Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1) Although agriculture was declared as essential service, smallholder production activities were negatively affected in the sector as they struggled to access their fields during initial lockdown period. There were post-harvest losses because of agro-logistics challenges experienced by farmers. Many smallholder farmers experienced loss of income and were also unable to prepare for the next planting season. There were reduced availability and access to extension services particularly during levels 5 and 4 of lockdown. There were other challenges such as:

• Closure of input dealerships and temporary hike in input prices in the first two months of lockdown as well as challenges in travelling to purchase inputs due to movement restrictions during lockdown levels 4 and 5. This included the massive congestion at the Durban port as Cape Town was considered the epicenter of the pandemic from around April to end May/early June 2020
• Lack of transport/slow processing of permits impeded the ability of workers to get to work in the first months of the outbreak of the pandemic and the general misinterpretation of disaster management regulations by law enforcement agencies
• During levels 5 to 3 of lockdown, almost all types of informal markets where smallholder farmers supply their farm produce were closed, including those that trade in cooked / prepared food. Informal food traders were not allowed to operate during the hard lockdown without permit and distribution plans for the perishable foods already harvested); & even when they were eventually allowed to operate, the customer base was significantly reduced.

(2) Yes. The Department provided disaster-specific relief to farmers. The Minister of Agriculture of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development secured funding of R1.2 Billion to assist smallholder farmers during April and May 2020. The fund was able to assist about 14 400 distressed smallholder farmers due to COVID-19 pandemic. A further R1 billion was allocated to the Department from the Presidential Employment Stimulus Initiative (PESI) to assist about 74 626 subsistence farmers who were not considered for the R1.2 Billion COVID-19 Relief. The Department is still implementing the R1 billion PESI intervention through e-vouchers.

Reply:

(1) (a) South Africa fluctuates between being a net exporter or importer of beef. Drought and FMD outbreaks are the major factors that contributes to the direction of beef import or export. The country currently produces 1 081 900 tons and consumes about 1 065, 000 tons of beef per year. It is currently a net exporter of beef, with only 3 000 tons imported in 2019/2020. The country exported 37 000 tons in the same period. South Africa consumes just over 97% of the beef that is produced locally and only about 3% from the imports.

1 (b) From which countries is the beef imported;

In the past 12 months live animals were imported mainly from Botswana & Namibia for feedlots. In that period 383,400 live animals were imported from these countries. Beef cuts that were either frozen or fresh were imported from the following countries:

• Botswana

• Lesotho

• Namibia

• Swaziland

• Australia

• New Zealand

• France

• Germany

• Republic of Ireland

• Spain

• Switzerland

• the United Kingdom

• the USA

• Argentina

• Brazil and

• Uruguay.

2. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) is implementing Beef Recording and Improvement Schemes including the transformative Kaonofatso Ya Dikgomo scheme, that tracks performance of the individual beef animals farmed in South Africa under stud and commercial farming. The scheme also focuses on getting a beef farmer to be on a continuous improvement path through training and linkages with good markets. DALRRD also strategically included beef farming support on all funding scheme i.e. CASP; Ilema/Letsema; Blended funding and the Jobs Fund. DALRRD is in the advance stage of implementing the Livestock Identification and Traceability system which will help with health control and market access and thus improved productivity and profitability of the sector.

Reply:

1. No. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is not a shareholder in the business of Solms Delta.

a) The Department did not put the Solms-Delta farm under business rescue. The shareholders are the ones who resolved to put it under business rescue on 27 July 2017. Ms Timme (first BRP appointed) was subsequently replaced by Tayfin Forensic and Investigative Auditors on 01 November 2018), when the former applied to the high court to place the business under liquidation. In response to Ms Timme’s action, the beneficiaries themselves approached the Department for assistance and intervention. This led to an out of court settlement between, the interested parties, which resulted in the appointment of Tayfin Forensic and Investigative Auditors on 01 November 2018

b) The business rescue practitioners were Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC), represented by Ms Alison Mary Timme and Tayfin Forensic and Investigative Auditors, represented by Mr Mahier Tayob. The former resigned following the out of court settlement.

c) The amount of R1 120 293.00 was paid to the business rescue practitioners since the farm was placed under business rescue.

2. Yes. If the Business Rescue Practitioner agrees.

(3)(a) The current position of the farm is that the business is operating, even though not at full capacity partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

b) The financial situation has not changed much and that is why there is a meeting of stakeholders scheduled for 18 May 2021 to try to resolve the challenges.

Reply:

(1)(a) Following the application to the Northern Cape High Court, in terms of case number 961/2019, by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), and the order granted by the same court on 28 February 2020; Honey Attorneys were appointed as Judicial Administrator of the Richtersveld Communal Property Association (CPA). Mr Don Madjiet is a representative of Honey Attorneys and responsible for the day-to-day running of the CPA as per the Court Order.

(b) The terms of reference of the Judicial Administrator are as per the Court order of 28 February 2020 of case number 961/2019. The Administrator is required to exercise powers of the executive committee of the Richtersveld CPA and perform all functions assigned to him in terms of the said court order. The Judicial Administrator has developed a comprehensive workplan which has been approved. The details are specified in the court order. Please refer to Annexure A.

(c) The Judicial Administrator is appointed for a period of three (3) years from the date of the court order i.e. 28 February 2020 until 28 February 2023.

(d) The costs are determined as per the rates of the Land Rights Management Facility (LRMF). The rate of compensation depends on the experience of the appointed Administrator and the hours he spends doing activities relating to the work of the CPA. The minimum is R475.00 to a maximum of R750.00 per hour, and the minimum per day is R3 800.00 to a maximum of R6 000.00.

(2)(a) In 1998 the Richtersveld community lodged a claim against the Government for dispossession of land under the Restitution of Land Rights Acts 22 of 1994. Following protracted court proceedings, the Constitutional Court awarded the land and mineral rights to the community of the Richtersveld. The Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and the then Department of Land Affairs represented the Government in the settlement negotiations. The Deed of Settlement (DoS) was signed on 22 April 2007. In order to protect the interests of the community, the DoS sought to create a very comprehensive structure of Trusts and Companies to house the interests of the Community. The DoS signed by the parties in 2007 directed that at least two (2) Trusts: Richtersveld Community Trust and Richtersveld Investment Trust) and eight (8) companies must be established to manage and operate the various business dealings of the Richtersveld Community Claim and one (1) Communal Property Association as a land-holding entity. DALRRD is responsible for the CPA as determined through Communal Property Association Act, 28 of 1996. The Department of Justice, as the custodian of the Trusts in terms of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988, is responsible for the administration and management of Trusts.

(b) DALRRD does not have any figures relating to the total amount of funding that is currently in the Trust account. It should be noted that Trusts are independent legal entities. Trustees had to report to the CPA on its operation but such could not be obtained from the previous CPA committee. The administrators function is to facilitate that such reports are consolidated and made available when meetings are convened and reports tabled to the members of the CPA.

(c) The term of office of the trustees has expired and DALRRD will assist the community with the elections of all structures within Richtersveld, as instructed by the Administration court order of 28 February 2020.

(d) DALRRD does not have that information and will only be known once trustees have reported to CPA members and submitted a report to the Administrator.

(e) Unknown at this stage.

Reply:

a) The major production areas for cotton in South Africa are Kwa-Zulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape and North-West Provinces. The 2020/21 cotton crop is just over 80 000 lint bales for April 2021, which is considerably lower compared to the 2019/20 of 134 230 lint bales. This is largely because some cotton farmers have switched to food crops because of relatively good prices and the lateness of the marketing of the previous season’s crop that contributed to a contraction in planted area. In certain production regions, excessive wet and adverse conditions during planting season led to scaling down of number of hectares for cotton. Therefore, the 2020/21 cotton plantings are considerably lower compared to the previous season, which led to lower cotton crop volumes. The table below is an illustration of the status of cotton in the country.

 

Production	2021/21 estimate	2019/20 estimate
Hectares irrigated	5 836	11 543
Hectares dryland	11 122	16 132
Total ha	16 958	27 675
Yield: seed cotton kg per ha
Yield irrigated	4 542	4 393
Yield dryland	1 577	1 206
Total production of 200kg lint bales	80 235	134 230

b) South Africa is known for producing good quality cotton despite many challenges it is facing. It is true that the increase in volumes of imported cotton threatens the viability and sustainability of the cotton industry in South Africa. Government and stakeholders in the cotton sector established the Sustainable Cotton Cluster (SCC) in June 2014 led by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. The SCC connects the entire cotton value chain under one umbrella: farmers, gins, yarn manufacturers, weavers and knitters, dyers, finishing plants and retailers. In the six years it’s been in operation, cotton production and processing has increased 800% and almost 50,000 jobs have been created or maintained in the cotton sector.

The outbreak of Covid 19 had a negative impact on this good initiative. During the lockdown harvesting and processing continued, but exports were suspended, striking a severe blow to the sector. Since then, export restrictions have been lifted, but global demand for cotton is decreasing and so are global prices. With around 80% of locally produced cotton being exported, this has significant implications for the sector. At the same time, severe financial strain on retailers is adding pressure. One of the main purposes of the SCC is to increase consumption of cotton by local retailers, aiming to increase local procurement from the pre-Covid average of 45% to 63% by 2030. Government is positive that by addressing the challenges, growth could be restored in 2021/22 and beyond.

Reply:

a) Independent Trustees were appointed by the Master of the High Court Cape Town in 2018 and letters of authority were issued for these Trustees to finalise the verification of members of the Ndabeni Community Trust in collaboration with the Office of the Regional Land Claims Commission: Western Cape. The Trustees are assisted by a committee of six representatives appointed from the community and regular meetings are held by the parties to resolve all the outstanding issues.

b) We are unable to confirm the date envisaged for the claimants to have full use and benefit of the land as yet because negotiations with the City of Cape Town, the Commission, the Department and representatives of the unlawful occupiers are still on going.

END

Reply:

1. No.

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

2. No.

(a),(b) Falls away.

Reply:

Yes.

a) As of the 21 May 2021, the Deeds Registry: Pietermaritzburg has 7727 deeds awaiting transfer. Date of deeds examined: on Junior Examination: 4th and 5th May 2021 and on Senior Examination: 23rd and 24th April 2021.

b) The following measure are in place:

• Overtime was approved for Examination, Data and Scanning which is currently being done;
• Measures have been put in place to allow conveyancers to request expediting of all deeds that have been on the system for two weeks or longer where rates certificates will be expiring soon; and
• There are ongoing discussions with unions to try and address the rotational issues. 25% of examiners work on rotational basis.

Reply:

1. Yes. Section 42D was settled on the 12th of December 1999.

2. Yes. The CPA was regularized on the 30th of November 2019 and the following members of the Executive Committee of the Communal Property Association were elected:

1. Chairperson- Gobusamang Shole
2. Deputy Chairperson-Mothusiemang Moromane
3. Secretary- Sello Tatai
4. Deputy Secretary – Ntesang Makgeledisa
5. Treasurer – Salome Motsumi
6. Additional Members

• Desmond Manyapelo
• Asuf Mosenogi
• Gaopalelwe Tsatsimpe
• Mathews Mongale
• Oupakie Legwase
• Baby Makgeledise

3. Development grants to the value of R5 506 050.00 was approved; an amount of R57,336.00 was spent for the appointment of a Service Provider for capacity building for Putfontein CPA in 2005. The outstanding balance is R5 448 714,00.

END

Reply:

a) A date cannot be determined because this claim is settled in phases with a total extent of the land claimed and accepted being 87175.8062. To date the office has settled 42824.4330 and transferred 40255.1375 to the Restitution beneficiaries registered at Borolong boo Maiketso CPA.

The Commission is still continuing to engage with the various stakeholders towards the finalisation of the claim. It is important to note that the outstanding hectares under claim are owned by multiple landowners and the office is settling outstanding portions based on progressive discussions with the various landowners.

b) Since the land restitution administrative process is dependent on those land owners who are willing to sell their properties for the settlement of the claim, and are not contesting the validity of the claim the process is delayed by those farmers who are contesting validity on the outstanding hectares due for settlement. Some of the parcels will be referred to the Land Claims Court in terms of section 14 of the Restitution Act for determination.

END

Reply:

Yes. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) has the Commercialisation Strategy and the newly reviewed Blended Funding Scheme to support farmers.

(a)(i) These are a combination of grants and loan funding to support production.

(ii) The budget for commercialising small-scale farmers is a joint partnership between the Jobs Fund and the DALRRD wherein each partner contributed R300 million each totalling to R600 million. The Blended Funding Scheme is being implemented in partnership with Fund Managers including the IDC. DALRRD will make an annual contribution of R200 million towards the implementation of the BFS, which will be determined from time to time based on uptake and as per National Treasury approval.

(b) Over and above these interventions, DALRRD continues to provide effective agricultural support services to farmers through the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and Ilima/Letsema conditional grants. The support provided is intended to promote and facilitate agricultural development to all producers throughout the value chain for domestic use and export purposes. In support of agricultural production for the 2021/22 financial year a total amount of R1.4billion has been allocated for CASP and R597million allocated for Ilima/Letsema. DALRRD supports farmers with Extension Support Services inclusive of new technologies and one of the key extension approach towards market access is the Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment Programme (SHEP). Through this approach, farmers are encouraged to change their mindset from “grow and sell” for their products to “grow to sell” which boosts income levels of farmers. The Minister for Agriculture, Land Reform and all the nine Members of the Executive Committee (MECs) held a series of joint SHEP webinars from the 12th April starting with Mpumalanga and the last was held with Free State on the 6th of May 2021. DALRRD is also finalizing the draft policy on comprehensive producer development support which will be the overall national policy framework for the agriculture sector in South Africa and shall guide interventions (support) provided to the various categories of producers.

Reply:

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

(2)(a),(b),(c)(i),(ii) Yes. Please refer to Annexure A.

Reply:

Yes.

a) One.

b) Pursuant to a claim by three communities in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994, a consent order was granted by the Land Claims Court that the state acquire 10 properties in the Mthonjaneni area pending the resolution of a dispute regarding the properties between the Mthonjaneni Community and the Toggkry Community. The properties were duly acquired by the department and are managed in terms of the State Land Lease and Disposal Policy. The South African Farmers Development Association (SAFDA) was appointed as caretaker of the properties, with the view to later appoint it as lessee pending the resolution of the above-mentioned dispute. The caretakership agreement with SAFDA was an interim measure to safeguard the properties and to ensure that farming operations continued on the properties. The Mthonjaneni Community Trust subsequently brought an application against the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development & 2 others (Case No LCC201/2013) seeking the following orders:

• That the Minister and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (the Commission) (the second respondent) immediately cease to harvest all crops on the relevant properties;
• That a joint committee between the Mthonjaneni Community Trust and the department be established to determine various service providers to undertake the harvest of the timber;
• That the Minister and the Commission ensure that an interest-bearing account is ringfenced for all funds generated by the lease or the farming operations; and
• In the alternative, that the Minister and the Commission are directed to ensure that all funds that are generated from the farming operations as at date of transfer must be held in an interest-bearing account.

The department successfully defended the application in the Land Claims Court and the judge dismissed the application of the Mthonjaneni Community Trust with each party to pay their own costs. The transfer of the properties from the state to the beneficiaries is currently in progress and a further consent order with time frames are being negotiated with Cox and Partners Attorneys.

Reply:

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) implemented the commando system which includes training and appointing locust contractors to control the locust outbreak. DALRRD provides these contractors with pesticides, protective clothing and spraying pumps for effective control of the locust outbreak before they reach the crop lands. In addition, DALRRD further appoints the aerial locust spraying contractors to assist within areas where the outbreak is out of control and un-accessible.

Reply:

Yes. According to the provisions of the State land Lease and Disposal Policy as well as the Lease Contract, a lessee is eligible for a renewal of the lease agreement on state-owned land.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

1. Thirty-one (31) “state” farms, which are located in Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West are currently leased to mining companies.

1. The context to the second part of the question is that:

• • The existing mining leases are generally a combination of old order mining rights that were known as Mineral Leases or Notarial Lease of Mineral Rights, and surface leases that have since April 1994 been concluded in terms of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961, read together with the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996.

• • The Mineral Leases or Notarial Lease of Mineral Rights were concluded in circumstances where there was no statutory requirement for consultation of people who utilise the land in the event of such land being earmarked for mining. The details of the people who were utilising the land or were entitled to utilise the land were therefore never collected at the time of the conclusion of the leases.

• • On the post April 1994 surface leases, neither the State Land Disposal Act nor the Interim Protection of Informal Rights Act require that the names and locations of the people who reside on the farms that are leased to mining companies should be collected. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act requires the decision to make land available for mining or any other form of land development to be taken by the majority of the holders of rights who are present or represented in a meeting that has been convened to take a resolution on that matter. This requirement implies that the list of people who attended a land rights holders resolution meeting must at least be recorded. This is consequently the only list that generally gets recorded at the time the land rights holders resolve to make the land available for mining or any other land development purpose.

• • The leased land also tends to be a common asset of large numbers of people that are spread over many villages. The necessity for recording personal information of all the people who occupy some components of leased land has just never been considered hence such information has never been collected.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

 

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

1. (a) There are 09 Strategic Partnership that the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) is aware of, however we are unable to provide a comprehensive number as some partnership are facilitated directly by the claimants themselves without the involvement of the Commission.

(b)

CLAIMANTS/ BENEFICIARIES	STRATEGIC PARTNER
Riemvasmaak Claim – BONO	Bono Trust
Steinroof-hom – Establishment of the Schamboua CPA	Steinroof-Hom Partners
Khutso Naketsi Agri	NHP Pretorius
Nietverdiendt Game Farming Project involving four Bahurutshe Communities	Mike Engelzakis
Ebenhaeser Land Claim	VINPRO; STELLAR CELLARS; LUTZVILLE CELLARS; TYGER BRANDS; S.A.D (PEPSICO)
Emakhasaneni Community Trust	South African Farmers Development Association (SAFDA) and Manzini Estate
Ntembeni Community Trust	South African Farmers Development Association (SAFDA)
Ntembeni Royal House Community Trust	South African Farmers Development Association (SAFDA)
Isizwe sakwaDludla Community Trust	South African Farmers Development Association (SAFDA)

(2) There has not been a unit within the department that does assessment of strategic partners. However, in developing a fit-for-purpose structure a unit dealing with post-settlement support will undertake this task.

END

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

The community referred to herein is Ncanywa Grain Crop Cooperative based in the Matatiele Local Municipality. The reasons for non-delivery of seeds and fertiliser to the smallholder farmers are that Ncanywa Grain Crop Cooperative did not apply for support in the 2020/21 cropping season. A different project by the name of Qhobosheaneng Maize Project applied and was approved for the 2020/21 cropping season for 15 ha of inputs under food security.

Qhobosheaneng Maize Project entered into an agreement to exchange the inputs with Ncanywa Grain Crop Cooperative without informing the Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (EC DRDAR). It became a challenge to implement this exchange, because the EC DRDAR was already in the phase of distributing inputs to beneficiaries that were approved initially. Ncanywa Grain Crop Cooperative did not form part of the EC DRDAR approved plans for inputs support as they had not applied for the 2020/21 cropping season.

The Department had an agreement with Qobosheaneng and the inputs were given to Qhobosheaneng Maize Project that formed part of the initial departmental plan. Ncanywa Grain Crop Agricultural Cooperative has applied for support in August 2020 which is the application process for the 2021/22 cropping season. The application will undergo all the relevant processes for approval.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

1. (a) R 9 640 943

1. Please refer to the table below:

Eastern Cape	Free State	Gauteng	KwaZulu Natal	Limpopo	Mpumalanga	North West	Northern Cape	Western Cape	Total
187	249	180	120	139	260	143	268	59	1 605

1. The Proactive land Acquisition Strategy bank account.

1. (a) Yes, the Agricultural Land Holding Account is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.

1. No, in terms of clause 16, of the State Land Lease and Disposal policy. maintenance is a lessee responsibility

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

Barolong Boo Maiketso lodged a land claim on the 11th December 1998, on 7 (seven) farms with a total of 87175.8062 hectares. To date the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has settled a total of 45984.3105 hectares (which is inclusive of 2569.2962 hectares settled with financial compensation in lieu as of the land which was not restorable) to Barolong Boo Maiketso.
 
The acquisition of additional land towards settlement of this land claim is dependent on some of the landowners who are not disputing validity of the claim for acquisition of those specific farms.

Secondly, there are landowners who are disputing the validity of the land claim.
 
Therefore, the Land claim is being referred to the Land Claims Court for adjudication, and as such the Commission is unable to determine when the entire claim will be settled as this is dependent on the court processes.
 

 

END

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

No. Whilst the change of land-use has in some instances resulted in the relocation of communal residents to alternative areas, such occurrences have not been largely attributed to the unilateral actions of traditional leaders and also have not been at such a scale as to warrant a study.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

(a)(i) The timelines for the establishment of the specified entity is within the next financial year, 2021/2022.

1. The entity will focus on assisting the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) in planning, financing and implementation of the projects such as land acquisition and allocation. The agency will also focus on the agricultural development and partnering with relevant public and private institutions.

 

1. This will be a co-ordinating agency for land and agricultural development and will therefore work with the department and all entities reporting to the department and all stakeholders playing a role in the sector.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION 663

 

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [No 6-2021 SIXTH PARLIAMENT]
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 05 MARCH 2021

663. Mr A N Sarupen (DA) to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development:

Whether (a) her department and/or (b) any entity reporting to her makes use of private security firms; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, what is the (i) name of each firm, (ii) purpose, (iii) value and (iv) duration of each specified contract? NW781E

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD)

(a)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv) Yes. Please refer to the table below.

(i) Name of Security Service Provider	(ii) Purpose	(iii) Value	(iv) Duration
Long term Security Contracts (2 – 3 Years)
Pristo Trading Response	To safeguard and protect departmental assets, information and staff against any risk exposure to theft and damages on a 24/7 basis. The main and focal purpose and objective is to deny access to unauthorized personnel (including attackers or accidental intruders) from physically accessing a building, departmental facilities and safe keeping of resources	R 55 110 734.98	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Prosecure Security		R 19 072 012.00	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bulcof Security		R 13 357 567.40	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Siyejabula Security		R 37 713 478.12	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bamogale Security (EC)		R 22 870 556.00	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bamogale Security (WC)		R 25 286 303.50	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bamogale Security (MP)		R 37 488 528.00	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bamogale Security (FS)		R 39 870 757.60	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Bamogale Security (NW)		R 20 978 346.00	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Whisper Security		R 1 767 903.84	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Lekagang Security		R 2 229 050.88	01/12/2019 – 30/11/2022
Octaves Security		R 3 966 583.80	07/04/2019 – 07/04/2022
Octaves Security		R 3 403 618.68	04/04/2019 – 04/04/2022
Octaves Security		R 2 914 008.72	04/04/2019 – 04/04/2022
No Name Security		R 3 404 073.48	03/04/2019 – 03/04/2022
Tsangoane Security		R 1 286 650.56	01/03/2020 – 28/02/2022
Raite Security		R 3 164 902.68	07/04/2019 – 07/04/2022
Modise Security		R 3 075 625.76	09/04/2019 – 09/04/2022
Short term security contracts (3 x months)
Vhunene Security		R 277 951.11	15/12/2020 – 15/03/2021
Reliance Security		R 399 811.89	15/12/2020 – 15/03/2021
Pristo Trading Response		R 275 746.64	10/01/2021 – 10/04/2021
Makjus Security		R 254 092.50	15/01/2021 – 15/04/2021
Black Excellence Forensic and Security		R 222 250.00	15/01/2021 – 15/04/2021
Black Protectors Security		R 267 375.00	15/01/2021 – 15/04/2021
Raite Security		R 261 091.95	16/01/2021 – 16/04/2021
Siyefana Security		R 209 643.76	24/01/2021 – 24/04/2021
George B Security		R 243 501.59	25/01/2021 – 25/04/2021
Rise Security		R 198 532.50	28/04/2021 – 28/04/2021

(b)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv) Entities reporting to the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Agricultural Research Council (ARC)

Name of each firm	Purpose	Value	Duration
Nceda Cleaning and Security	The purpose of using out-sourced security guarding services is to maintain the integrity and availability of research material and information, protection of assets, control of access in terms of the control of Access to Public Premises Act 53 of 1985 and all other relevant legislation	Nceda Cleaning and Security: R41 779 641,00	The contract supra are for three years (36 months) commencing in /March 2020 and ending in February 2023
Rise Security Services		Rise Security Services: R30 284 011,68
(c) Eldna Security Services		Eldna Security Services: R17 301 311,23

National Agricultural Marketing Council NAMC)

No. The National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) is renting office accommodation form the Landlord, namely Columbia Fall Properties 80 (PTY) LTD, who is responsible for the security of the building

Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP)

Yes. Please refer to the information below:

1. Firm: Ezingeni Security and Cleaning (Pty) Ltd
2. Purpose: Physical Security
3. Value: R3506 580,00
4. Duration: 12 Months (ends July 2021)

Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB)

Yes. Please refer to the information below:

1. Firm: Fidelity Security (PTY) LTD
2. Purpose: Provision of security services (guarding) at the ITB offices.
3. Value: R89 996,80 monthly
4. Duration: Month to month (the 3-year bid is at the evaluation stage)

Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB)

(i) Name of each firm	(iii) Value	(iv) Duration	(ii) Purpose
ADT Security (Pty) Limited (Cape Town)	R 837	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
ADT Security (Pty) Limited (Nelspruit)	R 763	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
ADT Security (Pty) Limited (Paarl)	R 743	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
ADT Security (Pty) Limited (Port Elizabeth)	R 608	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
B & S Alarms	R 195	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Blue Security	R 696	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Ceres Alarms	R 832	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
DRS Musina	R 550	Two-Years (Feb 23)	Monitoring & Armed Response
Hexvallei Security	R 389	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Hi-Tech Monitoring CC (Malelani)	R 450	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Hi-Tech Monitoring CC (Robertson)	R 350	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Letaba Alarms	R 579	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
National Security & Fire (Pty) Limited (Cape Town)	R 653	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
National Security & Fire (Pty) Limited (Pretoria)	R 808	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Specialised Agri Protection Services	R 490	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Test Lek Security CC	R 400	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
Valley Security	R 240	Month to Month	Monitoring & Armed Response
	R 9,583

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION 391

 

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

The Ad Hoc Committee to Amend Section 25 of the Constitution, a Committee of Parliament, determined its programme on the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution without involving the Executive, as it is usually the case. The Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is therefore not privy to the reasons for determining the programme in the manner that it is said it has been done by Parliament.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMLY

WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION 335

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [No 02-2021 SIXTH PARLIAMENT]

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19 FEBRUARY 2020

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

(1)(a) Yes.

(1)(b) It should be noted that remunerated work outside of Public Service (RWOPS) are verified against the Central Supplier Database and PERSAL System. These are also audited by Auditor General as part of its regular audit process. The tables below depict the information on RWOPS from 1 April 2014 to date.

1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
63	Management and general support
8	Administration related
71

1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
1	Financial Related
1	Management and general support
2

1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
63	Management and general support
8	Administration related
3	Social Science related
74

1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
3	Management support
2	Financial and related
1	Agricultural and support
6

1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
60	Management and general support
8	Administration related
3	Social Science related
1	Community Development related
72

1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
1	Manage and support
1	Agricultural support
2

1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
53	Management and general support
3	Administration related
1	Economic advisory
3	Cartographic Surveying and Related Technicians
60

1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
4	Administration Related
10	Management support
17	Public Health Related
5	Financial and Related
13	Natural Sciences Related
19	Agricultural and support
2	Economic Advisory Support
1	Info Tech and related
1	Horticulturists Fore Agriculture
1	Comm and Info
2	Artisan Foreman
75

1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
37	Management and general support
3	Administration related
1	Economic advisory
3	Cartographic Surveying and Related Technicians
44

1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
14	Administration Related
6	Management and support
11	Agriculture and support
1	Economic Advisory
7	ORG 17 DEFF
1	Line function support and Admin
3	Financial and Related
3	Public Health Related
10	Natural Sciences Related
56

1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 (former DRDLR)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
3	Health Sciences
8	Management and general support
3	Computer systems
6	Administration related
3	Financial related
2	Natural sciences
3	Finance & Economic
1	Deeds
29

1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 (former DAFF)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
8	Manage and Support
45	Agriculture and Support
1	Horticulturists Fore Agriculture and Support
54

1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021 (DALLRD)

(i) Total	(ii) Work Categories
22	Management and General Support
12	Financial and Related
6	Deeds
14	Agricultural production related
21	Administration related
6	Natural Sciences Related
3	Economic Development related
1	Material - Recording
1	Community Development
1	Social Sciences related
1	Health sciences related
88

(2) Applications were processed with either approval or disapproval outcome. In an instance an employee was suspected to be in contravention of the Directive such case would be investigated and when found guilty, appropriate actions would be taken.

(2)(a) The Department applies the DPSA Directive on Other Remunerative Work Outside Public Service as contemplated in Section 30 of the Public Service Act, 1994.

(2)(b) Approval is obtained from the Director-General for salary levels 1 – 12 and Minister for salary levels 13 – 16.

(2)(c) There were 5 (2 former DAFF and 3 former DRDLR) instances of contravention of the legislation. However, these were not reported to the National Treasury as this is not a requirement.

(2)(d) Appropriate and corrective actions were taken against the employees that were found to have contravened the law.

Reply:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION 403

 

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

 

1. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) is aware of the possible inadvertent impact that the 16,1% wage increase will have on the agricultural sector given the dire economic predicament the country is experiencing. Correspondingly, the Department is also mindful of the escalating living expenses which is the major driver necessitating annual adjustments in the minimum wage, considering low wage levels of ordinary South African workers, including farmworkers. However, Government cannot turn a blind eye to the dire effect the current economic situation has had on businesses. To this effect, Chapter four of the National Minimum Wage Act has made provision for a state where an employer or an employers’ organisation registered in terms of section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, or any other law, acting on behalf of a member, may, in the prescribed form and manner, apply for an exemption from paying the national minimum wage.

1. (a) No - The process of consultations was made by the Department of Labour and Employment.

1. No.

1. No.
2. No.

(3) No. However, the Minister will be consulting the relevant and affected structures in the endeavour to devise on intervention(s) to mitigate job losses within the agricultural sector.

Reply:

a) About 642 670 hectares of land in Mpumalanga are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

a) About 1 941 974 hectares of land in North West are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

 

a) About 20 182 hectares of land in Gauteng are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

a) About 943 578 hectares of land in Northern Cape are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

a) About 140 277 hectares of land in the Free State are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

Reply:

a) About 3 501 621 hectares of land in the Eastern Cape are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations. The Eastern Cape proclamations however have not been recently mapped since the Provincial Government, with the assistance of the national Department of Traditional Affairs, is still verifying the accuracy and completeness of the proclamations in their possession. Once this process is completed, all the boundaries of traditional communities will be mapped in order to confirm existing information particularly with respect to the boundaries.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

a) About 2 912 679 hectares of land in Limpopo are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities, whose boundaries are defined in various proclamations.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities concerned are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

a) About 2 883 720 hectares of land in KwaZulu-Natal are held by the Ingonyama, as trustee of Ingonyama Trust, on behalf of the communities that are listed in the schedule to the KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Act, 1994. An additional amount of about 559 559 hectares are held by Government on behalf of traditional communities in the same province.

b) The names and locations of each of the traditional communities, on whose behalf the land is held, are provided in the attached schedule.

c) None

Reply:

 

a) None. People that reside on Ingonyama Trust land do not do so purely on the basis of a Permission to Occupy, but rather on the basis of customary tenure. There are instances where some may have had Permission to Occupy documents issued to them in the past, but the conclusion of a lease has never necessitated that the lessee surrenders the Permission to Occupy or forsake their customary tenure rights. It has therefore never been significant for the Ingonyama Trust Board to record the fact that a lessee may have had a Permission to Occupy document since it plays no significant role in the determination whether a resident on Ingonyama Trust land should be granted a lease or not.

b) The conclusion of a lease agreement by a resident on Ingonyama Trust land has no impact on the customary tenure right of such a resident.

Reply:

a) There was an elaborate process that culminated in a narrow criterion, determining whether the property was vacant or underutilised (partially vacant). The process involved a desktop spatial analysis; physical verification; desktop agricultural potential analysis; verification of land restitution claims; and final verification utilising local departmental knowledge. Each one of these steps contain detailed activities that can be outlined should that be considered necessary. The focus, for purposes of this question, will be restricted to the desktop spatial analysis.

The desktop spatial analysis included the identification and sourcing of data sets; definition of the terms vacant and partially vacant (underutilised); defining the parameters to identify vacant and partially vacant agricultural state land; mapping agricultural state land; and performing a desktop Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis on the data.

Identification and Sourcing of Data

The datasets listed below were identified and obtained from the identified data custodians:

• Cadastral data from Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development;
• Deeds Registration data from Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development;
• Land parcels identified as vacant by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure;
• National Land Cover for the year 2017 from Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development;
• South African Protected Areas Database for the year 2018 from Environment, Forestry and Fisheries;
• Indigenous Forests Inventory from Environment, Forestry and Fisheries;
• Land Capability (Terrain Capability) from Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development; and
• Traditional community boundaries from Traditional Affairs.

Definition of Terms and Parameters for determining Vacant Land

• The term vacant refers to a piece of land that is not occupied or not being used for any specific purpose whilst the term partially vacant refers to a property when only parts of it have been classified as vacant.
• The 2017 Land Cover dataset, which was used, is a national land cover classification generated using multispectral satellite imagery with a multi-temporal analysis technique, produced by National Geospatial Information within Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.
• The table below shows the selected land cover classes from the national land cover data which were utilised to identify agricultural land as vacant or not vacant.

Selected Land Cover Classes, 2017

No	Land Cover Class	Classification
1	Natural wooded	Vacant
2	Shrubland	Vacant
3	Grassland	Vacant
4	Waterbodies	Not vacant (depending on coverage)
5	Wetlands	Not vacant (depending on coverage)
6	Barren land	Vacant
7	Cultivated	Not vacant
8	Built-up	Not vacant
9	Mines and quarry	Not vacant
10	Planted Forest	Not vacant

• Indigenous forest dataset was used to classify properties located in indigenous forest as not vacant.
• The Protected Areas Database was used to classify properties located within these areas as not vacant.
• Although terrain capability is one of three building blocks (soil, climate and terrain) for land capability, only terrain capability was used in this analysis. Terrain capability includes aspects such as slope gradient, slope direction, slope shape, ground roughness, altitude and streams (drainage network). Land with a terrain capability value between “Very Low and Low to Moderate” was subtracted from vacant and partially vacant land.
• Land that is located within traditional community boundaries was regarded as not vacant.
• State land acquired in terms of the Pro-active Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) and by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, was regarded as not available for redistribution.
• Land that is claimed in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act was regarded as not available for redistribution, depending on the phase of the claim and options selected by the claimants.

Criteria Used

• In view of what has been explained above, the ultimate criteria that was determined is that:
  • • • • The land cover class is either grassland, barren land, shrubland or natural wooded;
        • the property is located on suitable terrain capability;
        • the property is less than 10% within an indigenous forest;
        • the property is less than 10% within a protected area;
        • the property is not located in an area which is likely being used for communal grazing;
        • the property is not part of Pro-active Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) land or State land acquired by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights for settlement of claims;
        • the land parcel is not un-registered;
        • the aggregated vacant or partially vacant land available per property is bigger than 50 hectares; and
        • The property is not claimed in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act.

b) The final list was a product of collaboration amongst various business units of the Department in the manner outlined in the table below:

Desktop Spatial Analysis:	Chief Directorate: Property Management and Advisory Services
Desktop Agricultural Potential Analysis:	Directorate: Land Use and Soil Management
Verification of Land Restitution Claims:	Commission on Restitution of Land Rights
Final Verification utilising local departmental knowledge	Provincial Shared Services Centres

c) No personal communication was sent out to farmers, however there were media briefings that were generally accessible to the public.

Reply:

a) The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development supplied 400 000 disposable masks, 200 000 reusable masks and 400 000 bars of soap for farmworkers.

(b)(i) The total number of black farmers who benefitted is unknown as the masks and bars of soap were mainly given to Organised Agricultural formations to distribute to farming operations irrespective of the race of farmers involved.

(ii) The expenditure was as follows: R13 700 000.00 – Masks.

R4 052 000.00 – Bars of soap.

Reply:

1. Yes, the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALLRD) was responsible for identifying the Presidential Employment Stimulus Initiative (PESI) through an application process.

(a) Falls away.

(b) The Criteria used was dealt with in three distinct parts:

A: Compulsory Criteria;

B: Functional Criteria; and

C: Verification Criteria.

(2) Yes. The information on support packages is provided below. The support packages to subsistence producers was determined by the agricultural economists based on the following production sizes:

Commodity	Production size required for support
Vegetable and fruit	1 ha or smaller (smaller than 100 meters x 100 meters or one soccer field);
Maize/soya/cotton/sugar/ grain products/ other	1ha or smaller (smaller than 100 meters x 100 meters or one soccer field)
Poultry	Broilers	100 broilers or less
	Layers	50 layers or less
Livestock	Small Stock Units	25 animals or less
	Large Stock Units	5 animals or less
NOTE: Award sizes will range between R1000 and R9000, and are dependent on the commodity type applied for and verified production scale. The size of the non-financial e-voucher will be determined by the current scale of production after physical verification by the Department of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural development.

** Please note the verification process in underway **

Section C below unpacks the production sizes further.

Reply:

Yes, the visit was undertaken during the week of 23-26 March 2021 and the two districts being Namakwa and ZF Mgcau were visited. The findings of the visit was that indeed farmers who had applied for drought relief received vouchers to purchase fodder. A total of 3900 farmers across all categories have benefitted in all affected districts. The vouchers received by farmers were equivalent to more than 30 bags of fodder per farmer depending on the number of Livestock Units (LSUs) and this was confirmed by some farmers who were visited. The challenge reported by the farmers was that they are experiencing the aggressive infestation of Prosopis trees which consumes a lot of water. The province is working on this issue through the Land Care programme to eradicate the trees. The fodder bank project was also visited and it was indicated that more than 30 bales of 250kg were harvested and made available for the farmers. The fields were already being prepared for next planting of Lucerne which will be in May 2021. It was also observed that the recent summer rainfalls provided some relief in some areas across the province as there was noticeable veld improvement and also dams contained some rain water.

Reply:

a) There is no land held in the name of any traditional leader or traditional community in the Western Cape.

b)  Falls away.

c) Falls away.

Reply:

a) The date for the gazetting of the draft Animal Welfare Bill has not been set yet. However, as responded to Honourable Winkler to the same question under parliamentary question 2995 in 2020; due to a number of technical capacity constraints, complicated by the issues related to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the envisaged introduction of the Bill to Parliament in the 2021/2022 financial year was postponed by a year. Consultation with stakeholders on the Bill will be undertaken during the 2021/2022 financial year.

b) The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment that was submitted to the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation is hereby attached.

c) The Bill is drafted by the Animal Welfare Working Group, which consist of the following officials:

• 1. Dr Mphane Molefe – DALRRD
  2. Ms Morongwa Senyatsi – DALRRD
  3. Dr Emmanuel Midzi – North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
  4. Dr Lea Shuda – Northern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Reform
  5. Dr Christine Meintjes – KwaZulu Natal Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
  6. Dr Themba Malatse – Limpopo Department of Agriculture
  7. Dr Faculty Baloyi – Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
  8. Dr Lungile Jali – Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform
  9. Dr Thelma Mokgophi – Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs
  10. Dr Jurgens Barnard – Free State Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
  11. Dr Michael Swart – Western Cape Department of Agriculture.

It should be noted that the last two names on the list above have only recently joined the working group in 2020 and have not yet participated in the drafting of the Bill.

Reply:

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

(a)(i)

PROVINCE	TOTAL FINALISED
E CAPE	17,663
F STATE	3,278
GAUTENG	11,323
KZN	1,243
LIMPOPO	4,485
MPLANGA	2,999
N CAPE	3,193
N WEST	2,216
W CAPE	17,070
TOTAL	64,422

(ii) 359 cases are in court

(b) Lists attached per Province

(c) Refer to each Provincial list where the year that each case has been in court is captured.

 

END

Reply:

1. (a) Project Kuyasa is in the final stages of consolidating and updating the database on statistics on the work of the Commission including the determination and confirmation of the hectares claim on number of outstanding claims lodged.

(b)

Province	Hectares transferred
Eastern Cape	18 811
Free Sate	60 828
Northern Cape	633 791
Gauteng	6 191
North West	507 475
KwaZulu-Natal	504 391
Limpopo	558 650
Mpumalanga	346 220
Western Cape	10 832
TOTAL