Development of the National Extension and Advisory Services Policy: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries briefing; Commission on Restitution of Land Rights briefing

Meeting report

Apologies

Apologies were received from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on behalf of Minister Senzeni Zokwana, the Deputy Minister as well as Director General of the Department.

Nomination of Acting Chairperson

As the Chairperson was booked off sick, the Committee in terms of NCOP rule 92 had to elect an Acting Chairperson for the session. Nominations were called for. Mr A Singh (ANC, KwaZulu Natal) nominated Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape). Ms E Prins (ANC, Western Cape) seconded the nomination. With no further nominations, Mr Rayi was elected as Acting Chairperson.

Remarks by Acting Chairperson

The Acting Chairperson expressed concern with regard to the tapering attendance of Select Committee meetings by the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). The Department of Rural Development (DRD) was worse still as the Committee was yet to meet with the Minister and both Deputy Ministers.

Mr L Gaehler (UDM, Eastern Cape) said it was not fair to the Committee Members that the political heads of Departments were absent from meetings as some questions would specifically require their response. He then requested that the issue be taken up on behalf of the Committee by the Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson assured the Committee that letters would be written to the respective departments voicing the Committee’s concerns.

Presentation by the Department of Agriculture (DoA)

Mr Mokutule Kgobokoe, DoA Deputy Director General Food Security and Agrarian Reform highlighted the importance of extension and advisory services as a strategic function. Some held the belief that it was integral to successful land reform. The inception phase of the policy comprised comparative research based on situational analyses, global extension models and practices.

The next phase involved consultative processes. These included one on one provincial consultations, nine provincial workshops, focus groups and a consolidation of gathered information. The policy’s widespread consultation was particularly emphasised. The third phase was that of drafting the policy. The key problem areas identified were a poor linkage between research, extension and producers. There was a low extension practitioner to producer ratio. The current numbers failed to meet the standard of 450 farmers to one practitioner as the situation was that one practitioner would service between 800 to 1000 farmers. Disintegrated and thus uncoordinated efforts were experienced from different Extension Support Agencies. There was a lack of a National Policy Regulatory Framework that would provide formal guidelines, working standards and governing code of ethics. Thus, practices were disparate, lacking uniformity and consistency. Limitations were faced with the Extension Education System and Narrow Service focus. The current narrow system was deficient and a broader perspective was required such as to enable the assistance of all stakeholders in the value chain. As the policy was a response to the identified problem areas, its purpose served to deliver and maintain a pluralistic, harmonised and coordinated extension and advisory services that operate on a comment set of principles and values. As there were various role players in the value chain the policy was to ensure that the extension service responded to the needs, aspirations, opportunities and other circumstances of the many actors in the respective value chains. The policy strove to recognise the overall livelihood context within which extension and advisory services operated and committed to the support of producers on a wider livelihood system and sustainable development initiatives. The policy’s final purpose was to support the implementation of the NDP IGDP and APAP. The aims were detailed as setting a regulatory framework for the relevant sectors in the provision of extension services. Further, the Department aimed to provide a common framework and achieve shared overarching objectives. The actionable long term goals of the policy were envisioned as follows: all actors in the value chain were to enjoy equitable and optimum access to knowledge and skills and the capacity to explore opportunities for the advancement of their livelihoods; Knowledge transfer and skills development were to be the foundation of productive, competitive, profitable and sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishery; Finally the policy was to respond to user’s express economically viable needs, ambitions and circumstances.

The policy objectives, as a reaction to the challenges outlined above, sought to ensure effective linkages and exchange of information between research, extension and producers. Further, it was to establish a professional, accessible, reliable, relevant and accountable national extension and advisory service that was results oriented. Another objective was to ensure a pluralistic and coordinated approach for the provision of extension and advisory services by public, private and non-profit organisations. The policy was to transform and align the core competencies of extension practitioners towards the comprehensive development agenda and both promote and implement the value chain approach for integrated and holistic support services.

The scope of the policy applied to the three sectors in all rural and urban areas of South Africa. It covered all scales of production and procession by all types of South Africans regardless of their socio economic background or status. Finally, it applied to all modes of extension and advisory service delivery, by government, the private sector, NGOs, producer organisations and producers.

The role of extension and advisory services was highlighted as assisting producers in accessing services and facilities that were essential for the enhancement of farm productivity, securing finance and markets. The extension service also assisted producers in identifying and overcoming challenges. Such officers worked with producers in technology development and provided information to research institutions on producer’s production constraints. The role was instrumental in the dissemination of shared knowledge that would capacitate participants in becoming self-reliant and attaining an improved standard of living.

Core extension methods were briefly discussed and it was stressed that there was no single extension model or approach suited to all situations in South Africa. Approaches and methods were to be adaptable and dictated by the prevailing conditions. The concept of extension had broadened, and the extension workers were now knowledge brokers facilitating learning based extension which was a more responsive role.

Suggested policy intervention measures were the improved access to quality extension and advisory services that was professional, reliable, relevant and accountable. This was to be done by recruiting and registering competent extension practitioners. The next measure was to facilitate a pluralistic and integrated approach to provide extension and advisory services as well as advancing extension education systems. This was to be addressed by reviewing the curricula so as to develop multidisciplinary training for practitioners.  Further, continuous professional development was foreseen by the policy. The promotion of commodity value chain development required extension practitioners to become champions of the value chain approach. Effective and efficient linkage mechanisms between research, extension and producers foresaw the implementation of the forums at national, provincial and district levels as proposed by the policy. Practitioners were also required to be ICT literate. Research was to be demand and small holder commodity group driven. Further, an accessible approach was to be developed through multilingualism and the promotion of indigenous knowledge systems by producers.

The provincial implications were that the Provincial Departments of Agriculture (PDAs) would be able to provide a holistic, well-coordinated and collaborative approach. Extension norms and standards would be improved and monitored. A coordinated platform would enable different actors’ participation.  Combined capacity and knowledge base within public private and non-profit actors would be synergised and channelled toward the advancement of the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors.

The envisaged policy impact was sustainable food security, self-reliant producers, enhanced capacity of personnel, strengthened producer organisations or commodity groups and the integrated intervention through statutory means, that is, provincial Directorates for extension and advisory services that would ensure effective implementation.

The funding mechanism was premised on the government’s commitment to providing extension and advisory services without charge to those who could not afford to pay. A user-pay principle would otherwise apply. Outsourcing, co-financing, contracting of services and private funding were proposed as implementation of such would resolve the problem of fiscal sustainability. Integration of the private sector into the public extension and advisory services was thus encouraged.

As to the status of progress, the policy had been consulted widely with all relevant stakeholders. The policy was tabled at EXCO of DAFF which recommended it for tabling at MINTECH (Provincial Head of Departments (HODs), chaired by the Director General of DAFF). On 9 July 2014 MINTECH recommended that the Policy and Implementation Plan be sent to all CEOs of Public Entities and to all HODs of PDAs for comments and inputs and all inputs were incorporated into the policy on 24 August 2014.  On 11 September 2014 the policy document and its implementation plan were recommended by MINTECH for tabling at the next MINMEC (Minister and MECs structure) meeting. On 26 September the poly and implementation plan were tabled and approved at MINMEC. What remained were consultations with Director General and Ministerial Clusters on Social and Economic Development (ESEC). Following that, a Cabinet Committee tabling and approval were required.

Discussion

The Acting Chairperson indicated that it would be helpful for the policy and implementation plans to be sent to the Committee along with the presentation.

Ms Prins complemented the Department on the policy on long overdue support to upcoming farmers. What would be the minimum requirements of an extension officer? What was the current ratio and how would land reform beneficiaries be accommodated and prioritised?

As part of the Extension Recovery Plan, given the effects of segregation, there was a need to harmonise the qualification requirements of extension officers. Hence, it was held that the minimum requirements would be a matric certificate as well as a four year degree.

Mr Kgobokoe replied that the current farmer to extension officer ratio continued to pose an undesirable situation. One of the pillars of the Extension Recovery Plan was focused on recruitment. At the commencement of the Recovery Plan there were about 2200 government employed extension officers. During the course of the Plan consisting of an aggressive recruitment programme, this number had increased to 3400. It had to be remembered that that the turn-around time for recruitment was lengthy.

Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo) enquired as to why the policy was only being developed now. In terms of the ratio of 800-1200 farmers to one extension officer, that officer would have to visit four to five farms, everyday inclusive of Sundays. Was this sustainable given the envisaged seminars and professional development mechanisms? The timelines of the policy and its implementation were then interrogated. What was to be done to guarantee that the policy would be implemented and not relegated to aspirations on paper?

Mr Kgobokoe conceded that perhaps the Department had been delayed with the inception of such an intervention, yet there were interim measures in place.

Implementation was underway in the form of recruitment and registration. Extension officers were being registered with SACNASP. Extension officers were undergoing skills upgrading and enrolled in various training programmes. The Members were assured that the written answers would contain details as to the number of officers who had upgraded qualifications as well as those who had undergone short skills training programmes.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) asked why it had taken such a long time to provide such a regulatory framework and is it to be assumed that the policy is the regulatory framework spoken of.  Regarding the key problem areas identified, it was asked what was the status quo of such limitations as opposed to what they were forecasted to be in future. Was it to be surmised from the presentation that the current extension services were ineffective and inefficient, if so could it be clarified as to what exactly was ineffective and inefficient. In terms of policy objectives, what were the specific roles of the ARC and other relevant stakeholders and were they still to have an active role beyond consultation. With regard to registration, was a new registration body envisaged or would use of the existing body continue. Further, was a new curriculum envisaged? What was the status of the forums, whether advisory or mandating and to whom would these forums be accountable and how would such lines of accountability function. Was the National Coordinating structure a mandatory part of the implementation and if not, was it not possible that each province would carry out their mandate resulting in disparate policy implementation. Lastly, what was the cost of the implementation of the policy and if not, why not?

Mr Thozamile Lukhalo, DoA Director for National Extension Reform, detailed that the envisioned forums were to be established at national, provincial and district levels. These forums were to be adapted to their respective environments. The stakeholders would be determined by the type of production in that area. He further explained that the Department was developing terms of reference at national level, that would be generic in terms of the formation of these forums, yet at provincial level the forums would be adapted as per the production of the area.

In 2011-2012 DAFF commissioned a feasibility study on the need to establish a new registration body or was an existing body to be identified for the purposes of registering extension officers. The outcome was that an existing professional body would be identified as it was more cost effective. Further, the establishment of such professional body required an Act. The South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) under Act 27of 2003, was the best suited body for extension officers as the professions it housed already worked with extension officers. SACNASP was agreeable and the registration process had been rolled out to all provinces with the exception of the Northern Cape. At that point, more than 2000 officers had registered with that body. That was the means of accountability.

Mr Kgobokoe assured the Committee that the costing details would be covered by the implementation plan to be forwarded to the Committee along with the policy.

Mr Lukhalo added that the implementation plan did not have costs per se but instead detailed different programmes to be administered under the policy which were to be developed and costed. All programmes that were currently underway were being financed by Treasury’s funding of the Extension Recovery Plan. At that point, no extra funding was necessary.

The National Department, through the Extension Reform Unit or the Chief Directorate on Extension Reform, would serve as a secretariat to the forum. This was particularly pertinent in the foundational stages. This was also true of the provincial units responsible for extension in relation to the provincial forums. Thus, the forum structures would find assistance through these units.  It was clarified that these forums were not statutory but rather advisory bodies.

The ARC had collaborated with DAFF in the development of the policy and implementation plan. It was added that such partnerships addressed the need for increased research and policy linkages.

Ms B Masango (DA, Gauteng) sought to know what the optimal timelines for implementation were. Where there estimations as to the costs of implementation? How many extension officers were there nationally at that time? As to the problems highlighted in the presentation, what mechanisms were currently in place to address such issues?

Mr Kgobokoe specified that there had been interim measures in the form of the Extension Recovery Plan. This had been in place from 2008 -2014. It was funded by the National Treasury.

Mr Lukhalo expounded on the extension officer to farmer ratios. The standard ratio was that of one officer to 450 farmers. It was to be noted that the standards varied according to the enterprise. In another enterprise such as livestock for instance the standard was one to 500. The current situation was thus not optimal pointing to the need for recruitment.

Mr Gaehler reemphasised that the policy was long overdue. Clarity was sought on what the requirements were for extension officers. And in terms of recruitment, were rural youth to be involved. Could the benefit for the rural be expounded on? Regarding the National Extension Coordinating Structure, how was this structure to work? Was there a budget for it and what form did its management structure take? Would there be a National representative involved in the envisioned provincial structure to ensure proper coordination? Finally, when was the policy to be implemented?

Mr Kgobokoe replied that the recruitment took place in all provinces. All provinces were allocated an amount on an annual basis to recruit a certain number of extension officers. Members would receive the figures per province with the written answers.

Mr Lukhalo explained that the policy implementation was scheduled over short , medium and long term periods. He also clarified that the policy, on presentation to the intergovernmental approval processes, was accompanied by an implementation plan. The latter identified all programmes to be implemented and of these programmes there was training for a multidisciplinary approach. A task team was to be appointed that would have representation across stakeholders and academia and it was to produce a report with clear recommendations as to what areas extension managers should be trained in. The report would identify core competency areas with regard to the multidisciplinary approach. It was pointed out that the multidisciplinary training was not an obstacle unique to South Africa. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services appointed task team was to meet regarding this issue in the following week in Boksburg Johannesburg. It was recognised that there were no specialist extension services training facilities in South Africa.

The Acting Chairperson reviewed the general line of questions and added that perhaps the inclusion of an implementation plan would have been constructive.

The Acting Chairperson thanked the delegation and assured that there would be a follow up meeting in the following year, specifically with regard to the implementation plan.

Presentation by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

The Acting Chairperson reconvened the meeting and began by noting the apology from the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform who was out of the country.

Mr Eugene Southgate, DRDLR Acting Director General said the Director General was also out of the country and would tender a written apology. Both Deputy Ministers were called to a debate in Parliament and would tender their apologies.

The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Mr Thami Mdontswa, the Deputy Chief Land Claims Commissioner from the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights reintroduced the Commission by highlighting its functions and origins.

Background and Mandate

The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was established by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994. Its functions were to solicit and investigate claims for restitution and to prepare them for settlement by the Minister or adjudication by the Land Claims Court. Restitution took the form of restoration, provision of alternative state owned land, prioritisation in government programmes or financial compensation.

Business Processes

In terms of the business processes of the Commission, there were seven stages undergone by each claim consisted of claim lodgement; research and compliance; gazette and notification; claimant verification; negotiations; settlements and implementation. It was noted that lodgement had reopened for a period of five years, as calculated from 1 July 2014 to end on 30 June 2019. There were at that point 14 sites where claims could be lodged. The Commission envisioned additional mobile lodgement offices that would visit areas that were further afield.

As of 30 June 2014 which was the last audited date, there were a total of 8446 outstanding claims. The Eastern Cape had a total of 987. Free State only had eight outstanding claims. Gauteng had 266. KwaZulu Natal had 2117 outstanding claims. Limpopo had a total of 751. Mpumalanga had 2672. Northern Cape had 132, while North West had 84. The Western Cape’s outstanding claims numbered 1429. 

The Commission had set itself targets for the 2015/2016 financial year, as per budgetary allowances sourced from the Medium Term Framework Processes. The first was to settle 463 new claims. Another target was the finalisation of 373 claims. In instances of phased claims, finalisation was targeted at 62 claims. The Commission had a target of researching 2660 claims lodged before the cut-off date in 1998. Further targets included acquiring two 4x4 mobile offices that would assist in reaching people that could not be reached by mobile communication units (sprinters).

Budget

The budget for the 2015-2016 financial year totalled at R2,6 billion. Of that amount, R247 560 000 was set aside for compensation of employees. R133 694 000 would be used for goods and services. R 2 154 000 would finance capital assets with capital transfers constituting 2 277 992 000 of the amount. With regard to budget allocation between national and regional offices, the former was to receive R48 944 000 while the latter, R 334 740 000.

The Commission was specifically requested by the Committee to set out the processes and timeline for the settlement and finalisation of claims. The lodgement process was done over two weeks where the claim was lodged, accepted and acknowledged and captured on the National Land Restitution Register. Stage two which were the research and compliance processes, were completed in 12 months. The third stage, gazetting and notification took place over two months as did claimant verification (stage 4).  The next stage, negotiations, took three months to complete. Settlement, stage six, extended over two months. And the final stage, implementation required three months. The seven stages of processing could be completed in 24 months given it was a normal claim. The more complex a claim, the longer processing would take.

The verification of claims prior to 19 June 1913

The second issue the Committee requested be addressed was the verification of claims prior to 19 June 1913. In the State of the Nation Address 2012, the President announced that government was considering lodgement of claims. That had since transpired. The President also cited calls for exceptions to the 1913 cut-off date. This date was in accordance with Constitutional requirements for restitution. The proposed exceptions would be three fold: the accommodation of Khoi and San descendants; the accommodation of heritage sites and finally the accommodation of historical land marks. The policy on the exceptions was being developed by the National Reference Group. The policy provided that the exceptions were to be a programme and not a project such as restitution which was a temporary project with specific outputs expected within a defined timeframe. The exceptions would thus not be implemented as restitution in the classical sense, thereby falling out of the scope of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The exception was to comprise multiple projects, managed as one unit and implemented in a progressive manner (progressive realisation as per the Constitutional mandate). The exceptions programme would be implemented through legislation. Therefore, either the current land redistribution and/or land tenure legislation would be amended to fulfil this requirement.

Capacity to handle both current and new claims

The third query from the Committee related to the Department’s capacity to handle both current and new claims. To this end 114 new posts had been created to support the re-opening of lodgement of land claims. A system had been developed to process the capturing of claims and it was anticipated that the electronic claims management system would expedite the settlement of claims. The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 2014 required that pending claims lodged before the 1998 cut-off date be prioritised. The commission would then develop a prioritisation plan for claims lodged before the 1998 cut-off date. Central to the prioritisation strategy was the principle that new claims numbered at 2700(lodged from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019) would be processed together with the old claims and where such were competing claims, the old claims would be prioritised for payment.

Discussion

Mr Smit enquired after the Department’s progress regarding the exceptions legislation. And in lieu of such legislation, why were there meetings conducted with communities around this issue-it seemed to pre-empt the enactment and enforcement of these exceptions. He harkened back to the 50-50 draft policy which was propagated before officially accepted. As to the claims database, was it in place yet. Whereas if there was no database, how did the Department differentiate between new and old claims. What was the Department’s course of action where the same land was claimed by different claimants? Further was the Department not unrealistic with its timeframes especially with regard to the old claims. A concern raised was the Mathebeleng community which could not access any services or infrastructure owing to the claim on the land which they occupied. It had transpired that the Deputy Minister was not aware of such claims. How, then, was it to be ensured that such cases were addressed as there seemed to be an information asymmetry within the Department.

In terms of the exceptions, a considerable time was spent organising the Khoi and the San communities. At that point two consultative conferences had been held with these communities, the Commission had enlisted a reference group in terms of policy development. The announcement in 2012 was that such a policy was being considered, not that it was to be implemented. To the extent that no legislation was required, the Commission had embarked on two pilot projects in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape acquiring land that had been taken before 1913. The lessons gained from those projects were incorporated into policy development.

Mr Mdontswa replied that the difficulty with the Mathebeleng community was that the land was situated in a village, and thus there was clarity as to whether the claim was on the land occupied by the community or whether the community was removed from their land and moved to Mathebeleng. Instruction from the Commission’s political principals required that further information be obtained such as to ascertain the exact claim.

Mr Singh asked whether the Department normally kept to the 24 month time frame set out for the finalisation of claims. Was there a reason for the unsettled claims figure being particularly high in KwaZulu Natal as opposed to Free State which only had eight?

Mr Mdontswa replied that the timelines detailed in the presentation pertained to normal claims. The nature and level of complexity of claims impacted the processing timeline. He explained that high numbers of outstanding claims were not resultant from neglect. Instead, KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga combined had constituted more than half of the original claims. As such, these provinces had higher baselines and had in fact received comparatively greater resource allocation.

Ms Prins asked what the profiles of the outstanding claims were. How many of the outstanding claims were currently being litigated?

Mr Mdontswa replied that the profiles of outstanding claims were mostly rural and on agricultural land. Mechanisms were in place to ensure that productive land was not lost.

Ms Labuschagne requested the number of new claims post the re-opening of lodgement processes. Further, in terms of the presentation, about 31 % of the old claims were yet to be researched. In light of the statement the both old and new claims would be dealt with simultaneously, where were the new claims in relation to the 31% of old claims.  In terms of funding, R 180 billion was requested by the Department to Treasury. Yet, only R8.7 billion had been allocated over the MTEF period. The Minister in the preceding week had made a statement that R16. 9 billion was needed for the settlement of old claims. Given the cut in funding over the MTEF period and the difference between the amounts requested and received, mindful of the rhetoric that claims would be processed faster and more efficiently despite the backlogs how was the Department to accomplish this feat. Further, what was the Department’s relationship or commitment to the office of the Valuer General. A detailed analysis was requested on the link between land price and reform with reference to past reform performance.

Mr Mdontswa explained that resource allocation and prioritisation was centred around the determination of which stage claims had reached.

The law required that claims before 1998 be dealt with, as such the targets which related to research pertained to the old claims. The new lodgement system was checked for competing claims in that process.

The analysis between land price and pace was to be responded to in writing.

The interface between the Valuer General and DRDLR was that the former assisted the Department in expediting the negotiation stage. Norms and standards for valuations would be developed as international standards were used at that time.

Mr Gaehler noted that there had been prolonged competing claims on land that impacted on development, particularly in the Eastern Cape. What was being done to address these issues? Some of the land claim officials were implicated in these delays as they had failed to meet with the affected communities. Was it expected that these communities go to court merely to secure the right to be heard. Did the Department have a right to develop on a claim that was not finalised without considering the claimants? What was the working relationship between the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Land Reform with regards to claims on agricultural land?

Mr Thami Mdontswa stated simply that research would resolve which claimants had a rightful claim on the land in cases of competing claims. Where there was an incorrect recipient to land before, the land was to be given to the correct party, with the government having tendered just and equitable compensation as per the Constitution. In that instance just and equitable compensation would have been zero. In instances where claimants had been ignorant to the lodgement process prior the 1998 cut-off date and had subsequently lodged claims in the new dispensation, such individuals would foreseeably be accommodated or incorporated into the communal land association on that land.

Ms Leona Archary, DRDLR Deputy Director General Rural Infrastructure and Development, conceded that in the past there had been a disjuncture between the roles and responsibilities of either department. Over the last few months, the Departments had been working jointly in the development of their respective strategic and annual performance plans. The Departments were working on programs that could be implemented and resourced jointly and efficiently. The relevant office bearers had been meeting and there had been joint mapping and identification of areas and commodities that would be addressed by the Departments in tandem. With those processes together with DRDLR’s recap and development programme, the necessary funding could be brought to claimants once land had been acquired. Both the agricultural and sustainable human development components would be dealt with by the partnership.

Mr Mdontswa added that the Highberry Timber claimants’ case had been brought to the Commission’s attention and it was undertaken that the community would be visited by either provincial senior officials or national officials in 14 days.

The Acting Chairperson asked if there was an electronic database accessible to the public where the status of claims could be checked in terms of the seven stages of the Commission’s business process. What challenges were envisaged in the implementation of the proposed strategy?

Mr Mdontswa clarified that restitution was contemplated a temporary programme spanning five years and the resources allocated were intended in the main for claim settlement. There was very little set aside for the development of systems. Thus, pertaining to claims prior the 1998 cut-off date, the Commission utilised an excel spread-sheet as a database. For claims lodged post 1 July 2014, an information system had been developed that would assist in claims processing and information capturing.

It was recognised that although a database existed for old claims, the challenge was in making it accessible to the public.

He expounded on the data base for the new claims which was electronic. It was specified the Amendment Act required a land restitution register, and the purpose of an electronic lodgement system was for such registration. In terms of public relations, the Commission had changed their approach to enquiries from the public to one of explaining the process and demonstrating the stage at which the claimants claim was.

The Committee agreed that the remainder of the questions would be responded to in writing.

The meeting was adjourned.