DSBD, SEDA & SEFA 2020/21 annual reports; with Deputy Minister

Small Business Development

17 November 2021
Chairperson: Mr F Jacobs (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

In this virtual meeting, the Committee received briefings on the 2020/21 annual reports of the Department of Small Business Development, the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), and the Small Enterprise Finance Agency (SEFA).

The Department reported that it had received an unqualified audit with findings and had achieved 19 (86%) of its 22 annual performance targets, an improvement over the 67% achieved in 2019/20. The targets not met had been in the Integrated Co-operatives Development programme and the Enterprise Development and Entrepreneurship programme. It had spent R2.249 billion of its R2.278 billion budget, for underspending of R28.6 million (1.3%). However, cuts to the employee compensation budget remained a problem, with key positions left vacant.

SEDA reported that its performance in 2020/21 had been poor, with 12 (52%) of 23 annual performance targets achieved. It had supported a total of 52 139 businesses, creating 2 292 jobs. Of its R990 million budget, it had spent R773 million (78%). SEDA acknowledged that it had not adapted quickly enough to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it had also been affected by a cyberattack in April. SEDA’s unqualified audit with findings, a regression from previous years, was primarily a result of the cyberattack. However, SEDA had now successfully implemented a hybrid model in response to the pandemic, and its performance had already improved in the first two quarters of 2021/22.  

SEFA reported that it had received a clean audit but had only achieved 5 (29.4%) of its 17 annual targets. One reason for its underperformance was the COVID-19 pandemic, which had to led to sluggish demand conditions and had compelled SEFA to suspend its organisational loan programme temporarily, so that it could focus on the debt relief programme and the restructuring of its funded clients. However, SEFA delegates emphasised that its funding approvals and disbursals had been very high in the year under review. It had approved funding worth R1.9 billion and had disbursed R1.6 billion, facilitating 99 112 jobs. The quality of its loan book continued to present a credit default risk.

Members asked the Department about a range of issues, including its expenditure on fumigation and the visibility of the Department’s programmes in the provinces. Audit performance was also a central concern – Members asked about the Co-operative Incentive Scheme and the Black Business Supplier Development Programme, both of which had been flagged by the Auditor-General, and asked how the Department responded when its agencies received audit findings. In respect of SEDA and SEFA, Members’ primary concerns related to the agencies’ accessibility and reach, and particularly their onerous application requirements and processes.

Overall, Members expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Department and SEDA, but many expressed concern about SEFA. Two Members suggested that the Committee should undertake much more intensive oversight to ensure that SEFA was correctly recording its disbursals.

Meeting report

The Chairperson, Ms V Siwela, had a doctor’s appointment shortly, and Mr F Jacobs (ANC) was appointed acting Chairperson.

The Committee noted apologies from several Members and from the Minister of Small Business Development, who was attending a Cabinet meeting.

Opening remarks by the Deputy Minister

Mr Sdumo Dlamini, Deputy Minister of Small Business Development, said that the annual reports did not tell an exceedingly “positive story” about the period under review. The Director-General would expand.

DSBD 2020/21 annual report Mr Lindokuhle Mkhumane, Director-General, Department of Small Business Development (DSBD), presented the Department’s annual report.

He said that the Committee often raised the issue of the finalisation of the Department’s organisational structure, and the Department had prioritised that issue during the year under review. However, cuts to the employee compensation budget had limited its efforts in this regard. The inability to fill key positions had negatively affected the Department’s operations and ability to deliver on its mandate. Deputy director-general posts remained vacant. 

The Department had achieved 19 (86%) of its 22 annual performance targets. The Department’s performance rate had improved over recent years – it had been 67% in 2019/20. All targets were met in Programmes 1 and 2, Administration and Sector Policy and Research. The targets not met were in Programme 3, Integrated Co-operatives Development, which had achieved five (71%) of its seven targets, and Programme 4, Enterprise Development and Entrepreneurship, which had achieved three (75%) of its four targets. The following targets were not achieved:

- 2 000 women-owned businesses supported to register on an international platform (achieved 1 015); 

- R50.7 million in support to co-operatives (achieved R31.1 million); and

- 28 000 businesses supported under the Township and Rural Empowerment Programme (achieved 13 987).

All the Department’s creditors had been paid in under 30 days. On average, payments were processed within ten days, and the Department was pleased to have delivered on this, because the issue of non-payment had been ongoing.

The Department had exceeded the government’s standards for the representativeness of its staff, with 57.1% of its senior management positions filled by women.

Ms Semphete Oosterwyk, Chief Financial Officer, DSBD, presented the Department’s financial statements and audit outcomes. The Department had a received an unqualified audit with findings for 2020/21. It had spent R2.249 billion of its R2.278 billion budget, for underspending of R28.6 million (1.3%).

(See presentation for further details)


Mr H Kruger (DA) said that he thought the Department’s pilot stratification programme and strategy was a step in the right direction. He asked about the procedures small businesses had to follow when seeking assistance from the Department and its agencies. One practically needed a doctorate to fill in the forms. The process had to be simplified and streamlined. He was also concerned about the slow response of the Small Enterprise Finance Agency (SEFA) to applicants.

He asked about the Co-operative Incentive Scheme (CIS). What was the failure rate of co-operatives who sought help from the Department and its agencies? 

Mr H April (ANC) commended the Department’s good performance under the difficult circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was “heart-warming” to oversee an entity which had proved itself committed to assisting small businesses. He was slightly concerned about the vacancy rate and asked how the Department intended to fill the vacancies.

Mr D Mthenjane (EFF) thanked the Committee’s Chairperson, Ms Siwela, for attending the meeting even though she was ill. He said that the Ministry could learn from her, instead of missing essential meetings about entities which were critical to the country’s economy. He was unhappy with the report, which was directed to the Committee more than to the Department’s real audience: the members of the public who needed its assistance. He was also disappointed that, according to the Auditor-General, the Department had ignored important procedures and failed to submit documents timeously, thus violating Chapter 9 of the Constitution. Perhaps the Department should be merged back into the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, because it was currently wasting taxpayers’ money. The report looked good in writing, but was contradicted by reality.

He said that the Department and its entities were not visible to members of public – it clearly did not hold roadshows. How did it communicate with the public?

He said that the Department should provide a database recording all the assistance it had provided to businesses, so that the Committee could verify its claims for themselves. It looked like there were “a lot of shenanigans” at the Department. The Department had to take itself and the public seriously, and the Committee should not take its report at face value.

Finally, he asked about the money that had been spent on fumigating offices during the pandemic – it was more than R700 000. He had been informed that the offices were closed, so why was fumigation necessary?

Ms M Lubengo (ANC) was concerned about the Auditor-General’s findings on CIS and the Black Business Supplier Development Programme (BBSDP). What exactly was the situation there, and where were the difficulties?

She also asked for an update on progress in regard to the forensic report commissioned by the Department in 2018. How many people had been suspended or dismissed? 

Ms K Tlhomelang (ANC) said that the Department had made progress despite its difficulties, and Rome was not built in one day.

She asked about the Department’s oversight over its agencies. What had it done about the cyberattack? Did the Department have a relationship with the audit risk committee at Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA)? Had the Department managed to attend to some of the issues raised in the audits of SEDA and SEFA? SEFA had incurred a loss of R548 million in the year under review, an increase from R425 million in the previous year. What was the Department’s strategic approach or plan to address this?

Responding to her comments commending the Department, Mr Mthenjane asked whose “side” Ms Tlhomelang was on – the side of the Department or “the side of the people.” The Department was not building Rome – it was providing services.

Members interrupted to object to Mr Mthenjane’s remarks.

The Acting Chairperson asked Mr Mthenjane to ask his questions without casting aspersions on other Members. Members had a right to their opinions and to disagree with each other without being “attacked.”

Mr Mthenjane acknowledged the Chairperson’s response.

Mr Kruger said that he had forgotten to refer the Department to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report of 2020. According to that report, entrepreneurial activity was lower in South African than in other African countries – only 11% of South Africans wanted to be entrepreneurs, compared to about 50% elsewhere in Africa.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Kruger for raising an interesting and important point.


Ms Oosterwyk said that she was not sure where Mr Mthenjane had gotten the figure he had cited for expenditure on fumigation. The Department had spent money on fumigation, but perhaps Mr Mthenjane was also considering fumigation at SEDA and SEFA. Generally, despite the Department’s work-from-home policy, some officials had to go into the offices physically. In particular, finance officials could not process documents, such as invoices and other queries, from home, so they had to go into the office almost daily.

Ms Zandile Mavundla, Chief Director: Strategic Management and Executive Support, DSBD, said that the Department deployed middle and senior managers to all provinces. Some of them, including herself, were deployed as provincial “champions.” There was somebody responsible for every district and metro. The Department had showcased its work all over the country, and on the same occasions had assisted some people on the spot. The Department had held webinars, including one hybrid event that the President had attended. The President had listened to feedback from small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) and co-operatives, hearing their assessments of the Department’s performance. All district and provincial managers had been present, and, when the champions returned to their regions, the grievances were addressed. Issues that could not be addressed in the regions were sent back to be handled by the portfolio. The Minister and Deputy Minister had also undertaken to conduct roadshows throughout the country, which would involve visits to all districts. The Department had hoped to begin the roadshows by November 2021, but there had been delays due to preparations for the local elections and now for the inauguration of the mayors.

The Chairperson light-heartedly said that Ms Mavundla should worry about getting the roadshows going, instead of worrying about elections, which were the responsibility of Members and other politicians. 

Mr Kruger asked the Department to provide a list of the names and contact details of all the champions in each province and district, so that Members knew who they should contact when dealing with matters that arose in their constituencies.

The Chairperson said that the Department should also provide the Committee with the programme for the proposed series of roadshows.

Mr Mkhumane agreed with Mr Kruger that the Department needed to simplify the processes followed by SMMEs seeking to access support. The establishment of the SMMEs database was intended to address that issue. Once the database was established, SMMEs would only be required to register once, and would not have to go through the process again each time they wanted to seek assistance. The Department was also pursuing a system whereby the same template would be used for forms across all government entities, including the National Empowerment Fund and so on. That would also simplify the process for SMMEs.

On the failure rate of cooperatives, he said that the Department had not yet conducted another baseline survey. That did need to be done – he thought the last report had been around 2012.

He was also concerned about the findings in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report. The Department was participating in the global entrepreneurship week, which took place every November. SEDA could expand on that. The Department was taking measures to encourage and support entrepreneurship.

He said that the Department was working on improving the vacancy rate as soon as possible. The Department had no control over officials’ decision to resign, although it tried to create an environment conducive to retention. It had developed a recruitment plan to ensure that the vacancy rate was minimised, but the vacancy rate had increased during the first two quarters of 2021/22, due to organisational changes.

To Mr Mthenjane’s comments, Mr Mkhumane said that the Department had never disrespected any Chapter 9 institution. The offices had been fumigated because it was required by law. The Department wanted to protect its officials. Finance and human resources officials had go into the office to ensure that the systems were running and that payments were processed, so that the Department could assist SMMEs.

He said that the Department had worked closely with SEDA following the cyberattack. It had engaged with other government entities which had experienced similar problems, seeking to learn from them how to respond adequately. SEDA usually obtained clean audits, and the cyberattack had been the main challenge during the year under review. 

He said that SEFA could respond on the R500 million loss mentioned by Ms Tlhomelang. The Department was working closely with SEFA and had transferred a lot of its budget to SEFA, because SEFA had to be adequately capitalised. Capitalising and capacitating SEFA was crucial to addressing the funding gap for small businesses, and that had been raised with the Minister of Finance. 

On CIS and BBSDP, he said that the Department was working on paying off the entities that had already been approved under the programmes. There had been some delays in submitting compliance documents – the Department could not fund people deemed non-compliant. BBSDP had been discontinued and the funds had been transferred to blended finance, administered through SEFA.

Lastly, on the forensic report mentioned by Ms Lubengo, he said that, of the nine implicated officials, four had been cleared of the charges and five had been dismissed.

SEDA 2020/21 annual report

Dr Joy Ndlovu, Chairperson, SEDA, said that SEDA had “fall[en] short” in 2020/21. It had achieved 12 (52%) of its 23 annual performance targets. The reasons for the underperformance included the COVID-19 pandemic, the moratorium on appointments, and IT challenges, including the cyberattack. In response to the underperformance and industrial action, the SEDA board had commissioned an investigation by an independent services provider. The report had been finalised and the board was prepared to submit it to the Committee. The recommendations of the report were being implemented.

She said that SEDA had ultimately obtained an unqualified audit opinion, with material findings. The findings were linked to the cyberattack and its impact on SEDA operations – indeed, SEDA had expected to receive an even worse audit outcome. SEDA regretted the regression in its audit performance – the board had been “shaken” – and it had made plans to address all the concerns.

Mr Nkosikhona Mbatha, acting Chief Executive Officer, SEDA, presented SEDA’s annual report. He acknowledged that SEDA’s 2020/21 performance was “not good,” and SEDA had not moved quickly enough to implement its hybrid model in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the hybrid model was now working, and SEDA’s performance had already improved during the first two quarters of 2021/22.

During the year under review, a total of 52 139 SMMEs and co-operatives had been supported, including 14 657 in townships and rural areas, creating 2 292 jobs. It had assisted those businesses to find innovative solutions to their current problems, most of which were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEDA had suffered two cyberattacks, on 23 April and 29 April 2021, which had affected all of its operating systems. The systems had been recovered on 17 June, but the cyberattack had necessitated an expansion and extension of the audit.

There were 67 vacancies at SEDA, for a vacancy rate of 9%. Many top management positions were vacant – even Mr Mbatha himself was in his post in an acting capacity. The recruitment process had begun to fill the vacancies, and offers would be made by December.

Mr Elias Maabane, acting Chief Financial Officer, SEDA, presented on SEDA’s financial statements. SEDA had spent R773 million (78%) of its R990 million budget.

(See presentation for further detail)


Mr Kruger said that SEDA’s performance had been stagnant over the past seven years, without much progress being made. How was SEDA planning to improve its “footprint” in the current year? He was not referring to its digital footprint – there were many people who could not access SEDA services online. 

He said that for the past seven years, the Committee and SEDA had been discussing the idea of a “one-stop shop,” which had been implemented successfully in other countries. However, SEDA had never made it clear how it planned to implement that concept. 

Mr April said that Members should always consider the context and study the documents in advance, because the Committee’s oversight function should go beyond “politicking.” SEDA had made progress over the two years in which he had been a Member of the Committee. He was slightly concerned about the audit opinion, and he was concerned that senior management was “over-stretched” due to the vacancy rate. But, overall, SEDA had improved.

He asked why SEDA was asking to have R221.4 million in unspent funds rolled over, when its budget surplus in 2020/21 had been only R217 million. Could SEDA update the Committee on the outcome of its request to have these funds rolled over?

He said that both SEDA and SEFA had reported low uptake of the spaza shop support programme. They had also noted that other provincial organisations had introduced their own spaza shop support programmes, separate from the Department programme, with better incentives. How did those provincial programmes differ from the Department’s programme? Moreover, did SEDA think that the funding limits were the only obstacle to higher uptake of the Department’s programme, or were there other factors?

He was concerned that SEDA was struggling to assist businesses owned by people from marginalised groups. SEDA attributed this primarily to the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, and planned to address the accessibility issues through its hybrid model. How, exactly, did it plan to do this? 

He asked whether SEDA had determined why clients were reluctant to offer information on contracts and procurement opportunities access. What could SEDA do to address that?

Finally, Mr April asked for an update on the merger between SEFA and SEDA. What role did the Department play in preparing for the merger? 

The Acting Chairperson read out a question from Ms B Mathulelwa (EFF). Ms Mathulelwa said that on an oversight visit in KwaZulu-Natal, it had become apparent that SEDA was not easily accessible to SMMEs and street hawkers in remote areas. Why was that? Moreover, why did SEDA have so many application requirements and long waiting periods? Those discouraged many businesses from applying. This question also related to Mr Kruger’s earlier point about the cumbersome application process.


To Mr Kruger, Dr Ndlovu said that SEDA’s performance rate had been above 80% for the past seven years, so the underperformance in 2020/21 had been “alarming” to the board. Thus it had sought to investigate the root causes of the problems. The external forensic investigators, the Auditor-General, and the internal audit had all pointed to a lack of capacity and to IT issues. SEDA had put measures in place to handle IT issues, and had also received funds from Treasury for investment in its IT systems, to ensure that they were secure and that SEDA could meet global standards for digital services. SEDA was using digital platforms, but the problem was that its target audience had not fully digitised. SEDA’s clients needed training or investment, or both, in order to digitise. Moreover, there were more than 2.5 million SMMEs in South Africa, but SEDA’s maximum capacity was probably about 250 000 clients – it had never serviced more than 200 000 clients at a given time. SEDA’s footprint had grown substantially over the years, and it continued to work towards expanding its services to more people across the country.

She concluded that she did not want to create the impression that SEDA was “making excuses” for its underperformance, so the board would appreciate the opportunity to return to the Committee to brief Members on the report of the external investigation. That way, SEDA could provide more detail on the challenges identified and the responses implemented. 

Mr Mbatha said that there was a strong feeling among SEDA’s board and management that SEDA needed to become more accessible. It had committed to working on its national access points, and had made progress. It had collaborated with other organisations to assist it in identifying areas where it should expand. The plan was to add more access points, mainly in townships and rural areas, without opening new branches, because opening new branches would require hiring more employees. SEDA would thus use an accredited service provider model. That would be a major project in the new financial year.

On the rollover of unspent funds, Mr Maabane said that the surplus calculation was not solely based on the surplus that was disclosed at the end of the financial year, which in this case had been R217 million. The surplus calculation was based on the cash balance that was available at the end of the year, and included items like accounts receivable and outstanding payments. That was why the figure was R221 million, not R217 million.

On the outcome of the request for a rollover, Mr Mbatha added that SEDA had received a letter confirming that the unspent funds would be rolled over into the current financial year.

Ms Ntokozo Majola, Executive Manager: Enterprise Development Division, SEDA, said that competitor spaza shop support schemes provided higher amounts than the Department’s programme. The Department’s programme provided R7 000 in total, as blended finance, with R3 500 as a loan and R3 500 as a grant. External schemes in Gauteng, for example, provided grants of as much as R25 000. The Department’s requirements were also much more stringent. The Department required that applicants had to have been in operation for at least six months, whereas external schemes in Gauteng required only three months. The Department also required applicants to register with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, which was itself an onerous process and came with its own compliance requirements.

Mr Mbatha said that SEDA was assisting hawkers by helping them to fill in forms, and had been on the ground to assist with other matters as well.

The Chairperson said that he thought that Members were pointing to the need for a responsive government – a government which helped members of the public who, for example, might not have the capacity to fill in the forms. Meeting compliance requirements should not be too onerous for small businesses.

Mr Kruger asked whether SEDA, SEFA or the Department were in discussions with Eskom about loadshedding, which was a threat to the viability of small businesses. 

The Chairperson said that he thought Mr Kruger’s question was a broader political one, though it was important – loadshedding was a key inhibitor of economic growth, especially among small businesses.

SEFA 2020/21 annual report

Mr Martin Mahosi, Chairperson, SEFA, said that in the past the Committee had expressed concern about the uptake and disbursements for the COVID-19 relief programme. SEFA had initially had to freeze the applications, because the applications had exceeded the available funds. It had begun rolling out the funds in tranches but, as the economy began to open up again, some applicants had withdrawn their applications because they no longer needed the funding. Since the programme was frozen, the relevant funds had been redirected to other programmes.

He said that despite COVID-19 and capacity problems, SEFA had approved more in funding in 2020/21 than it had at any other time in its history. It had also disbursed more funds than it had in any of the five prior years. However, he admitted that SEFA had not been consistent in the upkeep of its database. This affected its ability to report to the Committee on uptake and reasons for disapprovals.

Mr Mxolisi Matshamba, Chief Executive Officer, SEFA, said that in the year under review, SEFA had approved funding worth R1.9 billion. It had disbursed R1.6 billion, including R563 million to rural businesses and R274 million to township businesses. Through this funding, it had facilitated 99 112 jobs. At the end of the financial year, its loan book had been comprised of R1.3 billion in direct lending and R1.2 billion in wholesale lending. He also outlined the strategic risks facing SEFA, the most pressing of which was the risk of credit default, originating from the quality of its loan book.

SEFA had fully achieved 5 (29.4%) of its 17 annual performance targets. Reasons for its underperformance included the sluggish demand conditions in the economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had affected all lenders. During the first quarter, SEFA had focused on the SMME Debt Relief Programme and the restructuring of its clients – it had not been able to resume its organisational loan programme until the third quarter, and that had affected the uptake of loans and related performance indicators. 

Ms Candice Williams, acting Chief Financial Officer, SEFA, said that SEFA had obtained another successive clean audit. In 2020/21, its cost-to-income ratio was 84%. SEFA had offered rental relief to its clients, which had obviously affected its rental income.

(See presentation.)


The Acting Chairperson said that the Committee was under tight time constraints ahead of the plenary session later that day, but he offered Members the opportunity to make comments or ask questions.

Mr Mthenjane said that SEFA’s report sounded convincing, but the Committee would not be convinced until SEFA provided a database to prove its claims. He suggested that SEFA should revisit its application requirements and processes, to make it easier for people in rural areas to make successful applications for funding. People complained that their applications were rejected, and that might be because the requirements were complicated and the processes were not “user-friendly” enough. He also wanted SEFA to conduct more roadshows in remote and rural areas. It could also advertise its services on local radio stations, and should, in general, be more visible to the public. He thought that there was a lot of improvement to be made at SEFA.

Mr April said that he was slightly concerned about SEFA’s presentation. Mr Matshamba had discussed SEFA’s losses in the year under review, and he had done a good job of making Members focus on the R300 million figure from before adjustments were made. However, the fact was that SEFA had incurred serious losses, and the Committee should take those losses seriously. One could not “pretend to be blind” to the losses. The presentation had not clearly indicated SEFA’s actual performance relative to its targets, and that was concerning.

He said that the Committee had heard in its 10 November meeting that there had been an issue regarding the classification of SEFA’s SMME clients. Some businesses had incorrectly been classified as owned by persons with disabilities, and SEFA had been unable to provide medical records to support its reporting. Was it true that there had been errors in this regard? What was the actual figure for disbursements to businesses owned by people with disabilities? What were the implications of this finding for SEFA, and how would it address the issue going forward?

He said that in his constituency, there was a panelbeater owned by a young black entrepreneur. Last year, the company had applied to SEFA for assistance, but it had not received any response to date. He was worried about SEFA’s effectiveness in supporting young black entrepreneurs. It seemed as though SEFA might disburse funding using different criteria than those it advertised publicly. He had many other questions, but would not ask them due to the time constraints.

Ms Mathulelwa said that she was happy that other Members were raising these important and “sensitive” issues. She was also concerned about the report. Some Members had been asking to be given access to a database recording exactly which businesses had benefitted from SEFA funding. But it now occurred to her that even such a database would not be sufficient for oversight purposes. In the past, the Committee had performed oversight by calling the recorded beneficiaries and asking them to present to the Committee, so that it could confirm that the recorded beneficiaries were in fact receiving funds. She thought that the Committee should do something like this again. She was concerned that the reports did not accurately reflect SEFA’s true performance, and the Committee needed to verify SEFA’s claims.


Mr Mahosi acknowledged Members’ concerns about SEFA’s reach. Reach was a function of several factors, one of which was SEFA’s own visibility, which he admitted remained a challenge. Part of the problem was that many of its clients, especially in rural areas, lacked internet access. SEFA was committed to expanding its reach and improving accessibility. The Minister intended to do roadshows across the country. He thought that there would soon be progress, including in the provincial offices.

He said that SEFA encouraged Members to raise any issues that were brought to their attention, so that SEFA could intervene appropriately. It was aware that there were applications which fell “through the cracks,” and it did its best to respond to such issues on a case-by-case basis. As reported to the Committee in the past, SEFA aimed to respond to all applications within three months of submission of the application. Many of the delays were from the applicants’ side – they entered their details incorrectly or did not provide the necessary documentation.

The Acting Chairperson said that the discussion would have to be cut short, although there were plenty of issues that the Committee needed to look at. Outstanding questions and recommendations could be dealt with in writing through the Committee secretariat.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: