Sixth Parliament Committee Legacy Report

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the new parliamentary team to their first in-person Portfolio Committee meeting, and asked each Member to introduce themselves to facilitate mutual acquaintance.

He emphasised that the main focus of the meeting was the legacy report of the 6th Parliament, outlining outstanding issues and what remained to be addressed by the current Committee. This report was crucial for the Committee to understand previous issues, ongoing tasks, and future priorities.

He also acknowledged reviewing the legacy report and expressed his personal views, but emphasised the importance of team input going forward. He encouraged deliberation and lobbying, noting that decisions would be made based on consensus and majority voting.

He said the legacy report would be presented to provide historical context, alongside a research report on fishing, covering licensing, legal issues, challenges and technicalities. The researcher would offer a brief overview of the fishing industry.

Both presentations would be followed by a briefing on the "do's and don’ts" and etiquette for Members, focusing on the processes and protocols for upcoming international trips, with an emphasis placed on effectively representing South Africa at the parliamentary level.

Ms S Boshoff (DA, Mpumalanga) proposed that the Committee send a letter of condolences on behalf of the agricultural sector for the victims of a recent bus accident on Van Rhyns Pass, which had claimed the lives of agricultural workers. She noted that while Western Cape Government members had already visited the families, it would be appropriate for the Committee to also offer condolences, which the Chairperson approved.

The Chairperson acknowledged apologies from Ms M Dhlamini (ANC, Free State), who was ill and unable to join virtually, and Ms S Sithole (ANC, North West), who could not attend due to unforeseen circumstances.

Meeting Report

Committee's Legacy Report: guidelines for the future

Mr Kobus Jooste, Committee Content Advisor, introduced himself as an environmental scientist with a background in agriculture research and nature conservation. He commented that this was his third review of a legacy report since joining in the middle of the 4th Parliament. He said his presentation would cover not only the legacy report, but also provide background on the Committee’s development, support, focus, and operational experiences.

He outlined the Committee's scope in the 6th Parliament, which included three departments, 21 funded programmes, 24 entities, and five additional grants. In the 7th Parliament, the scope had been adjusted to cover Rural Development and Land Reform; Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment; Agriculture; Mineral and Petroleum Resources; and Energy and Electricity.

Regarding state-owned enterprises (SOEs), he noted that the President had reallocated three major entities -- Alexkor to Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Eskom to the Minister of Electricity and Energy (with no previous oversight experience by this Committee), and Safcol to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment.

Mr Jooste said that on 26 August, in terms of Section 97 of the Constitution, President Ramaphosa had transferred the administration, powers, and functions from the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy to the newly designated Minister of Electricity and Energy. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) would remain operational until the necessary legislation and resources were fully transferred. A memorandum of agreement (MoA) would be established to ensure the DMRE supports the Minister of Electricity and Energy throughout the 2024/25 financial year and until the new Department of Electricity and Energy was fully set up and staffed.

With Agriculture split off from Rural Development and Land Reform, and Mineral and Energy being split into Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Energy and Electricity, there might be a lot of legislative amendments the Committee would have to deal with.

He highlighted another noteworthy matter -- the amount of nuclear energy legislation that the Committee oversees and constantly needs to amend, along with the functioning of Eskom. Both would be new matters showing up in the Committee’s field of work that had not been there before.

Mineral Resources and Petroleum would get roughly half of what used to be their portfolio, and it was the main focus of the mineral and petroleum industry -- a straightforward split in legislation.

Mr Jooste said that the Committee faced significant challenges due to the large number of entities, departments and plans it oversaw. With limited meeting time, it was impossible to dedicate a session to each entity, unlike portfolio committees that could review all budgets. This constraint led to problems such as scattered oversight and incomplete evaluations. To address this, the Committee shifted its focus to prioritising local and provincial issues over national ones, which helped to narrow their scope and improve effectiveness.

Examples of areas of local and provincial competencies that the Committee had oversight focus on included indigenous forest administration, animal control and diseases (especially at provincial and municipal levels), and disaster management. He explained that disaster management and the environment were tricky issues for the Committee, as environmental disasters seldom originate from an entity within the portfolio, but they become the problem of the Committee's entities and departments. As an example, he spotlighted how this often happens with dams and the management of dams, which should fall under the Department of Water and Sanitation, but would often become the responsibility of disaster management.

Nature conservation, except for nature parks and botanical gardens, was provincial or local, while pollution control was a local issue, which proved to be one of the many challenges faced by the 6th Parliament. The responsibility for air quality and monetary management and water quality monitoring management had been devolved under local government but remained heavily underfunded. Refuse removal, refuse dumps, and solid waste disposal also fall under local government responsibilities.

The way in which the equitable share and municipal income were calculated, with grant allocations, etc, caused significant problems for waste management because in some provinces one had massive municipalities with sparsely distributed communities, where waste collection and waste removal had to happen at the same intervals in an area which was close to the dump of the city. The same service in one province, where a truck covers hundreds of kilometers, would get less funding due to a smaller population size. The funding was calculated on population size, and not on distance covered. Waste management becomes a big challenge for rural provinces and smaller municipalities due to the financial situation.

Mineral resource and energy was mostly a national competency, making it a tricky department to deal with when it was first assigned to the Committee. Policies that were of particular relevance to the previous Committee’s focus were the Electricity Pricing Policy, 2008; the Free Basic Electricity Policy, 2008; the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP); the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); and the Paris Agreement (2016) on Climate Change.

Mr Jooste discussed the Committee's oversight of the complex balance between environmental and energy issues under the Paris Agreement, noting that while many countries struggled with transitioning to renewable energy due to high costs and industry challenges, some were even reverting to fossil fuels. South Africa faced its own difficulties with ageing infrastructure, which had led to legal challenges and ongoing load-shedding. The country must find a balance between meeting clean air targets and managing energy supply issues.

He also addressed the Committee's focus on land reform, highlighting that while the process itself was straightforward, it was limited by available land and budget constraints. The real challenges arise after land is acquired, where the Committee needs to address issues related to land use and effectiveness.

He outlined the Committee's various competencies, including agriculture, animal control, property fees, soil conservation, and urban development. Provincially, the focus was on veterinary services (excluding regulation), and locally it was on fencing. He said commercial agriculture was often driven by the private sector, but controlled by government policies. The Committee should shift its focus from commercial farming to supporting small-scale and subsistence farmers to improve their market access and productivity.

Statistical trends showed a decline in subsistence agriculture over the past decade, despite significant investment in rural development and land reform. He emphasised that while the Department's budget was substantial, it seemed to be directed towards underperforming areas, leaving important support for food gardens and small farmers insufficient.

Mr Jooste discussed the Department's strategic planning and budget allocation, emphasising that simply spending a budget did not mean goals had been met. Reports on service delivery outcomes often lacked impact assessment, an issue he hoped would improve with the government of national unity (GNU). Effective oversight should focus on real outcomes rather than just what was documented, which was challenging when information was provided solely by the national Department. Limited timelines and restricted access to provincial or constituency information further complicated this.

He also highlighted weaknesses in policy execution and law enforcement, as noted in the High Level Panel (HLP) report. Oversight should address these issues by ensuring laws were implemented, budgets were applied correctly, and government departments were managed effectively. The aim was to prevent abuse, uphold citizens' rights, ensure financial accountability, and enhance transparency.

Regarding the 6th Parliament legacy report, he highlighted that over five years, 49% of efforts were on legislation, which had been crucial due to ongoing updates in major industries. The first two years faced Covid-related disruptions, with 21% focused on Departmental planning and budgets, 12% lost to administrative changes, and 18% on briefings that had identified ten challenges.

Mr Jooste elaborated on several challenges faced by the Committee, including not being able to oversee all priorities despite fewer focus areas compared to the 5th Parliament. Complex issues required cooperation between intergovernmental and cooperative governance bodies, exposing difficulties with silo-ed government operations. Despite limited opportunities, the Committee had improved its understanding of underlying challenges.

Discussion

Mr B Farmer (PA, Western Cape) interjected to say Mr Jooste had raised several critical issues, some of which he intended to address in the discussion. The influx of information was overwhelming, and he was concerned that if he delayed, he might not be able to revisit all the points that had been raised. He requested a printout of the presentation, and urged the Committee to address each issue methodically as they had been presented. He voiced frustration at the prospect of waiting until the end of the term only to discover that the Committee had failed to address key concerns effectively. He demanded to know how the Committee planned to ensure they would succeed this time around.

 

In response, the Chairperson reminded Mr Farmer that Mr Jooste had mentioned at the start that the presentation materials were unavailable due to the continuous influx of new information. He assured Mr Farmer that he would receive the presentation, and that a round of questions would be conducted to clarify the information before further discussions. He underscored the importance of the legacy report in shaping future decisions of the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Boshoff added that since the Committee was largely composed of new Members, the legacy report would serve as a reference for understanding the past five years of work. She explained that it would help them build on previous efforts or explore new alternatives, stressing that nothing was predetermined.

The presentation was then emailed to all present Members.

Presentation (continued)

Mr Jooste highlighted several challenges with the land reform policy, noting that it was poorly developed and not well-integrated as an economic activity. He said land expropriation was a lengthy legal process and that its practical implementation was probably decades away due to inadequate financial support. He also pointed out that the policy lacked a comprehensive plan for what follows after land redress.

Mr H van den Berg (FF+, Northern Cape) inquired whether the Portfolio Committee could address these issues, given the long timeline for land reform.

Mr Jooste responded that despite the significant funding, land reform was not currently a priority. He criticised the inadequate resolution of land claims, which often faced issues related to sales and research. Additionally, post-settlement support was insufficient, with private sector efforts often outperforming government initiatives.

Mr Jooste also discussed small-scale fisheries, noting that overfishing had severely depleted stocks and legal battles had restricted fishing licences. The current allocation was insufficient for small-scale fisheries, and industry players were struggling to cope with dwindling resources.

Mr Farmer expressed concern that the fishing crisis could soon become a major issue. He shared his experiences with West Coast fishing communities, highlighting their struggles and the disparity between their earnings and those of big businesses. He criticised the government for its lack of effective action and noted that political connections with large companies might worsen the situation. He proposed arranging a meeting with the Minister to allow fishermen to voice their concerns, citing unmet promises made before the elections.

The Chairperson noted that Ms Jeanie le Roux, Committee Researcher, would give a special presentation later in the meeting on key issues in the fishing industry.

Mr Jooste raised concerns about air quality, specifically criticising ESKOM and Sasol for being exempt from current regulations by the Department of Environmental Affairs. This exemption allowed them to bypass air quality laws to maintain operations.

He also discussed the Paris Agreement, stressing the importance of meeting its targets despite the potential financial burden. He pointed out that achieving these targets could lead to higher electricity costs and impact health, environmental management and employment, particularly with the potential closure of coal power stations.

He added that several important themes -- such as the impacts of illegal mining, mining expansion into sensitive areas, finalising land claims, and environmental legislation for biological resources -- were inadequately covered. These issues had been sidelined due to rescheduling and legislative priorities.

At what point would environmental affairs intervene with the management of a resource? He highlighted how the restriction of resources in places like the West Coast, where livelihoods were affected, would have a massive impact, yet the country could not turn a blind eye to the fact that when not regulated, the resource could crash and negatively impact the economy.

Discussion

Mr N Pienaar (DA, Limpopo) remarked that given the presentation from today, even if the Select Committee were to continue for the next five years, there would still not be enough time to address all the issues. He emphasised the need for realism, noting the immense amount of work and responsibility involved. He suggested that after five years, the Committee should be proud of their achievements, and hoped that the approach would be streamlined and focused with the Chairperson's leadership.

He acknowledged that the work was extensive and scattered, but stressed the importance of efficiency and ensuring that there was a return on investment for time and resources spent. He understood the previous administration's attempt to narrow the approach to make it manageable, but noted that the scope of work remained substantial.

He pointed out the importance of addressing the Paris Agreement, and the difficult choices that might need to be made. He called for hard, honest conversations and the need to face uncomfortable facts to move the country and the sector forward.

In conclusion, Mr Pienaar expressed his support and offered assistance, especially given his background in the agriculture sector, and reiterated his commitment to support the efforts of the Department.

Ms Boschoff expressed appreciation for Mr Jooste's efforts, noting that being the only content advisor made the task challenging for such a large Department. She highlighted concerns about legislation related to air pollution in her province, Mpumalanga, which had led to numerous discussions with stakeholders about the impact of scrapping both the Paris Agreement and South African air pollution laws.

She agreed with Mr Pienaar’s view that it was crucial to clearly address important aspects of the Agreement. She proposed that instead of focusing on ten areas, the Committee and the NCOP should concentrate on two key areas to make a meaningful impact by the end of their term. She criticised the previous term's approach, where the NCOP had merely rubber-stamped legislation from the National Assembly (NA) without proper oversight. She recounted that during the last term, they had had to process 13 pieces of legislation in just four weeks, which was unmanageable.

In conclusion, she mentioned discussions with NA Members to pressure the Department to ensure timely delivery of legislation to the NCOP. She also highlighted a problem with oversight related to the provinces, which determined the focus of oversight visits, stressing the need for better collaboration between the NCOP and the provinces to ensure that oversight findings were integrated into provincial programmes.

Mr Farmer first provided some background to help others understand his questions better. He said that he was the son of a fisherman, and had been born when his mother went into labour on the factory floor where she worked. The fishing industry was very personal to him, and he intended to remain composed despite his emotional connection. He expressed appreciation for the work done and the information provided, stating that it had clarified many issues for him.

He requested clarification on the percentage of local co-management structures established. He was unsure whether the percentage listed was 30% or something else, and questioned whether this percentage referred to the total allocation between small-scale and large-scale fisheries. He expressed concern that if 30% of the allocation went to small-scale fisheries and 70% to large ones, it could be a significant problem.

He said he would consider two main issues moving forward -- the amount of money flowing through the sector, and the sight of a poor person searching for food -- and would use these issues as a basis for evaluating information. He also suggested that the fishing industry might benefit from a reconciliation process due to various long standing issues, such as his mother's inadequate pension after many years of work.

He noted that fishing communities on the West Coast had inundated him with emails, and he had yet to address all of them. He also criticised the Department's expectation that elderly individuals should physically attend meetings, which he found unreasonable.

Lastly, he raised a concern about scheduling conflicts, as multiple meetings were occurring simultaneously, making it impossible for Members to attend all of them. He questioned how this issue could be resolved, and hoped for a better solution in the future.

Ms M Kennedy (EFF, Limpopo) requested guidance based on the presenter’s experience. She asked for comparisons and advice to help the Committee achieve better results than the previous one. Specifically, she sought recommendations on how to avoid past mistakes and make informed decisions.

She then raised a concern about land claims, sharing an example of a family pursuing a land claim for approximately 20 years. She said that all four brothers involved had passed away, and now a 77-year-old son was still dealing with the case. She noted that there was a lack of clarity regarding the land’s size, and that there were many new human settlements on the claimed land. She asked if, given the present circumstances, the land claim would be successful and if the family could expect any positive outcome.

Mr Van den Berg shared his background, explaining that he had been involved in farming and still resides on a small holding of 80 hectares, where he engages in game farming. He also explored aquaponics, successfully implementing a siphon system inspired by an Australian model.

Regarding the current discussion, he agreed with Mr Pienaar on the need to make significant decisions, such as balancing priorities between the Paris Agreement and energy needs, land claims versus commercial farming, and issues like fracking in the Karoo. He emphasised the importance of prioritising commerce or environmental concerns, and suggested that the Committee should advocate for agriculture, focusing on agricultural influences and activities.

Mr S Mabilo (ANC, Northern Cape) expressed his support for the commendable message given, and acknowledged that it had empowered the Committee with valuable information, making it easier to understand their future engagements.

He emphasised the importance of focusing not only on the Paris Agreement, but also on subsequent Conferences of the Parties (COPs) and agreements. Drawing from his experience of attending COP 17 in Durban and COP 18 in Warsaw, Poland, he recommended that the Committee should also highlight these follow-up agreements. He noted that recent gatherings, such as COP 27 in Egypt, had been significant in addressing global environmental issues, including loss and damage. He suggested that these should be incorporated into the Committee's focus.

Mr Mabilo recommended that unresolved matters, identified as unfinished business, should be properly documented by the Secretary. This would enable the Committee to effectively challenge the Department during oversight. He also reiterated the importance of reviewing the status of Communal Property Associations (CPAs) and post-settlement agreements across all nine provinces. He advocated obtaining a comprehensive update to assess the impact of these agreements.

Ms Pumeza Nodada, Deputy Director-General:Forestry Management, DFFE,  introduced herself as being from Mount Frere, a small town now known as Wabata (sp) in the Eastern Cape. She expressed appreciation for the presentation and the insights provided by the Department. She acknowledged that as someone new to the Department, she continually learned and became more informed through such presentations.

She emphasised the importance of the upcoming planning session, stating that it should help the Committee to develop a focused approach for oversight. She expressed the hope that, by the end of the five-year term, the Committee would leave behind a legacy to be proud of. She suggested using the report as a benchmark to guide their progress and improve upon any shortcomings.

The Chairperson emphasised the need to approach the review of the presentation differently. He suggested that, given the slides and materials sent, the Committee should handle the review individually. He instructed Members to use the time from now until next Friday to review the presentation slide by slide, noting any issues or points of concern.

He encouraged Members to use the existing WhatsApp group for the land aquaculture sub-committee to post their comments and observations. He advised against sending feedback directly to the table, especially since some Members, including a Member currently without a laptop, might face technical difficulties. By using the WhatsApp group, the Committee could avoid duplication and coordinate their efforts more effectively.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee focus on the main themes represented in the presentation, such as fisheries and air quality. He acknowledged the extensive scope of their work, but expressed confidence in the Committee’s capability. He proposed concentrating on a theme that had a broad impact on the country, while still considering the coastal areas.

Finally, he deferred to Ms Le Roux, giving her the floor to present further details.

Mr Pienaar interjected to remind the Chairperson and the Committee about the upcoming planning sessions, starting at 13h00 today and continuing into next week. He advised Members to be mindful of the time needed to get to the venue. He also indicated that both he and Ms Boschoff would need to leave the meeting before it adjourned, to attend another meeting.

Overview of small scale fishery sector

Ms Jeanie Le Roux, the Committee’s researcher, took to the podium to do a high level overview of the small scale fishery sector and the fishing rights application process.

She explained that all marine fisheries required a permit or right, falling into three main categories -- mainly industrial, which was the commercial fishing sector; small scale and subsistence; and recreational fishing. The industrial fishing sector was dominated mainly in terms of volume and value by species, including hake, sardines, etc. There were no inland commercial fisheries of significance in South Africa, although this sub-sector was promising.

Most of South Africa’s freshwater or inland fisheries were related to a small number of agricultural developments, along with small subsistence fisheries in place. Many fishers were aggrieved by the criteria used since the 2006 fishing rights application period. To qualify for fishing rights under the Marine Living Resource Act, the applicant had to be operating in the commercial category as an ordinary citizen, a registered company, a closed corporation or a trust. The other categories had to be recreational or subsistence fisheries.

Aggrieved fishers fell through the gap between subsistence and commercial sector operations, failing to qualify for full commercial fishing rights. Some issues raised by this included exclusion due to high poverty levels, food insecurity and unsustainable livelihoods in coastal villages. In 2007, the Western Cape High Court signed an equality court order that small scale fishers could continue catching fish while drafting a policy to improve their rights was ongoing.

This ruling resulted in an interim relief programme, which was an exemption to accommodate those in the fishing sector who were previously excluded. The exception was particularly relevant in the Western Cape. In other provinces, the recreational fishing permit was used as an equivalent. The small scale fisheries policy was developed and finalised in June 2012. In June 2014, the amendment of the Marine Living Resource Act was signed into law to accommodate small scale fishers. The regulations were finally gazetted in March 2016 to enable the legal application and management of small scale fishing rights.

Issues raised included exclusion due to high poverty levels, food insecurity, and unsustainable livelihoods in coastal villages. In 2007, the Western Cape High Court issued an equality court order allowing small-scale fishers to continue catching fish while a policy to improve their rights was being drafted. This ruling led to the creation of the Interim Relief Program, which provided an exemption to accommodate those previously excluded from the fishing sector, particularly in the Western Cape. In other provinces, recreational fishing permits served as an equivalent measure.

The Small-Scale Fisheries Policy was developed and finalised in June 2012. Subsequently, in June 2014, the Marine Living Resources Act was amended to accommodate small-scale fishers. The regulations were eventually gazetted in March 2016, enabling the legal application and management of small-scale fishing rights.

Discussion

Mr Van den Berg questioned why the country could not invest in lobster and shrimp farming. He suggested that such investments might yield substantial returns with less resource expenditure compared to traditional meat farming. He said that if this was discussed further in the Committee, measures could be put in place to make this type of farming viable for farmers. He also mentioned that concerns about introducing foreign species into local waters, or risks to biodiversity, could be mitigated if farmers demonstrated their ability to farm these species in isolated systems.

Mr Farmer supported this discussion and urged the Committee to delve deeper into aquaculture. He noted that government reluctance to pursue this route should be examined, as aquaculture had the potential to create numerous jobs and alleviate pressure on marine livestock. He emphasised that aquaculture could become a significant industry, similar to its success globally.

Mr Mabilo expressed interest in exploring other unconventional farming methods, such as crocodile and exotic marine farming, and sought the Committee’s perspective on these concepts.

The Chairperson concluded the discussion by encouraging Members to conduct their own research, and reminded the Committee of the substantial amount of work ahead. He urged them to appreciate the challenges they would face.

The meeting was adjourned.