Western Cape Land Restitution Claimants Petition: Department response; NYDA Strategic Plan on Rural Development / Rural Youth; Eastern Cape/KZN oversight recommendations

Rural Development and Land Reform

22 November 2011
Chairperson: Mr S Sizani (ANC); Mr L Johnson (Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) presented a progress report on the Western Cape Land Restitution Claimants Petition. Members welcomed the response but said it lacked detail on the sizes of land settled, on the beneficiaries of the restitution exercise and whether there was progress in the projects that had been implemented. The National Rural Youth Service Corps project claimed creating 6000 youth opportunities but the report did not provide details such as gender composition of the beneficiaries nor the location of specific projects. The Department also responded to the recommendations made by the Committee in its report on its oversight visit to KZN and Eastern Cape in 2010.

The National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) presented its strategic plan, programmes and explained its mandate as an institution founded to mainstream youth development in South Africa. The NYDA was to obtain R1,22 billion over the next three years but said the funds were too meagre. Despite its seemingly important role in championing youth policy, Members said the NYDA was little known by the public and Members had come to know the organisation through publicity of its ill disciplined R100 million December 2010 youth festival and not through its projects, that appeared to be non-existent. The NYDA blamed its failure to drive policies on a lack of investment in youth development, partly caused by negative media publicity and lack of cooperation with government departments. Committee members from all parties told the NYDA that as long as it did not have a proper strategy to drive youth development, it would not get the funding it was clamouring for.
The DRDLR extended its willingness to assist NYDA in engaging with key government departments.

Meeting report

Western Cape Land Restitution Claimants Petition: Department response
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) presented a progress report on land claims petition matters as per area (see document). Some of the details mentioned in the response were:
▪ In the Stellenbosch claimants issue, the verification process was conducted and the report would be completed by 15 December.
▪ The valuation of the Ms B Pool project was expected on 25 November 2011.
▪ A meeting was conducted on 11 October between the Department of Public Works and Department of Home Affairs claimant representatives regarding the upgrade of the school used by Home Affairs. An agreement was reached to put on hold the upgrade of the building pending the outcome of the valuation.
▪ Ms Williams’ payment was effected 8 August 2011 and the matter had been finalised.
▪ In relation to the Claremont, Verification phase 1 was complete and the report was being tabled at a meeting to be finalised by 15 December 2011.
▪ An agreement had been reached with the City of Cape Town to release the Bowwood Road claim at a cost of R27 million.
▪ With reference to Hout Bay, suitable land in the area could not be secured and claimants were given an option to be included in the Nooitgedacht project or Retreat land. Two claimants agreed but four others refused preferring the Hout Bay property.
▪ An agreement was reached with the National Department of Public Works (NDPW) to release land in Retreat free of charge.
▪ With the Goodwood-Kensington batch, 56 verification claims for phase1 had been finalised and the batch 2 report would be finalised by year-end.
▪ The communal Property Association for Goodwood claimants was in the process of being registered.
▪ NDPW had released 30 hectares of land and in addition the Provincial Department of Human Settlements had released five properties.
▪ With regards to Constantia, an agreement had been reached with the Department of Transport and Public Works to release 9, 5 hectares of land on condition a feasibility study is conducted.
▪ Plans had been effected to appoint a service provider to assist with drafting a business plan and land use plan to be evaluated and then adjudicated by the Provincial Adjudication Committee.
▪ Verification had been set for March 2012 due to direct engagements with claimants during the feasibility phase.
▪ A total of R9 million was paid for three claims in Klawer with the balance to be paid by February 2012 after tenants submit required outstanding documents.
▪ Other matters were matters still with the courts


Ms A Steyn (DA) sought clarity on the District Six claim. She suggested that the Department come up with follow up measures after completing resettlement to ensure the Committee was updated on programme progress.

Mr Williams from DRDLR replied that the report was not concerned about the District Six issue though some of the petitions came from District Six.

The Chairperson interjected saying despite the petition being not particularly for District Six, there was development taking place on the land without the involvement of the claimants and a breakaway group that wanted to represent some of the claimants after losing confidence in the Trust. Therefore to neglect the issue was similar to ignoring it.

Mr Mdu Shabane: Director General in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, said there was work being done on the issue and the Minister had been engaged. Mr Vusi Mahlangu, Chief Director: Western Cape Restitution Support, said there was work being done in District Six.

The Chair asked why the Department was separating the report on District Six yet it was in the petition.

Mr Mahlangu accepted the blame and said there was considerable work being done in District Six involving all major stakeholders, the province, City, National Departments and the District’s Trust. A task team had been established to ensure the return of all claimants by 2013 as per presidential decree. The team previously chaired by the Deputy Minister was functioning well. Although there were issues under discussion, there had been a general agreement for a business plan to be formulated which would be followed by public input on the proposal.

Mr L Johnson, Chairperson of Portfolio Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, wanted the Department to clarify whether the pricing of land in the report was a historical value or current cost of the land.

Mr David Smith, Director: Western Cape Restitution, said the Claremont value was current. The valuation from the City of Cape Town was R45 million and the valuation by DRDLR was R37 million and it was agreed that they would release the land at the Department’s valuation. The property was 7 hectares, high rise apartment that could accommodate 60 tenants. And with regards to historical value, the Department of Human Settlements would release the land at the value of R8000 which they had paid to the Housing Board.

The Chairperson said that the report though useful neglected detail on the size of land claimed and the beneficiaries that mattered in land restitution but rather dealt with the cost. He invited the Director General to respond to questions posed.

The Chairperson instructed the Department to note the issues that had been omitted in the report, and included these in their future reports. He asked Mr Smith why the land claim processes would take beyond 2013 to be completed when in actual fact the report stated that all programmes were progressing well.

Mr David Smith replied a lot of steps had to be followed such as rezoning and public participation. Sometimes claimants do not agree with the settlements and family disputes and negotiations were anticipated as some of the factors that would result in delays.

The Director General added that experience had shown that challenges were to be anticipated in settlements though it did not portray that the Department would not make efforts to finish the process before 2013.

Department response to Committee Report on KZN and Eastern Cape 2010 Oversight Visit
Ms Leona Archary:
Deputy DG: Rural Infrastructure Development, presented the Department’s response to the Committee’ seven recommendations following its April 2010 oversight visit to KwaZulu Natal and Eastern Cape, particularly Mhlontlo and Msinga.

First Recommendation:
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform as the ‘initiator and catalyst’ should strengthen the institutional arrangements under the CRDP in both Msinga and Mhlontlo to deal with problems of lack of consultation and joint planning by various government departments.

The Department was continuing the institutionalisation of the “council” of stakeholders in the areas. To ensure that each household was represented, the Department profiled all households and involved the participation of the community in development efforts before drafting the final priorities of development in the areas. The policies were also grounded within the council of stakeholders made up of sector departments, local municipalities, district municipalities, private sector and the traditional leadership. For example in the Eastern Cape there was collaboration between the Department of Human Settlements and Agriculture and they met monthly to discuss the recommendations by the Minister Nkwinti and Eastern Cape Premier. A steering committee had been established in Mhlontlo led by the Municipal Manager and co-chaired by the Office of the Premier. The aim was to develop each area according to the means and priorities.

Second recommendation:
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, collaboratively with the Department of Agriculture, and other active players in the CRDP should find mechanisms that build capacity and common understanding (from national to provincial government) about what CRDP is and what it aims to achieve over a certain period of time.

The outputs for Outcome 7 (
Vibrant, Equitable And Sustainable Rural Communities And Food Security For All) were implementing many principles of the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) and was interacting with different government departments and sectors in implementing the projects. The Department played a pivotal role in coordinating efforts aimed at implementing the CRDP development forum thus institutionalising the thinking behind CDRP. The Department was constantly reviewing the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme and strengthening it with other partners. A CRDP documented formulated in 2009 had been circulated to all the stakeholders and the Department had made sure that stakeholders receive progress reports. With assistance from DRDLR, the Department of Agriculture provided skills development when assessed as needed via household profiling at grassroots level.

Third Recommendation:
There is a need to clarify roles and responsibilities among the role players and stakeholders, particularly the Department of Rural Development and that of Provincial Departments of Agriculture.

There had been confusion as to the clear roles of the two in the beginning. The CRDP system clarified the role of the Minister as National Oversight in terms of the Comprehensive Rural Development Plan, and the Minister delegated provincial oversight to the premier of the province and MEC at provincial level had oversight over the implementation of CRDP. The district mayors in the area were tasked with actual implementation together with local municipalities. Engagements had been made with the provincial departments of Agriculture, the HOD and Treasury to align budgets and processes. All MECs for Agriculture and DRDLR form an integral part of the executive formed to oversee the implementation of Outcome 7.

Fourth Recommendation:
Success of rural development initiatives depends on buy-in by local stakeholders and more importantly by the beneficiaries themselves. The committee recommends that the department intensify its community mobilisation aspect of the rural development so that the outcomes are informed by the real needs of the rural poor, and not what development agencies and government departments think that the poor people need.

The structure of the council of stakeholders emphasised the inclusion of the community in the planning and implementation of projects. The main basis of CRDP was to ensure that development policies were driven by community and not by government. Social mobilisation and profiling was done so as to understand the means of every household in a community. About 47 000 households had been profiled in 96 rural wards in the country. The Department needed to improve in monitoring development policies and processes.

Fifth Recommendation:
That the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform submit a plan of action for revitalization of land reform projects in KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape.

Projects had been identified in Eastern Cape and Kwazulu-Natal for recapitalisation and a number of irrigation schemes had been earmarked for revitalisation – four in each of the two provinces.

Sixth Recommendation:
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to produce and submit a business plan for CRDP so that the Parliament is able to track progress on what is being tested with those pilot projects.

Implementation of business plan was monitored by “council of stakeholders” and feedback would be provided soon. The department had in line with the Lekgotla decision prioritised 22 districts of the country where it aimed to develop a comprehensive rural development plan and an annual performance plan with quarterly and annual targets that would ensure monitoring and evaluation of project performance.

Seventh Recommendation:
The department and implementing champions ensure that there is enough capacity within provinces to be able to implement the CRDP pilots and document lessons effectively.
The Department had implemented programmes to ensure that there was enough capacity to implement the CRDP projects. The pilot project started in Giyani had now been spread to different areas of the country. The provincial Department and other stakeholders would identify critical areas for intervention at district and provincial CRDP champion. Rural Development’s Green Paper on Land Reform was being finalised and weaknesses were being identified and attended to ensure the success of the programme.

The Director General expressed concern at the lack of cooperation between government departments in implementing projects and lack of additional resources for the Department of Agriculture and DRDLR.


In reply to the Chairperson asking who was the owner of the land the Department bought for R27 million, he was told it had belonged to the City of Cape Town.
Ms Steyn expressed frustration at the Department response to the Committee recommendations, saying the information sounded well written but was contrary to what was seen on the ground, as witnessed by Members during oversight visits. Referring to Recommendation 3, the Committee wanted to know the current status of the situation on the ground - whether there was cooperation or not. She asked when the Committee would get the report on section 7. If the business plan was written, was there any contract entered into or not? She asked if QwaQwa Irrigation Scheme was the one recently associated with a strike over unpaid salaries and, if so, how would the scheme be implemented when workers were not properly paid.

Mr Mdu Shabane replied that following a meeting with the President, the Department had resolved to sign MOUs with Heads of Departments before the end of the year.

Ms H Mahlanyane (ANC) wanted a breakdown of district municipalities per province. She said that the Department was excited about
National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC) but issues on the ground were different and sought an explanation on the rollout of programmes per provinces.

Mr Shabane said about 5 300 young people in FET colleges around the country were receiving NQF11 and 111 construction training and would finish in December and January. The Department would work with these young people during their apprenticeship in the 22 districts where they would be doing on-the-job training in their own communities. There were 300 receiving training to monitor the work implemented by the Department and 850 who were being trained on record management under the Development, and 102 on disaster management. The hope was to help the trainees in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry to actively take part in building projects for the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Public Works.

Nkosi Z Mandela (ANC) asked why there was no coordination of CRDP programmes particularly in Eastern Cape compared to Giyani. In what area was the CRDP project located in Eastern Cape and was the River Valley Project a CRDP project or not?

Ms Archary replied that the River Valley Project was not outside CRDP but was a new concept which the Department was testing and it would be tested in other areas of the country.

Mr Shabane said the aim was to utilise water that was often lost to the sea, by harvesting and boosting agriculture projects.

Ms Archary said the locations of the CRDP projects were available and would be provided in detail.

Mr L Johnson (Co-Chairperson) said lack of coordination was an issue for the Department. Lack of coordination could breed competition rather than cooperation. The report talked much about post settlement support and little about pre-settlement support to help people on how they had to progress

Ms Archary said the Eastern Cape was operating with a different model from other provinces which specialised in agriculture and it negated the principles of CRDP. However, the Department was working to make sure that projects were realigned with CRDP objectives.

Mr Michael Worsnip, Chief Director: Western Cape Restitution Support, said in instances where the Department took over a project, it was as a result of lack of capacity by the Department of Agriculture (DAFF) which compelled DRDLR to complement its efforts. With regards to irrigation, DAFF had started the project but “we had to come in because they had no capacity”. Land restitution was the preserve of the DRDLR; DAFF dealt with post settlement and the DRDLR’s role concerned provision of infrastructure. As such, there was no competition but completing and collaboration.

Mr Shabane said it was not DRDLR’s intention to get Members frustrated. With regards to the Department report-back on the Committee recommendations, they attempted to report on specific questions and not on project detail. The Department was reporting before the Committee for the first time and they were yet to report on the detail of these issues.

The Chairperson asked the Department to clarify the accusation that it had refused to hand over R120 million to a District Municipality, the name of which was mentioned. He also referred to the accusation that the Department had revitalised only one irrigation project and the other was left out, which had created rivalry between the two groups.

Mr Mahlangu said they had approved the business plan for the area but funds could not be transferred into the account of the Municipality because it had an audit disclaimer and according to legislation, funds would not be transferred directly. They were advised to look for a strategic partner and the money was successfully transferred last week. Responding on the revitalising in the area, Ms Tele Maphoto, acting Chief Land Claims Commissioner said it was the first time they had heard of the issue.

Mr Sizani (Co-Chairperson) said the Chief in the area had confirmed the matter during the Committee’s visit.

Mr Shabane proposed that the Department conduct an investigation into the matter and report back to the Committee on its findings.

The Chairperson said Ms Steyn was spot on target in proposing that DRDLD provide the Committee with business plans on projects. It would have been easier if the DRDLR had provided a business plan on the project to the Committee for easier verification of facts. The Department had just told the Committee that a business plan for the municipality had been approved and a strategic partner appointed but there were no reports on that matter.

Ms Steyn asked whether a house for the old lady had been build.

Ms Archary replied that the house was built and the old lady had moved in with her grandchildren. Plans were in place to build houses for other people.

Ms Nyalungu asked about the gender of the youths who had benefitted from the NARYSEC projects.

The Chairperson said that if the Department had provided detailed information, such questions could be avoided. The Committee had visited Malawi to look at the ‘one village, one product’ programme which originated from Japan. But when they visited Mhlontlo they found that the programme was called ‘one village one programme’ which negated the principles of the CRDP.

Mr Shabane said they had no clear answer to the question but would provide a detailed report on the matter to the Committee.

NYDA on its Strategic Plan on Rural Development and Working with the Rural Youth
Mr Steven Ngubeni, NYDA Chief Executive Officer, presented the agency’s strategic plan, projects, and outlined its role in rural development and its mandate which was little known. The NYDA came into existence in 2009 as a product of a merger between Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) and the National Youth Commission (NYC) which were criticised for their inability to drive the country’s youth policies. The main purpose of NYDA’s formation was to mainstream youth development in South Africa. Among other roles, the organisation carried the mandate of designing, coordinating, evaluating and monitoring all programmes aimed at integrating the youth, ensuring effective management of resources, initiating programmes aimed at poverty alleviation and promoting social cohesion. NDYA’s programmes were biased towards young people with disabilities and young women in peri-urban and rural areas. The NYDA was targeted at youth aged between 14 and 35 years.

Key Performance Areas of NYDA

Economic Participation: The organisation aimed to enhance the participation of Youths in the economy through targeted and integrated programmes such as creating enterprises to stimulate economic development, job opportunities and income generating projects.
Education and Skills Development: Aimed at ensuring that youths were educated so as to raise the literacy levels in the country and help school dropouts to be self employed, through putting them on programmes that enabled them to be self employed.
Effective and Efficient Management of Resources: Dealt with governance issues of the organisation.
Information and Communication: Aimed to gather development information and make it accessible to the youths especially in rural areas.
Policy and Advocacy: Aimed at influencing government policies, programmes, and municipalities to be biased towards youth emancipation and help in youth development. This feature was not limited to South Africa but was international to make sure that young people in other countries were not left out of development as a way to counter the influx of foreign nationals into the country.
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation: Helped the organisation to participate actively in government policy formulation and evaluation of the success of programmes implemented for the purpose of developing youths. Under this objective the organisation was empowered to conduct research on any issue that it deemed important to its mandate.
Social Cohesion: Aimed at nation building by strengthening relations between the country’s diverse races. It sought to encourage youths to participate in government conventions, sensitise them to the importance of participating on governance issues to influence development in their respective areas.
National Youth Service: Promoted volunteerism. The community service exposed young people to opportunities in workplaces as a step to preparing them for employment. The programme ensured that youths were better equipped with skills to increase their employability.

National Youth Policy (2009-2014)
The National Youth Policy (2009-2014) emphasised rural youth development and directed government to invest in skilling the rural youth and creating mechanisms of attracting and retaining them in their respective areas. This meant that government had to make efforts to create employment for youths in rural areas through attractive incentives. For the intervention to be successful the government had to invest in infrastructure development in rural areas. The National Youth Policy also called upon departments to establish youth directorates and come up with departmental youth development strategies in consultation with the NYDA.

DRDLR was in the process of developing a Rural Youth Development
Strategy. This strategy was yet to be discussed with the NYDA for a mainstreamed youth development approach. The Comprehensive Rrual Development Programme as developed by DRDLR would form the strong bases for the rural youth strategy.

NDYA approach to rural development
This was guided by two focus areas: (1) Community Development Facilitation (CDF) facilitated the identification of opportunities in rural areas and linked them with relevant institutions to open up opportunities for funding. (2) Cooperatives Development efforts were made to encourage young people to start cooperatives and help them to draft business plans as well as link them to training. The NYDA focused on the following economic activities for the rural youth and protecting the environment: agriculture, water and waste management, renewable energy and energy efficiency and integrated agribusiness development.

Ithubalentsha Micro Enterprise Programme
Another NYDA initiative which would also cater for rural youth was the new micro enterprise programme, Ithubalentsha Micro Enterprise Programme, focused on loans up to R100 000. It was aimed at correcting the shortcomings of previous micro finance initiatives where funds had been given to individuals who misappropriated funds and employed foreigners instead of locals. This initiative would address trade and business areas such as plumbing, music production, mobile merchants and photography. The initiative addressed five pillars: entrepreneurship education, technical or trade training, mentorship, financing and linkage to the target market. This was done to ensure that businesses were sustainable and grew.

Green Economy
NDYA initiated a green economy strategy to help in skilling, creating employment and economic opportunities and responsible management of the environment in areas such as Agriculture, Agro processing Water and Waste management. An estimated 322,825 jobs were anticipated over a period of five years with a capital investment of R5,8 billion and 2,714 SME projects.

In implementing its programme the NDYA had been affected by poor capitalisation of the merger, limited budget allocations, and poor cooperation with government departments. In its lifetime the organisation had created 34 positions and the rest of people employed (440) had been inherited from the mergers together with the responsibilities although there had not been an increase in funding. NYDA was
allocated a R370 million annual budget but budgetary pressures meant that it was requesting R930 million funding.

Comparatively, Youth Programmes were more undercapitalised than in Namibia where the youth was allocated a budget of R400 million for its 2, 4 million population. The government had allocated R1,7 billion for three years which was very meagre compared to the population of the country. Government Departments were refusing to create a youth directorate which was affecting the implementation of youth programmes. The media had also negatively reported on the Agency hence eroding the confidence of funders in NDYA’s potential to drive youth policy. A lot of people were not clued up on the role of the NYDA but had criticised the organisation’s efforts to develop the youth without their providing alternatives to solve the problems.


Nkosi Mandela said that the presentation lacked detail on projects that had been implemented since it did not mention the location of the projects, in what sectors jobs were created and where. He asked who the partners were working with NYDA because he had not seen their activities in his constituency.

Steven Ngubeni admitted that the presentation was not detailed as they had anticipated that the engagement was about igniting friendship. He promised that the agency would look into the issue next time and provide more detail on its programmes because previously they had accounted to the Portfolio Committee on Women, Children and People with Disabilities. The partners that were working with the NYDA were a structure of traditional leaders in Eastern Cape, Government Departments, Land Bank and private partners. The agency was not able to do much more due to lack of capacity and resources which were disproportionate to the population of the beneficiaries.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said she was one of the people who did not have any faith in the NDYA following an incident two years before, where on hosting a youth party, a lot of youths had behaved irresponsibly. He said the NYDA compared SA youth to youth from other countries but forgot that the South Africa youth was irresponsible. Rather than demanding money, the NYDA should start by building a responsible youth. She asked in which rural areas were the services of NDYA being implemented since in her province, KwaZulu Natal, she had not noticed any programme.

Mr Ngubeni said he appreciated the advice which showed that the member liked the Agency’s objectives. However, people should refrain from listening to media rumours as most of the reports were misleading and guided by predetermined dimensions. He referred to the 2010 festival that the member was complaining about, and said the media had selected bad pictures to taint the NYDA, but there had been a lot of good things to report on. He had lost faith in the media as despite his explaining that NYDA had received a “clean audit with matters of emphasis”, the Cape Times had issued a report that said, “we concealed matters of emphasis”. He said the province that benefited most from NYDA programmes was KwaZulu Natal. The agency had a black book of beneficiaries that benefited from its programmes.

Mr L Johnson (Co-Chairperson) said the Committee would not speak about the terms of references.

Ms Steyn said the NDYA should check its website as some of the links were not opening. She was one of the people who knew about the NYDA through the media and the leadership should mind what they say as it would influence the cooperation of investors. Despite the pomp over its mandate and anger over disinvestment, the Agency did not have a clear strategy for its programmes to convince the government to allocate more money. The fact that the Chairperson had facilitated NYDA’s appearance before the Committee, without them taking the initiative, pointed to lack of organisation.

A committee member from Limpopo said the visibility of the NYDA was non existent. There were a lot of frustrated youths who were doing nothing. This predisposed them to risky behaviour. On the challenges the youth were facing, there was no way the Committee could help NDYA without witnessing its programmes. She advised that the NDYA should strategise its programmes and should form cooperatives since youths in the rural area were illiterate and had no access to the media.

Mr Ngubeni accepted that the Agency was not visible and they needed 283 offices to cover all municipalities compared to the current number of 144. To have a full service in all 52 districts in the country a capital injection of R3 million per year was needed. On the strategy, which was approved by the executive authority, he said they had presented it to the Portfolio Committee on Women, Children and People with Disabilities. Establishing cooperative was part of the agency’s core business and they would provide the numbers and locations of the cooperatives.

Mr Johnson (Co-Chairperson) said the main issues raised by the NYDA was about the mainstreaming of projects and lack of youth directorates in departments. There was a need for cooperation with other parliamentary committees in finding a solution to its problems and for the Agency to be more pointed in its climate change programme.

Mr Ngubani said they had alluded to the climate change issue in the presentation and had a strategy in place that they would be willing to present to the Committee if required to do so. NYDA would participate in the impending Climate Change conference in Durban.

Mr Ngubeni said the Agency had already started engaging departments to find common ground on establishing directorates and departmental youth development programmes. Plans would be made to work with DRDLR and other Portfolio Committees.

Mr Mdu Shabane, DRDLR Director General, said there was a lot that NYDA and his Department could do particularly with projects such as NARYSEC. He said DRDLR would bring in other departments such as Agriculture and DTI so that the next time NYDA appeared before the Committee, there would have been engagements with each other.

Mr Johnson said, in the interest of time, the Agency should respond in writing to the Committee questions by end of the following week. In the future the Committee would invite departments to respond to questions.

Mr Johnson proposed that the Joint Committee Report on oversight visits to Northern Cape, Limpopo, Free State and Mpumalanga should be adopted.

Mr Sizani (Co-Chairperson) proposed that the report on provinces be adopted the following year as there were issues that needed to be clarified, amended and modified. The Department should provide the Committee with a list of strategic partners, and the Committee required a list of all NARYSEC projects and where they were located.

Mr Johnson suggested that the recommendations be forwarded to the Department of Agriculture.

Members agreed to postpone adopting the Joint Committee Report.

After the Committee adopted the minutes of the previous meeting, the meeting was adjourned.


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: