DALRRD progress report on previous SONA pronouncements

Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

07 March 2023
Chairperson: Mr N Mandela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Portfolio Committee convened virtually to receive a progress report by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) on the previous State of the Nation Address (SONA) pronouncements since 2020.

Committee members welcomed the progress presented and noted the importance of receiving SONA progress reports. However, the Committee was frustrated by the lack of detail and evidence in the presentation. The Committee requested further written detailed reports by 17 March 2023 on Blended Finance, the Land and Agrarian Reform Agency (LARA), the 700 000 hectares, the Sugar and Poultry Master Plans, the Graduate Placement program, the commercialisation of Black farmers and the Presidential Employment Stimulus Initiative (PESI) voucher system.

Meeting report

Deputy Minister’s remarks
Deputy Minister Zoleka Capa appreciated the opportunity to revisit the DALRRD Annual Performance Plan (APP) and programmes to bring them in line with the wider goals of government and the expectations of the public. The Minister had said that whatever was not clarified would be sent to the Committee in writing. She requested that the Department have the opportunity to do this.

DALRRD Report on previous SONA pronouncements
Mr Mokutule Kgobokoe, DLRRD Deputy Director-General: Corporate Support Services, presented on each of the five 2020, seven 2021 and three 2022 State of the Nation Address (SONA) pronouncements

The Department highlighted strategic outcomes including: 1) improved governance and service excellence; 2) spatial transformation and effective land administration; 3) redress and equitable access to land and producer support; 4) increased production; 5) increased market access and market maintenance; 6) integrated and inclusive rural economy; and 7) enhanced biosecurity and effective disaster reduction.

The Master Plans for the Sugar and Poultry industries aim to increase investment and improve production and transformation. The Department reported a key objective of Poultry Master Plan was to manage and balance the import of poultry meat. For the Sugar Master Plan, the Department stated that it was important to sustain local market consumption.

The Department highlighted land redistribution with 700 000 hectares identified for allocation to emerging farmers. The allocation had been completed in 2021.

The Department highlighted the pronouncement to increase commercialisation of black farmers. Blended finance was re-launched through the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and intended to create R1 billion grant fund. By the end of December 2022, the IDC had supported 19 transactions valued at R1.124 billion. Nine of these transactions were directed at poultry farmers.

The Department referred to the pronouncement to harness opportunities presented by the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA). The critical requirements were highlighted.

The Department noted the prioritisation of youth, women and people with disabilities. In 2020/21 34 000 hectares were allocated to women and 19 000 hectares to youth.

On skills development, there had been the introduction of a graduate placement programme through the Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme (CASP).

The Department indicated that the structure for the Agriculture and Land and Rural Development Agency had been created.

Discussion
Ms M Tlhape (ANC) appreciated the honest presentation taking stock of the previous SONA pronouncements. Despite the progress, the concern is about the lengthy project completion times. Initiatives are not yet finished, time is not standing still even as more pronouncements will be made in the coming months. How many more years must our farmers wait?

On the allocation of 700 000 hectares of state land, there were glitches with individuals residing on unidentified land and the Department said it would regularise this. She requested details on where and how much redistribution there has been per province and how much of this was actually new rather than "regularised" land. Was it new land or was it land that had been occupied? This would give the Committee an idea of how much equity had been achieved in the redistribution of the 700 000 hectares.

Ms Tlhape asked about the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA). She was concerned to hear Home Affairs Minister Motsoaledi say about the borders that some things have to be put into effect and regularised before the customs unit is in full swing.

The Agricultural Products Standards Amendment Bill has been passed and farmers will need to be educated about this when growing for markets and how it affects them. She acknowledged that the European Union (EU) had revised its protocols and that this had affected South Africa’s exports.  

She welcomed that the Agriculture and Land and Rural Development Agency structure had been finalised
but asked for the financial implications of the Agency. Would people be brought in from outside or
will staff be transferred?

Mr N Masipa (DA) said that the level of progress was below the expectations of the Committee. No progress could be seen in the matters presented on. The presentation did not reflect the development they had hoped to see and it read rather more like a wish list. It also did not note the impact of pertinent events such as COVID, the Russian war and floods.

Mr Masipa said the Minister's pledge to ensure animal and plant biosecurity in the 2019/20 SONA was not fulfilled. There were problems with diseases and farmers tried to do their best without DALRRD support. Where is the Ministerial Task Team biosecurity document and why is the Minister reluctant to release it and for government to be accountable about biosecurity challenges.

Mr Masipa said it is all well and good about land transfers but throwing millions of rand at this project will not make commercial farmers; yet those who are on the verge of becoming commercial farmers are ignored. He noted concern about the demographics of the farmers and why there is only a 50% change rate in poultry farmers. The other concern was what DALRRD was doing to repair infrastructure such as rural roads.

Mr Masipa appreciated the details provided about redistribution and land restitution. However, there was a threat from the Expropriation Bill that was currently being deliberated on. Did the Ministry and Director-General have any comment on the Expropriation Bill about hampering progress in transformation and land reform. Does the Minister support the Expropriation Bill in its current format – wanting to expropriate land without compensation in certain instances? The Bill went beyond the scope of the Constitution's property clause and permitted no compensation in certain circumstances. He emphasised the importance of this and requested a response from the Minister.

Mr Masipa said it is all well and good about land transfers but throwing millions of rand at this project will not make commercial farmers; yet those who are on the verge of becoming commercial farmers are ignored. He referred to the assistance of smallholder farmers and emerging farmers and the provision of market access. He highlighted a presentation by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). What was the historical background of executing the sustainable black commercial farmer project. What was the turnover of the project. Why was 50% of the project in poultry which was high risk? Limpopo had previously been a booming market of chicken houses that had been funded through Land Reform and Rural Development to support transformation in agriculture. Why did the DALRRD and IDC decide to focus on poultry which was a high-risk business? How did the DALRRD and IDC arrive at the idea that they were on the path to commercialization? Being funded by millions and being commercial were two different things. Millions had been spent by DALRRD on agricultural land projects but there was nothing to show. He rejected the notion that these farmers were commercial because they were receiving millions in loans. The other concern was what DALRRD was doing to repair infrastructure such as rural roads.

Mr Masipa highlighted the sugar master plan and the unfavourable labour policy. The uncertainty about private ownership would make it difficult for businesses to thrive in the country. He was unsure if the sugar master plan had been presented during the Fifth Parliament to this Committee. The sugar industry had been engaging with the Department of Trade and Industry. What was the reason for this. What was the current situation about rebuilding the damaged infrastructure as a result of the floods in Kwa-Zulu Natal. During oversight visits the Committee found that farm infrastructure, rural roads and access to main logistics were repaired by growers and communities with no government involvement. How has flooding impacted the implementation of the master plan. The imports of sugar and law-based import protection tariffs had a negative impact on the master plan. Did the Department have a plan to counter this. Were farmers affected by the floods supported with input costs and if so, what allocation was made. He asked the Department to provide a progress report on the matter. What were average production losses due to inflationary pressures on input costs. According to the master plan, sugar prices could increase only in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As producers of sugar cane, growers were absorbing 100% of the cost.

Mr Masipa asked why the Department was not moving toward giving black farmers the title deeds of the 700 000 hectares. This would make it easier for farmers to access financing and raise capital. Currently, if a farmer needed to repair a door or window, they had to apply to DALRRD and wait for a response before the repair or another small job could be done.

Mr Masipa referred to the minimum wage. He asked why agricultural jobs were being destroyed through the new minimum wage. When farm workers lose their jobs, the reality was that they would have no income and would become reliant on the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant which was not sustainable. What was the Department’s position in protecting the jobs of farm workers. How could the Government focus on building ‘fancy, new cities’ while the infrastructure crumbled.

Mr Masipa highlighted tariffs. In a previous meeting he had asked about the tariffs and why they were so high in Africa. He was concerned that the ACTFA would mean nothing to farmers if these other issues were not addressed.

Mr Masipa asked when an update on the ruling regarding citrus disputes with the World Trade Organisations (WTO) could be expected. Were any new markets being considered. If so, what markets. What progress has been made in opening new markets to support the citrus farmers.

Mr Masipa said that last year the Department had advertised approximately 10 000 posts for agriculture assistant practitioners to be placed with the Department for three months. He asked what was expected to occur during these three months on a farm. What would the graduates learn. The value chain of a farm takes a minimum of six months. How did the Department decide on three months.

Mr N Capa (ANC) asked if there were challenges in the implementation of the pronouncements. The Committee had to be made aware of any challenges that needed to be addressed. If there were challenges caused by slow legislation reform, it should be reported to the Committee so that it could be addressed.

Mr Capa asked if there had been an increase in rural land under cultivation. If there was no increase, the Committee should be made aware of it and work needed to occur to correct it. The land used for production had been increased to ensure food security.

Ms T Breedt (FF+) was concerned about SONA pronouncements as some of the pronouncements had been made in 2020 and are still in progress and had not been completed. The Committee should be taken into confidence and the Department should be transparent about the real issues they were faced with. Why was it taking so long for progress to be visible. No progress was visible and there were no clear timelines indicating when completion or further progress could be expected.

Ms Breedt highlighted blended finance. During the previous week’s presentation on the 2023 SONA pronouncements, the reinstallation of blended finance had been discussed. The Department had been clear that blended finance in its new capacity and form would be for the exclusive goal of supporting small-scale and subsistence farmers to make a living. In today's presentation on previous SONA pronouncements, blended finance was to be used to increase the number of commercial black farmers. What is the purpose of the current form of blended finance – increase commercial black farmers or to support small, subsistence farmers? She asked for a clear response from the Department. She felt that no real plan was in place beyond the term ‘blended finance’ that was now seen as ‘the solution to everything.’ If blended finance was being used for both purposes, she requested a breakdown on how it would work. It stated that nine poultry farmers had been assisted by blended finance. Did this mean that since 2020/21 only nine black farmers had been assisted to become commercial? This was concerning. She was concerned by the phrase ‘expression of interest' by commercial banks to assist commercial farmers. 'Expression of interest' was not a commitment and that she did not see this as progress. What deadlines and timeframes were in place. Was there a service-level agreement (SLA), a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or an agreement with commercial banks outside the expression of interest.

Ms Breedt said that DALRRD indicated that a certain number of farmers were supported by the Presidential Employment Stimulus Initiative (PESI). Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) was clear in its 2021/22 findings on PESI and it was unable to confirm if the numbers claimed had actually been assisted. She had asked about this in previous meetings and had not received a response. She would continue to highlight this until a response was provided. What was the Department doing to address the audit findings to improve PESI. What was being done to ensure that the findings would not be repeated.

Ms Breedt referred to the Small Holder Empowerment and Promotion (SHEP) approach to market orientation. Was the Department able to indicate how many farmers now had market access because of the approach.

Ms Breedt asked what the goal of the development agency was. When did the Department foresee that the agency would be established. There were a number of agencies in the Free State, including the Free State Development Corporation, Lejwe Le Putswa Development Agency and MAP SEZ, that have failed. Could the Department foresee that despite these other failed projects, the development agency would be successful.

Ms Breedt agreed with Mr Masipa that the Department needed to be clear pronouncements about the ongoing crises such as the vaccine crisis and the flood crisis. There had been confirmation that African horse sickness and West Nile horse sickness had been found in Gauteng. The Department needed to address this. The Department also had to focus on infrastructure, especially road infrastructure and railway infrastructure. In the agricultural hub of the Free State, road users did not drive on the left side of the road, they drive on ‘what was left of the road.’ The Department needed to engage with the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to address this. The Department could not promise market access if the roads needed for market access were not there or in poor condition. The Department showed no willingness to consider the ‘by-factors’ that influence the agricultural sector.

Mr I Cebekhulu (IFP) said that the Committee had been told about the assistance provided to subsistence and small-holder farmers. Was it possible to be made aware in which provinces and districts this assistance has occurred.

Mr Cebekhulu highlighted food price increases. It has been increasingly difficult for people to purchase food items due to the prices increases. In communal land, people could potentially be assisted to plough the land. He requested more details on this. He asked if an oversight visit to these areas was possible for the Committee to physically see what was going on and any positive advancements.

Mr Cebekhulu said that in the case of land reform, it seemed that officials on the ground were reluctant to assist with farms that had been claimed to be released. The process was very slow. This contradicted the positive feedback received from the Department. He suggested that an oversight visit was necessary to understand the situation.

Ms B Tshwete (ANC) said that most of her questions had been covered. When it came to planning, monitoring and evaluation, how did the Department monitor the distribution of the blended finance or allocated funds. She requested a detailed answer.

Ms Tshwete referred to the pronouncement on the commercialization of black farmers. This was a good initiative that sought to address transformation and inclusivity of those who were previously disadvantaged. Could the Department provide detailed information on this. Since 2020, millions had been spent to try and achieve this goal. How many black farmers have been commercialised through this initiative. How much has been spent on the initiative. During the previous week’s meeting, the Committee had been told that there was a list available. She had been hopeful that the Department would provide this information. She requested a list of farmers who had benefited from blended finance and the Land Bank.

Ms Tshwete recommended that the Department urgently deal with the SONA pronouncements on land redistribution and land reform. Ms Tshwete spoke in another language [1:37:48]. People needed to be given land, especially those people who wanted land and were willing to work the land. She highlighted the case of the Eastern Cape where a moratorium was put in place by the Department on land redistribution, especially farms. She was concerned that there would be land reform implementation and land redistribution without Eastern Cape. Is the moratorium still in place. Last week, the Department’s website listed a closing date of 28 February for the leasing of two farms in Stutterheim in the Eastern Cape. She had been confused and asked if the moratorium had been lifted.

Ms Tshwete agreed that the Department had good plans but she said that the officials on the ground were not complying. What were the consequences of this non-compliance or inaction. She shared an example where she had been called by farm dwellers and labourers. Approximately 50 households in Alice in Amathole were staying on the farm, but the farm had been advertised for lease. How could a farm be advertised for lease when people were staying there. She spoke in another language [1:41:00]. The majority of the inhabitants had been born on the farm. She would follow-up on this matter until things were done right. She would not let this issue slide. These 50 households could not be displaced because of the inefficiency in the Department.

Ms Tshwete emphasised that while the presentation was good, there was a lack of detail on timeframes, monitoring, evaluation and location. It was important that the Department provide this information so that the Committee could perform oversight effectively.

Ms T Mbabama (DA) highlighted the sugar master plan. What was the progress in the sugar industry transformation, especially the markets. It was her understanding that the industry was driven by quotas at the mills. If long established farmers had quotas at the mills, how would black farmers be brought into the market.

Ms Mbabama referred to the poultry master plan. Did the Department follow up on how many black contract growers or farmers there are in the poultry sector. How many were successfully established annually. How many fail and what were the causes of the failures.

Ms Mbabama asked about the 700 000 hectares of state land that had been finalised for distribution in 2021. Could the Department provide more information on the release and allocation of this land. Were the beneficiary selection and land allocation policy in place when the land was allocated. What did the Department mean by the ‘land donation’ policy. Who donated land to whom and how was this done.

Ms Mbabama referred to the integrated post-settlement support programmes highlighted in the presentation. It was not enough for the programmes to be listed. The Committee needed to know how support was actually being provided to the farmers who had settled on the land. What was actually being done. Previously there had been extension officers who provided support to the farmers. What was the nature of the post-settlement support being received.

Ms Mbabama said that percentage targets had been given for commercial black farmers. She requested the actual numbers of these percentages. Percentages could be deceiving – it could be a high percentage of a small number. The number values of the percentages would be useful to the Committee. The SONA pronouncement had been to increase black commercial farmers and asked how many there had been in 2020 and what the current amount was. This comparison would make the impact or success of the initiative clear.

Ms Mbabama asked about the acceleration of land redistribution. Was it safe to say that land restitution had not played a significant role in the pronouncement, considering that there were many claimants who have been waiting for a long period of time for claims to be finalised. The Department had not mentioned the impact of land restitution on the pronouncement. Perhaps the reason for this was that there were many people who have been waiting up to 26 years for claims to be finalised.

Ms Mbabama noted that the President had said other sectors had been called or should be called on to join the effort of input vouchers. What other sectors had been called upon to join the effort. What was the understanding of what the President had meant by ‘other sectors.’

Ms Mbabama highlighted the pronouncement on prioritization of youth, women and people with disabilities. According to the Department 56 000 hectares had been allocated to youth, women and people living with disabilities. Was the 56 000 hectares a part of the 700 000 hectares. If this was the case, it equated to a small percentage. She asked for clarity.

Ms Mbabama noted the Deputy Director-General explained the SHEP approach by saying that farmers had to grow strategically to sell. What is the process to assist emerging farmers with this approach. Were there classes or workshops for the emerging farmers.

In the SONA, the President had said that deep inequalities in agriculture had to be addressed. The President highlighted ownership, control and management of the economy. What was the Department’s understanding of what the President had said. Did ownership include title deeds of the land distributed by the Department. If this was not the case, could the Department explain why.

Ms Mbabama referred to the establishment of Agriculture Land and Rural Development Agency. The Deputy Director-General had said that the structure had been finalised. By structure, did he mean the organogram? Did this mean that the Department knew how many employees were needed to ensure that the agency worked and could progress. What was meant by the ‘Chief Director.’ Was the organogram headed by ‘a Chief Director’ or ‘the Chief Director.’ ‘A’ Chief Director meant that this individual needed to be sourced, whereas ‘the’ Chief Director referred to someone already in the position. If the Chief Director was already appointed, what was their role. Would individuals be appointed from the existing staff or would the positions be advertised.

Ms Mbabama referred to slide 26 of the presentation, which highlighted the support of small-scale farmers and integrating them into the value chain. One of the initiatives taken by the Department was written as a ‘total of 82 infrastructures completed to date.’ What was meant by this.

Mr M Montwedi (EFF) spoke in another language [1:54:53]. He shared concerns raised by other Committee members. The presentation consisted of a basic report and no details. It gave numbers without supporting documentation The Committee should not be hearing reports on master plans, the Committee should be presented with the evidence of the effectiveness and progress of the master plans. What impact has the master plans had. He was concerned by the lack of evidence in the presentation. He encouraged the Department to make use of evidence in future presentations.

Mr Montwedi referred to the sugar industry. During an oversight visit in Kwa-Zulu Natal, there had been a serious problem with transport for sugar cane farmers. KZN's poor infrastructure makes it difficult to move sugar cane. Farmers were unable to access the Transnet rail-line because a big deposit had to be paid, which many black farmers could not afford. Did the sugar cane master plan address this?

Mr Montwedi asked how many organic farming initiatives had been supported in the last year. What was the Department’s plans to further support organic farmers who wanted to get government support.

Mr Montwedi highlighted the implementation of the Presidential Advisory Panel. There were 44 000 hectares of land distributed through the land restitution process. The Department said that 700 000 hectares of state land had to be released by the end of the year. This had not been the target for this year because the President had indicated this 700 000 hectares one or two years ago. Where was the land? Is this the same 700 000 hectares that had been previously referred to by the President. He requested details on the allocation of this land. Was this government land that was held by DALRRD or by DPWI. This land had been long awaited and one was hopeful that there would be movement on the matter. While the land was under the DALRRD or DPWI’s domain, it was unused. What was the status of this.

Mr Montwedi said that when the Committee came into Parliament in 2019, they had been taken through the legacy report of the previous Fifth Parliament. Part of the legacy report discussed the commercialisation of Black farmers programme announced by former President Jacob Zuma. This was not a new concept. He spoke in another language [2:00:08]. This programme had to be implemented and should have been dealt with already. It should have been assured that Black farmers were being commercialised. The Department had been proud to report on secondary agriculture that had been funded by the IDC, but primary agriculture continued to suffer. What has been done in primary agriculture to ensure the commercialisation of Black farmers. The focus on commercialisation in secondary agriculture had focused on processing. How has the Department commercialised Black farmers in primary agriculture. He requested a report that focused on primary agriculture.

Mr Montwedi highlighted blended financing through the Land Bank. He had an issue with the Department. What is DALRRD doing to guarantee that the Land Bank uses the funds in a way that serves the interests of black farmers and the agencies. The former Director-General had taken money to commodity organizations to implement programmes on behalf of the Department. Why was so much money spent on outsourcing to recapitalize government farms. Money had been taken to Land Bank, for Land Bank to commercialise black farmers through blended finance. He was concerned about the DALRRD role of in ensuring that Land Bank was assisting clients/customers. He was familiar with the attitude of Land Bank. He acknowledged that Land Bank reported to the National Treasury but the attitude of Land Bank needed to change. The attitude of Land Bank was not the attitude of the Department, where the goal was to assist farmers. How could this attitude be changed so that Land Bank would serve the interests of emerging Black farmers. The Department had good programmes but were failing to implement programmes effectively. Was it an issue of incapacity. Due to a lack of monitoring and a lack of a shared attitude, Land Bank was functioning as a commercial bank. He requested that the Department look into this. The Department and Land Bank needed a shared attitude so that the Department could not shift the blame to Land Bank when programmes failed. A developmental agenda was needed at the core of Land Bank’s functions.

Mr Montwedi raised the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP). CASP had been a flagship programme of the Department, where farmers received different types of support. The presentation did not include any details of CASP. The presentation highlighted a graduate placement programme. What was happening with CASP. CASP had been a good programme and had been used to assist individuals in the sector.

Mr H Kruger (DA) said that most of his concerns had been raised by other members and expressed his agreement with several of these concerns. He reiterated the comments about the ground-level staff of the Department and said that they were good paper-pushers.

Mr Kruger referred to slides 18 and 19 on skills development. What happened to the youth who were a part of the skills development programme after they exited the programme. How many of these individuals stayed on the farms and in the sector. It was his experience that these individuals were taken care of for the duration of the programme but once it concluded, there was no future for the individuals in terms of job creation. Slide 19 referred to a two-year programme for students. How many of the students were from rural areas. Most of the farming community were from rural areas and it seemed as if very few students from rural areas were selected and partaking in the programme.

Mr Kruger referred to the SHEP approach. He noted the effort to educate farmers on how to grow for the market. He stated that in Mpumalanga there was no market. There was no road and farmers were unable to transport their produce to markets because the access roads were inaccessible. The programme indicated that the last week in March there would be an oversight visit in Mpumalanga, and he would appreciate the opportunity to take officials on the farm roads. Officials should take their own cars so that they could feel and understand the feelings and experience of farmers trying to transport their produce. He asked the Department to provide an indication of operating fresh produce markets in Mpumalanga, especially in the rural areas.

DALRRD response
Deputy Minister Capa stated that the Department should respond first due to the administrative nature of many of the questions and concerns raised. She noted that Committee members were looking for portfolio evidence. This would enable members to see greater detail on the projects presented. She suggested that the officials take note of this and respond accordingly.

Ms Rendani Sadiki, DALRRD CFO, noted the officials who would respond and said that she would conclude with a way forward in submitting details requested by the Committee.

Development Agency
Mr Kgobokoe, DALRRD Acting Deputy Director-General: Corporate Support Services, replied that the agency structure referred to the organogram. The organogram depicted the make-up, components and functions of the roles, including salary levels. The ‘Chief Director’ referred to salary level 15. The organogram was headed by a Chief Director. The organogram would be capacitated through identifying officials within the Department – supernumeraries – who could be deployed within the structure. The process would not be able to fulfil the complete capacitation of the organogram. There was a need for specialised skills in some roles. The Department intended to advertise these roles.

Biosecurity and national resource management
Dr Julian Jaftha, DALRRD Chief Director for Plant Production and Health, responded to concerns about agricultural production biosecurity and national resource management. In terms of capacity and capabilities of vaccine production, he confirmed that Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP) was still unable to produce the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccine. OBP was facing production challenges. R87 million had been made available to procure the FMD vaccine from outside of the country. OBP was able to produce African Horse Sickness vaccines. he was not in a position to present OBP's progress for increasing capacity to produce the FMD vaccine. The Department would look into it and would present a detailed presentation to the Committee.

On the citrus dispute with the EU, the Department, through the Department of Trade Industry and Competition (DTIC), had requested consultations with the EU. This was the first step in the World Trade Organisations (WTO) dispute settlement process. The consultations occurred in September 2022. It allowed the Department to understand the EU new regulations and get responses to predetermined questions on the new regulations. Subsequently, the Department has received a response from the EU. There had been engagements via the two ministries to find a potential political solution to address the new regulations imposed by the EU. This had not yielded a positive result. The next step in the WTO dispute process was to request a dispute panel to be established. The Department and Government were concerned that the process of establishing the panel might be long and drawn out and when the panel was able to make a decision, it may not yield relief. This was because the appellate body under the WTO was not functional. The Department anticipated that the EU would draw the process out as long as possible to tire South Africa out and if a decision was made in South Africa’s favour, it was anticipated that the EU would lodge an appeal which would also be dragged out. The opportunities under the WTO dispute system were very limited due to the state of the WTO appellate body.

Dr Jaftha noted that the EU was an important market for South Africa, but the Department was continuing to work with the industry in consideration of opening other markets and to make access conditions to existing markets more favourable. As an example, there were negotiations to see if Japan had a specific export temperature regime. The Department would engage to consider more favourable export conditions. There was ongoing work with the United States, Japan, Thailand and India.

Dr Jaftha replied that the detailed information on the master plans could be obtained in conjunction with the DTIC such as around who was responsible as lead, the impact of inflationary pressures, transportation and transformation. The Department would respond to the Committee at a later stage. On the poultry master plan, the Department work specifically around negotiating on the fight about the sanitary conditions for trade to happen and other questions, DALRRD would provide feedback to the Committee as soon as it had the necessary information.

Blended Finance
Ms Nonqaba Mehlomakulu, DALRRD Deputy Director-General for Food Security and Agrarian Reform, clarified that the blended finance programme had been developed to commercialise Black farmers. The beneficiaries of the programme were small-holder and medium-holder Black farmers. The programme was an effort to try and increase sustainable Black commercial farmers. If this could be achieved, it had the potential to transform the sector. It would signify that ‘commercial’ was not exclusive to white farmers and business. Subsistence and small-holder farmers whose businesses were not yet viable to access blended finance would not be excluded. Those farmers who were not yet sustainable for support from blended finance was because blended finance consisted of a blending of a loan and a grant. This meant that a portion of the money was expected to be paid back. Those producing for household consumption did not necessarily have the intention of paying back the money or were unable to afford to. These farmers would be supported through the 100% grant programmes, such as Land Care, Land Development Support and CASP.

Ms Mehlomakulu said that the blended finance programme had been started in 2018 with the proof-of-concept phase. When the programme through Land Bank had been put on hold, seven farmers had received support. The model has been improved and in 2021, the Minister launched the Blended Finance programme through the IDC. The new model had been re-consulted extensively through the business sector. To date, IDC has supported 21 farmers across all provinces, excluding the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape. There were currently 27 transactions in the pipeline. This referred to transactions that had passed the criteria for qualification and the transactions were in varying stages of assessment by IDC. Further details could be provided. The Land Bank had been relaunched after two years of non-action. The launch in October 2022 signified the resumption of the lending by Land Bank. Since the launch, Land Bank had supported an additional seven transactions. In total, 14 farmers had been commercialised in the Land Bank.

Ms Mehlomakulu said that when Land Bank had been conceptualised, DALRRD had realised that access to Blended Finance needed to be broadened for agricultural production along the value chain. The Department needed to prioritize primary production but also not exclude secondary production. It was unfortunate that secondary production driven by the IDC had been prioritised in the programme.

The Department had a partnership that targeted citrus producers. The Department had partnered with Jobs Fund, the Citrus Growers Association and AgriSETA. The goal of this partnership was to commercialise citrus producers and increase productivity. DALRRD was hopeful to achieve at least 5 million tons of citrus from Black citrus farmers.

On the concern that the commercial sector had shown only an "expression of interest", Ms Mehlomakulu indicated that this had been a significant milestone. However, it meant that DALRRD needed to solidify the expression of interest into an agreement. The Department had a legal team working on the agreements with the banks. She confirmed that the banks had received the agreement; there had been first engagements and final inputs had been received from the banks. The Department had to finalize the conclusion of the agreements. Many of the banks were eager to start providing blended finance. The ‘big four’ banks were involved. The Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (AGBIZ) had suggested that DALRRD focus on other businesses that were commodity specific in supporting their primary agriculture. The Department was interested in pursuing this. The Department had done an analysis of how much money would be required to meet the obligations at DALRRD and was engaging with National Treasury to make money available. This was an effort to increase access to blended finance beyond the Land Bank and other commercial banks. The Department acknowledged that it had not engaged with the Committee on the stakeholders that DALRRD had interacted with. She requested that the Committee allow time for DALRRD to provide further detail on the status of the project. This was important so that the Committee could advocate for the programme but also potentially identify any blind spots and guide DALRRD on this.

On ensuring the non-repeat of the qualified audit finding on PESI and its inability to confirm the numbers DALRRD claimed to have supported, Ms Mehlomakulu requested that DALRRD be allowed to respond to this concern in writing.

Ms Mehlomakulu asked that the questions on market access and SHEP be responded to in writing.

On the monitoring of the distribution of funds for blended finance, Ms Mehlomakulu referred to the various partners of DALRRD in the programme. The Department had a fund administrator at the Land Bank. Land Bank was performing a joint role of financing institution and fund administrator. The fund administrator had an agreement with DALRRD that was separated from Land Bank as a financing institution. On a monthly basis, the fund administrator provided an account of how much money had been transferred and how much money had been disbursed by the respective partners. The Department had an oversight committee which provided oversight of the financial performance of the programme. The Department also received direct reports from the various institutions/partners.

Ms Mehlomakulu said that SHEP was an extension methodology that focused on teaching farmers to produce for markets. Some people were quick to say that this was common sense. While it was common sense, it was not necessarily common practice. Many farmers produced, but then got stuck when it came to accessing markets. Extension officers trained farmers on being market-focused before they produced. This enabled farmers to understand what the market wanted through market surveys. The farmers were taught how market surveys were conducted. Farmers were also taught how to close contracts with markets that had been identified. Many farmers had been empowered through this. SHEP was supported through CASP, in DALRRD’s partnership with the Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB) where audits were done, and the safety and quality controls of farms were reviewed. Following the audits, PPECB was able to review any issues with the farmers and highlight what needed to be corrected to meet the market demand. Following this process, farmers were given a SA-GAP Certification. Beyond the certification, DALRRD had noticed a change in the behaviour of how farmers managed their farms and saw an increased understanding of the chemicals they were using and how to safely store and make use of them.

DALRRD was working toward bringing on board commercial banks to prioritise primary agriculture. In The attitude of the Land Bank revolved around its norms and standards. The Department had put a clause in the agreement that required Land Bank to notify DALRRD of all rejected transactions. This helped DALRRD understand why Black farmers were unable to access Blended Finance. Blended Finance was not the only support, there were also 100% grants. The Department was able to refer some farmers to the provinces to close the gaps identified by the banks. The Department was working to increase the pool of primary producers who had access to Blended Finance. The Department was engaging with Land Bank to conduct a workshop where case studies of rejected transactions would be reviewed. This would assist reaching an agreement on what needed to be changed and to determine if Land Bank’s standards were really outdated. The Department was also looking toward empowering Land Bank in terms of capacity, professionalism and approach. There were continuous meetings between the Director-General and the CEO of Land Bank on this issue.

Ms Mehlomakulu noted the question on CASP. She was unsure why the report solely focused on graduate placements. CASP was a comprehensive programme that provided infrastructure for farmers who were assisted in agri-processing, farmers were trained and exposed to mentorship and extension support was made available. The Department could provide further details on the work of CASP.

On the question of youth who were a part of the development programmes. Through CASP, DALRRD was placing 1000 young people in commercial farms. The intention behind this was to address aging farmers and to have a cohort of ready-made farmers for the future. The programme was focused on enterprise development, venture creation, and practical experience on successful commercial farms. The Department partnered with commercial farmers. The programme ran for two years. Some young people who had completed the programme were already engaging in conditional grants. Some chose not to farm and sought employment elsewhere. The Department could provide further details on the outcomes of the programme in writing if necessary.

Ms Mehlomakulu replied that the Department did keep track of farmers who received support in the poultry master plan. The Department worked with DTIC and there was a structured team that focused on the different pillars of the poultry master plan. The Department’s involvement was focused on transformation and the Black farmers that had been supported. The Department had a detailed database on poultry farmers that had received support. The Department had set a target of 50 based on the resources available. Most farmers were supported through CASP. Approximately nine of the 19 supported by the IDC were poultry producers. The Department was making provinces aware that they needed to bring in farmers that had previously been supported because they had infrastructure for poultry farming. The Department was generating a national database and baseline around who the poultry producers were, what the capacity of Black poultry producers were and output. She emphasised that there was a structured approach to the poultry master plan led by the IDC.

Land and Agrarian Reform Agency (LARA)
Mr Terries Ndove, DALRRD Deputy Director-General for Land Redistribution and Tenure Reform, said that the concept of Land and Agrarian Reform Agency (LARA) has existed for some time. [Audio unclear 2:52:15]. The Department accepted the recommendation for the formation of LARA. LARA had been further amplified by SONA 2021 when the President had said that ‘in the next financial year the agency would be established.’ LARA is conceptualised as trying to fast track land reform and agricultural reform. The Department had been struggling with sustainable land reform and the implementation of agricultural programmes. LARA aimed to consolidate and identify factors where it could assist DALRRD. LARA had to be agile compared to the current processes within departments which were characterised by long, bureaucratic with red-tape that were sometimes not in line with the industry. LARA could potentially assist in selected areas where DALRRD was struggling. The Department was committed to continuing its work in the field of biosecurity, veterinary services, training, international trade, etc. LARA would be focused on key areas where DALRRD was struggling, mainly on land reform and agriculture. The envisaged plan was to ensure that when LARA was fully established and fully functional, that it could house all the post-settlement support programmes. This was a big struggle for DALRRD. There was a lot of land that had been delivered in various programmes that were underutilised. LARA would be able to do this work on behalf of DALRRD and where possible, partner with other developmental agencies including banks in the country. For land reform, it was critical that the management of the state land portfolio consider how best the land could be efficiently managed. This would be done through keeping proper records of state land management and partnering with other agencies on land utilization. LARA would be involved in investment and land acquisition. The Department was hopeful that LARA would be in a better position to manage the Land Reform Fund, while leaving major issues such as policy development to DALRRD.

Mr Ndove said that establishing an agency was a long process because it involved various stakeholders. An enabling legislation was needed to do this. There also needed to be Treasury approval to establish an agency. These processes took some time. The Department had learned from the experiences of other departments and had started an agency through establishing a chief directorate within DALRRD which worked on a full-time basis on establishment of an agency. Once other factors had been put together, the chief directorate would be transformed into an agency. The ‘chief director’ was actually a chief directorate with staff that would staff that structure full-time to ensure that all the necessary requirements for an agency were there. Simultaneously, DALRRD was considering what other project it could implement while working toward a fully-fledged LARA.

700 000 hectares
Mr Ndove responded that government had made a decision to identify and release state land that had been under-utilised. In 2018/2019 land had been identified. This consisted of land that had been vacant, under-utilised or had been incorrectly allocated. He emphasised that there was no new land and highlighted the South African Development Trust land, which was land that had been bought during apartheid as a buffer between black and white communities. In many cases, land had been expropriated from white commercial farmers to create a barrier between the race groups. The 700 000 hectares were scattered across the country, very little in Western Cape and Gauteng while the North West had a large amount of the land (353 000 hectares), followed by Limpopo, Eastern Cape, and Northern Cape. The Department did have details on the specific municipalities where the land was located which could be provided if requested by the Committee.

Mr Ndove said that the main objective when the project was initiated, as pronounced by the President in 2020, was the advertisement of the farms. He noted the concern about land being advertised while people were living on the land. When the land had been advertised, DALRRD had felt that it was the only way to identify who was occupying the land or if the land was being utilized. He acknowledged that there were challenges where people inhabiting the land thought they would be removed. He assured the Committee that no people had been removed from the land or displaced. In many cases, it had been the regularization of the people that were on the land to get security of tenure through a lease agreement. He emphasised that the aim was not to sell or transfer the land to beneficiaries, it had been to give beneficiaries a 30-year lease.

Mr Ndove indicated that during the process, challenges had been discovered with communities that had been closed off by the buffer had begun moving toward the land and begun utilizing it. Once communities begin to utilize the land, DALRRD would not displace them even though the communities had not been permitted to do this. He emphasised that it was important to regularize the process. 167 000 hectares was currently being utilized by neighbouring communities. While there had been a process of ensuring that all the land claims were not included in the identified land, at a later stage some pockets of land had been identified as having land claims. This land could not be redistributed. There was also land where there were issues of tenure with farm dwellers or labour tenants. He emphasised that these individuals would be prioritised and that the land would not be redistributed. There had been land where there had previously been commitments by departments to donate the land to certain communities, approximately 36 000 hectares, of which the finalisation had commenced.

Mr Ndove referred to the Gwatyu farms in the Eastern Cape. Gwatyu had been advertised and upon further engagement it was clear that this had been an error and DALRRD had withdrawn the advert to allow the other process to continue to resolve the challenges in Gwatyu.

Mr Ndove said that the moratorium was possibly referring to not continuing with the allocation of the hectares in Gwatyu. This was the only thing he could explain about the moratorium. He acknowledged that there had been an advertisement of farms for allocation in the Eastern Cape. There was no moratorium in the wider Eastern Cape, only Gwatyu. There had been a property that belonged to Mr Rahasi that had been withdrawn as it had been an error. The total hectares was an amount of 679 000, which was commonly referred to as 700 000 hectares.

Mr Ndove confirmed that title deeds had not been a part of the 700 000 hectares project. In 2009, Government and DALRRD took a position to move from the existing redistribution programmes such as LRAD which was similar to blended funding, where there had been a portion that Government would contribute toward the purchase of a farm and the rest had to be raised by the beneficiary, including sweat equity. In hindsight, there had been serious challenges in that programme where banks had gone to repossess the land when beneficiaries defaulted which resulted in a huge outcry in the country. This had almost been a reverse of the Land Reform programme. The Department had to intervene and raise money to rescue most of the projects to ensure that farms were not lost or refinanced. It had to put money aside to protect the land through Land Bank.

Mr Ndove said that the leasehold had been born out of that challenge. There were three elements in the leasehold: 1) to acquire land; 2) to hold the land and allocate it to beneficiaries, with the intention that when beneficiaries became comfortable in the proper utilization of the land, the land could be transferred to them – it was not going to be free, the land needs to be bought; 3) groups who were unable to buy land, including vulnerable groups and labour tenants, land was being bought and transferred to these people without any payment, except the land that was deemed semi-commercial or commercial where the land had to be bought because it was commercially viable and would generate money. He acknowledged that there had been discourse on the matter, but this was the current state of the programme. If there were changes in the future, it would be communicated to the Committee. He reiterated that there was an element of title in the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), but this was dependent on what level the farmers were.

Mr Ndove noted the concern about the 50 households who were occupying a farm. He acknowledged that there were people living on farms that had been advertised. When DALRRD purchased a farm, the first step was to conduct land right inquiries to establish if the people had certain rights before purchasing the farm. If DALRRD found that there were people who had rights, such as labour tenants, it ensured that their rights would be protected throughout the transaction. In many cases, the farm would be sub-divided, with a portion that addressed the land needs and rights of individuals/families living on the land before the remainder of the land was leased out. In other cases, where the size of the land was not big enough to sub-divide, DALRRD would dispose of the project of leasing the land depending on the status and rights of land tenants. The Department could not violate the tenure rights of communities or individuals because it was responsible for protecting tenure rights.

Mr Ndove responded to the concerns of the 19% and 31% for youth allocation (34 000 and 19 000). This had been included in the presentation to show that in that particular year, DALRRD had prioritised women and youth. The 2021 allocation did not include the 700 000 hectares, it was an additional allocation that was normally done each year. It was done to demonstrate that in line with beneficiary selection and Land Allocation Policy, DALRRD was prioritising women and youth.

Mr Ndove reiterated that the 700 000 hectares had formerly been owned by the former South African Development Trust and had since been inherited by DALRRD. The land did not belong to DPWI.

On land donation, Mr Ndove replied that it was part of the recommendation of the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture, that there were people, companies, institutions, farmers and other landowners who wanted to contribute to land reform but there had been no mechanisms or systems in place for this to occur. The Land Donation Policy was developed to address this challenge. Anybody who had land that they wanted to donate or make available to be utilized for land reform was able to donate land. In some cases, landowners donated the land directly to the people who had been identified. In most cases, the land was donated to DALRRD to use for land redistribution without any conditions. Land donation was not limited to DALRRD and it cut across various departments and was being coordinated by the Inter Ministerial Committee on Land and Agriculture. Some land was used for human settlements, agriculture and other purposes. There were incentives included for landowners. Landowners were concerned about getting tax relief once they donated land, because it became a burden for them to pay tax on the land. The Department was engaging with Treasury on the matter. Once the land was made available, there was an assessment of the land to determine if the land could be used so that people did not dump ‘useless’ land onto government.

Mr Ndove replied that the Expropriation Bill legislative process is in the public domain. The Bill was currently out for public comments; he was unsure of the closing date. The Department was very interested in the Bill, because it would assist in unlocking challenges with land. As an example, the Western Cape was a part of the country where it was extremely difficult to get land. He alluded to organised sponsors that ensured that land reform was hindered. If someone was fortunate to get land in the Western Cape it would be very expensive and when the land was assessed, it was likely that the landowner would not accept the offer. It was often the case where local governments did not want to include emerging Black farmers in particular areas of the Western Cape. He highlighted a case where the farmer had agreed on a price, but when it came to signing the documents, he had changed his mind. It was his view that the farmer had been pressured by neighbouring landowners, especially as it was a prime piece of land, that government intended to bring in emerging black farmers to an area where there were no black farmers. The Department was waiting for the Expropriation Bill to be passed so that it could contribute to the enhancement of land reform.

Mr Masipa asked Mr Ndove to repeat his statements on the Western Cape because he had lost audio connection.

Mr Ndove repeated his statement about access to land in the Western Cape and the potential of the Expropriation Bill to assist in this challenge. He emphasised that this was an issue that was found in many areas across the country, but that he had used the Western Cape as an example to depict the situation.

Land Claims
Ms Nomfundo Ntloko-Gobodo, Chief Land Claims Commissioner, replied to concerns about the prioritisation of outstanding claims. The Department had a backlog reduction strategy in place that required some approvals.

Ms Ntloko-Gobodo highlighted the case of the Kramer family and the comments made by some of the family members on eNCA in the last week. DALRRD had met with the family in August 2022 and it had provided the family with a full strategy or plan of action including the timelines which had been agreed upon by the family. The Department had indicated that the issue was the disagreement on the extent of land under claim. It had previously identified portions of land which it had confirmed as valid. The Department had been ready to move forward on this but there had been questions by the family who suggested that the claim was much bigger than what DALRRD had identified as valid. The Department agreed to appoint an expert to conduct further research on the claim; the family had agreed to this. The Department had recently received the report and it was being reviewed by the regional Land Claims Commissioner in terms of the Land Restitution Act for approval. Once it has been approved, DALRRD intended to meet with the family before the end of March to present the research outcomes. Thereafter, DALRRD would begin processing the settlement of the portions agreed upon. There had been challenges with the family. She explained that it was a big family and that there had been conflict about representation within the family, but that this was being worked on. The Department would keep the Committee updated on further developments.

Rural Development
Ms Thandi Moyo, DALRRD Deputy Director-General of Rural Development, replied about the number of infrastructure projects completed in the current year. In the 2022/23 financial year, the target for infrastructure projects was approved on the Annual Performance Plan (APP). DALRRD has thus far completed 84 projects. The 82 in the presentation had been a typing error. The Department had a project list that it could share with the Committee for each province and district which indicated where the projects were. The projects were related to the River Valley Catalytic Projects, Animal and Veld Management Programme (AVMP) and the Food Production Support Unit (FPSU) which referred to the fencing, water tanks and boreholes that were provided to farmers and the Farmer Enterprises. This has been provided in all provinces. A complete list of the 84 projects could be shared with the Committee. The quarterly targets could also be provided.

On the rural roads concern, Ms Moyo replied that in the previous meeting on the 2023 SONA pronouncements, there had been discussion about the Rural Roads Project. It was noted that the project would commence only in the third quarter of the financial year. It is an initiative that falls under the provincial departments of roads and transport. Three rural roads have been completed in Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga and Free State. The Department’s aim for rural roads was to focus on the 222 000 unproclaimed rural roads. The Department was working with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agency (MISA) in the Department of Transport. The Department was interested in rural road infrastructure because it affected the farming community and rural communities. A list was available of the rural roads which would be done in the 2023/24 financial year. The Department was committed to working with the departments that were mandated to attend to the roads.

Ms Moyo responded about youth development programmes. Initially 699 youths were to be trained in rural areas via the National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC). That number was revised to 1 777 in response to Portfolio Committee complaint that the initial number was minute. The NARYSEC training was completed by 1 597 youths in February 2023. They moved on to technical skills training in TVET colleges for courses on agriculture, construction, ICT, traffic management. These courses last from four, six to 12 months. They can make database available to Committee which will also show what they will do after that training.

ACFTA
Mr Nkhangwe Ramashia said that all processes for the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA) have been completed. The trade area involved all African countries and that South Africa had already signed, but implementation could only begin once all other countries have signed.

Sugar Master Plan
Mr Ramashia replied that the Sugar Master Plan is being developed. DTIC was the lead department on the sugar master plan, while DALRRD was a support department. If the Committee wanted to receive a presentation on the sugar master plan, DALRRD was willing to do this. DALRRD was working alongside Disaster Management, the industry and provincial departments to address the problem of flood-damaged infrastructure that was affecting sugarcane farmers in a negative way. At the time that the master plan was finalised, the flood issue was not present. A working group was working on this.

Mr Ramashia responded to the question on the sugar imports on the local sugar industry. The imports did have a negative impact on local producers. In order to reduce that negative impact, South Africa provided tariffs to discourage imports. There were ongoing discussions which considered the appropriate level at which tariffs should be pitched.

Mr Ramashia said that a master plan does not specify particular measures to help sugar cane farmers with import costs, but imports have an impact on regional suppliers. He confirmed that black sugarcane producers were being supported by ‘premium pricing.’ This meant that when black producers sold their sugarcane to the mills, they got higher prices. In the past two years, an amount of approximately R60 million had been used for this. This assisted the farmers with the input costs because after selling sugarcane, black farmers were able to have more money in their pocket.

Mr Ramashia noted the question of the high tariffs on sugar exports. The DTIC could provide a comprehensive response on the matter. In terms of sugar exports, the EU favoured less developed countries and did not impose tariffs on them. Tariffs were imposed on other countries, and this became a challenge for countries like South Africa.

Ms Sadiki noted that there were reports that DALRRD would make available to the Committee as soon as possible. On the inter-ministerial report on biosecurity, she would make it available if possible.

Ms Sadiki responded about placing extension officers for three months only. She explained that this was a 2021/22 SONA commitment. The commitment had not come with funding, and it was estimated that it would cost approximately R3.6 billion. The Department had been engaging National Treasury to try and get funding to be able to move forward with the initiative. In the 2022/23 financial year, there had been a bigger allocation and DALRRD was able to make a provision for the three-month appointment of extension officers. In the 2023/24 year, DALRRD had a cut-off of approximately R200 million on the compensation of employees (COE), which made it almost impossible to make a commitment to extend the length of appointment of extension officers beyond three months. The Department, under the leadership of the Accounting Officer, was engaging with National Treasury to source the funding because DALRRD agreed with the Committee that this programme needed to be continued. The Department was limited in funding. R3.6 billion was a lot of money and DALRRD was unable to cut back on any other programmes to the extent needed to meet this requirement.

On increasing production on rural and communal land, Ms Sadiki replied that the Department currently had a food security programme that was ready to be implemented to bring communal land into production. It was a work in progress. The Department had developed the strategy. This was a major project but would assist in ensuring that the missing middle was well attended to. It would be possible to do a presentation on this if necessary.

Ms Sadiki noted the comment that the commercialisation of black farmers had been included in the legacy report of the Fifth Parliament. The Department ran Land Development Support and within this there was a programme on commercialisation of Black farmers running since 2019. The Department was able to provide further information.

Ms Sadiki referred to the sugarcane transport problems. The Department constructed [unclear 3:52:25] in 2020/21. Following this, Transnet was meant to resolve their locomotive challenges for the sugarcane farmers to be able to deliver sugarcane using railway. There were high level engagements between industry and Transnet, but the issue had only been escalated to DALRRD during the previous week. The Department would engage with Transnet and the sugarcane industry to try and resolve this.

Ms Sadiki responded to the questions on PESI and the audit qualification raised by AGSA. DALRRD had provided AGSA with a full database of who had been supported. The difference between DALRRD and AGSA was about the fact that DALRRD had never kept hard-copy evidence of signed delivery notes of goods that had been procured by the farmers. The challenge was that during COVID-19 there was a gap in DALRRD knowing where the farmers were. The Department had developed an end-to-end electronic system and one-way implementation. The Department had been trying to address some of the loopholes that it had identified when implementing during COVID-19. The Department did not provide what AGSA had been looking for. In auditing, if physical documents were not delivered, there were alternative procedures that could have been performed. Following the audit qualification, DALRRD implemented the control of collecting delivery notes that had been signed by recipients and keeping them for audit purposes. The only disadvantage was that DALRRD could not go back to the qualified audit year to do the same thing because applicants had already received their goods and were now using and relying on an electronic system. The most important factor to consider was that a voucher could never be used for anything else outside of agriculture. Beneficiaries could not use the vouchers to buy anything else and it could only be redeemed by agriculture suppliers.

Ms Sadiki said that DALRRD understood that the Presidential Employment Stimulus Initiative (PESI) was not only applicable to the sector. There were also other sectors that had an employment stimulus. It was DALRRD’s view that the President was also responding to the other sectors that had to continue with a stimulus. On what had been meant by the President’s statement on ownership management and control, she was unable to respond to this question. On how many organic farming initiatives had been supported or were still to be supported, they would respond to this in writing.

The Chairperson thanked DALRRD for engaging on the questions and concerns raised. Due to time constraints, there could be no more questions. Based on the input given, the Committee needed to have a long workshop about LARA. The Committee needed to look into when LARA was going to start operating and if there was funding for it. The Committee needed to look into how DALRRD would be held accountable about reporting and the manner of reporting. He reiterated the need to get proper detailed presentations from DALRRD. He requested that the issues that had been raised by members were responded to in writing and that it look into the concerns raised. He noted DALRRD’s acknowledgement that there was a lack of detail in the progress report on the implementation of previous SONA pronouncements. It should be able to submit a detailed report on all the support and training programmes, master plans, Blended Finance, rural safety strategy and graduate placements no later than 17 March.

The Chairperson was concerned by the broad statements in the DALRRD presentation such as the sugar and poultry master plans and lack of detail on the status of the development agency. The report was limited and unconvincing. The report on 700 000 hectares provided no feedback on what was happening on the land and how many beneficiaries had been identified. Due to the limited details in the presentation, it was difficult for the Committee to believe what was being said by DALRRD.

The Chairperson noted the report on Blended Finance indicated that it had created R1 billion in grant funds over the five years to support producers. Could DALRRD provide the details on the 91 transactions which cost R1.1 billion. Where were the farmers located. He requested details on the nine transactions for poultry farm expansion. He asked DALRRD to highlight what women and youth had benefitted from the process. How have these interventions contributed to enhancing agricultural production; how it has contributed to the transformation agenda and socio-economic impact. He requested that DALRRD look into these issues and respond in writing by the stipulated date.

Ms Tshwete thanked the Chairperson for the summary provided. Ms Sadiki had said that a report had been submitted to the Committee on the PESI beneficiaries and the AGSA findings. However, a detailed list of beneficiaries would not have been requested if the information had been made available. The Committee had requested a list of the beneficiaries. DALRRD was still struggling to verify PESI vouchers. It had been in the media that there were PESI vouchers with incorrect identity documents presented including erroneous identity numbers. These issues had to be raised. She disputed that the report was submitted to the Committee.

Director General Mooketsa Ramasodi thanked the Committee for their guidance. DALRRD may need to work on a template to satisfy the needs of the Committee. He suggested that Committee members should avoid sending DALRRD private messages while the meeting was ongoing and then complain when responses were sent via text messages.

Committee Minutes
The minutes of the meetings dated 17, 21, 24 and 28 February were considered.

24 February minutes
Mr Masipa asked about the inclusion of the engagement between DALRRD and Mr Swarts at the meeting of 24 February.

Ms Breedt suggested that the decision that DALRRD and Mr Swarts have a bilateral meeting on its misunderstanding of the Bill should be added to the minutes.

The Chairperson noted the closing remarks of the minutes which stated the Committee would get another opportunity to engage with DALRRD and MP Swarts about the Bill.

Ms Breedt stated the engagement that had been decided on was not only between the Committee and DALRRD, but also between Mr Swarts and DALRRD.

The Chairperson indicated that all three entities had been included in the minutes.

Mr Masipa noted that the Committee was to be presented with a detailed plan of DALRRD provincial offices in alleviating the anxiety caused by load-shedding. He suggested that a clear timeline be included for this presentation.

The Chairperson indicated that a submission date of 31 March would be included.

Mr Masipa reiterated Ms Breedt’s statement on the engagement between MP Swarts and DALRRD.

The Chairperson reiterated his previous response. All three entities had been included and the meeting would be facilitated by the Committee. It was the intention that by the next Committee meeting, MP Swarts and DALRRD would have already had their own engagement.

28 February minutes
Mr Masipa noted that replies to the approximately 30 questions had been requested. However, not all the questions had been answered.

The Chairperson said that when written response were received, Members reviewed them and if members were not satisfied with the responses, they would refer back to DALRRD to submit a second response. Members were still reviewing the responseS and the Committee would respond to DALRRD accordingly.

Mr Masipa withdrew his question, noting that the responses had a 10 March deadline.

The minutes were adopted with amendments.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their attendance and engagement with the presentation.

The Committee Secretary suggested that the following meeting be a face-to-face meeting in Parliament.

The Chairperson agreed to a physical meeting due to the robust agenda. Confirmation would be communicated to Committee members.

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: