Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1)(a)(i) 2014-2015 to 2018-2019: No FPSUs were planned during this period.

2019-2020: No FPSUs were completed during this period.

(ii) 1 April 2020 to 30 June 2020: No FPSUs were completed in this period. However, a total of 22 FPSUs were brought to initial working state with support in terms of the basic components: basic infrastructure, mechanisation and input support, ownership, human resources support and producers support (Farmers/Cooperatives registered at the FPSU that will receive services).

(b) Please refer to Annexure A. There were 0 FPSUs in Eastern Cape, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Western Cape

(2)(a),(b)(i),(ii),(iii) Please refer to Annexure B.

ANNEXURE A TO NA QUESTION 1396 OF 2020

(1)(b)
FPSU	COST
Free State
Makholokoeng FPSU (FS)	R8 421082.59
Sediba FPSU (FS)	R17 585807.87
Odendaalsrus FPSU (FS)	R11 505488.95
Sediba FPSU (FS)	R10 931426.49
Zastron FPSU (FS)	R24 574536.90
Gauteng
Tarlton (GP):	R3 413 012.25
Bekkersdal (GP):	R10 617 662.50
KwaZulu-Natal
Ndumo (KZN)	R27 360 000.00
Buluwane (KZN)	R18 888 824.66
Jikijela (KZN)	R21 429 340.92
Horseshoe (KZN)	R4 296 648.76
Hlatikhulu (KZN)	R6 060 000.00
Bensdorp (KZN)	R3 005 000.00
Tugela Ferry (KZN)	R52 360 000.00
Nsuze (KZN)	R 91 360 000.00
St Paul (KZN	R91 360 000.00
North West
Jericho(NW)	R 2 204 524.74
Bedwang(NW)	R 1 786 084.74
Taung FPSU(NW)	R11 890803.00
Mooifontein (NW)	R 7 948465.93
Makweleng ( NW)	R8 456473.71
Northern Cape
Heuningvlei (NC)	R7 811 022.00
Eksteenskuil (NC)	R12 428 740.00

Reply:

1. No. The Department of Small Business Development is supporting small businesses through various COVID-19 Intervention schemes.

2. Falls away.

Reply:

(a)(i),(ii),(b),(c),(d) Please refer to the table below.

2017 – 2018
Acting Employee	Acting position	(c) Acting Remuneration	(d) Acting Period
CLARKE DG	CHIEF SURVEYOR GENERAL	R0.00	10 MONTHS
NTOAGAE SM	CHIEF DIRECTOR: SERVICE DELIVERY COORDINATOR	R131 246.30	9 MONTHS
XALISA ZK	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL SURVEY TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT	R22 921.78	3 MONTHS
JANSE VAN RENSBURG ET	SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R48 664.66	5 MONTHS AND 16 DAYS
NAPOLEON MM	DIRECTOR: MAPPING SERVICES	R93461.60	6 MONTHS
SIKO X	OFFICE ASSISTANT	R2 294.12	1 MONTH
NEL DL	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL	R40 045.50	6 MONTHS
REYNECKE DA	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL: GAUTENG	R0.00	9 MONTHS
BALLANTYNE A	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL	R40 045.50	6 MONTHS
2018 – 2019
CLARKE DG	CHIEF SURVEYOR GENERAL	R0.00	4 MONTHS AND 16 DAYS
XALISA ZK	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL SURVEY TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT	R22 921.78	3 MONTHS
SIKO X	OFFICE ASSISTANT	R20 647.12	9 MONTHS
TSOTETSI P	SURVEYOR GENERAL	R53 053.00	6 MONTHS
DLUDLA IN	SURVEYOR GENERAL	R44 802.25	4 MONTHS
NAPOLEON MM	DIRECTOR: MAPPING SERVICES	R32 381.41	2 MONTHS
PETERS DG	DIRECTOR: SURVEY SERVICES	R49 411.98	2 MONTHS
SIHLANGU JA	CONTROL SURVEY TECHNICIAN	R95 120.24	4 MONTHS
HINDE GH	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL	R26 067.00	6 MONTHS
STEENKAMP BC	DEPUTY SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R7107.00	3 MONTHS
MDUBEKI R	CHIEF SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R0.00	7 MONTHS
REYNECKE DA	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL: GAUTENG	R0.00	12 MONTHS
2019 – 2020
GOGOBALA A	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL SURVEY TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT	R35 705.00	4 MONTHS
DLUDLA IN	SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R80 056.24	7 MONTHS, 15 DAYS
CELE B	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL INFORMATION MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY SERVICES	R146.300.75	6 MONTHS
SHONGWE EV	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL INFORMATION MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY SERVICES	R48 987.70	2 MONTHS
PARKER A	CHIEF DIRECTOR: NGI	R47 520.00	6 MONTHS
MDUBEKI R	CHIEF SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R0.00	12 MONTHS
REYNECKE DA	DEPUTY SURVEYOR GENERAL: GAUTENG	R0.00	12 MONTHS
(ii) April 2020 to 30 June 2020
SHONGWE EV	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL INFORMATION MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY SERVICES	R48 987.70	2 MONTHS
GOGOBALA A	DIRECTOR: CADASTRAL SURVEY TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT	R26 778.75	2 MONTHS
MDUBEKI R	CHIEF SURVEYOR-GENERAL	R0.00	3 MONTHS

Reply:

Yes.Please refer to the table below for a comprehensive schedule of legislation administered by the three spheres of Government, including Municipal Planning By-laws aligned to the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013.

NATIONAL LAWS

NATIONAL ACTS, NATIONAL REGULATIONS, ASSIGNED NATIONAL ACTS AND REGULATIONS, ASSIGNED HOMELAND LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL BILLS

NATIONAL ACTS

Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act No. 16 of 2013)

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008)

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003)

Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970 (Act No. 70 of 1970)

NATIONAL REGULATIONS

Regulations for the Administration and Control of Townships in Black Areas, 1962 (Proclamation No. R293 of 1962) (Regulation 6A - not assigned)

ASSIGNED NATIONAL REGULATIONS

Regulations Relating to Township Establishment and Land Use, 1986 (Regulation No. R. 1897 of 1986)

Township Development Regulations for Towns, 1990 (Regulation No. R. 1886 of 1990)

Land Use and Planning Regulations, 1990 (Regulation No. R. 1888 of 1990)

Regulations for the Administration and Control of Townships in Black Areas, 1962 (Proclamation No. R293 of 1962)

Regulations for the Establishment and Development of Towns, 1983 (Regulation No. R. 154 of 1983)

Regulations Relating to the Imposition and Amendment for Town Planning Schemes for the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, 1989 (Provincial Notice No. 733 of 1989)

ASSIGNED HOMELAND LEGISLATION

Bophuthatswana Land Control Act, 1979 (Bophuthatswana Act No. 39 of 1979)

Ciskei Land Use Regulation Act, 1987 (Ciskei Act No. 15 of 1987)

KwaNdebele Town Planning Act, 1992 (KwaNdebele Act No. 10 of 1992)

KwaZulu Ingonyama Trust Act, 1994 (KwaZulu Act No. 3 of 1994)

Venda Land Affairs Proclamation, 1990 (Venda Proclamation No 45 of 1990)

PROVINCIAL LAWS

PROVINCIAL ACTS, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS

EASTERN CAPE

Cape Land Use Planning Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1985)

Cape Township Ordinance, 1934 (Ordinance No. 33 of 1934)

Natal Town Planning Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 27 of 1949)

FREE STATE

Orange Free State Townships Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No. 9 of 1969)

GAUTENG

Division of Land Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1986)

Public Resorts Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No. 18 of 1969)

Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1943)

Transvaal Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1986)

Municipal Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance 20 of 1974),

KWAZULU-NATAL

KwaZulu-Natal Liquor Licensing Act, (Act No. 6 of 2010)

KwaZulu-Natal Planning and Development, 2008 (Act No. 6 of 2008)

Local Authorities Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance No. 25 of 1974)

LIMPOPO

Division of Land Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1986)

Northern Province Land Administration Act, 1999 (Act No. 6 of 1999)

Public Resorts Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No. 18 of 1969)

Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1943)

Transvaal Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1986)

MPUMALANGA

Division of Land Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1986)

Public Resorts Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No. 18 of 1969)

Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1943)

Transvaal Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1986)

NORTHERN CAPE

Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998)

NORTH WEST

Division of Land Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1986)

Public Resorts Ordinance, 1969 (Ordinance No. 18 of 1969)

Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. 20 of 1943)

Transvaal Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1986)

WESTERN CAPE

Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act No.3 of 2014)

Reply:

(1) The objectives of the Deeds Registration Transformation Policy are to:

• develop legislation that provides mechanisms and procedures for the registration of rights in land, including but not limited to customary, informal and communal forms of tenure which are recognised by law;
• provide a simplified, cost effective deeds registration system that is widely accessible;
• provide for officials of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) to perform certain functions of attorneys, conveyancers and notaries in respect of the preparation and execution of deeds and documents in instances where State land is being dealt with;
• align and incorporate the provisions of the Electronic Deeds Registration Systems Act into new deeds registration legislation;
• provide registration capability for other forms of rights in land that the Government may introduce in future;
• establish a legislative and policy framework that will facilitate the development of a comprehensive register in which all rights and interests in land are recorded; and
• repeal the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 and the Electronic Deeds Registration System Act 19 of 2019 and to replace same with new deeds registration legislation.

(2) The Deeds Registration Transformation Policy has not been put on hold. However, the Deeds Institutional Transformation Policy referred to in the Departmental Annual Performance Plan 2019/2020 has been placed on hold due to the fact that the said policy was not responding to the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture with reference to the need for a National Land Tenure Policy.

(3) Yes; DALRRD is continuing with development of the Deeds Registration Transformation Policy and is currently developing a business plan for purposes of procuring the services of policy development experts to assist DALRRD with the development of a policy framework and the envisaged deeds registration legislation. Once the policy framework has been endorsed by the Minister, DALRRD will table the final draft of the Deeds Registration Transformation Policy to Cabinet for approval.

Reply:

1. The Department registered two separate projects with National Treasury prior to the merger of the former Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and the Department Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Minister of Finance has approved the construction of a new public-private partnership office block project registered by the former Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The other project is still at the appointment of Transaction Advisory Team to undertake a Feasibility Study on the project. All follow-up questions will be applicable to the project by the former Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

(a) Please refer to the table below.

Item	Amount
Project Cost	R2.1 Billion
Private Party Contribution	R1.43 Billion
Government Contribution	R 0.67 Billion

(b) The projected construction start date is October 2020.

(2) There is still a need for the continuation of the project due to office space challenges and maintenance issues in the current buildings occupied by the Department. The Department also considered the expenditure already incurred on the project, termination of the project would have resulted in wasteful expenditure and legal costs/litigation from the appointed service provider.

Reply:

Yes.

a) Mr I I Ka-Mbonane

b) 16 June 2019.

c) Full-time, Grade IV, First Package

d) Performance Agreement attached as Annexure A.

Reply:

1. Additional funding was obtained from Programme 1: Administration (R18.9 million), Programme 2: National Geomatics Management Services (R15.9 million) and Programme 5: Land Reform (R95.1 million).

2. (a) 42

(b)

Province	Referral
EASTERN CAPE	1
FREE STATE	0
GAUTENG	0
KWAZULU NATAL	3
LIMPOPO	2
MPUMALANGA	1
NORTHERN CAPE	0
NORTH WEST	1
WESTERN CAPE	0
TOTAL	8

END

Reply:

a) 12.58 %.

b) Program 5 – Economic Development, Trade and Marketing.

c) The Department is in the process of finalising the merger of the former Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and the agriculture component of the former Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. A procedure is in place for Branches to approach the Minister for approval to fill posts identified as critical and essential as per DPSA Circular 19 of 2020.

Reply:

a) The omission of the Spatial Data Infrastructure Act (Act 54 of 2003) in the 2020 / 21 Annual Performance Plan (APP), was due to an administrative oversight and is being rectified in the revision of the APP of the Department which is currently being finalized.

b) The administrative functions with regard to the Spatial Data Infrastructure Act (Act 54 of 2003) and the South African Spatial Data Infrastructure (SASDI) remains within the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development in the Branch Spatial Planning and Land Use Management.

Reply:

1. Yes. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development purchased goods and services below the amount of R500 000 connected to the COVID-19 pandemic by means of price quotations and or transversal contracts.

(a),(b),(c) Please refer to Annexure A.

2. Yes.

(a),(b) Please refer to Annexure A.

3. Please refer to Annexure A.

4. No.

Reply:

(a) (i),(ii) (aa) 2017-2018

- Agriculture: 3 judgments and 3 court orders

- Rural Development and Land Reform: 5 Judgments and 9 Court orders

 

(bb) 2018-2019

- Agriculture: 5 judgments and 6 court orders.

- Rural Development and Land Reform: 3 Judgments and 12 Court orders

 

(b) (i) (aa) Implemented

- Agriculture: All 8 judgments and 9 court orders implemented.

- Rural Development and Land Reform: 0 Judgements and 4 court orders implemented

(bb) Await implementation

- Agriculture: 0

- Rural Development and Land Reform: Please refer to Annexure B.

(ii) (aa),(bb) Please refer to Annexure A for Agriculture matters and Annexure B for Rural Development and Land Reform matters.

ANNEXURE A TO NA-QUESTION 1199 OF 2020

AGRICULTURE MATTERS
No	Case details	(i)(aa),(bb) Status of implementation	(ii)(aa) Nature of judgment
2017-2018 Judgments
1	B & B Properties (Pty) Ltd & others vs Dr Mcdonald Gayakaya	Implemented	Application to review and set aside the decision of the Director: Animal Health to test buffalos. The decision of the Director was reviewed and set aside.
2	Oluf Hendrik Erichsen N.O vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to take a decision on an application for export certification. The Minister finalised the matter by granting the certificate.
3	Eurosemillas S.A vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to instruct the Department to appoint a service provider who had been successful in the quote process. The Applicant succeeded and the Minister was ordered to instruct the Department accordingly.
2018-2019 Judgments
4	Lofty Du Bruyn N.O vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to register a right of way over the farm. The application was granted and the Minister approved the registration of the servitude.
5	Nanaga Property vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to review and set aside the decision of delegated authority to remove 10 Milkwood trees. The decision of the Minister was reviewed and set aside.
6	South African Veterinary Association vs the Speaker of the National Assembly and others	Implemented	Application to declare the amendment of the Medicine and Related Substances Control Act, 1995 (Act No.101 of 1995) unconstitutional. The Amendment was declared unconstitutional.
7.	HL Halls & Sons Properties and another vs The Minister and Others	Implemented	Application to review and set aside the decision of the Minister. The decision was referred back to the Minister for reconsideration.
8.	HL Hall & Sons Properties vs The Minister.	Implemented	Application to review and set aside the decision of the Minister. The decision referred was back to the Minister for reconsideration.
No	Case details	(i)(aa),(bb) Status of implementation	(ii)(aa) Nature of court order
2017-2018 court orders
1.	ALCARI 406 CC vs The Minister and others	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to finalise the appeal on a subdivision of land matter. The Court ordered the Minister to finalize the appeal.
2.	Zonnebloem Coal vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to finalise the appeal on a subdivision of land matter. The Court ordered the Minister to finalize the appeal.
3.	Meister Cold Store (Pty) Ltd vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to take a decision on an application for certification of a cold storage. The Court ordered the Minister to take a decision on the application for certification of its cold storage.
2018-2019 court orders
4	Xhalibile Kleinbooi Phindiso vs The Minister and others	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to sell specified land to the Applicant and others. The Court ordered the Minister to sell the land to the Applicant.
5	Federated Meats (Pty) Ltd vs The Minister	Implemented	Application of semi-urgency requesting an order to declare that the Applicant is entitled to use any approved laboratory to meet the statutory and the regulatory obligation for the testing of imported meat. The court ordered that the Applicant can use any approved Laboratory.
6	Sofiline (Pty) Ltd vs The Minister.	Implemented	Application to review and set aside the decision of the Minister not to grant approval for the subdivision of agricultural land. The court ordered the Minister to grant the application for subdivision of land.
7	TD Mashinini vs The Minister and others.	Implemented	Applicant made an application to Court for an order to compel the Minister to transfer specified property to him. The parties’ agreement for transfer of the farm to the Applicant was made the order of the court.
8	Maxrae Estates vs The Minister	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to take a decision on the appeal lodged for the subdivision of agricultural land. The court ordered the Minister to take a decision within sixty days (60).
9	Petrus Laubscher Coetzee & Others vs the Minister & Others	Implemented	Application to compel the Minister to transfer three portions of agricultural land into the names of the Applicants. The court ordered the Minister to transfer the three portions of land to the Applicants.

ANNEXURE B TO NA-QUES 1199 OF 2020

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM MATTERS
No	Case details	(i)(aa),(bb) Status of implementation	(ii)(aa) Nature of judgment
2017-2018 Judgments
1	Felicity Audrey Stirling vs td Respondent 2: The Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria Respondent 3: Jose Luis Crujela Alvares	Orders complied with. Full amount paid by the Branch Deeds Registration, of which an attempt will be made to recover 50% from the third respondent. State Attorney requested to initiate recovery proceedings against third Respondent.	The Registrar of Deeds was found to be negligent in its transfer of the property and was ordered, jointly and severally with the third Respondent to pay the First Respondent R3 830 397.58 together with interest in lieu of damages and legal costs.
2	Applicant: The Forum of Concerned Residents of the Naledi & Dr Ruth S Mompati Districts vs Minister and others	Subsequent to the settlement agreement reached by the parties, the Branch Deeds Registration embarked on a project to develop the Electronic Deeds Registration System, during which public consultation was undertaken. Once the EDRS is ready to be implemented, the status quo in the Vryburg deeds registry can change. Simultaneously, the Branch Deeds Registration intends opposing Part B of the application (to review and set aside the Minister’s decision to transfer the land parcels from Vryburg to Kimberley, to reduce the jurisdiction of the Vryburg deeds registry and to establish a deeds registry in Mahikeng). Part B still pending.	As part of the alignment of the jurisdiction of deeds registries in South Africa, the Minister intended to transfer land parcels from the Vryburg deeds registry to the Kimberley deeds registry, as they are situated in the Northern Cape Province. The Applicants brought an urgent application interdicting the Minister from transferring the property (Part A) and that Minister’s decision to transfer the afore-mentioned properties be reviewed and set aside.
3	Graham Robert Herbert No and 4 others v Senqu Municipality, Registrar of Deeds and Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform	A wholistic amendment of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights 112 of 1991 will be undertaken in due course.	The Court ordered that section 25A is unconstitutional in so far as it does not extend the application of section 3 of the Act to the entire Republic. The court ordered that section 25A from 22 August 2019 must be read as if it makes no reference to section 3 of the Act.
4	Patrick S Mpaka v KSD Municipality &Minister of Police & the Minister	Land remains vacant and a subject of a Land Claim.	The Municipality sought to use a court order which was obtained in 2011 to effect evictions to illegal occupations which happened in 2017. The 2017 illegal occupants applied for an interdict in that the 2011 order did not apply to them. Interdict was granted.
5	Mopet 259 Trading CC vs The Minister of DRDLR case No 541/2015	None	The Plaintiff issued summons against the Department claiming a sum of money allegedly for services rendered. The Court ordered absolution from the instance (Plaintiff failed to prove its case.)
2018-2019 Judgments
1	Nieuco properties 1005 (Pty) Ltd	Nieuco Properties must still refer the case to the North Gauteng High Court for the determination of the quantum.	Veld fire claim instituted against the Department in terms of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act, Act 101 of 1998 where a private farm was damaged by veld fires that started on a state owned farm. The case was initially decided in favour of the Department by the North Gauteng High Court however, Nieuco Properties lodged an appeal which was heard by the SCA on 31 August 2018 and judgment delivered in favour of Nieuco Properties on 21 September 2018.
2	Applicants: Pretoria Attorneys Association & 12 others vs The Minister and others	The Branch duly complied with the settlement agreement. The Minister subsequently halted / terminated this process, following a legal opinion to the effect that the process followed may have been flawed. Minister instructed that the re-alignment process be re-initiated, in accordance with all applicable legal strictures (including the provisions of PAJA).	The parties agreed that the Minister will not proceed with the alignment initiative in the Gauteng province until the Minister takes the decision to align the deeds registries in Gauteng in accordance with the prescripts of PAJA.
3	Hlekani Dudu Mukansi & Others vs Minister of RDLR Case Number 67142/2017	None	Matter received on 01 November 2017. Mr Mukansi brought an application in the High Court Pretoria for an order to compel the Dept, amongst others, to do whatever is necessary to process his application for a Township Development on, Pnt of Farm Greater Giyani 32.7395 Ha, 30,000 Ha, 150. 0000 Ha. Minister approved that matter be defended on 26 April 2018. The application was dismissed.

No	Case details	(i)(aa),(bb) Status of implementation	(ii)(aa) Nature of court order
2017-2018 court orders
1.	Zuiping-Dithabaneng Community Traditional Council // Title Adjustment Commissioner & Oth	The designation of land and appointment of a Commissioner in terms of Act 111 of 1993 has been done and he is conducting a land rights enquiry in accordance with the Act.	The applicant required the appointment of the Commissioner in terms of Act 111 of 1993. The designation of land and appointment of a Commissioner in terms of Act 111 of 1993 has been done and he is conducting a land rights enquiry in accordance with the Act.
2.	M. M. Rahube // H. Rahube & Others	The Upgrading of Land Tenure Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament on 6 May 2020. Parliament has until 30 April 2021 to enact the amendments.	On 30 October 2018 the Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to introduce a procedure for the determination of the rights of ownership and occupation of land to cure the constitutional invalidity of section 2 (1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act 112 of 1991. Parliament was given until 30 April 2020. Subsequent to the 2018 order, the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development applied for and was granted an extension of the suspension of the Constitutional Court’s declaration of invalidity for a further twelve months until 30 April 2021.
3	Boy Phillip Mokoena v JS Farm Trust and Director General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (Case No LCC 191/17)	The Province is implementing the order. The matter is due to be presented to NLAACC for the acquisition of 60 Ha for the affected labour tenants. Sub division of the affected land will be carried out before conveyancing is to occur. The order is being observed in its entirety.	Boy Phillip Mokoena (plaintiff) is declared a labour tenant and awarded a portion of Farm Hamilberg; DG ordered to ratify the settlement agreement.
4.	Hlalefo S Moshoeshoe v DPW and DRDLR	Conveyancers have been instructed and are currently busy with the transfer of the property.	The court ordered the transfer of the property to the Applicant.
5.	DRDLR vs Unlawful Occupiers of R/E & PTN 1 of Farm Nooitgedacht 11 JQ case no. 7212/2017	State Attorney to appoint sheriff to serve the court order.	The court ordered the eviction of the unlawful occupiers.
6.	Dept of Rural Dev & Land Reform // Mamahule Traditional Authority, Dr Matsaung. Case Number CCT179/16	The Department decided against evicting the community and is considering transferring the property to the Municipality for township development.	The Court “declared that the Mamahule Communal Property Association, the Mamahule Community, the Mamahule Traditional Authority and Occupiers of the Farm Kalkfontein 1001 LS are unlawful occupiers of the farm”.
7.	Alfred Shongwe / The DG of DRDLR & Others	The Applicant has been relocated to portion 3 of the farm Vaalpoort, temporary houses were constructed for the family. The Department is in the process of transferring the subdivided portion of the farm to the Shongwe family.	Mr Shongwe approached the Court for a declaratory order as a Labour Tenant and for the Department to provide him with a suitable accommodation. Mr Shongwe was declared a Labour tenant and the Department was ordered to assist him in looking for, identifying and acquiring suitable land for him.
8.	Mzayifane Hadebe & Others /Minister of RDLR & Others	The gravel road leading to the Hadebe settlement has been completed. Nine houses were about to be completed as the country went into lockdown. The fencing of the 250 hectares of land awarded to the Hadebes, preparation of arable and the transfer of land to them is ongoing.	Mr Hadebe approached the Court for an order to compel the Department to build his family a house, construct the road leading to his homestead and also for the Department to register a Communal Property Association for the benefit of his family. The Court granted the prayers as requested by Mr Hadebe..
9.	Asla Construction (PTY) Ltd vs The Minister Of Rural Development And Land Reform & Exeo Khokela Civil Engineering Construction(pty) ltd.	Implemented	The decision of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform taken on or about 13/02/2018 to disqualify ASLA Pty. Ltd. and award the tender to EXEO KHOKELA (Pty) Ltd was reviewed and set aside. The Department was directed to award the tender to ASLA (Pty) Ltd within 30 days of the date of the order. The Department was ordered to pay the costs in the application, such costs to include the cost of two counsel.
2018-2019 court orders
1	Bakgatla Ba Kgafela CPA vs DRDLR	Implemented	The court ordered that the DG should take all necessary steps to assist the CPA to hold the Annual General Meeting and monitor the election of the new executive committee. The CPA appealed the judgment at the constitutional court. The constitutional court dismissed the appeal.
2	Bhekindela Mwelase vs DG and Minister	The Special Master was appointed on 10 December 2019. On 29 May 2020, the Special Master submitted an implementation plan to the Land Claims Court and the Plan is under consideration by the Land Claims Court.	On 8 December 2016, the Land Claims Court issued an order in favour of the Applicants which ordered for the appointment of a Special Master. The Department lodged an application for leave to appeal with the Land Claims Court and such was granted on 1 March 2017. The appeal was heard by the SCA on 13 March 2018 and the appeal was decided in favour of the Department on 17 August 2018. AFRA appealed to the Constitutional Court and on 20 August 2019, the court issued a judgment which re-instated the initial order of the Land Claims Court dated 8 December 2016.
3	JM Tshabalala vs DRDLR	Implemented	The applicants were seeking an order that the Minister and DG should acquire land on behalf of labour tenants and just and equitable compensation to be paid to the landowner.
4	Neels van Tonder Trust vs Mogabule (LCC04/2018)	The Order against the Minister could not be implemented because it was discovered that Mr. Magabole had alternative accommodation in Bronkholspruit and he moved there.	The applicant Mr. Van Tonder applied for eviction order against Mr. Magabole and his family. Eviction Order was granted on 28/05/2018. The Department was ordered to provide alternative accommodation to Mr. Mogabodi in terms of section 4 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
5	Roodepoort Grondeienaarsvereeniging vs Roodepoort 63 Community (642/17 and 643/17)	The Department is in the process of complying with the court order in consultation with the City of Tshwane.	Rooderpoort Grondeinaarsvereening applied for an order to compel the City of Tshwane to evict the occupiers who has established a squatter camp in the City property which is adjacent to the applicant’s properties. The High Court Granted the Order but the respondents took the matter on appeal and the decision of the High Court was overturned. On appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to prepare and file a report with the High Court on the Department`s ability to provide the alternative accommodation as provided for in terms of section 4 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
6	Hlaniki Trust vs Daniel Sibanyoni (LCC59/2018)	Implemented	Hlaniki Trust applied for an eviction order against Mr. Sibanyoni who is an occupier. During the proceeding, the Land Claims Court issued a directive order, ordering the Minister to submit a report on the Department’s ability to provide alternative accommodation in case of eviction.
7	Hupp Properties vs Moneni (308/2017)	The matter was heard and eviction granted. Mr Moneni moved into his RDP house.	The eviction order was granted against Mr Moneni and his family and the Minister was ordered to provide alternative accommodation for Mr. Moneni in terms of section 4 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
8	Land and Agricultural Bank V CPAD Holdings PTY LTD, Alfred Mde, DRDLR and 4 Others	The Department has appointed a valuer to determine the value of the property so that it can satisfy the debt to Land Bank whilst retaining the property for purposes of Land Reform.	The Land Bank approached the court to vary a Forfeiture Order, which sought to transfer the property to the Department. This order was to include the protection of their interests as bondholders.
9	Anjucel & Another v Shadrack Bhekanini Ntshingila NO & others (Case no LCC 25/2019)	The Province is implementing the order. Approval for the acquisition of land in favour of the affected labour tenants is underway. A deed of sale has been signed and registration and transfer is due to occur soon. The order is being observed in its entirety.	Shadrack Bhekanini (2nd resp) awarded a piece of farm Bloemhoek and registered in deeds office;
10	Makgari CPA vs DRDLR case number 5158/2018	Implementation is in progress	Matter received on 31 August 2018. Applicant, Makgari approached court, for the court to give a mandatory order directing the Department and Minister to register the applicant's CPA within 45 court days of the granting of the order. The Minister was ordered to register the CPA within 45 days of granting the court order.
11	M D Rakgase vs Minister of DRDLR case number 33497/2018	The land was sold to Mr Rakgase and transfer is under way.	Matter received on 13 June 2018. Mr Rakgase applied to the High Court to review the Minister's decision of refusing to sell to him Portions 0 (remaining extent and 1 of the Farm Nooitgedacht 11 JQ The Minister was ordered to sell and transfer the farm to Mr Rakgase.
12	JC Prinsloo / The Minister of RDLR & Others LCC 177/16	The farm was acquired and is currently registered in the name of the State.	Default judgment was obtained against the Minister State ordered to acquire portion 27 of the farm Welgekozen.

Reply:

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) initiated and gazetted the draft proposed amendment to Schedule 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000) hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, in order to curb unsustainable wildlife hunting for “bushmeat” and to ensure that where slaughtering or hunting for either consumption, or sale for local or export trade, happens in a regulated environment that would ensure food safety, feed safety and adherence to welfare prescripts.

The Act does not make any decisions on which animals are to be slaughtered but ensures that should an animal listed in the schedule be slaughtered, all requirements stipulated in the Act would have to be complied with.

A decision on which animals can be slaughtered lies outside of the mandate of the Meat Safety Act. Legislation under the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, stipulates which wildlife animals are protected and endangered and therefore there is a regulatory framework on how to handle them, including their disposal and slaughter if that becomes a necessity. The slaughter of animals for human and animal consumption, as required under the Meat Safety Act is subject to permissions of relevant other legislation, including conservation, food control, environmental health and animal welfare legislations.

There may be instances where endangered animals have to be culled for conservation, animal welfare (e.g. injured), animal health (e.g. having a contagious non-zoonotic disease), environmental concerns (e.g., overgrazing) or other justifiable reasons, in line with provisions of all applicable legislation outside of the Meat Safety Act. In such instances, the products of such a culling operation, if intended for human consumption, would have been regulated under the Meat Safety Act and food hygiene would have been promoted and assured. The Act also controls the importation of meat and therefore the absence of a specific animal on the list; it means that the Meat Safety Act does not apply to meat and meat products of such an animal and therefore the Department does not have any regulatory control at the ports of entry for such products entering the country. In the absence of the listing of an animal under the Act, anyone can import such an animal without having to comply with provisions of the Meat Safety Ac

Reply:

(a) (i) 14 working days.

(ii) 14 working days.

(iii) 14 working days.

(b) (i) Vacancy rate as per PERSAL report is 11%.

(ii) Reasons for vacancy rate are:

• • resignations, retirement and dismissals;
  • lack of funding; and
  • shortage of specialized skills in the market.

 

Reply:

1. The Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RADP) no longer exists in the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform. The new Land Development Support Programme (LDS) was introduced to implement projects identified under the Stimulus Package. The implementation is done through commodity organisations and some financial institutions. Thus far, 146 farmers have been approved for the Stimulus Package an farms are at different levels of implementation of Business Plans that were compiled with the assistance of Commodity Organisations.

(a) The total cost approved for the LDS policy in March 2019 is R 1 272 686 995,87.

(b)(i) Seven (7).

(b)(ii),(c) Please refer to the table below.

Number	(b)(ii) Names of the Commodity Organisation	(c) Amount Paid To date
1	National Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation (NERPO)	R 139 475 117.73
2	GFADA (Grain Farmers Development Association)	R 64 431 316.66
3	Grain SA	R 0.00
4	SAPA (South African Poultry Association)	R 0.00
5	Potato SA	R 0.00
6	Citrus Growers Association	R 0.00
7	Deciduous Fruits Development Chamber (DFDC)	R 0.00

(2)(a) The role of Entsika Foundation in the implementation of the LDS programme was to conduct farm assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Entsika Foundation has since completed its work and exited the programme.

(b) The amount of R 143 016 641.12 was paid to the Entsika Foundation.

Reply:

a)  The R 1.3 billion Covid-19 grant came from different programmes of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.

b) Please refer to the table below.

Programmes	Relevant Details	Amount
Programme 5	Land Reform	R 147 600 000
	Agricultural Land Holdings Account (ALHA)	R 923 000 000
Programme 1	Administration	R 129 400 000
Programme 3	Rural Development	R 100 000 000

Reply:

a) The funds were shifted from Programmes, 1, 3 and 5 of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.

b) Please refer to the table below.

Programmes	Relevant Details	Amount
Programme 5	Land Reform	R 147 600 000
	Agricultural Land Holdings Account (ALHA)	R 923 000 000
Programme 1	Administration	R 129 400 000
Programme 3	Rural Development	R 100 000 000

Reply:

(a) (i) South Africa has a constitutional dispensation that recognises and protects the rights of those who lawfully occupy land that belong to others whilst simultaneously protecting the rights of those who own land. There’s currently no moratorium on eviction from farms since there’s no law authorising a moratorium and further, because any law seeking to provide for a moratorium is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny.

(ii) It is not correct that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) does not address the issue of evictions from farms. It needs to be appreciated that whilst the Legislature has passed laws to provide statutory recognition of occupation rights to persons that lawfully occupy land, such laws do provide for situations where occupation rights may be lawfully terminated and therefore evictions may then follow. There are however balancing safeguards in that evictions are subjected to a judicial process and self-help measures by landowners are criminalised. The Department therefore addresses eviction matters within the provisions of existing land tenure laws.

In addition to the above during this time of national disaster, Regulation 36(1) issued in terms of section 27(2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2002 enables any competent court to grant an order for the eviction of any person from land in terms of the provisions of Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 0f 1997,provided that any order of eviction shall be stayed and suspended until the last day Alert Level 3, unless a court decides that it is not just and equitable to stay and suspend the order until the last day of the Alert Level 3 period. All legal representatives appointed for farm dwellers have been made aware of these Regulations and courts are enforcing them.

(b) The following measures will be put in place:

• Promote awareness regarding the existence of statutory tenure rights and mechanisms that are designed to support the observance or protection of such rights through local media, art and direct interaction with farm dwellers;
• improve access to justice for those with insecure land tenure through collaboration with Legal Aid South Africa and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; and targeted acquisition of land in areas that are prone to evictions as well as in areas that are in close proximity to, or are habited by farm dwellers.

Reply:

(1)(a),(b)(i),(ii),(c),(i),(ii) Please refer to the table below.

Province	(a) Applications Received	​(b) (i) Applications Approved	b. (ii) Applications Rejected	(c)(i),(ii) Rand Value Approved Applications
Eastern Cape	10 608	1 627	8 981	R 65 694 654.50
Free State	5 384	389	4 995	R 17 197 596,77
Gauteng	1 299	991	308	R 38 471 000,00
KwaZulu Natal	4 695	2 786	1 909	R 99 741 480,61
Limpopo	7 776	2 030	5 746	R 86 465 940,34
Mpumalanga	5 439	825	4 614	R 38 953 637,76
North West	8 645	2 988	5 657	R 69 114 248,00
Northern Cape	8 861	1 428	7 433	R 46 050 944,00
Western Cape	2 440	1 555	885	R 58 128 746,00

2. No.

(a),(b),(c) Falls away.

Reply:

(a) Yes.

(i) (aa) R101,3 million.

(bb) R4,9 million.

(ii) Fund was earmarked for payments for capital assets: Upgrade of laboratory infrastructure and equipment.

(b) No rollover was applied for since 1 April 2020.

(i),(aa),(bb),(ii) Falls away.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM (DRDLR):

(a) Yes, a request to roll over unspent funds for the construction of the new head office premises from the 2018/19 financial year to the 2019/20 financial year was submitted to National Treasury.

(i) (aa) 46.7 million.

(bb) None.

(ii0 Not granted.

(b) No.

(i),(aa),(bb),(ii) Falls away.

Reply:

(1)(a),(b) Please refer to Annexure A.

(2) The grant allocations were spent.

(3)(a),(b),(c),(d) Drought relief applications were received from 7 provinces. Table below depicts the amounts applied by each specific province and the allocated amount as well as projects earmarked. Please refer to Annexure B.

ANNEXURE A OF NA-QUES 1014 OF 2020

ANNEXURE B OF NA-QUS 10 14 OF 2020
PROVINCE	APPLIED FOR	(c) ALLOCATION R	(d) PROJECTS EARMARKED
		2020/2021	2020/21
Eastern Cape	395 000 000	35 000 000	Fodder production and boreholes
KwaZulu-Natal	Not specified	4 000 000	Desilting of dams
Limpopo	117 000 000	18 500 000	Boreholes
Mpumalanga	400 000 000	12 500 000	Boreholes and fodder provision
Northern Cape	600 000 000	36 000 000	Removal of alien vegetation and provision of fodder
North West	252 000 000	8 000 000	Provision of fodder
Western Cape	123 000 000	25 000 000	Provision of fodder

Province	ALLOCATION R	EXP	ALLOCATION R	EXP	ALLOCATION R	EXP
	2016/17		2018/19		2019/20	-
Eastern Cape	29 000 000	29 000 000	20 000 000	20 000 000	-	-
Free State	31 000 000	31 000 000	13 500 000	13 500 000	-	-
KwaZulu-Natal	23 000 000	23 000 000	-	-	-	-
Limpopo	28 000 000	28 000 000	10 000 000	10 000 000	9 000 000	9 000 000
Mpumalanga	26 000 000	26 000 000	10 000 000	10 000 000	8 000 000	8 000 000
Northern Cape	25 000 000	25 000 000	43 000 000	43 000 000	34 000 000	34 000 000
North West	38 000 000	38 000 000	-	-
Western Cape	12 000 000	12 000 000	170 000 000	170 000 000
Total	R 212 000 000	R 212 000 000	R266 500 000	R266 500 000	R51 000 00	R51 000 00

Reply:

Yes.

(a) The Department has to date received almost 30 000 comments on the draft amendment to schedule 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000).

(b) The analysis of the comments has not begun as the deadline for the comments was extended from the 30th April 2020 to the 30th June 2020 due to interruptions in communications and ability of citizens to respond due the COVID-19 lockdown.

(c) The final list will be compiled with effect from 01 July 2020 and after having looked at the comments made and consulted with relevant stakeholders.

Reply:

The Department’s position is that agricultural exports to China will and should continue in line with the existing sanitary and phytosanitary prescripts.

COVID 19 pandemic has not affected the exports of animal and plant products to China.

• Wool exports are going according to plan and local purchases are still ongoing. The last wool auction as reported by Cape Wool industry was only 0.7% down which is normal. Because of the global uncertainties, with movement restrictions all over the world, the wool prices are expected to temporarily go down. The meat export is still going well to date.

• Exports of Apples, Table Grapes and Citrus to China is on-going in line with agreed protocols and no changes have been observed since the outbreak of Coronavirus and no restrictions to market access has been observed. Containers are cleared at the ports in China, with no hold ups or delay. All the necessary inspections for Production Units, Packhouses and Inspection Points have been done and approval has been granted by China.

• With regard to other preclearance or special programmes:

1. Japan-Exports of Citrus and Barlinka Grapes 2) Mexico - Exports of Apples 3) Taiwan - Exports of Apples 4) South Korea - Exports of Citrus – For these markets, there is a requirement for pre-inspections to be conducted in South Africa by inspectors from those countries before consignments leave the South African shores. In an attempt to adhere to the travel restrictions for incoming visitors from high risk countries, the Department proposed to those countries the following:

• Departmental inspectors who are familiar with the export programme undertake the required preclearance inspections; and
• provide the necessary reports and records to the importing country.

Feedback is awaited from the trading partners on the proposed alternative inspection protocol.

2. United States of America (USA) – Exports of Flower Bulbs, Apples, Pears, Table Grapes and Citrus- the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USA Preclearance inspector who is based in Cape Town is currently inspecting Table Grapes to USA and the volume has tripled as compared to the past ten years.

With regard to field inspections for Apples, Pears and Citrus, the USDA had granted approval for exports without field inspections. The Department is also in communication with USDA with regards to the intended visit of four (04) USA inspectors who are due to come to South Africa for preclearance of consignments of citrus to be exported to the USA for the current season.

Reply:

1. No. The position taken by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development was to provide a COVID-19 Support Relief to qualifying Small-holder and Communal farmers. This was a grant process where qualifying farmers would be issued a voucher. The department procured Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) through either a price quotation process or Transversal Contracts in line with National Treasury Instruction Note 08 of 2019/2020 and Instruction Note 05 of 2020/2021: Emergency Procurement in Response to the National State of Disaster.

(a),(b),(c) Falls away.

2. No.

(a),(b) Falls away.

3. Falls away.

4. No.

Reply:

1. Yes. The Department embarked on a process to identify CPAs with properties that are leased to third parties. According to the records of the Directorate of Communal Property Institutions in the Department, there are 505 properties currently leased from CPAs. A service provider is in the process of being appointed to verify this information, amongst other things.

2. Yes. Communal Property Associations are established in terms of an Act of Parliament, to acquire, hold and manage the property on behalf of the members of beneficiary communities. The Department has identified challenges in the functioning of these entities, and therefore, a strategy has been developed to tighten governance systems and other areas that need scrutiny to ensure that CPAs as land and property holding entities are compliant with the regulatory requirements, efficient and functional. Currently, there is no researched evidence which confirms that CPAs are not the best model for communal land ownership.

The Department constantly reviews its legislation to address challenges and enhance its efficacy. The CPA Amendment Bill that was passed by Parliament in December 2018 (currently awaiting assent by the President) provides for the establishment of the Office of the Registrar of Communal Property Associations with the relevant human resource capacity at both national and provincial levels to enforce governance and compliance with the Act.

Reply:

1. (a) Entsika was appointed as part of the consortium which had technical agricultural experts to analyses the agricultural projects.

(b) The Land Bank did not submit a proposal from the advertised bid.

(c) (i),(ii) See Annexure A.

(d) Cabinet approved the Beneficiary Selection and Land Allocation Policy for publication in the government gazette for public comments which ended on 3 March 2020.

2 No. Commercial viability was used as one of the criteria for selection of stimulus package projects.

Reply:

The Department of Agriculture, Land reform and Rural Development does not have any specific programme to support commercial goat farmers.

Reply:

(a) The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is not aware of this project.

(b),(c) Falls away.

Reply:

1. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) has not distributed food parcels to needy persons as this is the mandate that was undertaken by the Department of Social Development (DSD). DALRRD received food sponsorships from willing partners within the Agriculture sector during this COVID 19 outbreak. The distribution of such sponsored food items was agreed upon with the relevant sponsor, based on their prioritised areas in collaboration with DALRRD.

(a) The food parcels that were sponsored by volunteers within the Agricultural sector were distributed in accordance with the sponsors’ preferences.

(b) DALRRD did not distribute food parcels except those that were received from sponsors of food items [Golden Harvest donated 5 000 fruit and vegetable packs to communities in the Western Cape].

(c) The sponsored packs had fruits and vegetables.

(d) There were no costs to DALRRD as these packs were donated.

(2) What is the name(s) of the service provider(s) that was contracted to provide food parcels in each province;

REPLY:

There were no service providers contracted by DALRRD to provide food parcels in provinces.

(3) What are the details of the plans her department has put in place to ensure that more needy persons receive food parcels, especially in light of the national lockdown to combat the COVID-19 pandemic;

REPLY:

Though the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) was not directly involved in the distribution of food parcels DALRRD has been monitoring the availability and stability of supply for food in the food value chain and together with its State Owned Entities (SOEs) monitoring the prices of the basic food items using the 28 item Basic Food Basket and the 35 item zero rated food basket. DALRRD has further re-prioritised funding of up to R1.2billion to support small-scale producers that are in production of poultry, vegetables and fruits, livestock and field crops.

(4) Whether her department took any steps to liaise with and mobilise civil society and businesses to assist her department with hunger relief initiatives; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW852E

REPLY:

Before the pronouncement of the lockdown by the President the DALRRD Ministry established Task Teams between the Sector Industry partners (from production, processing and retail), its SOEs and Senior Officials in the DALRRD. The Task Team was established to ensure food availability and food price monitoring occurs more frequently than usual. The process of monitoring food availability and stability is being conducted through an End-to-end Agricultural value chain tracker developed in partnership with Industry partners, which is a 24 to 48-hour reporting cycle, this was to address the challenge of panic buying by consumers who would end up using all their money. The prioritised funding to support small-scale producers is specifically in support of COVID 19 as the department has its usual support programmes such as Ilima/Letsema, CASP, LandCare, Land Acquisition Grants that are intended to support all producers.

Reply:

Yes, there is a signed lease. According to the current CPA Chairperson, Ms Mantsha Mosito, the lease was signed by her predecessors before she became the chairperson in 2012. The Department has established from Mr Ryan Sabatier, who signed the contract on behalf of a family company that the lease was signed in 2010, to run for a period of 15 years and will expire in 2025. Mr Sabatier left the company under the control of his father, Mr Peter Sabatier. Both Ms Mosito and Mr Ryan Sabatier confirmed that Mr Peter Sabatier has started to breach terms of the contract. He is no longer paying rent and is sub-letting the farm. Both acts are a violation of the signed contract.

It was reported in the 2018-2019 CPA Annual Report that this CPA was not fully compliant with the Act. During the 2019-2020 financial year, the Department undertook to train 900 Communal Property Associations across the country to assist them to be complaint with the Act, of which this CPA was also targeted since the current committee has been in office since 2012 and are beyond their term of office. The Limpopo PSSC invited them for training in October 2019, however, the committee failed to attend the training.

The Department is continuing with the training to ensure all CPAs are compliant with the Act and undertakes to ensure that this CPA will be assisted.

Reply:

(a) The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) does not have national programme to support commercial goat farmers in the (a) Chris Hani and (b) OR Tambo District Municipalities in the Eastern Cape.

However, the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR) provides technical, advisory and veterinary support to goat farmers in the province of the Eastern Cape. Furthermore the DRDDAR in collaboration with the University of Fort Hare are improving local goat production through research and goat development programme.

Improved goats are distributed to local goat farmers under DRDAR Livestock Production Improvement programme in order to improve food security through goat production in communities.

Reply:

No. The Minister and the Department have not been provided with any request or information that justifies the Minister’s meeting with residents of Ward 8 in Nyandeni Local Municipality.

Reply:

No. No allegations of corruption and unlawful eviction have been reported to the Minister or the Department in this regard.

Reply:

Yes.

(a) 36

(b) See Annexure A

(c) See Annexure A

Reply:

(a)  Yes, water use charge is regarded as a charge on land. However, where land is leased on a long-term basis, such liability gets passed to the lessee. In the event where the lessee fails to pay, the Department’s Policy provides for the possibility of stepping in to settle the debt and then recover the amount spent from the lessee.

(b)  Yes, in the context of the response to (a) above.

(i)  The estimation was R20, 438, 725.82 as at 20 March 2020.

(ii) From 2014.

(iii) The Department is working with the Great Fish River Water Association to reconcile the invoices and make payment as soon as that process is concluded.

Reply:

1. 205

(2) (a),(b) Yes

(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi) See attached Annexure A

3. See Annexure A

Reply:

1. 287

2. (a), (b) Yes.

(i), (ii), (iii), (iv),(v),(vi) See attached Annexure A.

3. See Annexure A.

Reply:

None. The Recapitalisation and Development Programme doesn’t exist in the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform.

Reply:

1(a) 457 of the 472 farms were bought under the Land Redistribution Programme, whilst the balance are pre-1994 government properties.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2006	2
2007	10
2008	59
2009	16
2010	36
2011	106
2012	81
2013	30
2014	36
2015	53
2016	24
2017	2
2018	1
2019	1

2. 472.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 137.2020 (EC).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

1(a) 217 of the 218 farms were bought under the Land Redistribution Programme and the other farm is a pre-1994 government property.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2002	1
2006	1
2007	12
2008	2
2009	16
2010	17
2011	60
2012	6
2013	23
2014	9
2015	20
2016	37
2017	11
2019	2
Grand Total	217

2. 218.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 140.2020 (LP).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) Land Redistribution Programme.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2003	1
2006	6
2007	64
2008	20
2009	14
2010	8
2011	22
2012	10
2013	25
2014	4
2015	12
2016	6
2017	9
2018	21
2019	1
Grand Total	223

2. 223.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 139.2020 (GP).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) Land Redistribution Programme.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2006	3
2007	22
2008	41
2009	20
2010	3
2011	44
2012	37
2013	17
2014	9
2015	27
2016	44
2017	2
2018	9
2019	4
Grand Total	282

2. 282.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 144.2020 (KZN).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) Land Redistribution Programme.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2007	9
2008	13
2009	1
2011	16
2012	99
2013	13
2014	11
2015	21
2016	5
2017	1
2018	2
2019	1
Grand Total	192

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 143.2020 (WC).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) 220 of the 259 farms were bought under the Land Redistribution Programme, whilst the balance are pre-1994 government properties.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2006	4
2007	23
2008	11
2009	8
2010	31
2011	34
2012	16
2013	20
2014	20
2015	22
2016	17
2017	8
2018	3
2019	3

2. 259.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 142.2020 (NC).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) 416 of the 467 farms were bought under the Land Redistribution Programme, whilst the balance are pre-1994 government properties.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2006	16
2007	5
2008	57
2009	11
2010	11
2011	74
2012	41
2013	58
2014	49
2015	54
2016	18
2017	4
2018	18

2. 467.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 141.2020 (NW).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) Land Redistribution Programme.

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2005	16
2007	28
2008	108
2009	32
2010	2
2011	72
2012	46
2013	16
2014	19
2015	35
2016	14
2017	11
2018	11
Grand Total	410

2. 410.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 138.2020 (FS).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

1(a) Land Redistribution Programme (Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy);

1(b)

Year of Acquisition	Number of Farms
2006	13
2007	46
2008	117
2009	28
2010	34
2011	65
2012	20
2013	30
2014	6
2015	13
2017	10
2018	10
2019	5
Grand Total	397

2. 397.

3. (a) Yes. Please see the attached Excel spread sheet titled, NA – PQ No. 136.2020 (MP).

(b) and (c) No, since the Department has had no time to consult with the individual lessees on whether they consent to have their personal information publicly disclosed.

4. No, since the public disclosure of farms without leases could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

5. No, since the public disclosure of farms that are being reallocated could expose them to the possibility of land invasions.

Reply:

The ARC-OVR-Transboundary Animal Diseases (TAD) Facility includes a high security facility for Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccine production, and Research and Diagnostics of FMD, African Swine Fever (ASF), and other exotic diseases. TAD houses an OIE Regional Reference Laboratory for ASF and FMD and is the FAO Reference Centre for both FMD and ASF for the entire African continent.

The TAD Diagnostic Laboratory applied for SANAS (South African National Accreditation System) accreditation of its FMD Serological methods to standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, in December 2015. The SANAS assessment was conducted from 29-30 March 2016, and a certificate of accreditation was obtained on 20 June 2016, which is valid for five years. The 6 months follow up assessment tookplace on 24 January 2017and continued accreditation was granted. The twelve months’ follow-up assessment by SANAS took place on 31 January 2018 and continued accreditation was again granted.

TAD Diagnostic Laboratory facility further applied for accreditation according to the new ISO 17025:2017 standard, this was approved by the SANAS Approval Committee meeting on 21 August 2019. “Unconditional Accreditation” in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Accreditation number V0034 was granted. The ARC-OVR-TAD Laboratory was the first laboratory at ARC-OVR to be assessed to the new ISO standard.

Reply:

In terms of the quarterly performance targets in the 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan (APP), 9 export protocols were implemented during Quarter 1, but were reported to be still in progress pending validation of reported data at the regional offices (WC, KZN, PE) by the unit responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). As at to date, validation of the 9 export protocols by both M&E and the Directorate Inspection Services(DIS) has been concluded and all 9 export protocols have been implemented.

7 export protocols were implemented during Quarter 2 of 2019/20, but were also reported to be still in progress pending validation.M&E is allowed 90 days after each Quarter to validate reported performance.

The implementation of the protocols is seasonal and sometimes overlaps to the next quarter. The table below shows in which quarters each export control is expected.

Export protocol	Quarter 1	Quarter 2	Quarter 3	Quarter 4
Apples to China	X	X	X	X
Apples to Mexico	X
Apples to Taiwan	X
Citrus to China	X	X
Citrus to Japan	X	X
Citrus to S. Korea	X	X
Citrus to Thailand	X	X
Citrus to USA	X	X
Pears to USA	X	X	X	X
Table grapes to China			X	X
Table grapes to Israel			X	X
Table grapes to Thailand			X	X
Table grapes to USA			X	X

Reply:

1. An amount of R19,914,060.00 (Nineteen Million Nine Hundred Fourteen Thousand and Sixty Rand) was paid over to the Ebenhaeser Trust as the business arm of the CPA in terms of section 42C of the Restitution of Land Rights Act,22 of 194 as amended and in pursuance of the Settlement Agreement entered between the Minister, Ebenhaeser CPA and the Commission on Restitution. No amounts have been paid over to the Vaalplaas and Beeswater communities.

(a) yes a further amount or tranche will be paid over to the Ebenhaeser Trust and

(b) (i) an amount of R45,366,940.00 (Forty Five Million Three Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Rand will be paid (ii)and will be transferred.

2. (a) Yes, previous payments were utilised by trustees in line with the goals set for land reform and (b) yes the necessary check and balances are in place to ensure that future transfers will adhere to goals set;

3. (a) A Service Level Agreement (SLA) was signed between the Department and the Ebenhaeser Trust confirming the terms of engagement regarding the financial management, administration, and disbursement of funds allocated for post settlement and business support of the Ebenhaeser land claim;

A Budget for a specific financial year is submitted to the Provincial department of Agriculture for a due diligence analysis;

A Business Plan is drafted by an external service provider and this must meet the approval of the multi-stakeholder Joint Co-ordinating Committee;

The Trust has a procurement policy in place and there is a Trust Deed registered at the Master of the HIGH Court setting forth the principles for governance. The Trust Deed, allows for both the Department and Provincial Agriculture to nominate external trustees with the necessary experience and expertise in the operations of trusts and business to assure that Trust operate in an accountable manner;

There are multiple-signatories (four) on the Trust Account held at a financial institution, where authorization for expenditure is required. These include the respective chairpersons of the CPA and Trust, the accountant and;

A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the CPA (as land holding entity and representative of the claimant community) and the Ebenhaeser Trust, and MOA sets out the roles and responsibilities, the regulation of the relationship, and also conflict resolution mechanism between these entities.

Audited Annual Financial Reports are compiled by an external auditor.

(b)The Department established a multi-stakeholder Joint Co-ordinating Committee (JCC) constituted as an oversight body over of processes and procedures adopted in the implementation of the Community Development and Land Acquisition Plan andthe Settlement Agreement of 2015.

The terms of Reference was concluded between the parties / members which are the following:

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Matzikama local municipality; Provincial department of Agriculture; National Department of Water and Sanitation; The Ebenhaeser CPA; Ebenhaeser Trust.

The Department has entered ito an agreement with VINPRO (the commodity organization in the wine industry. VINPRO has a direct involvement with the Ebenhaeser Trust and CPA in the form of mentoring and guidance.

The JCC sits bi-monthly and members report on issues under their respective watch and their mandates.

END