. But that's not the case," he explains.

Marwala notes the LLU committee never claimed to have authored the report. "The committee contributed to the intellectual capital by making recommendations, but the report also includes contributions from desktop research and all the people that were consulted."

'Honest mistake'

Marwala says the LLU committee's widespread use of text from another report without giving credit to the original was simply an oversight, not plagiarism.

"It was an honest mistake; one we fixed as soon as we were alerted," he says.

Remedial action included moving the case study material to the annexure of the report and citing the source, he says. The relevant office of the European Commission has also been notified of the matter, and made aware that corrections have been made to the local report, he says.

The Department of Communications would not comment on the matter, saying it was up to the LLU committee to provide input.