Questions and Replies

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) 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:

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 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

Reply:

                                                                                                  

There is no South African Geographical Indication that is currently protected under the Regulations for the Protection of Geographical Indications that were signed on 22 March 2019.

Reply:

Enclosed herein is the reply to question no: 28/NW31E for your approval should you agree with the contents thereof. The information was supplied by the Branch: Food Security and Agrarian Reform as guided by the provincial Department of Agriculture in Limpopo.

QUESTION NO: 28/NW31E

• The Vhembe District’s goat industry has a total of 73 416 goats owned by 9291 farmers. There are 202 commercial farmers owning a total of 9775 herd of goats. The bulk population of 63641 goat herd is owned by 9089 communal farmers.

• The Department provides the following services to the farmers, namely: -

• Technical Advisory Support
• Veterinary Support
• Drought Relief Support and
• Technical and Business Skills Development (Capacity Building).

• There are two gene producers in the Vhembe District, whom from export goats, mainly to Zimbabwe. The department provides Health Certification for Export to the farmers in terms of export protocols.

                                                                                   

Reply:

The function of amending the Constitution to allow for expropriation of land without compensation is currently the responsibility of Parliament.

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

Reply:

The Department has requested the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to compile a comprehensive response to the question raised by M. Gen O S Terblanche (DA).

The comprehensive response will be submitted in January 2020.

Reply:

(1) 467.

(2)(a) 251.

(2)(b)

• Some previously allocated farms are in the process of being reallocated to lessees.

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farmers and farm dwellers.

• There are instances where the beneficiaries are still sorting out issues relating to the legal entity that must contract with Government.

• Some farms are no longer leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• There are instances of illegal invasion, which impacts on orderly allocation processes.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3) (a) R995 614.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 259.

(2)(a) 34.

(2)(b)

• Some previously allocated farms are in the process of being reallocated as consequence of death, abandonment of the property and lease termination due to breach of lease terms

• There are disputes regarding allocation as well as property boundaries.

• Illegal invasion of leased farms by neighbouring communal settlements.

• Some farms are no longer leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• Existence of land restitution claims on leasable properties.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R222 543.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 192.

(2)(a) 70.

(2)(b)

• Some properties were acquired to pilot a policy for the benefit of the First Nations that were disadvantaged by the land restitution deadline of June 1913. A notarial land use right is envisaged for registration instead of a lease.

• Dispute between the allocated beneficiaries and farm workers.

• Ongoing investigation by the Special Investigating Unit thereby resulting in the non-conclusion of a lease since any affected party may become a suspect.

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• Some previously allocated farms are in the process of being reallocated.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R 47 000.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 282.

(2)(a) 787.

(2)(b)

• Some farms are still being reallocated as a consequence of abandonment.

• There are instances where multiple farmers have been allocated a single farm, which then requires an official subdivision.

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farm dwellers.

• There are instances where the beneficiaries are still sorting out issues relating to the legal entity that must contract with Government.

• Some farms are no longer leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• There are unlawful occupations of leasable farms.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R 378 347.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

No.

Reply:

• The Department has requested the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to compile a comprehensive response to the question raised by Mrs A Steyn (DA).
• The comprehensive response will be submitted in January 2020.

                                                                                                       

Reply:

(1) 472

(2)(a) 432

(2)(b)

• Farms that were originally meant to be leased were subsequently earmarked for other programmes like the Animal and Veld Management Programme as well as the One Household One Hectare Programme.

• There are instances where multiple farmers have been allocated a single farm, which has not yet been officially subdivided hence lease units are still being created.

• There are unlawful occupations that make it impossible to conclude lease agreements whilst unlawful occupations are still being sorted.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farmers and farm dwellers.

• Some farms are in the process of being reallocated.

• Some farms have become unleasable because of the growth of settlements in surrounding communities.

• Some farms are claimed in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act and the claims have reached an advanced stage.

• Some farmers are still getting their legal entities registered.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

• Disputes amongst beneficiaries.

(3)(a) R159 503.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 410.

(2)(a) 233.

(2)(b)

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• There are reallocations that are currently being done, which have been occasioned by the death of lessees.

• There are instances where multiple farmers have been allocated a single farm, which has not yet been officially subdivided hence lease units are still being created.

• There are instances where the land is the process of being donated to a municipality for commonage purposes.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farm dwellers.

• Some farms are being used by neighbouring communities and have therefore become unleasable.

(3)(a) R353 956.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 223

(2)(a) 227

(2)(b)

• Conflict among beneficiary members.

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• Some farms are in the process of being reallocated.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farm dwellers.

• Some farms are not leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R51 577.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 218.

(2)(a) 609.

(2)(b)

• Some farms are still in the process of being allocated to lessees.

• Some previously allocated farms are in the process of being reallocated.

• There are instances of illegal invasion of farms.

• There are instances of disputes with lessees regarding the suitability of the farm, which result in refusal by prospective lessees to sign lease agreements whilst the matters giving rise to a dispute are still being dealt with.

• Some farms are no longer leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• There are instances where multiple farmers have been allocated a single farm, which has not yet been officially subdivided hence lease units are still being created.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R252 391.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1) 397.

(2)(a) 529.

(2)(b)

• Some farms which were previously allocated are in the process of being reallocated.

• There are instances where multiple farmers have been allocated a single farm, which has not yet been officially subdivided hence lease units are still being created.

• Some leases are currently being taken through administrative lease approval processes.

• Some farms are occupied by farm dwellers hence land rights enquiries are still being conducted.

• Some farms are in the process of being transferred to farm dwellers.

• There are instances where the beneficiaries are still sorting out issues relating to the legal entity that must contract with Government.

• Some farms are no longer leasable since they are occupied by communities.

• There are instances of illegal invasion, which impacts on orderly allocation processes.

• Disputes among beneficiaries.

• There have been changes in the leasing policy in the past three years, which impacted on the conclusion of leases.

(3)(a) R375 819.00 (April – November 2019).

3(b)

• Agricultural Land Holding Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 407 449 8283

• Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Account: ABSA Bank Account No.: 405 400 6793

Reply:

(1). Please find attached original list of 240 claimant beneficiaries.

(2). (a) Of the 240 claimant beneficiaries on the original verified list, 91 are deceased. There is a need to regularly update the verification list by the CPA to replace household representatives of those that passed away.

(b) Hantam Municipality donated the land (Commonages A, B and C) for restitution purposes. Commonage A was transferred to the CPA on 30 March 2017 However, this property is currently being used by the emerging farmers under a formal lease agreement with Hantam Municipality. The municipality is yet to issue the tenants with termination letters so that the CPA can fully occupy the land. The CPA can only occupy the land once the current tenants have been relocated elsewhere.

(3). There was a need for regularisation of the CPA and a new Executive Committee was elected on 05 November 2019. In addition, a panellist has been appointed to assist the CPA on disputes regarding access to the land.

Reply:

RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT:

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

1. A detailed response to Question 510 will be submitted by 31 January 2020.

Reply:

Yes, provided that the sale terms are concluded. Approval was granted during the year 2006 for the sale of various Kat River Citrus farms to the farmers at specific market values. The sales would have been funded through the combination of Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development Grant and own finance. The farmers never secured financing and therefore the transactions were not taken any further.

The Department cannot offer title deeds without the terms of the transaction being honoured by any of the purchasers.

a) The Department is already in communication with the farmers, with a view to finalise the transactions and also deal with issues of farm dwellers who are occupying some of the farms.

b) The transfers will commence upon the farmers satisfying the sale conditions.

Reply:

a) 3 824 land parcels.

b) Please refer to Annexure A.

c) 531 789 ha.

ANNEXURE A OF NA 919 OF 2019

Province and Municipality	Parcels	Area (Ha)
EASTERN CAPE	3186	173,150.41
Amahlathi Local Municipality	295	9,293.72
Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality	442	6,299.79
Elundini Local Municipality	14	462.04
Emalahleni Local Municipality (EC)	21	1,675.21
Engcobo Local Municipality	8	3.53
Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality	59	29,928.44
Intsika Yethu Local Municipality	15	2,409.32
King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality	255	3,683.82
Matatiele Local Municipality	48	23,135.56
Mbhashe Local Municipality	18	323.48
Mbizana Local Municipality	6	664.36
Mhlontlo Local Municipality	33	3,992.99
Mnquma Local Municipality	114	3,059.47
Ngqushwa Local Municipality	1251	47,141.62
Ngquza Hill Local Municipality	19	798.94
Ntabankulu Local Municipality	8	11.24
Nyandeni Local Municipality	10	695.44
Port St Johns Local Municipality	13	18.50
Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality	472	36,591.19
Sakhisizwe Local Municipality	49	1,571.15
Senqu Local Municipality	2	4.63
Umzimvubu Local Municipality	34	1,385.96
FREE STATE	8	1,076.33
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality	7	1,076.18
Matjhabeng Local Municipality	1	0.15
GAUTENG	87	632.10
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality	16	2.08
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality	69	629.72
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality	2	0.30
KWAZULU-NATAL	141	62,942.62
Endumeni Local Municipality	1	29.16
eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality	16	0.80
KwaDukuza Local Municipality	2	0.15
Newcastle Local Municipality	1	0.15
The Msunduzi Local Municipality	4	0.65
Umzimkhulu Local Municipality	117	62,911.71
LIMPOPO	31	59,301.55
Blouberg Local Municipality	12	27,073.88
Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality	2	4,123.53
Greater Giyani Local Municipality	1	2,063.64
Greater Letaba Local Municipality	1	756.18
Greater Tubatse/Fetakgomo Local Municipality	6	13,019.96
Greater Tzaneen Local Municipality	1	2.57
Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality	3	2,225.14
Makhuduthamaga Local Municipality	4	9,971.93
Mogalakwena Local Municipality	1	64.72
MPUMALANGA	49	27,850.99
Bushbuckridge Local Municipality	11	13,121.59
Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality	6	3,146.66
Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality	5	2,171.32
Emalahleni Local Municipality (MP)	1	0.17
Nkomazi Local Municipality	2	506.58
Thembisile Local Municipality	24	8,904.67
NORTH WEST	300	135,840.74
City of Matlosana Local Municipality	1	0.20
Ditsobotla Local Municipality	14	8,194.14
Greater Taung Local Municipality	23	31,916.18
Kagisano-Molopo Local Municipality	1	1,516.87
Local Municipality of Madibeng	26	1,883.61
Mafikeng Local Municipality	27	5,997.22
Moretele Local Municipality	7	3,015.52
Moses Kotane Local Municipality	149	50,643.60
Naledi Local Municipality	3	0.52
Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality	18	23,721.34
Ratlou Local Municipality	2	4,018.63
Rustenburg Local Municipality	22	3,309.60
Tswaing Local Municipality	7	1,623.31
NORTHERN CAPE	22	70,994.38
Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality	1	542.03
Joe Morolong Local Municipality	21	70,452.35
Grand Total	3,824	531,789.11

Reply:

(a) 6.

(b) and (c) Please refer to Annexure A.

ANNEXURE A OF NA QUESTION 992 OF 2019

	Province	Community Name	Status	Date of application	Reason for not registering
1.	Free State	Iketsetse	Not registered	20 October 2018	Constitution was not compliant with requirements and registration documents were incomplete.
2.	Limpopo	Kgashane Mamatlepa	Not registered	11 August 2018	Constitution was not compliant with requirements and registration documents were incomplete.
3.	Mpumalanga	Mmamashianoka - Mdibani	Not registered	4 November 2018	Constitution was not compliant with requirements and registration documents were incomplete.
4	North West	William Bere Moiloa	Not registered	26 January 2019	Constitution was not compliant with requirements and registration documents were incomplete.
5	North West	Majoe Mokuane	Not registered	21 July 2018	Constitution was not compliant with requirements and registration documents were incomplete.
6	North West	Pooyane	Not registered	3 November 2018	Membership list was not submitted and Constitution was not compliant with requirements.

Reply:

(a)(i) Details will be provided by 31 January 2020.

(a)(ii) The target for 2019/2020 financial year is 4109 and achieved to date is 2149

(a)(iii) The target for rural enterprises for 2019/2020 financial year to be supported is 227 and achieved to date is 114

(b) AgriParks are a network of several components. The establishment of AgriParks is a process.

• The Farmer Production Support Unit (FPSU), is the first component. It is a rural small-holder farmer outreach and capacity building unit that is established closer to farmers with primary production. The FPSU does primary collection, some storage, provides some processing for the local market, and extension services including mechanization.
• The Agri-hub(AH), is the second component, depending on the effectiveness of the first component. It is a production, equipment hire, processing, packaging, logistics, innovation and training unit.
• The Rural Urban Market Centre (RUMC), is the third component. It links to rural urban and international markets through contracts. This level has not as yet been reached. Acts as a holding facility, releasing produce to urban markets based on seasonal trends; and provides market intelligence and information feedback, to the AH and FPSU using the latest information and communication technologies.

(c) The Department is in the process focusing on the first component, which is the establishment of the Farmer Production Support Unit (FPSU). There are 27 prioritized FPSU’s.

Reply:

(a) (i) None. Social facilitation has been an internally delivered process.

(ii) Falls away.

(b) Falls away.

(c) Falls away.

Reply:

(1)(a) Land Tenure and Administration[1].

(b)(i) 225

(ii) 30

(iii) 5

(2)(a) The applications in terms of the Land Titles Adjustment Act, 1993 were never tracked as part of land delivery statistics hence that information is not easily accessible at the moment. Diligent attempts have been made to collect data for purposes of this question and it became clear that substantial time is required to construct a database in this regard.

(b),(c) Falls away.

1. This Branch was established in April 2014. ↑

Reply:

The Commission is unbale to verify the reference number referred to. Most of Restitution claims have a reference number that start with KR….

However, if the writer provide the Commission with updated information including the name of the claim and from which Province we will be in a position to respond adequately.

END

Reply:

• The Department has requested the Northern Cape Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to compile a comprehensive response to the question raised by Mr P G Moteka (EFF).
• The comprehensive response will be submitted in January 2020.

                                                                                                       

Reply:

(a) 1612.

(b) It has been observed in previous CPA discussions in the Legislature that the concept of dysfunctional CPAs has been interchangeably used with that of non-complying CPAs. The Department has been tracking non-compliance with the CPA Act and Regulations as opposed to utter dysfunction. The number of non-complying CPAs is 1 370.

(c)(i)

• A large proportion of CPA members are rooted in customary or indigenous ways of land management where decision making is a little bit centralised to some higher authority. The CPA regulatory framework encourages direct participatory democracy and therefore CPA founding documents tend to require direct participation by members. This creates contradictions in approaches by members and sometimes results in the emergence of or undesirable domination by rogue leadership elements.

• CPAs generally exist in areas that were systematically subjected to underdevelopment and poorly resourced education institutions. A substantial part of CPA members is either illiterate or have no more than primary level of education. At a very basic level, this has an impact on the ability of CPA members to understand and apply documented and yet unfamiliar land management rules

• CPAs comprise of diverse groups of people who are tied together by their parents’ or grandparents’ or great grandparent’s historical relationship with the claimed land. They generally tend to share nothing in common except the desire to regain ownership of the land.

• The land use at the time of restoration is generally substantially different from what it was at the time of dispossession. Land claimants therefore tend to receive sophisticated businesses which compel them to become forced business partners who had never consciously conceived of going into business together.

(c)(ii)

• Some CPAs are so under-resourced that they simply don’t have physical space from which to run their affairs and keep their records. This creates access to information challenges for new CPA leaders, depending on how the previous committee has vacated office.

• Well performing CPA businesses do not yield positive outcomes in the livelihoods of CPA members due to the ratio between revenue and large numbers of CPA members. Whilst there may have been visible wealth amongst the owners of the property prior to the CPA taking control, the larger numbers of CPA members shrink any possible redistributable revenue to nothingness. This creates endless instability as members tend to suspect that revenue is misappropriated by the leaders or managers of CPA businesses.

• CPAs are generally established prior to all possible land restitution claimants in community claims being located and verified. Provisions in CPA constitutions are then created for the future inclusion of claimants that were not verified during the settlement of a claim. This is the major source of conflict within CPAs since membership is permanently contested.

• Some CPAs comprise of very large groups like 53 villages that never converge in a single place. This necessitates some form of representative democratic mechanisms for decision making and yet claimants desire to have direct participation.

• Some CPAs comprise of unrelated groups of claimants whose claims were consolidated purely on the basis of proximity, without the informed consent of claimants. A lot of such CPA members do not regard themselves as a single group and therefore do not desire to be in a single entity.

• The CPA as an institution is sometimes not the appropriate entity to run businesses that get conducted on its property hence they get stretched beyond their institutional capacity to manage.

• The creation of separate CPA business ventures and joint ventures also tends to create conflict because of general lack of understanding of institutional relationships that should exist, inability to manage such relationships and lack of clarity regarding the sharing of benefits.
• A lot of CPAs have got factions that work against each other from the date of election to the next election. Executive Committees therefore have got no fair space to commit and correct honest mistakes due to the permanence of factions.

(d)

• There’s collaboration being explored with institutions of higher learning to provide customised training to all willing members of CPAs, in a language they commonly understand.

• The focus of CPA capacity building programmes will become more inclusive to accommodate general membership in order to promote general awareness amongst CPA members that CPAs are indeed community entities where members have to directly hold their leadership accountable instead of passing that responsibility to Government.

• The language spoken by the majority of CPA members will be identified and CPA founding documents will be translated into that language as one of the ways of encouraging effective participation of members in the affairs of their entities.

• In instances where CPAs do not have the necessary infrastructure to keep records, the Department shall, in its District Offices, make available basic CPA documents like constitutions, membership lists, lists of CPA leadership, and financial records (where such financial records are available).

• Strict enforcement of existing legal mechanisms is now being undertaken to promote a culture of accountability within CPAs and discourage rogue CPA executives from operating in a manner that is inconsistent with the aspirations of the CPA membership.

• The Departmental CPA monitoring capacity will be improved in order to better understand the needs of CPAs and provide on time support.

• Internal capacity building needs are continuously being identified in order to improve departmental regulatory capability and discourage unlawful interventions on CPAs by departmental officials.

• The possibility of deconsolidating big CPAs that comprise of various communities who do not regard themselves as a single community, is being explored.

• The Departmental post settlement support mechanisms are being improved and will be made accessible to CPAs. Such mechanisms shall be set in motion as soon as land restoration is chosen by claimants for timeous enterprise planning, setting up of appropriate enterprise management structures, identification of capacity building needs and provision of training.

Reply:

(a) 3 097 117.7820 hectares.

(b) The Communal Property Associations Act, 1996 and Regulations do not require the Communal Property Associations to report this type of information to the Department hence it is currently unknown.

Reply:

The claim is targeted for settlement during the fourth quarter of 2019/2020 financial year, pending acceptance of the Standard Settlement Offer by the Lower Zingcuka community, which will be presented to the Community by end of November 2019.

END

Reply:

a) 8940 is inclusive of pure and phased claims (and this figure is still subject to external audit and verification audit)

b) In order to accelerate the settlement of claims, the Commission on Restitution of Lands Rights participated in the Operation Phakisa of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural Development and as a result the services of external experts were used in the development of a Backlog Reduction Strategy which is still in progress for settlement of all old order land claims (lodged as at 31 December 1998). The Commission at this point is unable to provide specific dates, however the Annual Performance Plan is used as baseline to determine the number of claims to be settled per financial year.

c) 

	Total claims as at 1st October 2019 (subject to verification)
Province
Eastern Cape	805
Free State	8
Gauteng	460
KwaZulu-Natal	3270
Limpopo	1501
Mpumalanga	2036
North West	233
Northern Cape	88
Western Cape	539
TOTAL	8940

d) The completion of the Backlog Reduction Strategy will assist in the cost estimation for the settlement of the old order outstanding claims.

 

Reply:

Answer tabled in Parliament on:

DALRRD’S RESPONSE:

The department is supporting farmers through various support services such as awareness; public education and training through seminars, and farmer information sessions in the provinces. Early warning information is continuously being disseminated to farmers using various media platforms. Farmers are encouraged to use drought resistant cultivars and employ good farming practices to counter the effects of drought. All farmers have access to local offices, provincial offices and COGTA for assistance when they are affected by disasters.

Reply:

During the financial year 2019/20, a number of investigations were conducted into the former Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. It would be appreciated if the Honourable Member was to provide the details of the specific investigation referred to in the parliamentary question, to enable the department to provide an appropriate response.

Reply:

(a) The ARC FMD Vaccine Project business plan outlined the following three key focus areas:

1. Technology development for manufacture of FMD vaccine;
2. Education and training to ensure appropriate skills for the operations of the manufacturing facility;
3. Pilot scale and bioprocess development; and,
4. Design and construction of the FMD vaccine production facility.

Below is a synopsis of the performance of the ARC on the main deliverables of the revised business plan

Since the financial year 2011/12, the following have been achieved:

a) ARC has developed the new GMP compliant suspension culture technology for the manufacture of FMD vaccine – for all virus strains circulating in Southern Africa;

b) At least 10 students were trained at the level of Bachelor of Science Honours degree, with further practical skills development on various aspects of vaccine manufacturing. Subsequently, 7 graduates have been employed by the ARC at the facility;

c) In terms of Process Development – Using suspension culture techniques, the ARC has successfully produced FMD vaccine at 20 litre scale. To date sufficient antigen has been produced to formulate 50 000 doses of vaccine for each of the three virus strains (SAT 1, 2 and 3). Clinical trials to determine immunity and efficacy have been conducted with each of the vaccine strains as well as combinations of the same strains. Assessments of longevity of immune responses continues.

d) On the basis of the outcome/s of the process development, the ARC initiated the design of the manufacturing facility. The design indicated a shortfall in the funds required to construct and complete the manufacturing facility. Consequently, the ARC requested additional funding from the Department/National Treasury in 2012. Unfortunately, there was a delay from National Treasury in responding to the request for additional funding towards completing the project.

e) National Treasury only allocated required funding towards a complete FMD vaccine manufacturing facility in financial year 2019/20 over the MTEF period.

f) Consequently, the ARC has resumed the process towards design and construction of the FMD vaccine manufacturing facility. This process will be in accordance with applicable environmental and municipal regulations. Appropriate procurement processes have now resumed towards ensuring appropriate construction companies could provide the service to ARC.

(b) Fences to achieve disease control purposes is provided for the in the Animal Diseases Act and have been a layer in the FMD control strategy for many years. The location of the current disease control fences, on the international border and around the Kruger National Park complex, are no longer in line with international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Whereas these fences were intended to provide a barrier between infected zones and adjacent communities in the protection zone, the OIE requires a physical barrier between the protection zone and the free zone. DAFF agrees with the technical soundness of this approach and has already started considering how and where such a fence or barrier will best be placed. Many factors must be taken into consideration, as the placement of this fence will determine the new demarcation of the FMD free zone. As far as possible, DAFF intends placing the line on existing barriers, including the boundaries of commercial farms and existing structures such as highways. Where the existing line cuts through communities, the future placement of a fence must be carefully considered as it will have far-reaching effects on rural communities. The line that demarcates the FMD free zone currently only involves the provinces of Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu Natal.

Reply:

(1) With reference to her reply to question 245 on 19 July 2019, what was the (a) number of applications that the Land Bank approved subject to grant funding from her department that never materialised and (b) total monetary value of the approved applications;

(a) What was the number of applications that the Land Bank approved subject to grant funding from her department that?

From inception, 15 applications were assessed by the Funding Forum. Out of 15 applications assessed, 7 applications were approved for grant funding and 8 applications were rejected. These applications were rejected because they did not meet the criteria required.

(b) What was the total monetary value of the approved applications?

The total monetary value of the 7 approved applications was R88 731 743.00 for grant funding support. R13 million was paid so far to the approved applications as at 3 March 2019.

(2) Whether (a) any other support would be provided to the farmers since the blended finance has been suspended and (b) she communicated with all the affected farmers; if not, on what date will she communicate the type of support that would be provided to bridge the gap with all affected farmers?

(a) Whether any other support would be provided to the farmers since the blended finance has been suspended?

Farmers will continuously be supported with the existing funding support such as CASP, AgriBEE, MAFISA, Illema-Letsema and Recapitalization programme. Other support will be through Jobs Fund programme that has just been concluded that will also assisting farmers.

(b) Whether she communicated with all the affected farmers; if not, on what date will she communicate the type of support that would be provided to bridge the gap with all affected farmers?

The Minister will communicate with all the affected farmers on the Jobs Fund Programme before the end of the financial year 2019/20.

Reply:

a) There is no legislation within the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development which hampers the importation of medical cannabis seeds into the Republic. However, there is regulation which governs the importation of plants and plant products into South Africa. The importation of plant and plant products are subject to the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No.36 of 1983). The purpose of the Agricultural Pests Act is to provide for measures by which agricultural pests may be prevented and combated.

In terms of Section 3 of the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No.36 of 1983) (APA), no person shall import into the Republic any plant except on the authority of a permit. Under the said Act “Plant” is defined as any live or dead part of a plant and any derivation of plant. In this regard, any importation of plant including the seeds thereof should meet the phytosanitary import requirements of the Republic under the Agricultural Pests Act.

Cannabis seed for medical, industrial or any other purpose is subject to the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983. It therefore has to be imported under the certain conditions which are informed by a pest risk assessment.

In the past, pre-2001, Cannabis sativa was declared a weed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) (CARA) under Regulation 15 and subsequently there has been an amendment in 2001 which was promulgated in 2001 and Cannabis was removed from the list of declared weeds. The list of CARA under regulation 15 was interlinked with R.846 of 12 April 1985 of the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No.36 of 1983) used to regulate the importation of Cannabis: live plants or seeds only for research purpose. Regulation R.846 of 12 April 1985 provides for importation of plants that are listed under Regulation 15 of CARA list as a declared weed or invader plant. Subsequently, the CARA list was amended in 2001 and Cannabis was removed from the list. The reason for removal of cannabis includes that  Cannabis does not affect agricultural production and does not meet the CARA criteria and further that it is being regulated by other pieces of legislation, namely:

• • Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992: Section 3 (Part III): Department of Justice and Correctional Services,
  • Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965 as amended, Department of Health.

b) There is currently no need for amending the Agricultural Pest Act, 1983, to accommodate the importation of Cannabis seed into South Africa. The only requirement is that import conditions needs to be developed based on a pest risk assessment. The pest risk assessment and the development of import conditions is a consultative process which is currently underway and expected to be concluded before the end of 2019. It should be noted that the importation of Cannabis sativa will still be subjected to the requirements of the legislation of the Department of Justice and Correctional Services and the Department of Health.

Reply:

The Department has appointed legal representatives for the Ndabeni Communal Property Trust, in order to oppose a sequestration application lodged against the Trust.  The Cape High Court decided in favour of the Trust and the sequestration application was defeated.

The Department, in collaboration with the Master of the High Court, Cape Town was instrumental in having two [2] independent trustees appointed to the Trust in order to secure the trust assets and finalize the verification process of all Trust members.

END

Reply:

(a) Please refer to the table below

Year	2009-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	2016-2017
Amount Spent	R 995 379 034	R 1 151 028 123	R 1 081 827 772	R 461 957 000	R 836 612 144	R 308 311 000

b) (i) 1 675 projects were part of the RECAP programme.

    (ii) Please refer to Annexure “A”

c) (i) 375

(ii) Discontinuation of the RECAP programme.

Reply:

(a) There are seventy (70) companies that were contracted to provide mentorship to Land Reform beneficiaries.

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

b) Name of the Company	c) Monetary Value
Imbumba Beef Production (Pty) LTD	R 180 000
SARDI- Mr. Johnson Lwalanda	R 180 000
ATS Consulting Management Services by Frikkie Coetzee	R 180 000
Umnga Farmers Training	R 180 000
Nonezile Trading Enterprise	R 180 000
UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE-ARDRI (Prof. PJ Masike (ARDRI	R 180 000
Agricon Mzansi Farming PTY Ltd	R 180 000
Mgudlwa Farming & Consulting	R 180 000
RULIV	R 180 000
EDEN Agri Services by Shaun Brown	R 180 000
Vusiphango Agency and Consulting cc	R 180 000
Simasonke Agri	R 180 000
Ebeye Consulting Agencies	R 180 000
Riverside Advisory Services	R 180 000
BEST LAND STRATEGIES HOLDINGS (BLS HOLDINGS)	R 180 000
OVK PTY(Ltd)	R 180 000
Grain SA	R 180 000
FSI Consultant	R 180 000
Rhenosterrivier	R 180 000
Agridelight	R 180 000
VKB	R 180 000
Amandla Fresh Fresh Produce Cooperation (Mr. Gert Veljion)	R 180 000
Masisizane Fund	R 180 000
Mlungiseleli Construction 7 cc - Mr. Sandile Luthuli	R 180 000
Tongaat Hullett Sugar (TSB Sugar)	R 180 000
Umoda Development Pty Ltd	R 180 000
Masakhane Trust - Mr. Higgins	R 180 000
Hahisa Consulting	R 180 000
Just Veggies by Dawie Du Plessis	R 180 000
Propa Development and Agric Consultant by Isaac Madiba	R 180 000
Baker Farming Trust	R 180 000
KLK	R 180 000
Resource Africa	R 180 000
Womiwu	R 180 000
Vinny Project Developers by Mr. Vincent Makamu	R 180 000
Agriesy Trading	R 180 000
NKANDANI TRADING	R 180 000
Maphala Technologies and Management	R 180 000
Zwelakhe Investment Group (PTY)	R 180 000
MASDT	R 180 000
TechnoServe	R 180 000
SAL Nkosi Company	R 180 000
Encimanzi	R 180 000
Pharon 59	R 180 000
Mposa Agricultural Consultant -Mr. Alphons Dube	R 180 000
Beef master	R 180 000
GWK Beperk Limited	R 180 000
Lubern Voere by Mr. Sweigers	R 180 000
Matiti Trading and Projects	R 180 000
YOUR TRADE TRAINING & CONSULTANTS	R 180 000
Momano Agric Services	R 180 000
BAFKENAGRIC ENTERPRISE CC	R 180 000
The Ackerman/Pick n Pay Enterprise Development Foundation	R 180 000
Tropical Eden Trading 151 cc t/a Thanniah consultants	R 180 000
AgricultSURE and Farming Service CC	R 180 000
Agri-Start - Mr. F. J.N. Harman	R 180 000
Pan African Business Dev Institute	R 180 000
Reyalema Agric Consultancy cc	R 180 000
Crooks Brothers Limited	R 180 000
Two-A-Day group	R 180 000
BKB	R 180 000
Renosterrivier	R 180 000
Caryki Consulting	R 180 000
Rony Farming (PTY) Ltd	R 180 000
Land Breeze Trading 641	R 180 000
Karsten Group	R 180 000
Dipalemo	R 180 000
Bloemfontein Abbatoire	R 180 000
Herbal View Nursing	R 180 000
ASNAPP	R 180 000

Reply:

No. The department is currently analysing the farm assessment report for the purpose of recovery of funds.

Reply:

RESPONSE TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1143/NW2303E

The Agricultural Research Council is a statutory body established in terms of the Agricultural Research Act, 1990 (Act no.86 of 1990) (the ARC Act) and is listed as a Schedule 3, Part A Public Entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act no.1 of 1999) (the PFMA).

The response to the Parliamentary Question 1143/NW2303E is postulated as per the 3 tables.

In the event that your office requires any further information, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Table 1: REPLY: (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) supporting documents attached

Province	Number of farms	Size	Activities	Current conditions
Gauteng	3	7826ha	Vegetables research, animal breeding and animal production	Good
Mpumalanga	1	66ha	Cattle farming	Good
Western Cape	9	Between 243,8 and 227,917ha	Research on fruit and vine	Fair
Eastern Cape	3	657,65ha	Cattle farming, agricultural training and SAPS stock theft training	Poor
Mpumalanga	1	66ha	Cattle farming	Good
Free State	2	1039.5ha	Plant breeding, National cultivar evaluation and plant diseases	Good
North West	2	594,92ha	Maize trials and Research	Fair
Limpopo	3	5591haha	Vegetables production, research, commercial farming and grazing	Good

Table 2: REPLY: (1) continues (i), (ii), supporting documents attached

Province	Activities	Outcome from each farm
Gauteng	Vegetables research, animal breeding and animal production	-Animal breeding -Maize seeds production -Training of farmers -Cash revenue on social events
Mpumalanga	Cattle farming	Generating external revenue
Western Cape	Research on fruit and vine	Fair
Eastern Cape	Cattle farming, agricultural training and SAPS stock theft unit	-The farm is in a bad state due to underutilization. -Farming -Training
Mpumalanga	Cattle farming	Generating external revenue
Free State	Wheat commercial	R800 000
North West	Maize trials and research	-Research -Maize harvest
Limpopo	Vegetables production, research, commercial farming and grazing	Good

Table 3: REPLY: (2) (a), (b), supporting documents attached

Province	Person or individuals that lease the farm	Amount paid for farm leased
Gauteng	United Seeds Naka breeders	R220 000 p/a
Mpumalanga	AA HUNN	R4716 p/m
Western Cape	None	N/A
Eastern Cape	-SAPS -Chumani Water Solutions -Asante Management Services	-SAPS R21059 -Chumani R12160 -Asante R26827
Mpumalanga	Cattle farming	R4716 p/m
Free State	None	N/A
North West	Agricol	R5617 p/m
Limpopo	Oppierandjie	R35727 p/m

Reply:

a) The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) has undertaken the following with regard to the implementation of the Spatial Data Infrastructure Act (Act 54 of 2003):

(i) The Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) Act was assented on 28 January 2004 as Act 54 of 2003 (Gazette No. 25973 published 4 April 2004).

(ii) The operationalization of the SDI Act was done in phases. This was to ensure that systems and processes are in place to avoid legal liabilities.

(iii) SDI Act sections 1-11, 13, 19-22 commenced 28 April 2006 (Gazette No. 28788 published 28 April 2006). Remainder of sections 12, 14 to 18 of the SDI Act came into operation on the 23rd of April 2015 (Gazette No. 38822 published 29 May 2015).

(iv) Regulations for section 5 were published to allow the Minister to call for nomination of the Committee for Spatial Information (CSI) (Gazette No. 29134 published 25 August 2006). The first CSI was appointed in June 2010.

(v) The second CSI was appointed in May 2016. Its term was extended until end of May 2020. The Department will soon release a call for nomination for the third CSI.

(vi) The Department published the Base Data Set Custodianship Policy and the Policy on the pricing of spatial information products and services as national policies for SASDI in 2015 (Gazette No. 38474 published 16 February 2015).

(vii) The SDI Regulations and the National Land Cover Standard documents were published in 2017 (Gazette No. 41203 published 27 October 2017 and Gazette No. 40919 published 15 June 2017 respectively).

(viii) With the assistance of the CSI, the Department has rolled out the implementation of the prioritized ten base data set themes. The themes include inter alia; the Administrative boundaries, Imagery, Geodesy, Land Cover, Land Use, Hydrology, Transport, Conservation, Social statistics and Cadastre, (please refer to Annexure A for more details). To date, the CSI has appointed 10 base data set coordinators who continuously contribute to the delivery of base data sets for the themes allocated for.

(ix) The CSI is currently reviewing the list of the themes to align with the fourteen Global Fundamental Geospatial Data Theme of the United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) as adopted in 2018.

b) The Directorate: National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF) which is responsible for providing administrative support has a budget allocation of R5, 023, 000 for compensation of employees and other related support for the implementation of the Act.

c) Currently the Department has not quantified the savings with regard to the monitoring of spatial information contracts across the different departments and spheres of government. The compliance with Regulation 5 of the Act is still very minimal. Organs of state still continue to embark on exercises to capture spatial data and/or information without receiving the necessary permission from the CSI as required in terms of Regulation 5. As a result, the Department together with the CSI is engaging National Treasury to develop a cost-saving model that will be achieved by implementation of Regulation 5.