Animals Protection Amendment Bill: engagement with DOH & DTIC; Committee deliberations on Ingonyama Trust matters; with Minister

Meeting report

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson said that as the Committee continued deliberations on the Animals Protection Amendment Bill, there had been a request from the Committee that the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the National Department of Health (DOH) present on the impact of the Bill. There would be engagements on the Bill with these two departments in this meeting.

The Committee had also invited Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Thoko Didiza, to present on the Inter-Ministerial Task Team on the Ingonyama Trust, but deliberation on the presentation had been postponed to allow the Committee time to engage with the presentation.

The Chairperson said he would allow the Minister to make further inputs and share opening remarks since she had already made the presentation. The Committee would first deal with the DOH and DTIC presentations, allowing the Committee Secretariat to factor in the two departments' contributions. This would then be followed by deliberations with the Minister from the DALRRD.

The Committee would deal with the Animals Protection Amendment Bill and then move to the issue of the desirability of the Bill. The Chairperson invited the DOH to proceed with their presentation.

National Department of Health on Animals Protection Amendment Bill

Impact of Bill on existing regulatory frameworks

Mr Wayne Ramkrishna, Deputy Director: Zoonotic Disease, DOH, said the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (54 of 1972) would be impacted, as the Act was enforced by the DOH, and municipalities by environmental health officials.

Describing the position of the National Department of Health, he said the European Union started the first ban on animal testing of cosmetics products. A full ban on both the sale and import of cosmetics that were tested on an animal was done in March 2013 by the European Union. India banned cosmetic testing on animals in 2014, and New Zealand has prohibited using animals for tests of cosmetic products since May 2015. Countries like Israel, Norway, Brazil and South Korea also banned cosmetic animal testing. Many countries were trying to introduce new regulations and amendments related to use of animals in cosmetic preparation. This move would protect animals from unnecessary suffering all over the world. 

In reviewing the Bill, it was necessary to understand the position of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC).

Recommendations from the DALRRD were that the Portfolio Committee was advised to consider alternative approaches to the ban on testing. This would involve adopting the 3R  principles -- replacement, reduction and refinement --on the usage of animals in experiments.

The first option for the amendment or development of legislation was to amend the Animals Protection Act by the inclusion of the following clauses:

• Any person intending to test an ingredient on an animal for use as a cosmetic, must apply to the Minister for permission to conduct such testing.
• The Minister must subject such an application to an independent panel of experts in animal ethics which shall include at least one veterinarian with expertise in animal welfare.
• The applicant must provide reasons why alternative testing methods were not desirable.

The second option was to develop regulations under the Animals Protection Act to address cosmetics testing on animals. Section 10 of the provides that the Minister may make regulations relating to any other reasonable requirements which may be necessary to prevent cruelty to, or suffering of any animal, and generally such matters as were required for the better carrying out of the objects and purposes of this Act.

The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) was still to comment on the Bill. It was likely that the Bill would have a significant commercial/economic impact which the DTIC might highlight.

Mr Ramkrishna concluded that the DALRRD did not agree with the amendment for reasons that included commercial/economic issues and labour issues. They had provided alternative options, while the DTIC was still to comment.

The Bill would affect the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (54 of 1972). The major impact would be the enforcement of this Act. However, the main stakeholders that would determine the outcome of the Animal Protection Amendment  Bill were the DALRRD and DTIC. The Department of Health would support enforcing the Animal Protection Act through the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, whether through amendments or regulations.

(For the detailed presentation, see attached)

Department of Trade, Industry and Competition on the Animals Protection Amendment Bill

The DTIC's comments on the Animal Protection Amendment Bill were presented by Ms Elizabeth van Renen, Director: Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Ms Claudy Steyn, Chief Director: Chemicals, Cosmetics, Plastics and Pharmaceuticals, DTIC.

They said that should the Bill’s objectives have an effect on international trade, then the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement were applicable. The WTO TBT Agreement encouraged the development and adherence to international standards and conformity assessment systems.

The TBT Agreement further recognises that no country should be prevented from adopting or enforcing measures to ensure the quality of its exports, or for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, of the environment, or for the prevention of deceptive practices, at the levels it considers appropriate subject to the requirement that they were not applied (i) in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or (ii) a disguised restriction on international trade.

The pertinent question was whether the measures were more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. The TBT Agreement grants the right to protect, but there was provision that a member should regulate the protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment of a partner country, unless there was a provision in an international agreement to which both countries (SA and the exporting country) were members.

If South Africa imposed a prohibition on cosmetic products tested on animals against the originating country such that trade -- for example, imports of cosmetic ingredients -- were affected, the measure (the prohibition) would be evaluated by the WTO members on the basis of the provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. Processes and procedures for adopting a measure would have to be adhered to, including allowing time for WTO members to comment on the measure.
The DTIC concluded that the prohibition on international trade of cosmetics tested on animals had the potential to bring conflict under WTO law, since it was not covered entirely by WTO rules and may be subject to different interpretations. The overall objective of the WTO was to promote international trade by avoiding unjustified discrimination between trading partners, while the broad objective of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) might be to promote global improvements in animal health and welfare, and veterinary public health.
For example, the OIE sets intergovernmental standards that deal with animal welfare when such animals are traded, and works to strengthen the capacity of members to implement them.
There was lack of WTO case law that would bring light to the applicability and consistency of WTO animal welfare provisions.
Though OIE and ISO standards were the recognised reference for trading countries, the WTO's established disciplines were upheld in that technical regulations should not result in unjustifiable, arbitrary or unnecessary discrimination and should not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.
WTO cases were ongoing and included analysis of the measure (technical regulation, standard, conformity assessment procedure), discriminatory effect, and trade restrictiveness, considering the end use of the product.
Consultations with other countries that had instituted such a prohibition would be beneficial to ascertain the implications on trade and the specific trade concerns.
(For the detailed presentation, see attached)
Discussion

Ms M Thlape (ANC) said the DOH presentation had amplified the DALRRD presentation, and the DOH had commented on how they would support whether the principal Act or regulations were amended. She said the DTIC presentation had not specified whether the Department was for or against the Bill. The presentation just stated that there had not been a complete worldwide ban on animal cosmetic testing and rather that there was remedial action in terms of the country's ability to regulate.

Mr N Masipa (DA) said the presentations had raised concerns about how things would be done. He referred to public submissions, and stated that 1 311 had supported the Bill, with only seven objections. Submissions from Dear SA were about 5 110 in support of the Bill. 

The Bill recognised the pain of animal cosmetic testing, but there were international trade issues that came with it. He asked how long it would take them to engage with countries that had banned animal cosmetic testing. There were obvious trade imbalances. The Bill did not suggest that once South Africa banned animal cosmetic testing, other countries must comply with SA’s law. This went back to his real question in terms of the Animal Welfare Bill -- whether the Committee should not consider animal welfare as a point of departure for addressing this challenge.

Both the DOH and the DTIC acknowledged the severity of animal cosmetic testing on animals. The issue was the technical barriers in terms of world trade that could affect SA. There was a worldwide acknowledgement that the promotion of animal welfare was important. He asked how quickly this could be addressed without case law from other countries that had banned animal cosmetic testing without affecting the technical trade barriers. He did not think the DTIC’s presentation had addressed the Committee’s concern about what trade imbalances would result from the Bill.

Mr N Matiase (EFF) said that animal welfare and protection were important to protect animals as a national and heritage resource against human decisions and actions. Just as the environment needed to be protected, animals needed to be protected too. The Bill was needed to ensure that the environment was safe not only for humans, but animals too. Testing on animals should not harm or endanger the animals. He welcomed the presentations and initiators of the Bill so that it could be a part of SA’s legislation for current and future generations.

Mr Matiase’s concern was that the Bill was technical and should be presented to a wider audience for participation. It was not just to tick boxes, but to empower and enlighten South Africans on the importance of animal welfare. When the Bill was first presented, he had no conception of animal pain -- as a farm boy, animals equated to food to him. He said such practices could end only when people were informed about animals feeling pain too.

Ms T Mbambama (DA) said she was covered by her colleagues.

Ms T Breedt  (FF+) said the DOH had mentioned that SA had no technology or expertise in using alternative testing methods, and noted that no testing was done in SA, so this argument was irrelevant.

She said the DTIC had mentioned that banning international trade of cosmetics tested on animals could be within WTO law, as the ban was not entirely covered by WTO rules and could be subject to different interpretations. She wanted clarity on how it would impact the WTO if there was no change in the status quo.

Ms Breedt asked how it would impact SA and its trading options if no animal cosmetic testing was being done in SA. How would it impact imports, as the Bill did not mention imports but spoke of regulation within SA? She acknowledged and thanked the departments for noting the impact and suffering of animals from cosmetic testing. The presentations also mentioned that some countries had led the way in banning animal cosmetic testing. She said SA would be one of the leaders, and if India – which, in her opinion, had more issues than SA -- could ban testing on animals, SA should consider it too.

Inkosi R Cebekhulu (IFP) said he had no questions or comments.

Mr N Capa (ANC) wanted to understand if those with suggestions and opinions about the Bill still held those positions after the two presentations. He said it was important that these presentations did not upset anyone making decisions on the Bill.

Mr H Kruger (DA) said it was important to do an impact assessment, as this could impact the ease of doing business, especially as a small trader or business. One of the presenters mentioned that an impact assessment should be done—the impact on business needed to be included in the assessment.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) thanked the Chairperson and Committee for the attention given to the Bill. He said there was a misunderstanding about the impact of the Bill. The Bill was narrow and pre-emptive, as SA currently had no animal cosmetic testing. There were already 7 000 proven safe ingredients worldwide, and as his memorandum had pointed out, there was an international trend towards banning animal cosmetic testing. BRICS countries such as India and China were also adopting these methods. 

He said the Bill did not impact imports and exports, and therefore he did not understand the DTIC’s presentation. There was no impact because SA had no laboratories. He appreciated the DOH’s approach, as it was constructive. The DALRRD had mentioned that there was no technology or expertise in SA for alternative methods, but Mr Swart said this was because there were no laboratories in SA. Animal cosmetic testing did not happen in SA.

He appreciated the comments from Mr Matiase and other Members. He said Mr Capa had mentioned that the public might view this differently in light of these presentations, and suggested that it was important to refer this Bill for public comment again. This was needed, given the narrow nature of the Bill. The Bill was narrow and pre-emptive, and followed other countries such as New Zealand, which did not have laboratory testing. He said what they were saying was that should anyone apply, then the Act would apply.

Mr Swart said this was to understand the DTIC’s comments -- the questions were directed at them. He appreciated that this Bill was technical. On page 12 of the DTIC’s presentation, it stated that the prohibition on international trade of cosmetics tested on animals had the potential to bring conflict under WTO law. He said the Bill was not prohibiting the international trade of cosmetics, but rather sought to ban animal cosmetic testing in SA. The Bill only restricted the manufacture of cosmetics tested on animals in SA. There was no question about this relating to the World Trade Organisation; therefore, DTIC had misconceived it.

He referenced to slide 10 of the DTIC’s presentation, which stated that South Africa prohibits cosmetic products tested on animals against the originating country. He argued that this was not what the Bill said, as it only speaks to South Africa. All the DTIC’s arguments therefore fell away. The Bill brought SA in line with the international trend of banning animal testing for cosmetics. In terms of small businesses, this Bill did not impact them or anyone because the status quo applied in SA. There was no animal cosmetic testing in SA.

He said 7 000 proven ingredients were available in SA, so there was no impact. There was an exemption for medical testing, and there was a clause which stated that if a person tested for medicines and it was found it could be used for cosmetics, this could not be used as a loophole. He said there was a legal term for this that he was sharing as a lawyer. The term was in fraus legis, which meant it would be fraudulent to do such.

Mr Swart said what was set out in his memorandum needed to be considered. As the Chairperson had noted, more than 100 million animals were tested worldwide and this was why countries were moving away from animal testing.

He noted that the Constitutional Court had stated that animals needed to be protected. It was understood how animals were being treated harmfully and that if the animals did not die during the testing process, they were killed afterwards. Alternative methods were needed.

He said the Bill was pre-emptive should it happen in SA. He concluded that if the Committee decided that the Bill was not desirable, he urged that in its report, it should fall back on what the DALRRD recommended, which was regulations to stop animal testing should it happen in SA. This was so organisations and people watching would have something to say after years of effort.

The Chairperson asked if there were any further questions and comments from the Committee. There were none, so he asked the DTIC and DOH for their responses.

Department of Health's response

Mr Ramkrishna thanked the Chairperson for considering the discussions and insights from other stakeholders. The DOH maintained its stance that the issue was with the principal Act, and the impact indicated by the DTIC. The DOH’s position was that they would implement the Act as it is. If there were regulations or amendments to the Act, they would be implemented by environmental health officials from the DOH and municipalities. The DOH would continue with this responsibility.

Department of Trade, Industry and Competition's response
 
Ms Van Renen said the DTIC did not take a position on whether animal testing was bad or not, and should be banned. Their position was to alert the Committee to WTO agreements and technical trade barriers, and what bearing the Bill might have. She said trade was not necessarily only imports -- it was also exports. There was a vibrant little cosmetics industry in SA and in the future, should it be in a position to export to a significant degree, manufacturing and exporting would be impacted by domestic regulations.

She emphasised what was on slide 8 of the DTIC presentation, which stated that countries could have such regulations subject to the requirement that they were not applied:
(i) in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail; or
(ii) a disguised restriction on international trade. She said this was the rule that often applied in trade.

Ms Van Renen said the issue involved was the prohibition of animal testing for cosmetics, but animal testing done for a different purpose was not prohibited and could create a trap. This was because it would give rise to the question that if animal cosmetics testing was bad, why was animal testing not bad in other contexts? When implementing such a prohibition measure, it would be relevant to notify the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee so other members were aware and had a reasonable amount of time to comment if there was an issue.

She said that from the explanations provided, many countries were moving against testing on animals and perhaps this ban would not elicit much of a discussion, but it was necessary to note the right procedure should this Bill go ahead. The DTIC did not take a position on whether the Bill was good or bad, but rather wanted to explain to the Committee what bearing it could have in terms of international agreements.
 
Ms Sinah Mosehla, Director: Cosmetics Sector, DTIC, said that in SA there was no cosmetics testing on animals. She was surprised that something that was not even done in SA was being banned. She said many cosmetic manufacturers in SA manufactured homecare products in their facilities. 90% of raw materials used in the cosmetic and homecare sector were imported, because SA could not manufacture the majority of ingredients used in the cosmetic sector. These ingredients were imported from all over the world and included countries that had not yet banned animal testing. This was not to say that animal testing was good, because the DTIC cared about animals.

Ms Mosehla asked how 90% of the ingredients which were imported would be restricted, and if they would also be banned. SA was a free trading country that imported and exported finished products. Would the ban apply to cosmetic products tested on animals in their country of origin? Many ingredients based in the chemicals sector, not necessarily the cosmetic sector, were tested on animals. If there were a ban, manufacturers from all sectors needed to be made aware that they needed to look for alternatives. This was why the DTIC suggested an impact assessment so that the impact on the chemical sector at large, not just the cosmetic sector, could be understood.

Ms Mosehla said if we cared about our animals, why was the focus on just the cosmetic sector and not the medical or chemical sectors? The cosmetic sector in SA did not even test products on animals.  

Ms Steyn responded on whether the Bill had any implications on trade, legislation, policies or international agreements on trade in SA. She said it was the DTIC’s view that it was likely that adherence to the terms of technical barriers to trade of the WTO could result in SA being unable to impose measures on imported cosmetics or ingredients. SA imported a vast number of its cosmetics ingredients, because it did not manufacture. She added that this was where the issue was, and the proposed impact assessment would be useful.

Ms Mosehla said the cosmetic sector had a regulation developed by the DOH that had not been enforced since 2017 due to a lack of human resource capacity in the DOH. She asked whether there would be enough capacity to implement this Bill since new legislation was being introduced in the cosmetic sector and there were pre-existing capacity issues in terms of regulation.

Follow-up discussion

Mr Masipa's asked the DTIC which countries were currently using animal testing on their products, and from which of those countries SA was importing cosmetics. He said if the DTIC did not have the specifics at hand, the information could be provided in writing to the Committee.

Ms Breedt asked for the DTIC to clarify where the ban on imported ingredients was.

Mr Swart appreciated the DTIC’s responses, and asked where in the Bill it was mentioned that imported ingredients tested on animals were being banned. He said the Bill did not mention this and did not impact imports. He did not understand the issues of the 90% imported ingredients, as the Bill was not impacting these.

DTIC's response

Ms Steyn requested that the DTIC be allowed to provide written feedback in response to the questions posed by the Committee. She said the countries SA was importing from were mostly China and the European Union. However, written feedback would be provided for more specific details on all the issues the Committee had raised in terms of trade.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Steyn and said it would be appreciated if their responses were submitted in writing. He asked if the Committee had further questions.

Ms Van Renen said they would also be assisting Ms Steyn with the written responses and Ms Thembi Mlangeni, Director: International Trade Negotiator Market Access, who was an expert on the TBT agreement. Ms Mlangeni was also available to provide further assistance to the Committee in this meeting if necessary.

The Chairperson said that with the presentations put before the Committee by the DOH, DTIC and DALRRD, the Committee needed to decide if they had moved it towards a motion of desirability on the Bill or rejected such a motion.

Motion of Desirability

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretariat to briefly explain the process concerning the motion of desirability. This was so the Committee could look into it before proceeding to the vote.

Ms Breedt had a question of clarity. Since the DTIC still needed to respond to Mr Masipa’s question, should the vote on the motion of desirability not be halted? She asked if the Committee would proceed even though the information from the DTIC had not yet been received.

The Chairperson said that the information from the DTIC had no impact on the Bill. It was just information on imports and their countries of origin that Mr Masipa wanted the Committee to have. The DTIC would supply the Committee with this information and if the Committee wanted to engage with it, they would do so. He said the Committee needed to proceed with the motion of desirability for the Bill, and added that this was why he wanted the Committee Secretariat to explain the process.

The Committee Secretariat said according to rule 286(4), after due deliberation, the Committee must consider a motion of desirability on the subject matter of the Bill and, if rejected, must immediately table the Bill and its report on the Bill. If the motion of desirability was adopted, the Committee must proceed to deliberate on the details of the legislation.

The Chairperson said he wanted to ascertain whether the Bill was desirable or not in terms of a motion of desirability. This was to determine if the Committee would proceed with processing the Bill or if rejected, that the Committee would submit their report on the Bill to the National Assembly. The Chairperson asked for those who were for, against or abstaining from voting on a motion of desirability by a show of hands.

The Chairperson said three Members of the Committee were in favour of a motion of desirability. Mr Matiase, Nkosi Cebekhulu and Ms Breedt were for the motion.

Mr Masipa asked if the vote should not be postponed, as he thought it would require deliberation on the Bill and a mandate from each of their caucuses.

The Chairperson said unfortunately the Committee was present as representatives of Parliament. He said Mr Masipa as a representative of his caucus could either abstain or vote in favour or against the motion. There would be an opportunity to speak to the Bill in the House of Parliament went it arose. The Chairperson said here in the meeting there was a real mandate for the work that Parliament required of them.

The Chairperson reiterated that three Members of the Committee were in favour of the motion and listed their names again.

Mr Matiase noted that those who were hesitant to raise their hands should not confuse the motion of desirability for an endorsement of the Bill. He found it strange that Members of the Committee who had spoken positively and in favour of the Bill were now hesitant to raise their hands. He asked what this was an indication of.

The Chairperson said he did not want the Committee to probe other Members. The vote allowed the Committee to vote in terms of their desires and mandate.

The Chairperson asked for a show of hands from the Members of the Committee against the motion. He said four Members of the Committee were against the motion of desirability and the Members included Ms Tshwete and Ms Mahlo.

The Chairperson repeated the result of the vote, with four against and three for the motion of desirability regarding the Animals Protection Amendment Bill.

He said what was now left was the compiling of the report that would be sent to the National Assembly. This report would highlight the deliberations on the Bill. This would then conclude their processing of the Bill. Further decisions on the Bill would be taken in the National Assembly.

Ms Breedt said some Members did not vote, and asked if it would not be to ask for abstentions to ensure the correct procedure was followed.

The Chairperson responded to Ms Breedt that he would ask for a show of hands from Members who had abstained from voting.

Mr Swart thanked the Committee, particularly those who had supported the motion of desirability. He appreciated the time the Committee had spent on this matter and noted that he was disappointed in the outcome.

Mr Masipa said he wanted it on record that the DA’s abstaining from voting was not a positive or negative position on the Bill. Their point was that they did not feel enough studies or work had been presented to the Committee to make a proper decision on a motion of desirability concerning the Bill. 

The Chairperson asked for a show of hands from the Members of the Committee who were abstaining from voting.

The Chairperson noted that the two Members abstained from voting on the motion of desirability were Mr Masipa and Ms Mbabama.

He said the report on the Bill would be compiled by the Secretariat, content advisors and researchers. The report would also be brought before the Committee for adoption, and then sent to the National Assembly.

Inter-Ministerial Task Team on Ingonyama Trust: Minister's presentation

The Chairperson invited Ms Thoko Didiza, Minister of the DALRRD, to proceed with dealing with the presentation on the Inter-Ministerial Task Team concerning the Ingonyama Trust Board. He said the presentation had been given to the Committee to engage with. He asked the Minister to make opening remarks, after which the Committee would proceed with discussing the presentation. See here https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/37090/

Ms Mbabama requested that the Committee be reminded of the brief concerning the Minister’s presentation.

The Chairperson said the Committee had requested the Minister to present on the mandate of the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, how the team had come into being, and its work and findings concerning the Ingonyama Trust. The Committee had asked this of the Minister so that the Committee could conclude this matter.

Minister Didiza thanked the Chairperson for providing context regarding why they had to return to the Committee. The presentation clarified why the President had set up the Inter-Ministerial Task Team. In 2018, a high-level panel report was headed by the then Deputy President Kgalema Motlante. The Speaker’s Forum commissioned the panel, headed by the Speaker of Parliament. The panel aimed to look at legislation from 1994 to 2018 and its impact on society. In terms of legislation on land-related matters in South Africa, the Commission made observations on land reform regarding its pace and challenges. One of the issues raised relating to tenure reform was the governance of land in communal areas and the role of traditional leaders.

An issue raised by the Commission that had angered traditional leaders pertained to the "tin pot dictator" reference. Traditional leaders did not understand what to make of this reference. The Commission had observed that, on the one hand, there was communal land under the trusteeship of the state, and on the other hand, communal land was under the trusteeship of the Ingonyama Trust. The trustee of the Trust, in terms of the Ingonyama Trust Act, was the Zulu King. The Commission had raised these issues and others, but in terms of the public debate, there were various views on whether the recommendations and observations of the panel encroached on the Trust and its current structure. As a result of the panel report, the then Zulu King Zwelithini requested a meeting with the President to discuss the Ingonyama Trust.

Minister Didiza said that in this meeting, the President had been clear that the state had not taken a position on taking away the Ingonyama Trust land, but rather that the state was looking into how to deal with the communal land issue which was under the trusteeship of the state. 

The Inter-Ministerial Task Team was set up in preparation for the meeting between the President and the Zulu King. The Task Team comprised of the late Minister Jackson Mthembu as Chairperson, Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs), Minister Senzo Mchunu (Presidency), Minister Thoko Didiza (Land Affairs) and Premier Sihle Zikalala (KZN), and officials from their departments.

When looking at the preparation of the Task Team, the view was that the President had articulated the position of government regarding the Ingonyama Trust. There was a feeling that this should not be used as a political matter. The issues of the Trust, its governance and performance had to be dealt with by the line function Minister under whose purview the Ingonyama Trust Act fell.

The Task Team suggested to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and the Minister of Human Settlements in KZN that there were issues the Trust had to deal with. The reason for the highlighting of these ministers was that they had responsibilities that impacted the Trust. It was indicated in the report that there were townships under the Trust and, as per legislation, those townships were supposed to be returned to COGTA. The townships were called R239. The Task Team said the process of returning the townships needed to be concluded. In terms of the management of land, some of the issues relating to communal land were delegated to the Minister of COGTA.

Minister Didiza noted that regarding the litigation on the Trust, the Court had said that although delegation had been given to the Trust, it did not absolve the Minister from ensuring communities were protected. Concerning the Trust, the Task Team stopped there. The matter did not go further as the Task Team felt it had no bearing on preparing the meeting between the King and the President.

The Minister said that in the presentation, she highlighted what the DALRRD had done to address the matters they were asked to continue addressing. This was done not because the Task Team expected a report from the Department. The Task Team was of the view that this Committee had oversight responsibilities regarding the Department and how it executed its tasks. She reiterated that the Task Team did not expect a report or that the Department should deal with matters on the Trust.

She wanted to clarify that when one took into consideration the responsibility of the Ministry and the Department concerning the Ingonyama Trust, it was clear that the Minister had to ensure that a board was appointed to assist the trustee in managing the Trust’s land. The Ingonyama Trust Act expected the Board to be responsible for the governance and management of land under the Trust. The Minister added that where there were challenges with the Board and its functions, the Minister could intervene and assist. The Act provided for regulations that allowed the Minister to ensure the Trust ran smoothly.

See here https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/37090/

Committee comments and questions

The Chairperson said the Committee would not proceed to their discussion on the presentation. He asked Members to pose their comments and questions about the Minister’s presentation.

Ms Thlape said the Committee had gone through the Minister’s presentation and what the Committee had requested. She acknowledged that clarity had been provided on the work of the Task Team. She said the Committee wanted the Department to touch on issues of governance. The brief alluded to issues with townships and land management. There was also an indication of progress and other initiatives the Minister took.

She said the Committee would work with the new Board to deal with issues and monitor the issue of the courts on the Permission to Occupy (PTO) conversions and their appeals. The Committee would also work with the new Board on concerns with the role of Ingonyama Holdings. This was so that when the Committee dealt with issues of accountability in this entity, such matters did not fall into the cracks. In terms of what had been requested by the Committee, the presentation had been delivered. She said in terms of the Task Team; the Committee knew its mandate and progress.

Ms Mbabama thanked the Minister for the comprehensive background on the Task Team and its progress so far. She said her question would lead to other questions dependent on the answer. She asked if the Chairperson and Minister would indulge her by answering her question.

The Chairperson said Ms Mbabama should pose her question and if there were other questions, those could be follow-up questions, time permitting.

Ms Mbabama asked if any of the members of the new Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) were reappointments and, if so, how many. She wanted to know how the Minister saw the majority of the new Board resolving issues. This was because the reappointed members would already have failed at addressing issues in the past. There was an Adv Linda Zama, who was vice-chairperson of the Board, who she felt had been in this position forever. She said she stood to be corrected on this.

Ms Mbabama referenced the high panel report mentioned in the presentation, which felt that the Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) needed to be repealed. The Minister had noted that this was not one of their considerations, and Ms Mbabama wanted to know why. She wanted to know why because other kings were unhappy that the government was paying the Trust R23 to R24 million a year, when they did not receive the same.

Ms Mbabama quoted the presentation which stated that a macro policy and legislative review would culminate in the promulgation of a law of general application that would improve the security of tenure across South Africa. She was happy with this, and thought it meant the ITB would be repealed for consistency across the Board.

She asked what had happened to this macro policy and legislative review that would culminate in the law of general application. Was the Department working on it or was it on hold? The recommendations from the Task Team had thrown the ball back to the new Board, and she was concerned about the Board having the power to resolve issues.

Ms Mbabama said her questions revolved around the answer to the initial question about reappointments on the new Board. The new Board had to set out a clear policy on disbursement to communities, as this was critical. People and the Committee were complaining that disbursements were not being received. She asked what was happening with the money and where the transfers were. In terms of the R239 townships, this needed to be done by the new Board. The completion of the survey on Trust land was needed. Was the new Board going to be able to do this? She asked what the Minister thought of the Surveyor General assisting, and if the Surveyor General had the capacity.

Due to its present accountability issues, Ms Mbabama said the Committee was concerned with Ingonyama Holdings. Ingonyama Holdings was meant to be the commercial wing of the Trust. She asked if this entity was necessary, and if the Minister and Department had deeply considered the necessity of this entity.

Her questions had started with the issue of reappointments. She shared her concerns that the new Board was the same as the old Board.

Ms Mahlo said Ms Tlhape had covered her on most issues. The Committee needed to work with the new Board. It had to oversee, monitor and evaluate the work of the new Board and its implementation and review of policies to ensure the smooth running of activities. She said there were issues in the past with the ITB’s policies that were not in place. There had been a request for them to review the ITB’s policies, and this was a demonstration of the Committee working with the ITB.

Mr Kruger said he was covered.

Ms Breedt said she was covered.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee had more comments or questions.

Inkosi Cebekhulu said that it seemed as though the Minister had elaborated on the factors around the formation of the Trust. The Trust had been legislated by the National Party government and amended by the current government. He responded to the issue around the Zulu King’s trustee status and other kings wanting the same treatment. He said the Trust was the result of the initiative taken by the former KZN government, not the national government.

Inkosi Cebekhulu said that, as mentioned in the presentation, the initial intention was a meeting between the late Zulu King and the President following a promise the President made in Richards Bay towards the election at the time. The President could not commit to a written position on his promise that the high-level panel led by former President Kgalema Motlanthe’s statement, that amakhosi were "tin pot dictators," would be retracted.

The President had decided to delegate a team of ministers to deal with the issue, and there had been no word on whether this delegation had met up with the Zulu King and heard his views on the Trust. Inkosi Cebekhulu said his understanding was that if there was pressure around the state funding the ITB, the funding should just be stopped. The ITB should be allowed to run its matters without funding from the DALRRD. If possible, legislation should be promulgated to assist with this because there were a lot of groups, families and farmers with their trusts. These groups had decided to form their trusts and had made certain developments and independent trusts that were not affecting the administration of land by the DALRRD.

Mr Masipa said he was looking at the presentation and had noted that the Committee had raised the issue that the Minister’s presentation had been too thin in their last meeting. They were hoping that the presentation would be broadened a bit. He said there were trusts in trusts in trusts. There was the Ingonyama Trust and within it, there were several families with trusts built for the land they owned.

He said the presentation had mentioned the need for a macro policy that would culminate in the promulgation of a law of general application that would improve the security of tenure across the country. This was an issue Ms Mbabama had raised too. He wanted to know the progress made on the macro policy or legislation about it that was needed to address the issue identified by the Task Team.

The Task Team had been of the view that when the Trust experienced governance challenges, the DALRRD had to help the Trust deal with them. Mr Masipa asked if the interference of the government to address the Trust's governance challenges had been formulated. What was the agreement between the Department and Trust on addressing governance challenges going forward?

He said issues were being seen in the media. Ms Mbabama’s question on the board changes was, for him, a question of how the Department addressed governance challenges. The Minister highlighted in the presentation that two workshops had been held with the Board to ensure a common understanding of the mandate. He asked if the Minister had anything in writing about these two workshops. Where and when were the workshops held? What were the discussions and outcomes? Where were the minutes, and what was meant to happen after the workshops?

He asked the Minister for an update on the PTO litigation.

Mr S Dlamini (ANC) said he had arrived late and therefore could not listen to the presentation. He had listened to the comments made and supported Ms Mahlo’s comments. He would await the supportive decision taken.

The Chairperson said there had been a vacuum in terms of the Minister's overseeing the Board since the withdrawal of Adv Vela Mngwengwe as the Minister’s representative on the ITB. He asked about the Minister’s oversight mechanisms concerning the Trust and ITB. Who sat in the board meetings on behalf of the Minister? He said that although oversight was not a legal requirement, it was an important practice.

Referring to meetings held between 3 July and October 2019 and early 2020, he noted that the Committee had resolved to conduct oversight visits concerning the Trust. The Committee had planned to meet the Board, the amakhosi and communities. However, the Minister had requested the Committee's oversight be postponed to allow the Minister and the Task Team an opportunity to intervene and report back to the Committee. Apart from the Task Team, the Committee was informed that the purpose of its creation was the preparations for a meeting between the President and the late King Zwelithini.   He asked the Minister to inform the Committee of what the DALRRD had done about addressing the Ingonyama Trust’s challenges.

The Chairperson said the Committee and the previous ITB reached a deadlock regarding the Trust accounting to Parliament. The ITB had refused to account for the Trust, especially concerning funds. The ITB had cited that the Trust was not listed in the Public Finance Management Act’s (PFMA) schedules. The Committee believed that the Trust was accountable to Parliament on all of its affairs through the ITB. He asked what the Minister’s views were on this. He said accountability included Ingonyama Holdings, a subsidiary company of the Trust. He asked the Minister if the current legislation governing the ITB and Trust was adequate to ensure there was clarity around accountability.

He said that the Committee was aware that for a long time, the ITB wanted to amend the current legislation.

Minister's response

Minister Didiza thanked the Committee for their comments and questions. She also thanked them for their appreciation of the Inter-Ministerial Task Team set up by the President. The Task Team had one task, which had been to prepare for the meeting between the President and the Zulu King. She said she would leave the issue of how the meeting went to the Presidency.

She was happy that Inkosi Cebekhulu had provided context and reflected on matters that led to the meeting that resulted in the creation of the Task Team. The Task Team’s purpose was to prepare for the meeting between the President and Zulu King. With the issues related to the Board’s engagement with the DALRRD, the Department ensured its responsibilities were fulfilled.

Regarding the issue of reappointments on the Board, she said that in 2020 there were vacancies on the Board that needed to be filled. In consultation with the Premier of KZN, the Chairperson of the House of Traditional Leaders of KZN and the Zulu King, it was agreed that these positions would be filled by Advocate Zama and Dr Nquta, a chartered accountant. In terms of the new Board, Adv Zama was the only person who had been reappointed. The Deputy Chairperson had been Dr Nquta, and Adv Zama had been appointed only now as the Deputy Chairperson of the Board.

Concerning the panel, Minister Didiza said how Parliament dealt with the panel’s recommendation was that the Speaker of Parliament sent the report to all committees affected by the report. Committees had to process the recommendations and report back. This happened in the 5th Administration. She wanted to know how this Committee had taken up the matters arising from the panel’s report. This information could be found in the archives -- that portfolio committees affected by the report had to process its recommendations and report back to the House Chairperson responsible for committees on how they planned to address the matter.

The Minister said the Task Team was not going to have to decide on whether the Board would be nullified or not. It did not have the power regarding legislation either, because it was not their mandate. The legislation about the Trust was clear on how the Board had to be appointed.

The legislation, and the potential for repealing it, was a matter for Parliament. If the Committee wanted to recommend repealing the legislation as part of how they were dealing with the high-level panel report, it was their decision as legislators. She said this would not be a decision the Task Team could make.

Regarding communal land tenure, she said this was a matter the Department had reported to Committee on. Study tours had been led by three Deputy Ministers from the DALRRD, COGTA and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, which had culminated in provincial consultations with communities and Houses of Traditional Leaders. This consultation resulted in a summit held in May 2022, which was part of the work of addressing communal land tenure in South Africa. Following the summit, the Department worked on the legislative review. This work took into account preliminary work that was done in the mid-2000s, which culminated in the Communal Land Rights Act (CLARA). Certain sections of the CLARA, after being passed, had been struck off by the Constitutional Court, which had requested a review of the Act. The Constitutional Court case was opened by members of the community who felt that certain governance structures did not have balanced representation and gave more powers to traditional leaders. This was why sections of CLARA were struck off, and there had been no amendment of the Act.

There was also other legislation currently of an interim nature that the review had considered. It had considered all these processes, and this would be sent to the Cabinet and this Committee. Regarding tabling in Parliament this year in April, a multi-stakeholder workshop was held to examine the draft the Department presented. This was a work in progress concerning the law of general application.

Concerning tenure security, the views that had emerged from the workshop had not just addressed communal land tenure, but tenure systems too. This was so that those living in informal settlements and urban areas could secure tenure.

The Minister’s view on whether the new Board was up to the task, was that the skill set brought by the Board made her confident that it was up to the task. Whether the Board succeeded or not could be judged when they started their work.

Regarding the treatment of the Zulu King versus other kings of similar stature, she said Inkosi Cebekhulu had explained the historical context of the creation of the Trust. However, if new legislation indicated that society and legislators were of the view that a certain status or funding had to be accorded to all kings, it was not a matter the Executive could decide alone. The decision would include legislators and broader societal consultation.

Responding to the assertion of the presentation being thin, she did not remember any mention of this by the Committee in the last meeting. The Committee had expressed the view that not enough time had been given to them to look at the presentation and respond to it. She responded to Mr Masipa that there was no way the presentation would be bulky, because it was responding to the question of the mandate and the work of the Inter-Ministerial Task Team.

She said reflecting on the work done in the workshop was part of Executive action, and the Minister of DALRRD’s responsibilities. She was unsure that in terms of that work, the Executive was expected to submit a report on the minutes of meetings it had with institutions it was overseeing. She said if this was the request, it was new, but the Department would comply.

Regarding their function of oversight, they intervened when needed because it was their responsibility to ensure oversight over these institutions. With the issue of the Committee postponing its oversight, the Minister said the Department had responded to this and what would be done going forward.

What the Committee had said about matters being dealt with by the line function department, she said there was a time when the Department had withheld the Trust’s budget. This was because the Department was not convinced that the Board was doing what needed to be done regarding their responsibilities. She added that this was also the reason the DALRRD had not argued for an increase in the ITB’s budget.

Minister Didiza said the Department was of the view that the Board’s budget was adequate for fulfilling their tasks. These were governance issues that the Department was addressing. As indicated by the Chairperson, there was no legal requirement that the Minister had to be represented on the Board. It was just a practice to ensure a better appreciation of how the Board was dealing with matters. There was someone who sat as a ministerial representative on the Board, but this person did not have the power to make decisions expected from board members with a fiduciary duty and appointed following statute. Adv Mngwengwe had left the Board and had been appointed full-time on the Board, and since then no one had been sent from the Department to sit on it. The Department was engaging directly with the Board and expressing concerns about how things were happening within the institution. She said it was for the reason the Department felt things had changed when King Zwelithini died, and there were matters that had inhibited the Department from appointing a new board. She was happy that this gap was not closed, as it would ensure that the Department engaged better with the duly appointed legislative structure.

The Minister said their view on accountability was that Ingonyama Holdings, as the ITB created, had to account to Parliament. She had shared with members of the ITB that the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) presented to this Committee on their work with the chairperson of the ITB concerning the accountability of Ingonyama Holdings. It had been their view that the new Board appreciated the expectation of the Minister about issues of accountability concerning the Trust, the ITB and Ingonyama Holdings, as well as the resources that communities needed to receive.

She said in the presentation it had mentioned that there was a responsibility to ensure that the new Board had a clear policy on disbursements, as the old Board had lacked this. The Minister indicated that the Department could not do this, as it was the responsibility of the Board, as by law, it was responsible for overseeing the work of the Trust.

The Minister said in terms of litigation, the presentation had indicated that there were processes and as much as she reported to this Committee, she had written advising the Board, with stated reasons, not to contest the judgment. The Board was a juristic person and felt it needed to appeal the judgment, and the Minister did not have the power to stop them, only to advise them. They were still waiting for the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for a judgment on the ITB’s appeal. She hoped the new Board would accept their view on how to deal with the matter from the SCA’s appeal. The Board was aware of the Minister’s views.

Follow-up questions and comments

The Chairperson thanked the Minister, and asked if the Committee had follow-up comments and questions.

Ms Mbabama said what the Minister had said was clear, and she was grateful for her advice. This was because she had been in the Fifth Administration, where the panel report and its recommendations had not been interrogated. In terms of the Trust, this was an opportunity for the Committee to look at the panel report, especially concerning the Trust, and see what the Committee could do.

She appreciated the history provided on the formation of the Trust. She said she realised the Zulu nation could not be held to ransom for something they had taken the initiative to create. However, she noted the bone of contention was around the R23 million allocation given by the government to the Trust, but to no other kings. It was not about the Trust itself. She suggested that the Committee look at the high-level reports.

The Chairperson emphasised and welcomed Ms Mbabama’s comments. He said the birth of the Ingonyama Trust resulted from a political compromise on 24 April 1994, three days before South Africa’s first democratic elections on 27 April. The Trust was born through an arrangement between Inkosi Mangosuthu Buthelezi and then President FW de Klerk. South Africa had been subjected to carrying on this agreement as a democratic nation. The Chairperson said that going into 30 years of democracy, he had continuously asked the question if the Trust was a success regarding the implementation of land administration in KZN.

He asked if the Minister could attest to the Trust’s success and, if so, why this model had not been implemented with other monarchs. South Africa was made up of different monarchs and was not a single monarch state. Other monarchs were not afforded the same funding allocation that the DALRRD allocated to the Zulu Nation. The Department allocated R23 million to the ITB. It was repeatedly stated that if this model was a success, it should be afforded to all the other monarchs and their nations in South Africa. This was the Committee that could state there was fair and equal recognition of all traditional leaders across South Africa.

He said that in the struggle for liberation, traditional leaders formed part of the first prisoners on Robben Island, and it was a fight fought by the Amakhosi. To elevate one monarch above the rest was an injustice to the nations and diverse nature of South Africa. This issue sat with the conscience of the Committee and the Department’s leadership. One could take the horse to the river, but one could not make it drink. This matter would reside with administrations to come, and he hoped that the consideration of the betterment of this matter would find room in their thinking, to ensure that traditional leaders were treated the same. They would not dwell on the funds afforded to the Zulu Monarch in terms of the provincial budget, but rather on the Department’s R23 million allocation to the Trust.

The Chairperson said the Committee came from various provinces and resided under different monarchs. He hoped there was continued advocacy for equal treatment of traditional leaders and their role in paving the way for a democratic South Africa.

Minister Didiza thanked the Committee for allowing the Department to present, and said they would be guided by the Committee on how to deal with this broader matter. The Committee could perhaps reflect on how to deal with this issue with the Portfolio Committee on COGTA, as these matters straddled broader questions concerning both committees. Some of these matters were beyond the Department, and perhaps needed interventions by legislation and Parliament.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and said the matter would reside with the Committee. The Committee would use the secretariat, content advisors and researchers to assist in presenting this to legal advisors and Parliament. This was so the that if there was any change the Committee needed to effect in terms of the Trust, they would be able to introduce the necessary amendments and cater to all other traditional monarchs in South Africa.

Animals Protection Amendment Bill: Motion of desirability

The Chairperson said the reasons for the Committee’s rejection of the motion of desirability concerning the Animals Protection Amendment Bill had not been stated and captured for their report on the Bill. He asked Ms Thlape and Members of the Committee who had rejected the motion to provide the reasons for the rejection.

Ms Thlape said she wanted to indicate that Mr Swart, who sponsored the Bill, and some of the submissions that supported the Bill, had stated that cosmetics were not tested on animals in South Africa. Therefore this Bill would not achieve its intended purpose, because it did not cover the imported products. This issue had been raised especially when the impact on trade was being discussed. This Bill had the potential to threaten international trade. There had been discussion that even if the focus was just within South Africa, there was still the issue of imports. She asked if this would not disadvantage local businesses and if it was in the Committee’s interest to quash business initiatives considering the economic state both in the country and globally. She said the world was a global village, and multinational cosmetic companies were operating in South Africa. The ban on animal testing limited to within South Africa disadvantaged local businesses whilst allowing multinationals to thrive.

She said retailers imported similar products into the country without restrictions on animal testing because, as indicated in the presentations, South Africa did not manufacture products tested on animals. She asked why they were focused on something that did not even exist. She noted that the Committee discussion on the Bill was pre-emptive, and argued that considering its workload and pressures from issues such as foot and mouth diseases, the Committee should not be focused on pre-emptive measures on issues that did not exist. When issues arise, the Minister had the powers to remedy them through regulations.

She said in a resource-constrained country, with a constrained justice system, there was no significant benefit in terms of the Bill, but a negative impact on employment in the local cosmetics industry. She noted that the presentations spoke of the impact the Bill would have on South Africa’s retail system.

Ms Thlape said that considering this was an Act from 1962 and the advancements in animal welfare, it did not make sense to amend this legislation piecemeal. As suggested by Mr Masipa, the entire Act needed to be looked at so there was an overall review of the legislation. She also noted, as had been indicated by Mr B Herron (GOOD), with all the legislation the Committee was dealing with, if there had been consideration of engaging with the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on whether the NCOP would be able to process all of these bills, or if they would lapse again. With this in mind, why would the Committee focus on something far-fetched? She said the Committee’s workload and challenges needed to be considered. The Committee needed to leave this Bill, and the Minister would take the necessary regulatory steps when the issue arose.

The Chairperson said this covered the rejection of the motion. He asked if the Committee had further reasons for the rejection.

Mr Kruger said he wanted to correct Ms Thlape. He said it was not Mr Herron that had made that statement, but him.

The Chairperson said Mr Kruger’s correction would be noted.

The Chairperson said that was all that was on the Committee’s agenda. The Committee would request that Committee secretariat, content advisors and researchers capture the Committee’s deliberations on the Animals Protection Bill for the report. He requested that they also put together the report on the Bill that would be tabled to the National Assembly.

Committee report on nominations for the Agricultural Research Council’s Board

The Committee Secretariat reminded the Committee about the matters concerning the Agricultural Research Council (ARC).

The Chairperson said the Committee had received a request to submit names for the Board to the ARC. One name had been submitted by Ms Tlhape to the Ministry. He said the opportunity to submit names had closed last week. He said there was a report on the issue of the Board of the ARC.

The Chairperson read the ARC report, which stated:

 "The report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development on the nomination of candidates to serve on the Board of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), dated 6 June 2023.

"The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, having considered the request by the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to the National Assembly to nominate suitable candidates to serve on the Board of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), referred to it on 17 May 2023 (see referral document dated 17 May and letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development), reports as follows:

The process for nomination of candidates

"The process for nomination of candidates to the Board of an entity by the Committee entails the formal tabling of the referral to the Committee, which must include the accompanying letter from the Minister detailing the nature and number of vacancies that need to be filled and what is expected from the Committee.

"On consideration of the referral, the Members of the Committee are then requested to submit curricula vitae (CVs) of suitable candidates as legislated in Section 9(3) of the Agricultural Research Act (Act No. 86 of 1990, as amended) including other required documents as outlined in the referral, for consideration by the Committee.

"The Committee will then formally consider the submitted CVs of nominated candidates to ensure that they meet the requirements as legislated in Section 9(3) of the Agricultural Research Act (Act No. 86 of 1990, as amended). After selection of qualifying candidates, the Committee adopts a report that will be sent to the Office of the Speaker with the relevant CVs and documents of qualifying candidates for submission to the Minister.

Committee decision and resolution

"The letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development that was sent with the referral to the Committee, was dated 25 April 2023. However, it was referred to the Committee only on Wednesday, 17 May 2023, two days before the due date of 19 May 2023. As the Committee generally sits on Tuesdays, it managed to consider the referral only on Friday, 19 May 2023, which was the due date. The Committee therefore could not proceed with the nominations as per the usual process outlined in Section 1 above.

"The Committee resolved that interested Members of the Committee could still nominate, as individuals, qualifying candidates and submit the required documents to the Committee Secretariat by 16h00, for direct submission to the Minister. One nomination was received from MP Tlhape, and the CV of Dr Poncho Jarius Mokaila was sent directly to the Minister’s office."

The Chairperson said this was the report to be considered. This was all on the issue of the ARC board nominations.

Ms Thlape wanted to correct the spelling of the surname of the candidate she submitted.

The Chairperson noted the correction.

Ms Thlape proposed the adoption of the report on the nominations of the ARC’s Board, and Ms Mahlo seconded the motion.

The ARC report on board nominations was adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.