Status report on NARYSEC, Infrastructure Development projects, CRDP & AgriParks

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Committee Members and departmental representatives. He noted that Mr S Gama (MK) was standing in for Mr Madlala (MK) and that Ms R Adams (ANC) extended apologies for Ms S Lucas (ANC).

The Chairperson outlined the agenda, focusing on the Committee's goal to implement an integrated rural development programme. He emphasised the need to clarify the policy and legislative framework guiding rural development, including how it connects to agrarian transformation and the District Development Model (DDM). The Chairperson requested updates on the National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC), with a specific interest in whether the programme aligns with land reform objectives and supports youth in transitioning to land ownership or farming.

He highlighted the upcoming presentation on rural infrastructure projects from the 2023/24 financial year, stating his concern about how these projects address the socio-economic needs of rural communities. He stressed the importance of ensuring that rural development efforts target infrastructure gaps, particularly in flood-affected areas such as the Eastern Cape. He called for an examination of how rural development programmes coordinate efforts across government to address critical issues in rural areas.

The Chairperson welcomed the presentations from the Department.

Comprehensive Rural Development Programme and Integrated Rural Development Sector Strategy Progress

Ms Thandi Moyo, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Rural Development, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), took Members through the presentation. The programme aimed to create vibrant, equitable, and sustainable rural communities by contributing to the redistribution of 30% of the country’s agricultural land, improve food security, create business opportunities, de-congest and rehabilitate over-crowded former homelands and expand opportunities for women, youth and people living with disabilities. The objective was to facilitate integrated development and social cohesion through participatory approaches in partnership with all sectors of society.

Progress on agrarian transformation

• The Poultry Master Plan, Sugar Sector Master Plan and Agriculture and Agro Processing Master Plans were developed and are being implemented by the Agriculture Department and Department of Trade Industry and Competition
• Comprehensive Producer Support Policy approved by Cabinet to support commodities under the AAMP
• Programmes and projects in livestock farming and related value chain development are progressing. The livestock sub-sector include red meat, poultry, dairy, pork and wool.
• Programmes and projects in the cropping sub-sector and related value chain development are in progress. These include grains, fruits and wine.
• Challenges facing agrarian transformation include access to energy, water, biosecurity – animal health and safety, increased input costs, market access, crime and business management skills.

Progress on land reform

• Beneficiary Selection and Land Allocation Policy approved by Cabinet in 2022
• Land Donation Policy approved by Cabinet 2020
• A total of 5.3 million hectares of land were acquired through land redistribution, benefiting 315000 persons.
• A total of 83067 claims have been settled, benefiting approximately 2.3 million people since 1994 to date.
• An amount of R22.5 billion was spent on financial compensation on land claims.
• DPWI successfully validated and released 219 properties for land restoration.
• Land Summit, 2022 and progress on implementation of resolutions
• Communal Land Tenure Policy and draft Bill to replace Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA)
• Land Development Support for PLAS farms
• Restitution claims progress was recorded, and funds were required to finalise outstanding claims.
• Labour Tenants and Farm Dwellers support and finalisation of outstanding

Lessons learnt in part 30 years for improvement of rural development focus

• Accelerate land reform interventions to scale up agriculture – to be addressed through implementation of the Land Redistribution Bill and Policy as well as a Communal Tenure Policy and Bill
• To scale up successful agricultural support interventions through the National Producer Support Policy.
• Massification of the Agri-Parks and Farmer Production Support Unit under Rural Development in partnership with the African Development Bank
• Identification and availability of strategic land for rural human settlement and rural industrialisation projects.
• The Small-Town Regeneration Strategy and Programme under COGTA and provision of basic services
• Increase interventions in rural areas where basic services are lacking (eradication of pit latrines especially in rural schools by the Department of Basic Education through Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Delivery Initiative (ASIDI) and the Sanitation Appropriate for Education (SAFE)
• Accelerate bulk water provision through DWS National Water Resource Strategy, 2022 and access to piped water to households in rural districts with specific focus on Limpopo, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal as indicated in the IDPs and DDMs plans.
• Improved implementation of the Rural Housing Support programmes Rural; Housing Subsidy Programme and Agri-village Programme by department of Human Settlement.
• Skills Development for Rural Economy and Rural Industrialisation.
• Enterprise Development feeding into Agro-processing, Value Add and Industrialisation.
• Accelerate Rural Infrastructure working with all departments, i.e. Departments of Transport, Public Works and Infrastructure, Tourism, Heritage, Arts and Culture

Members were taken through the state of institutional capacity and programmes, state of the provinces and challenges.

(See attached for full presentation)

Discussion

Mr S Gama (MK) emphasised that an integrated rural development strategy should be people-centred and engage directly with communities. He pointed out discrepancies in the population data presented, using the Western Cape as an example, where 60% of the population lives in Cape Town and 40% in the rest of the province. He argued that strategies should address the needs of the 40% living outside Cape Town. Mr Gama raised concerns from a legislative perspective, noting that rural development competencies are currently held at the national level, not local government, despite having 44 rural districts. He questioned how these districts, given their deep rural contexts, could effectively impact their communities. He suggested examining concurrent competencies for rural districts to improve their influence on local development. He noted success in rural development across provinces and proposed evaluating rural district municipalities to determine their specific competencies. He also questioned the R22 billion spent on land reform, asking for details on the hectarage involved and the amount of post-settlement support provided to beneficiaries. He highlighted the National Development Plan (NDP) as a crucial document with targets for 2030 and requested an update on progress from 2011 to 2024.

Mr B Madikizela (DA) noted a minimal focus on rural development in the presentation and criticised government's commitment, despite a billion-rand budget for rural development this year, which he deemed insufficient. He highlighted the revenue challenges faced by local authorities due to tenure systems in rural areas. He stressed the need for sustainable rural development strategies independent of the fiscus as current efforts feel inadequate. He asked why the rural development programme failed to spend its allocated budget, specifically asking for details on the R27 million spent on households.

Ms R Adams (ANC) mentioned the National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC) and the Chairperson directed the discussion to focus on the strategy presented.

Mr A Mngxitama (MK) expressed concerns about the planning regime, emphasising that rural development plans should align with the NDP's objectives. He questioned the relevance of the NDP's vision given the current state of the rural sector. He also questioned the R22 billion for compensation for land reclamation. He criticised the lack of post-settlement support, noting that up to 90% of post-settlement programs fail due to insufficient support.

Dr W Boshoff (FF+) asked whether the census data indicated a land problem and suggested that development should support existing efforts rather than creating new initiatives. He noted a global trend where rural areas subsidise urban centres and questioned strategies to assist emerging projects in rural areas.

Mr S Mataise (EFF) highlighted the need to address the rural-urban divide through a comprehensive rural development strategy. He criticised the lack of progress in livestock farming and poultry production, urging the development of local agribusinesses. He called for practical examples of successful projects led by youth, women, or people with disabilities from the Department.

Mr M Mrara (ANC) referenced Prof Mandoza’s (sp) views on land issues and suggested prioritising land reform before other development efforts. He asked how rural areas are defined in the South African context and questioned the lack of discussion on subsidies. He inquired about the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management (SPLUMA, Act 16 of 2013) and traditional leadership issues and sought details on basic infrastructure needs for rural areas.

Mr M Nhanha (DA) asked for clarification on what constitutes rural development, emphasising the need for consensus. He stressed the importance of incorporating technological advancements in rural development and criticised the Department of Small Business Development for its minimal impact. He questioned the Department's plans to revive industries that once thrived in rural areas.

Responses

Ms Moyo acknowledged the need to update population statistics and focus on the 40% of the population outside major urban areas. She addressed concerns about concurrent competencies at the district level, noting that the Constitution assigns rural development responsibilities to provincial governments, which must coordinate with local municipalities. “We are aware that there are capacity challenges at that level, however it must be said that there are IDP processes as well as the local economic development (LED) processes which should speak to their local municipality and upward from there”. She said the Department was aware that some municipalities have a Member of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) for LED and rural development and was engaging with them.

She confirmed that the R22 billion was spent on the restitution programme, covering 5.3 million hectares, and promised to provide a detailed report on land reform expenditures.

She agreed that rural development has not been adequately prioritised, but recent changes aim to consolidate responsibilities and engage various sectors, including health, education, and infrastructure. This is correct. In fact, from the sixth administration, the former department of land and rural development actually did not have a function or branch called rural development. It had rural infrastructure and enterprises. It was not until 2022 that we had to consolidate this Constitutional mandate. Not just at national level but it has affected provinces where rural development is aligned to agriculture therefore the MEC and HOD would only look at agriculture and translate it to rural, but would not see the importance of the role of health, sports, education and infrastructure which the Department was now urging them to get those departments engaged.

She addressed the issue of declining budgets for rural development and emphasised efforts to engage the private sector through the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac). The issue of municipalities in terms of their capacity as Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta), COGTA in the provinces, and the South African Local Government Association (Salga) whose progress is minimal if any. However “we are constitutionally mandated to push them as much as we can to ensure they cooperate”. This is the case as some municipalities have money but are not paying attention to the issue of rural development which continues to be a challenge. Also, the District Development Model) (DDM) plans that were developed which have been assessed by the Department some of which are not even aligned to the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). These issues of linking strategies and municipalities and provinces exist. The Department was working on this with the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) and had seen some provinces aligning.

Regarding jobs created and reported, those are jobs created by the Department, “what we have not given is jobs created through the various sectors across the country which we should be able to provide”.

She provided insights into NDP progress and acknowledged the challenges of rural-urban migration. She noted ongoing work with the private sector to revive industries and improve rural infrastructure.

She noted that the Department provides subsidies and support to enterprises but will present NARYSEC to explain training and meeting with other sectors such as mining, tourism and environmental etc. In terms of how the Department supports these enterprises, it uses the blended finance which is with the Landbank and with regard to restitution, where there is land that has been restituted through the Commission, there is the section 42D where there is actual handover of the land. She noted that the Department was working with the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), working on ways to revive those factories and employ locals.

She explained that dams are done by the Department of Water and Sanitation. However, the Department does manage some small dams that assist farmers. We can however collect the necessary information for the Committee from the Department of Water and Sanitation.

The mentoring referred to were graduates that the Department placed on farms to gain experience. She acknowledged that in other industries, there are instances where mentoring youth is matched with commercial industries.

In terms of the definition of rural development, the National Special Development Framework was approved by Cabinet. It defines rural development as a process of improving the quality of life and the economic well-being of people living in rural areas. The six pillars in the presentation come from the process of improving the quality of lives of rural communities. This also aligns with the priorities of the NDP in improving the quality of lives and reducing poverty.

Mr Mooketsa Ramasodi, Director-General, DLRRD, emphasised that interventions are based on evidence and spatial development research. He clarified that the R22 billion covered financial compensation for land claims, with land restitution and redistribution totalling approximately 10 million hectares since 1998. He asked whether financial compensation should be part of land reform.

He highlighted the importance of enabling factors in rural development, such as infrastructure and connectivity. He mentioned ongoing efforts to address poultry production and SPLUMA-related issues which were discussed in a previous Committee meeting. He explained two legal instruments that the Department is working on to combat the issue of tenures.

Mr Mngxitama noted that the R22 billion was to pay for “our” people when they “don’t take land and get financial compensation”. However, he asked for more clarity as “we still do not know how much we paid farmers when they get land”. How much do we give our people for post-settlement support?

The Chairperson suggested combining the next two presentations for efficiency and deferred questions and responses to after the presentations.

Rural Infrastructure Development and Agri-Parks

Ms Moyo took Members through the presentation. Rural areas suffer from a systemic lack of infrastructure that contributes directly to the high coefficients of poverty indicators and economic stagnation that characterise the rural landscape. The need for investment in infrastructure, basic services and productivity has been identified as a key requirement for the transformation of the rural economy by government.

The presentation touched on the policy provisions, range of projects delivered and rural infrastructure development performance for 2019/20 to 2023/24.

Members were provided with a background of the agriparks and provincial details. The presentation touched on the African Development Bank (AFDB) partnership and national special projects.

Rural infrastructure development challenges

• Escalation of cost value of construction projects by market and high cost of building material Underperformance by contractors and consultants impact on project performance resulting in termination and re-commencement of tendering process.

• High crime levels on construction sites. (a) workers and staff being robbed and attacked (b) Construction mafia / Business forums disrupting projects demanding 30%.

• Theft of infrastructure installed, e.g. fencing, boreholes, building material and tools

• Delays in acquiring the permission to occupy (PTO) of the site from traditional authorities.

• The conflicts between Tribal Authority, local councillors and farmers which delays project implementation.

• Budget cuts for infrastructure projects (R100 million cut for the 2023/25 and 2024/25 financial year)

• National Treasury moratorium on capital projects from September 2023 to May 2024 impacted on project performance.

• National Treasury moratorium on filling of vacant posts in the Sub-programme Rural Infrastructure Development

• Lack of SCM capacity to manage procurement infrastructure projects – appointment of incompetent contractors

See attached for full presentation

Presentation On NARYSEC Programme

Ms Moyo took Members through the presentation. It outlined the youth trained, a gender breakdown and budget allocation trends.

Challenges

• Limited pool of commitment private and public partners to absorb trained youth - Exit opportunities for job opportunities are dependent on interested public and private sector partners

• Committed exit opportunities being withdrawn by partners during the programme impacting on plans for youth.

• Negative Policy Clearance for some exit opportunities (security sector, etc.) resulting in youth being terminated from the programme – Department is working with Security Unit to complete the security checks at selection stage.

• Cost containment by National Treasury impacting on scheduled training programme – No allocation for Youth Leadership Development Programme (YLDP) for the 2024/25 financial year.

• Cost of the programme per learner is not sustainable – sustainability measures are being explored

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr Mngxitama expressed concern about the low number of young people engaged in the agricultural sector through the program, noting that while 21 000 youths were involved, only 4 000 were in agriculture services. He highlighted the issue of 5 000 young people who had protested against the Department of Agriculture after their termination. He questioned the abandonment of these individuals, who had some exposure to agricultural changes and had been actively engaged.

Dr Boshoff requested clarification on the National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC) programme, comparing it to basic military training. He asked whether NARYSEC had a military aspect or if it was something entirely different, as it was a pilot project. He also inquired about the representation and functionality of the projects listed in the presentation, particularly in Petrusville, and whether these projects were visible on the ground.

Mr S Matiase (EFF) noted successful, sustainable, and profitable history in agricultural projects. He mentioned the predominant livestock farms in the area and noted that the infrastructure mainly serves established farms. Regarding District 6, he noted that there had been no significant progress since the last oversight. He questioned the current status and completion timeframe for the project, which was initially set for last year but revised to the end of this year. He raised concerns about the 5 000 agricultural trainees who were left without support after training and stressed the need for a response to his letter from 23 October regarding these individuals. Mr Matiase warned the Department that failure to address these issues by the end of the year could result in the Department not attending the State of the Nation Address.

Mr Mrara questioned why only 12 youths were trained in mining, despite it being a key economic driver, and whether this represented a missed opportunity. He sought more detailed information on the success rate of the NARYSEC program, including the number of trainees who graduated versus those who dropped out, and whether reasons for dropouts had been investigated. He suggested that entrepreneurship should be introduced at the school level to stimulate interest among youth, as some education systems already do. He criticised the limited focus on rural infrastructure development, emphasising the need for detailed information on ICT training versus access, and questioned the allocation of budget and infrastructure projects in different provinces.

Mr Madikizela acknowledged the situation in Dikidikini, providing that seeing people crossing the rivers and using drums has been an embarrassment. He requested all the responsible people, to come to this Committee just to give us feedback and clear time-lines on the District 6 matter. Early last month, there was a disastrous incident in Riverlands here in Southern municipality. He asked whether the dams are owned by the Department of Water and Sanitation, as he was surprised that “we are the owners of those dams”. To whom were they leased to; under what conditions. “Because I think we need accountability from the people, to whom those dams were leased, and we also need to understand the conditions under which those dams were leased” and, what is the status of the document between those people and the Department.

Mr Nhanda expressed that mining is one of our key economic drivers in the Country, and it saddened him to note that only 12 youth were trained and all of them from the Northern Cape. He asked if “we are not losing an opportunity here”? He said that the presentation on NARYSEC, actually does not delve deep enough into the success of the programme. He asked for success rates to be furnished. He asked if the Department is following up with unsuccessful trainees in order to understand why this happening. He made reference to some education systems, where they are introduced to entrepreneurship at school level. He asked that is it probably not about time that “you guys should have a conversation with your counterparts in basic education to check whether entrepreneurship cannot be introduced at school level, so you can stimulate interest in our in our kids”. He expressed concern in terms of rural infrastructure development. He stated that the Department only mentioned that it does train the young people in ICT. Training people in ICT and providing access to ICT are 2 different things. “So, I would really want to hear to hear more about that”.

Ms NA Ndalane (ANC) requested an explanation for not meeting the target of linking young people to job opportunities in the 2023/2024 financial year and asked about measures to address this shortfall and ensure future compliance. She asked for details on the current status of District 6 development, including completion, handover to communities, and reasons for delays. She appreciated the alignment of skills development and job opportunities with departmental mandates and asked for more information on sustainability and cost management.

Ms Adams inquired about the connection between NARYSEC and the Department of Small Business Development Youth Enterprise strategy, and the Department's performance in linking participants to economic opportunities. She asked about the impact of budget cuts on NARYSEC, including the request for additional funds from National Treasury and the staff capacity at national and provincial levels. She asked about the potential for duplication of work between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development, specifically concerning AVMP and the Land Care Programme. She asked about the current status of various projects, their completion, operation, and impact on rural economies. She also questioned why National Treasury had imposed a moratorium on projects and vacancies.

Mr Mrara questioned the measures in place to avoid conflicts of interest within the Department and whether previously identified conflicts involving politicians and officials had been addressed. He also inquired about the utilisation of boreholes established by the Defense Force in rural areas.

Responses

Mr Naidoo, DALRRD, provided an update on the progress regarding District 6, acknowledging the need for more detailed presentations. He highlighted the significant amount of work done in the background over the past three years, including planning, development rights, and design approvals. He emphasised that although no construction is currently taking place, substantial groundwork has been completed, especially regarding Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and heritage approvals. He announced that Phase 4 of the project had received all necessary approvals, including Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) and building plan approvals, and that they are in the process of securing the budget to begin construction on 140 units. He explained that the intention is to construct all eight phases concurrently to meet the court-mandated timelines, and he assured that court reports could be made available to demonstrate progress.

On the role of cooperatives, SMMEs, and the NARYSEC program, he acknowledged the prioritisation of local SMMEs, particularly those owned by women and youth, in their procurement processes. However, he noted that despite these efforts, there have been challenges, including friction caused by SMMEs demanding work on-site.

Regarding the Dikidikini project, he explained that the cost had increased substantially, from an initial estimate of R30 million to over R50 million, and that efforts were underway to address the shortfall in funding.

He also touched on the Xhariep Springfontein Agrihub, noting that one of the goals was to make it self-sustainable by allowing cross-subsidisation with commercial farmers. While the project aims to support emerging farmers, commercial farmers are also involved to help ensure sustainability. He emphasised the Department's priority for rural development and discussed the infrastructure budget, stating that the highest allocations were for KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape due to their rural density. However, he admitted that challenges on-site had affected expenditure in the Eastern Cape, and the Department had partnered with the ECDC to address these issues.

On the Department's reliance on consultants due to staff shortages, he explained that while the Department employs professional built environment professionals, they have not been able to fill vacant positions due to a moratorium. This has led to reliance on external consultants to get projects completed. He concluded by affirming that the department is looking to recapacitate itself once the moratorium is lifted.

Ms Moyo responded to various budget-related concerns. She noted that the Department's total budget was R16.7 billion, with R779 million allocated to rural development. She acknowledged a reduction in this budget over time and detailed the Department's current staffing, which includes 184 staff members in rural development across the nine provinces. She highlighted challenges with staff performance management, noting that some provinces had more proactive directors who were more effective at engaging young people.

She referred to the challenges of recruiting and retaining skilled staff, particularly in rural infrastructure. She explained that when technical staff, such as engineers, resign, National Treasury freezes the positions, making it difficult for the Department to replace them. This has led to the Department's reliance on outsourced project management units to oversee design and construction.

She discussed the challenges faced in the NARYSEC programme, including issues of discipline. She noted that the programme's semi-military training has been effective in teaching life skills and discipline to participants. She provided examples of positive changes in participants’ behaviour and discipline levels.

She emphasised that most of the Department’s projects support agriculture in rural or semi-rural areas. She acknowledged the financial constraints of District 6, noting that funds allocated for the project had been exhausted and that the Department had engaged with the City of Cape Town and other stakeholders to secure additional funding.

She addressed budget cuts and moratoriums, noting that the state's overall budget constraints have affected the Department’s ability to hire and retain skilled workers. She provided that the Department is working to minimise duplication of efforts, especially after the 2019 merger of agriculture and land reform into a single department.

Mr Ramasodi noted that South Africa's ratio of extension officers to farmers stands at 1:1430, with one extension officer responsible for 1 400 farmers. “Our goal is to reduce that ratio to 1:250, so that each extension officer supports 250 farmers, given the number of farmers we have in South Africa”. He said when the Minister of Finance announced in Parliament that South Africa would employ 10 000 extension officers, it was a policy statement that created certain expectations. Once such a statement is made, it is anticipated that funding will follow. In preparation for the funds from National Treasury, the Department decided to act pre-emptively. With a small amount of available funds for employee compensation, it thought, why not temporarily introduce agricultural assistant practitioners into the system? “We reached out to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), benchmarked the posts, which were set at level 4, and began employing. Initially, we hired staff for three months, then extended for another three, and eventually added a one-month extension”. However, the promised funds from National Treasury never materialised, resulting in the natural end of these temporary contracts. As a Department, “we tried to assist throughout the process but never received the necessary funding. I have examined the Appropriations Act passed by this very Parliament, and there is no additional allocation for this important programme aimed at uplifting farmers in South Africa. We engaged with the Minister of Finance in May 2024, in a meeting led by Minister of Finance, to address this issue. It was agreed that we would explore possible solutions”. However, when the Appropriations Act came into effect and no additional funds were allocated, there was nothing more the Department could do.

This programme requires over R2 billion, but the Department's current budget stands at R16.7 billion, which has already been heavily utilised. In fact, as of now, 99.7% of that budget has been spent, leaving the Department with only R43 million at the time. As a result, the Department cannot reallocate funds for this programme, as it would be considered financial misconduct under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Spending money on initiatives not budgeted for would violate the principles of financial prudence. The director general appealed to the Members of the Portfolio Committee to examine this issue closely and advocate for the necessary resources to be allocated to support this policy statement.

On 7 September, the Department of Water and Sanitation provided a report, “which I responded to on 9 September. We have reviewed the National Water Act, particularly Section 12, which addresses dam safety requirements”. This section requires that anyone who owns a dam must report its existence, whether they constructed it or not, within six months. A successor entitled to the property must also report it.

These legal obligations must be addressed, and “we are prepared to present our findings once all relevant issues have been ventilated. I can confirm that the Department purchased those farms in 2019-2020. Currently, a tenant is leasing the land from the Department, and we will share more information as soon as we are ready”.

The final issue is a broader one concerning the configuration of government departments. In 1994, there was one ministry overseeing two departments: Agriculture and Land Affairs. Over time, there have been various mergers and separations. For example, in 2009, the Department of Agriculture merged with Forestry and Fisheries, and Rural Development was incorporated into Land Affairs.

The merger in 2019 aimed to reduce duplication, but now we are facing calls for yet another separation. It is essential to address the intertwining functions of these departments to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication of work. On Friday, we engaged with provincial heads of departments (HODs) to ensure that the ongoing separation of responsibilities between national and provincial levels does not lead to inefficiencies or duplication. The Director General stated that we remain committed to working collaboratively to streamline operations and improve the delivery of services across all departments.

Mr Mrara asked if “we could also include the provincial contracts in that package. Secondly, regarding the issue of extension officers, are you discussing the current organogram of the Department? Or is this related to a future structure for the Department?”

Mr Madikizela asked why the Department is not transferring the responsibility to Human Settlements. “It makes sense to me, as they have the mandate, and though they do not have the funds, it aligns with their responsibilities. Why not?”

Ms Moyo thanked Members for the questions and recommendations. She said the nature of the project, being a restitution project, places the responsibility on restitution to carry out the court order. As things stand, “we cannot transfer it to Human Settlements”. However, Human Settlements play a significant role because of their involvement in housing. That is why they are part of the team when we engage with you. The grant has already been allocated to the Western Cape province and the City, which will help complete the project.

The Chairperson thanked the Director-General and the Department for the presentations. The Chairperson requested the Department to submit a detailed report on funds spent on land acquisition and a breakdown of payments made to farmers, including development grants and post-settlement support. He requested a detailed report on the job creation policy. He asked, regarding land redistribution, what is the Department's plan to ensure the National Development Plan (NDP) target on land is achieved? We need to work towards this goal, as it remains a guiding light for us.

The Chairperson provided that the Committee also expect a briefing on District 6. Additionally, the Committee would welcome a report on the success rate of various initiatives.

He noted that there is a significant gap in interdepartmental coordination on issues related to rural development. How often do departments communicate with each other regarding projects on the ground, especially those aimed at product development? The coordination seems lacking.

Finally, dissemination of information to the public is critical. “Do your regional and provincial offices reach out effectively? In my experience, I know there is an office in a certain area, but the community does not seem to know what services it offers”. For instance, does the NARYSEC project provide relevant information at that office? If the youth from the area were to visit, would they be able to get information on the available opportunities? That kind of service is vital.

The Chairperson understood that the Minister is dedicated to land reform and would appreciate creating a space for him to meet with the Committee and discuss this important matter, especially regarding funding for extension officers and the commitment to compile a comprehensive report on the Angora allegations, along with the funds allocated for that.

Mr Matiase asked what the current state of affairs regarding these issues is. A comprehensive report would be helpful for the next meeting or for submission to the Committee for further discussion.

The Chairperson welcomed the additional point.

Meeting adjourned