ATC210512: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development on the 2021/22 Annual Performance Plans and Budget and Its Entities, Vote 29, Dated 11 May 2021.

Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development



The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as the Portfolio Committee) examined the 2021/22Vote 29: Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Developmentand budget projections for the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period ending in2023/24 financial year. The process entailed scrutiny of the 2021/22Annual Performance Plans (APPs) and Budgets of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as the Department), and therelevant National Public Entitiesduring briefings held on 04 and 05 May 2021.Therefore, thePortfolio Committee reports as follows:


1.       Introduction


This report accountsfor the process embarked upon by the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Developmentto consider Vote 29: Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Developmentas tabled by the Minister of Finance, and the Five-Year Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as the Department), and relevant public entities as listed in Table 1. TheCommittee process followed the tabling of Strategic Plans, APPs and budget allocations by the Department and its national public entities in Parliament as required in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999). The APPs outline the annual plans in line with Strategic Plans and the allocated budget as per the Estimates of National Expenditure(ENE) tabled by the Minister of Finance. These planning documents were tabled on 23 March 2021;and presented at briefing sessions on 04 and 05 May as shown in Table 1 of this report.


Table 1: Briefing Sessions by the Department and its Public Entities

Department and Public Entities under Vote 29

Date of briefing

Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

04 May 2021

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

04 May 2021

KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Board

04 May 2021

Office of the Valuer-General

05 May 2021

Agricultural Research Council

05 May 2021

Onderstepoort Biological Product

05 May 2021

National Agricultural Marketing Council

05 May 2021

Perishable Products Export Control Board

05 May 2021


During the scrutiny of the Strategic Plans and the APPs, the Portfolio Committeeassessed whether the plans of the Department and Entities were aligned to the State-of-the-Nation Address(SONA) of February 2021, the National Development Plan (NDP) policy priorities and targets, the 2020-2024 Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) and other key government policy priorities.


  1. Overview of the Strategic Focus of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, 2021/22Annual Performance Plan and Budget Allocation


3.1     The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and its Core Functions


The main aim of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is to provide equitable access to land, integrated rural development, sustainable agriculture and food security for all. The Department’s legislative mandate is derived from Sections 24(b)(iii), 25, and 27(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) that deal with environment and natural resources clause; property rights and land reform clause; and health care, food, water and social security clause - a framework for comprehensive rural development.The strategic focus of the Department in the current five-year strategic framework period is to accelerate land reform, catalyse rural development and improve agricultural production to stimulate economic development and food security. The seven Strategic Outcomes for the current MTSF period are aligned to MTSF priorities as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2:Alignment of Department Outcomes and the 2020-2024 MTSF Priorities

Department Outcome (OC)

MTSF Priority (P)

1. Improved governance and service excellence

P1:A capable, ethical and developmental state

2. Spatial transformation and effective landadministration

P5:Spatial integration, human settlements & local government

3.  Redress and equitable access to land and producer support

P2:Economic transformation & job creationand P5

4. Increased production in the agricultural sector

P2 and P3:Education, skills and health

5. Increased market access and maintenance of existing markets

P2 and P7. A better Africa & world

6. Integrated and inclusive rural economy

P2 and P5

7. Enhanced biosecurity and effective disaster risk reduction 



3.2     Overview of the 2021/22 Budget Allocation and the Medium Term ExpenditureFramework Estimates of the Department


The total budget appropriated to the Department for the 2021/22 financial year is R16.9 billion, a slight increase from theR16.8 billion that was initiallyappropriated and later adjusted to R15.2 billion in 2020/21. The Department’s budget will increase at an average nominal growth rate of 4.5 per cent during the medium term expenditure (MTE) period. As the Department constitutes both national and concurrent functions, approximately 52 per cent of the total vote appropriation goes to transfers and subsidies; and some of these have been the source of repeat audit findings associated with poor accountability and monitoring of the utilisation of funds transferred to provinces.


In line with the Department’s key priorities for the medium term, more than half of the Department’s total appropriation will be allocated to Programme 3: Food Security, Land Reform and Restitution, which was initially appropriated just under 50 per cent of the Department’s total budget in the previous financial year. Despite its important and central role in agricultural production, biosecurity andmanagement of agricultural disasters, Programme 2 will be allocated approximately 15 per cent of the Department’s total appropriation while the Administration Programme will receive approximately 16 per cent of the total vote.

Table 3: Medium-Term Expenditure Framework including 2020/21 Adjusted Appropriation










 1. Administration

2 817 077

2 768 284

   2793 918

    2 646 695


63 564

72 912

72 524

66 938

 Department Management

        140 250

151 774

151 467

133 874

 Internal Audit

52 950

59 328

59 540

53 535

 Financial Management 

        248 544

266 488

266 384

234 326

 Corporate Services

        856 002

907 149

908 613

838 014

 Provincial Operations

        439 142

518 744

508 369

489 259

 Office Accommodation

1 016 625

791 889

827 021

830 749

 2. Agricultural Production, Biosecurity & Natural Resources Management

2 537 066


 2 602 969

    2 78 710

    2 596 877

 Inspection and Quarantine Services

       573 355

513 727

503 854

502 417

 Plant Production and Health

       117 551

174 243

217 273

221 675

 Animal Production and Health

       327 624

351 080

382 462

391 402

 Natural Resources and Disaster Management

       268 616

277 935

282 180

285 714



3 352

3 621

4 113

 Agricultural Research Council

     1 249 920

1 282 632

1 189 320

1 191 556

 3. Food Security, Land Reform& Restitution

7 395 166

 8 825 336

   9 202 029

    9 471 525

 Food Security

2 068 071

2 072 062

2 110 589

2 166 454

 Land Redistribution and Tenure Reform

841 680

965 099

956 517

960 312

 Nat.  Ext.Services &Sector Capacity Development

560 402

569 398

568 375

575 495

 Farmer Support and Development

432 442

612 564

626 292

636 190


2 922 339

3 512 866

3 817 737

3 969 080

Agricultural Land Holdings Account

448 040

937 986

965 860

984 942

Ingonyama Trust Board

22 192

23 517

24 391

23 781

Office of the Valuer-General

100 000

131 844

132 268

155 271

 4. Rural Development

770 405

 1 079 286

      920 184

       934 097

 National Rural Youth Service Corps (NARYSEC)

294 641

178 774

174 690

175 522

 Rural Infrastructure Development

453 780

874 347

718 695

731 485

 Technology Research and Development

21 984

26 165

26 799

27 090

 5. Economic Development, Trade & Marketing

670 063

    886 317

      908 026

       963 250

 International Relations and Trade

184 642

216 467

218 336

222 533

 Cooperatives Development

33 019

78 538

87 245

88 700

 Agroprocessing, Marketing & Rural Industrial Dev

391 817

530 473

540 348

588 536

Development Finance

13 163

13 534

13 562

13 710

National Agricultural Marketing Council

47 422

47 305

48 535

49 771

 6. Land Administration

1 057 836

    758 207

      767 801

       775 258

 National Geomatics Management Services

523 622

540 884

539 281

546 216

 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management 

165 562

206 210

216 965

217 548

Deeds Registration

358 034




South African Council of Planners

4 035

4 140

4 263

4 335

South African Geomatics Council

4 333

4 572

4 741

4 655

Integrated Land Administration

2 250

2 400

2 550

2 503


   15 247 613

16 920399

 17 170 668

  17 387 702

Source: DALRRD – Annual Performance Plan 2021 – 2022

3.3     Overview of the 2021/22 Budget Allocations and Programme Performance Plans


3.3.1  Programme 1: Administration


The Administration Programme received 16.4 per cent, which is the second largest allocation of the Department’s total appropriation. The Programme’s budget allocation of approximately R2.8 billion remains unchanged from the 2020/21 financial year’sadjusted appropriation. As illustrated on Table 3, Corporate Support Services account for the largest chunk of the Programme budget at R907.1 million (32.8 per cent of Programme allocation), followed by Office Accommodation with R791.9 million (28.6 per cent). There is a reduction on the allocation for Office Accommodation sub-programme, which received approximately R1 billion in the previousfinancial year. For a Programme that receives the second largest appropriationfrom the Vote, the performance targets for the Administration Programme are not aligned with the financial resources allocated. As Administration is responsible for strategic leadership, management and support services to the entire Department, specific targets would have been expected particularly for legislative and policy review and development under the Corporate Support Services sub-programme, which receives almost a third of the Programme’s budget. Further, during the consideration of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Amendment Bill in 2020, the Department undertook to table the Communal Land Tenure Bill. However, the Bill had not been tabled at the time of consideration of this report and the APP lacks concrete plans to table the Bill in 2021/22. What has been stated is that the Department will develop a Communal Tenure Policy Position Paper. It thus leaves Parliament exposed to possible litigation because of the absence of a permanent comprehensive legislation envisaged in Section 25(6) of the Constitution.


For the Provincial Operations sub-programme specific targets would have been expected in respect of strengthening monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of projects that are implemented by provinces and other service providers, a weakness that has also been acknowledged by the Executive Authority. The Committee emphasised a need for stringent M&E mechanism with a renewed focus on project management, including monitoring of utilisation of grant funding awarded to projects as well as assessment of the socio-economic impact of programmes and projects funded by the Department.

3.3.2 Programme 2: Agricultural Production, Biosecurity and Natural Resources Management


This Programme has undergone a name change as it was previously called Agricultural Production, Health, Food Safety, Natural Resources and Disaster Management. However, its core mandate and sub-programmes have not changed except for the welcome addition of Biosecurity as a standalone sub-programme, which will put more focus on effective and efficient management of biosecurity threats to the agricultural sector. Programme 2’s budget allocation has been stagnant as its average growth rate over the MTEF periodis less than 1 per cent. The Programme received the third largest allocation of R2.6 billion (15.4 per cent of the Department’s total appropriation). As illustrated in Table 3, close to half of the Programme’s budget (49.3 per cent) will be transferred to the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) as a Parliamentary Grant, followed by the allocation to the Quarantine and Inspection Services sub-programme with 19.7 per cent of the Programme. However, both the allocations to the ARC and the latter sub-programme’s budget allocation will be decreasing over the MTE period; the ARC by an average of 2 per cent and the Quarantine and Inspection Services sub-programme by an average of 4 per cent.


The focus on Biosecurity as a sub-programme was welcomed but there is a concern with the small budget allocation of R3.3 million (0.1 per cent of the Programme 2’s total allocation) in light of the continuing disease outbreaks particularly the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is costing the livestock industry significant losses in export revenue; as well as the recent outbreak of Avian influenza, which also has a negative impact on the growth and sustainability of the poultry industry. Both disease outbreaks also have a negative and significant impact on sector employment and job creation. In light of the frequency of climate change related natural disasters, a significant budget allocation and specific targets were expected for the Natural Resources and Disaster Management sub-programme, which plays a central role in the implementation of policies and frameworks to mitigate disasters in rural and agricultural areas.  The sub-programme received R277.9 million (approximately 11 per cent of Programme 2’s total budget).




3.3.3 Programme 3: Food Security, Land Reform and Restitution


While the purpose and focus of the Programmehas not changed, there has been some re-arrangement of sub-programmes where Land Redistribution has been combined with Tenure Reform as one sub-programme and Property Management and Advisory Support has been removed as a sub-programme. Additionally, as has been a standard with some Programmes, the entities whose budget allocations are transferred through the Programme, have also been included as sub-programmes for budgetary purposes (see Table 3). Programme 3 received the largest allocation of R8.8 billion, which is approximately 52 per cent of the Department’s total appropriation. About R7 billion of Programme 3’s total appropriation, which is equivalent to 81 per cent of the Programme’s total budget, is for transfers to provinces, entities and households. Of the transferred R7 billion, approximately R3.4 billion is for households (48 per cent of R7 billion) covers grant funding for land acquisition and development support.Further, about R2.2 billion will go to provinces and the rest of the allocation goes to entities and Departmental accounts.


The Restitution sub-programme, as discussed in detail in Section 4.1 of this report dealing with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, has been allocated R3.5 billion. It accounts for approximately 40 per cent of  Programme 3’s total budget (Table 3), followed by the Food Security sub-programme, whichreceived R2 billion (23.5 per cent). As Table 3 shows, the allocation for Food Security is more or less the same amount it received in the previous financial year.


The stagnant budgetary growth in the Food Security sub-programmes is disappointing in light of the continuing hunger situation that has been compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic as most people have lost sources of income and other livelihood means. Another area of concern is that despite its mandated contribution to the implementation of the National Food and Nutrition Security Plan, the Department did not present a framework or a clearly defined indicator to measure food security but relies on quantitative targets that are implemented by provinces in the form of producer support programmeswithout measuring the actual impact of such programmes on food insecurity. The Committee noted the launch of the Blended Finance Initiative (BFI) with the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) as well as interest from commercial banks as pronounced by the Executive Authority.

While the Department reported reservations about the Land Bank in light of the Bank’s financial challenges and previous experience with the implementation of the Blended Finance programme, the rationale for partnering with the major commercial banks when the Land Bank is a state-owned bank that is mandated to develop and support the agricultural sector was questioned. Furthermore, despite the Department’s reservations about the Land Bank and in light of the Department’s poor accountability in respect of funds that were previously transferred to the Land Bank, an amount of R384.7 million will be allocated to the Land Bank through this Programme for the 2021/22 financial year;and a combined total of R1.2 billion over the MTE period ending in 2024. Additionally, despite the mentioned launch of the Blended Finance Initiative (BFI), the APP has no clear targetson BFI and Commercialisation of Black Producers for which the BFI was initially established.


There is no indication in the APP of what the funds allocated to the Land Bank under Programme 3 will be used for.  The Committee  was also concerned about the Department’s inability to explain the linkage of the Blended Finance Initiative with other existing financial support programmes of the Department such as the Land Development Support (LDS) in Programme 3 and the Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (Mafisa) in Programme 5. Although the allocation to the Land Bank was not explained, the Department reported that the previous financial year’s target for Blended Finance was removed from the revised 2020/21 APP after June 2020; and has been replaced in the current APP by smallholder producers receiving support from Mafisa loans.The latter target will be implemented through Programme 5 and there is an additional allocation to the Land Bank in that Programme.


Land Redistribution and Tenure Reform received anallocation of R965.5 million, a nominal increase of 14.7 per cent when compared to 2020/21. Whilst land redistribution remains a priority of government, a concern was expressed regarding the decrease in annual allocations over the next two years as shown in Table 3. For the 2021/22 financial year, the focus will be on fast tracking land delivery, settling restitution and labour tenants’ claims (land tenure) and to ensuring adequate post-settlement support as detailed below. Some of the targets that the Department will deliver over the 2021 MTEF period are: Compliance with Communal Property Associations Act (Act No 28 of 1996), and 577 Communal Property Associations (CPAs) will be supported, and will increase by 100 in 2022/23. Over the MTEF period, 1964 CPAs would be having been supported to be compliant to the CPA Act. Whilst the Committee welcomed these initiatives, it expressed concerns about lack of details on the support mechanisms, especially implementation of the CPA Amendment Act. It further noted, with intensions to develop strategic oversight mechanisms, the following:

  • Over the MTSF period, the Department will acquire 900 000 ha of strategically allocated land by 2024. In 2021, it undertook to acquire 33,777 hectares of strategically allocated land, of which 16 888 would be allocated to women, 13 511 ha to youth, and 3 377.7 ha to people with disabilities. With regard to farm dwellers and labour tenants access to land, the Department plans to acquire 6 800 ha by 2023/24.
  • The number of labour tenants’ applications settled will double up from 500 claims settled in 2020/21 to 1000 in 2021/22 and a total of 4 500 claims will be settled over the medium term. The Committee commended the initiative of oversight by the Special Master of Labour Tenants. What is required is a comprehensive national database on labour tenants’ applications, indicating the number of claims settled and the number of claims outstanding.
  • The Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act, No. 94 of 1998 (TRANCRAA), applies to 23 rural areas in four provinces; the Western Cape, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape and Free State.  where land historically reserved for people of mixed Khoisan and European descent is held in trust by the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. There are 12 such areas in the Western Cape, eight in the Northern Cape, two in the Free State and one in the Eastern Cape.  In 2021, 12 areas would be transferred.


3.3.4     Programme 4: Rural Development


Programme 4 focuses on the following three sub-programmes: National Rural Youth Services Corps (NARYSEC); Rural Infrastructure Development and Technology Research and Coordination. For 2021, the programme allocation is R1.08 billion, an increase from an appropriation of R770.4 million in 2020/21. This increase is driven by a substantial increase of 92.7 per cent in the allocation to the Rural Infrastructure Development. The allocation to the NARYSEC has nominally decreased by 39.3 per cent. The Committee expressed concerns about the impact of the decrease as it will affect skills development and creation of job opportunities for rural youth. As a result, there is a noticeable decrease in the targeted number of youths to be trained through NARYSEC; from 1 916 in 2020/21 to 1 409 in 2021/22. Of great concern, for the Committee, was the fact that there were no targets for 2022/23 going forward. In addition, little is understood about the NARYSEC programme impact due to weak monitoring and evaluation.


3.3.5     Programme 5: Economic Development, Trade and Marketing


Development Finance has been added as a standalone sub-programme under Programme 5; and the entity, National Agricultural Marketing Council, added as a sub-programme as its Parliamentary Grant is transferred through the Programme. Of the Programme’s total budget of R886.3 million for the 2021/22 financial year (Table 3), R530.5 million (59.9 per cent) will be allocated to the Agroprocessing, Marketing and Rural Industrial Development sub-programme and R216.5 million to the International Relations and Trade sub-programme (24 per cent). The Committee remains concerned with the Programme’s targets that mainly constitute reports and training activities without clear details on some of the targets including how the usefulness (value for money) and impactof training activities will be assessed. As an example, the Department has targetsto support 71 new agricultural enterprises and 15 new non-agriculturalenterprises. While there is no description of non-agricultural enterprises, in both instances the methods of assessment and verification are the same including receipt of services through Farmer Production Support Units (FPSUs) by both categories of enterprises. The APP provides no explanation on why non-agricultural enterprises will be receiving services through FPSUs, which were established to support farmers.


Although approximately 60 per cent of Programme 5’s budget will go to the Agroprocessing, Marketing and Rural Industrial Development sub-programme, there are no specific targets for agroprocessing, through which the NDP expects the sector to create 1 million jobs by 2030. The previous target that has since been abandoned, was training of agroprocessing entrepreneurs. For the target on AgriBEE Fund applications that will be finalised, which is based on a percentage, there is no baseline to provide an indication of how many applications does the Department normally receives and finalise in a year, based on previous experience. This is important as a measure of its transformation interventions as some producers are not aware of the AgriBEE Fund or how to apply for it. In addition to what will be allocated to the Land Bank under Programme 3, the Department will transfer an additional R40.6 million to the Land Bank under this Programme for 2021/22 (a combined total of R139.3 million over the MTE period). The assumption is that the funds will be used for the AgriBEE Fund and Mafisa, which have been historically administered by the Land Bank. Mafisa provides loans to smallholder producers through intermediaries.


3.3.6 Programme 6: Land Administration


The purpose of the programme is to provide and maintain an inclusive, effective and comprehensive system of planning, geospatial information and cadastral surveys; legally secure tenure; and conduct land administration that promotes social, economic and environmental sustainability. It consists of six sub-programmes; namely, National Geomatics Management Services (NGMS); Spatial Planning and Land Use (SPLU), Registration of Deeds Trading Account; and South African Geomatics Council. The Committee welcomed the following undertakings: (i) Completion of 75 per cent of phase 1 of the Electronic Deeds Registration System, (e-DRS); and (ii) To submit the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill and memorandum of the Bill to the Minister for consideration. The Committee expressed concerns about a continuing trend of failure to meet legislative programme; for example, the Communal Land Tenure Bill that was expected to be tabled in Parliament in 2020 as mentioned above.


The budget allocation has decreased from an adjusted appropriation of R1.06 billion in 2020/21 to R758.2 million in 2021/22 due to a transfer of R358 million to the Deeds Registration. The NGMS received a largest share of the total programme allocation, accounting for 71.3 per cent in 2021/22. The NGMS and SPLU account for 98.5 per cent of the total programme allocation. The Committee, in welcoming the allocation, expressed a need for stringent oversight to ensure that improved land administration and spatial planning for integrated development could be realized, in particular, clarification of the roles of various national departments (DALRRD, COGTA and the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation) in the implementation of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA).


4.       Overview of the Strategic Focus of the Public Entities of the Department, their 2021/22 Annual Performance Plansand Budget Allocation


The Department, as discussed above, oversee the operations of a number of national public entities of different status. For example, the status of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights is currently under review with intension to ensure that it is fully autonomous as envisioned in the founding legislation. Table 4 below illustrates budget allocation for each entity.


Table 4. Budget Allocation to Entities for the MTEF Period 2021/22 – 2023/24



R Million




MTEF Period Estimates 




1.  Commission on Restitution of Land Rights





2. Ingonyama Trust Board 

22 192

23 517

24 391

23 781

3. Office of the Valuer-General


131 844

132 268

155 271

4. Agricultural Land Holdings Account


937 986

965 860

984 942

5. Agricultural Research Council

1 249920

1282 632

1 189 320

1 191 556

6. Onderstepoort Biological Products





7. National Agricultural Marketing Council



48 535

49 771

8. Perishable Products Export Control Board 






      1 867 574

2 423 284

  2 360 374

  2 405 321

Source: DALRRD – Annual Performance Plan 2021 - 2022


4.1     The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR)


The CRLR was established as an autonomous institution by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No. 22 of 1994) to solicit land claims, investigate them and attempt to resolve them through negotiation and mediation. In 2021, unlike the period 2020, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights tabled its own Strategic Plan and APP, though it still accounted under as sub-programme of Programme 3.  In terms of its plans, the total number of claims to be settled over MTEF are 1347, of which 240 will be settled in 2021/22. The Committee noted that the target was a decrease of four compared to the reduced target of 244 claims settled in 2020/21. Further, a total number of claims to be finalised over MTEF are 1 266, 316 of which would be finalised in 2021/22 – increase to the reduced estimated figure of 295 claims finalised in 2020/21.  Restitution allocation, under programme 3, received the largest share of the allocation for programme. Its allocation for 2021/22 is R3.51 billion, i.e. 39.8 per cent of the total allocation for programme 3. Whilst the allocation was R3.6 billion, it was however adjusted downward to R3.3 billion due to reprioritisation, a trend that continues until 2023/24. As it would be expected, Restitution Grants takes up 78.8 per cent of the total budget of the Commission because it covers funding for land acquisition and financial compensation. 


Some of the concerns of the Portfolio Committee can be summarised as follows:

  • The pace of settlement of land claims and clearing the backlog claims was a concern and the Committee wanted to the Commission to set clear targets for these key areas
  • Whilst the new approach was welcome, there was a concern around vacancies in the Commission which affects the capacity to research, settle and finalise land claims
  • The Commission was implored to focus on finalisation of policies in order to address the existing claims, including the post-1998 land claims that were put in abeyance due to Court order.
  • The question of 1913 cut-off date was a subject for discussion and it was a matter being dealt with through the Constitutional amendment process.


4.2     KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB)


The KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Board is a land management agency that ensures that commercial activity on communal land is developmental and beneficial to local communities. The KwaZulu‐Natal Ingonyama Trust Act (1994) makes provision for the 2.8 million hectares of land spread across KwaZulu‐Natal (KZN) to be held in trust and managed on behalf of communities. The Ingonyama Trust Board administers the affairs of the trust. The ITB’s activities are guided by four strategic outcomes, namely: improved corporate governance and service excellence; improved stakeholder relations; improved security of land tenure and improved coordination of human settlement on communal land.


For 2021/22, the ITB operations are organised into two Programmes; namely, Administration (including corporate services and financial administration sub-programmes) and the Land and Tenure Management. Whilst the ITB has presented its budget during the meeting of the Portfolio Committee, such budget was not included in the tabled Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan (APP). The APP does not clearly articulate how the ENE’s 2021/22 allocation for the ITB, of which R23.5 million is transfers from the Department, would be spent. The PowerPoint slides submitted for presentation shows that the transfers from the Department is R29.96 million. With interest of R41 thousand, the total funding for the Ingonyama Trust Board is R30 million. The allocation for administration of the ITB has been in decline over the last three years, especially salaries and Board Members fee. The Trust income is R79.2 million comprising rental income of R75.3 million, contractual royalty income of R1.2 million, servitude compensation and other R1.5 million, sugar cane sales of R1 million. The total expenditure for the Trust is R243 million.


Administration Programme provides administrative support to the ITB which administers the affairs of the Ingonyama Trust.  The Committee noted that this Programme has been expanded to include what used to be Traditional Council Support Programme.  The Committee made the following observations: 

  • The programme has four targets; namely, to sign 10 agreements with relevant stakeholders annually for the next four years (2021/22 to 2024/25); to capacitate 10 Traditional Councils each year for the four years; to approve five policies annually for the next four years. The Committee was concerned about capacity to develop policies because, in 2019/20, it approved only 2 of the 5 policies.
  • The Committee noted that the ITB emphasises capacitation of traditional councils in its interventions, the projects around educational awards and other community benefits are not clearly spelt out in the plans. Therefore, the provision to ensure that the Trust exist for the benefits and material welfare and social well-being of communities on the Trust land is yet to be fully demonstrated in the plans.
  • The ITB has recurring Auditor-General’s audit findings and opinion, i.e. an adverse opinion on the consolidated Annual Financial Statements of the Ingonyama Trust Board. As separate entities, the ITB obtained a qualified audit opinion based on the non-disclosure of the full extent of the irregular expenditure and the Ingonyama Trust obtained an adverse opinion based on the following issues: Property, plant and equipment/ (land valuation disclosure), Non- disclosure of Investment Property and Expenditure, i.e. non-recognition of municipal rates as an expense and liability in the financial statements. These matters remain unresolved because different interpretation of GRAP standards and the PFMA. The Committee noted that the APP does not present clear and measureable indicators on how the ITB intends to address the Auditor-General’s audit findings and opinion.


4.3     Office of the Valuer-General (OVG)


The Office of the Valuer-General (OVG) was set up in terms of the Property Valuation Act (PVA), No.17 of 2014. It is listed as Schedule 3A public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999. Its function is to conduct valuation of properties identified for land reform purposes, and to assist other departments that have requested valuation services for purposes of acquiring or disposing of property. The OVG is funded through transfers from Programme 3 (: Food Security, Land Reform and Restitution). Transfers to the OVG decreases from R143.2 million in 2021/22 to R135.6 million in 2023/4 in line with Cabinet approved budget reductions. Of the R143.2 million transferred to the OVG in 2021/22, R12.4 million (8.7%) is for the Administration Programme, R56.8 million (39.7%) is for valuations and R74.0 million (51.7%) is for operations. A large portion of the budget allocated to the Administration and Valuations programmes is for compensation of employees (COE). As an example, the allocation for COE is 71.8 per cent of the total budget for the Valuations Programme in 2021/22.


The Committee noted that the OVG seeks to implement the corruption and fraud prevention mechanism which will be approved in the second quarter but implemented from the fourth quarter. A concern was that this is one of the outputs that were meant to be achieved in the previous financial year, thus raising questions of the capacity of the OVG to deliver on its mandate. The Committee called for prioritisation of the recruitment of the Valuer-General and the Chief Operations Officer.

With regards to valuations, targets for valuations could not be met due to capacity constraints. However, this financial years, the OVG still plans to complete all valuations requested by clients within the specified times. The OVG will enter into service level agreements with clients to ensure speedy completion of valuations. The committee welcomed the process flow which indicated that an average of 50 days will be taken to issue a valuation certificate despite previous years’ failures. Further commitments welcomed by the Committee were: completion of all backlog valuations in 2021/22 and enhancement of data management capability. It noted that, although the presenter reported that the APP was approved by the Minister, the initial copy tabled in Parliament was not signed by the Minister. A further concern was the Ministerial Advisory Panel had not completed the review of the Property Valuation Act, despite plans indicating that the work was meant to be completed in 2020.


4.4     Agricultural Research Council (ARC)


The ARC was established in terms of Section 2 of the Agricultural Research Act, 1990 (Act No. 86 of 1990).For the 2021/22 financial year, the ARC has been appropriated an amount of R1.28 billion through the Department’s Programme 2. The transfer constitutes baseline allocation for operational expenditure and capital expenditure(averaging R111 million per annum). The ARC is operating on zero budgeting and due to the constrained national fiscus, from the current financial year onwards, the entity is not expecting the additional funding it used to receive from the Department of Science and Innovation. Personnel costs remain the highest cost driver, constituting 60 per cent of total expenditure for 2021/22 and consuming approximately 90 per cent of the Parliamentary Grant (PG) on average per year. The ARC plans to reduce costs by approximately R300 million over a period of 2 to 3 years.


Through its Sustainability and Financial Turnaround Plan andfor the medium term, the entity will be focusing on optimisation of personnel costs(to 60 per cent of the PG); consolidation of the Pretoria campuses from eight to three (pre-feasibility assessment is reportedly underway); rationalisation of unutilised and underutilised land and properties; procurement savings and implementation of cost-saving initiatives in all its facilities and operations (energy, equipment, transport, animal feed, etc.). The Committeeappreciated the interventions of the new Board, commended the ARC for its Turnaround Planand further welcomed its Annual Performance Plan.  However, it remained concerned about personnel capacity particularly balancing optimisation of personnel costs with job losses while the entity on one hand was highlighting the need to appoint high-profile scientists who can generate external revenue.  In light of the frequency and ongoing FMD outbreaks, the slow pace of the establishment of the FMD Facilityremains a concern particularly as funding allocation for the Facility was first made in 2018/19. The Committee registered serious concern with the reported security issues at the ARC as theft particularly of genetic material, was highlighted as one of the threats in some of its campuses.


4.5     The Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP)


The OBP was established in terms of the Onderstepoort Biological Products Incorporation Act, 1999 (Act No.19 of 1999). It is listed under Schedule 3B of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999), i.e. National Government Business Enterprise. It is governed by Act No. 19 of 1999, which should be read together with the Onderstepoort Biological Products Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) and was declared as a National Key Point in 2007. The OBP does not get a financial transfer from the Department but funds all its operations from its self-generated revenue, mostly from sale of vaccines.  The entity’s total budget for 2021/22 is R190 million. The main focus remains ensuring a steady supply of vaccines and continued work on the modernisation of the vaccine manufacturing plant. Therefore, a significant proportion of the entity’s budget will go towards operations and production. The OBP will continue to implement its Turnaround Strategy that was developed in 2019 to address some of its key challenges, which include among others, lack of good manufacturing practice (GMP) accreditation due to aged infrastructure.


The slow pace of the modernisation of the vaccine manufacturing plant project and the entity’s personnel challenges i.e.instability at senior management level, the entity’s high attrition rate and the associated vacancy rate of 25% were the major concerns that were raised by the Committee. It acknowledged the measures put in place to address revenue losses and the high personnel turnover ratebyincluding new indicators for retention of top 20 customers, introduction of its product dossier to new markets and critical staff retention.The Committee further welcomed the measures put in place by the OBP’s Board to address personnel challenges including the precautionary suspension of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pending investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption as well as past investigations. 


4.6     The National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC)


The NAMC was established in terms of Section 3 and 4 of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996 (Act No. 47 of 1996) as amended by Act No. 59 of 1997 and No. 52 of 2001.For the 2021/22 financial year, the NAMC will receive a Parliamentary Grant of R47.3 million through the Department’s Programme 5.  Approximately 73 per cent of the entity’s total allocation goes to compensation of employees. In order to streamline activities and strengthen its legislative mandate, the entity is undergoing a review of its organisational structure.  In addition to its legislated core mandate, the NAMC wasappointed in 2019 by the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to coordinate the process of compiling the Agriculture and Agroprocessing Master Plan (AAMP).


The AAMP is a sector blueprint for growth, jobs, transformation and development that will be funded through private-public partnerships (PPP). It was expected to be finalised on 30 June 2020, however, due to the lockdown as a result of Covid-19, the deadline was not met. The NAMC reported that the Minister and social partners are preparing to negotiate and finalise commitments and targets on growth, jobs, markets and transformation.  The Committeewelcomed the NAMC’s improved Annual Plan as previous matters that were raised by the Committee have been addressedand further appreciated its initiatives and interventions to assistsmallholder farmers with market access. It further enquired about expansion of some of its activities to all provinces where farmers have limited or no access to markets including coordination with the Department in identifying farmers that need support on market access.


4.7     Perishable Products Export Control Board (PPECB)


The PPECB was established in terms of Section 2 of the Perishable Products Export Control (PPEC) Act, 1983 (Act No. 9 of 1983). In addition to the PPEC Act, it is also governed by the Agricultural Product Standards (APS) Act, 1990 (Act No. 119 of 1990). The PPECB does not receive a Parliamentary Grant but generates its own revenue through fees and levies charged for inspections done on perishable products that are due for export and issuance of export certificates. The entity realised a surplus of R10.3 million in 2020/21 due to reduced travel and training activities as a result of the lockdown.  ThePPECB’s total budget for the 2021/22 financial year is R532 million. Due to the nature of the PPECB’soperations, approximately 68 per cent of its budget for 2021/22 will be spent on compensation of employees. The Committee commended the PPECB for its clear and well-articulated Annual Plan, the continued good work and the role that it plays in the export of perishable products from South Africa including capacity building of smallholder farmers for export market access.  


5.       Committee Observations


The Committee, having deliberated on the 2021/22APPs and budget allocations of the Department and Entities, made the following observations: 


  1. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development


  1. Inadequate quality assurance in the Department. As an example, the quality of the Department’s Annual Performance Plan, which had a number of grammatical and typographical errors emanating from the direct cut and paste from the previous financial year’s Plan. This was evident in the outdated statistical information in some parts, and on page 20 of the APP under Planned Legislation for approval, listing of the Agricultural Produce Agents Amendment Bill and the Sectional Tittles Amendment Bill. Both Bills have already been tabled in Parliament in 2020. Under Relevant Court Rulings,the Department reported on page 23 that it was “presently finalising a Bill to amend ULTRA”. The said ULTRA Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2020 and Parliament has already concluded its process. Additionally, the Department also initially tabled some entities’ APPs that were not signed by the Executive Authority and also failed to provide explanations in the APP where targets have been discontinued or revised.


  1. The process of appointing an Accounting Officer for the Department including the strengthening of the Department’s Policy Unit were welcome. However, in the absence of specific targets in the APP in respect of policy and legislative review, there remains uncertainty regarding the Department’s capacity to timeously develop essential legislation and policies to address sectoral challenges e.g. Communal Land Tenure Bill; amendments to the Perishable Products Export Control Act and the Agricultural Research Act; and the White Paper on Land Policy.


  1. Whilst the merger of the Agriculture function of the former Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) and the former Department of Land Reform and Rural Development (DRDLR) was meant to address duplication and consolidate complimentary functions between the two former Departments, and despite the reportedly finalised organisational macro structure, there is still lack of alignment of Programme functions and interventions in the new Department. The following are a few examples:
  • The different financial Farmer/Producer Support interventionsin one Department despite the Committee’s previous calls to consolidate support programmes into a ‘one-stop-shop’facility. In Programme 3 for example, there is CASP, Ilima/Letsema and Blended Finance (which has no targets) from former DAFF and Land Development Support (LDS)programme that has replaced Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RECAP) from former DRDLR; and then there is also AgriBEE Fund and Mafisa from former DAFF in Programme 5. This creates complexities in terms of oversight and accountability, assessment of the impact of interventions and further creates confusion for potential beneficiaries of these interventions.
  • Duplicationsin terms of the LandCare Programme from former DAFF in Programme 2 and the Animal and Veld Management Programme (AVMP) and the River Valley Catalytic Programme from former DRDLR in Programme 4.The Department has previously reported that it has done away with the latter two programmes from former DRDLR, yet, they are included in the current APP. As much as the implementation of each of the three programmes might be different, they all have an infrastructure provision component and the main outcome of interventions in all three is natural resource management. By its very nature, AVMP should be part of Animal Production in Programme 2. Further to the above, LandCare is a job creation programme but Programme 4 also has a specific target on job opportunities created in rural development initiatives.
  • Infrastructure–a target for infrastructure development to support production under the AVMP and RVCP and another target for infrastructure development to support FPSUs under Programme 4. This is notwithstanding the fact that CASP in Programme 3, which is implemented by Provinces, is also supposed to provide both on-farm and off-farm infrastructure and has a budget of R1 billion for infrastructure in the 2021/22 financial year.


  1. There is a need for further engagements on the relaunched Blended Finance Initiative (BFI), the Commercialisation of Black Producers Programme, for which BFI was established, other Departmental funding programmes as well as sector transformation instruments such as the AgriBEE Fund and Mafisa, which were historically administered by the Land Bank. This should include an update on all funds that have been previously and currently transferred to the Land Bank for various agricultural funding instruments.


  1. Absence of specific targets on agroprocessing, which is identified in the NDP as a key job driver and is central to the Farmer Production Support Units (FPSUs) and the planned Agriculture and Agroprocessing Master Plan (AAMP).


  1. Considering that more than half (52 per cent) of the total Budget Vote goes to transfers and subsidies in the current financial year, there was dissatisfaction with the absence of a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework as part of the Department’s Annual Plan as weak M & E in the Department remains a challenge and will continue toaffect accountability on transferred funds as well as performance and service delivery. In this regard, a specific target to address this weakness was expected particularly under the Provincial Operations sub-programme. The Committee emphasised that in the absence of an effective Departmental M& E Framework, transferred funds may be redirected to other activities.


  1. Lack of concrete plans to ensure that indigenous growers of Cannabis are prioritised and capacitated to fully participate and benefit from the implementation of the Cannabis Master Plan.


  1. The implementation of the Poultry and Sugar Master Plans was commended and the focus on capacity building and full participation of smallholder producers in both sectors was emphasised.


  1. The stagnant growth in the budget allocation for the Food Security sub-programme in Programmes 3 in light of the hunger challenge that has been compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic and the absence of a clear target to monitor and assess the efficacy of food security interventions as food security interventions are implemented by provinces.


  1.  The budget for Programme 2, which is responsible for inter alia biosecurity and disaster management has also been stagnant. In Programme 2, the miniscule allocation to the Biosecurity sub-programme was noted with concern in light of the continuing FMD challenge and most recently, avian influenza. Both diseases have a negative impact on export revenue, sector employment and sustainability. Despite previous assurances from the Department to efficiently address the FMD outbreak to enable the country to regain its FMD-free zone without vaccination status from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the challenge remains. The outbreak of avian influenza mayfurther threaten the implementation of the Poultry Master Plan particularly for smallholder producers.


  1. The target on trade negotiations including the newly launched Trade Agreement on African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA) is appreciated, however, there is a need for clear targets on interventions to capacitate and assist local and smallholder producers in particular to fully participate and benefit from such agreements once they become operational.


  1. Programme plans to acquire and allocate 33 720 hectares of strategically located land in 2021 does not match NDP targets and a promise for accelerated delivery of land to meet a range of needs from productive and residential land  in both rural and urban areas to well-located land in the cities, towns and peri-urban areas in order to dismantle the apartheid spatial planning. The plans do not articulate the programme to redistribute state land identified for release to communities.


  1. Inadequate support to CPAs and Trusts (land reform) contributes to the collapse of land reform farms and/or a decline in agricultural productivity. Conflicts within CPAs is an indication of lack of, or inadequate, support to CPAs. Compliance to CPA Act does not mean that conflicts and leadership challenges would be resolved. What is required is the implementation of the amendments to the CPA Act by the Department, for example setting up the CPA office and capacitating the office and the Department to support CPAs beyond compliance to the Act.


  1. Entities of the Department


  1. The commitment to ensure that an autonomous CRLR, with adequate research and negotiation capacity, backed by competent valuation processes, could assist the programme of restitution to settle and finalise pre-1998 land claims and established in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994. According to the PFMA, Commissions are included in the definition of national public entities. Incorporating Restitution as a sub-programme of a broad Programme is to downgrade the mandate of a national public entity into a sub-programme of the Department that could curtail the autonomy of a Commission envisioned in the Restitution of Land Rights Act.


  1. Outstanding reports with regard to the Inter-Ministerial Task Team interventions at the ITB impacts on accountability and oversight of the Portfolio Committee.Further, ongoing court cases meant that the ITB always refer to the court cases and that it could not discuss matters that were before courts.


  1. Lack of clear programmes to deal with empowerment of youth, women and people with disabilities in the communities living on the Ingonyama Trust land, in line with the purpose of the ITB, i.e. management of the Trust for the benefit and material welfare of traditional communities on the Ingonyama Trust land, obstruct assessment of the impact of the ITB on communities.


  1. The Ministerial Advisory Panel delay to finalise the review of the Property Valuation Act, thus clarifying its mandate, impacts on the effectiveness and efficiency ofthe OVG. Further capacitation of the OVG, pending the review, is unlikely to bring any fundamental change especially in relation to disputes to the valuations. Legislative amendments are fundamental to clarification of the mandate of the OVG.


  1. The interventions of the new ARC Board and the entity’s Annual Plan and Financial Sustainability and Turnaround Plan were commended. However, the slow progress in the construction of the FMD Vaccine Facilityin light of frequent outbreaks and current FMD challenge in the country remains a major concern.


  1. There was uncertainty regarding the implementation of the ARC’s Turnaround Plan in respect of optimising personnel costs while the entity at the same time highlighted the need to recruit high profile scientists to attract external revenue. In the latter case, the efficacy of the ARC’s Professional Development Programme (PDP) in training, mentoring and coaching critical future scientists was questioned.


  1. Lack of technological advances in an entity of the ARC’s calibre was concerning where crime in the form of theft is threatening the safety and sustainability of the ARC’s genetic material.


  1. Appreciation for the interventions of the new OBP Board in addressing serious personnel challenges at OBP including the precautionary suspension of the OBP’s CEO pending investigations.


  1. Fast tracking the modernisation of the vaccine manufacturing facility to ensure that the OBP is GMP-compliant and able to be a globally competitive supplier and distributor of vaccines and other biological products remains key.


  1. Recognition of the improvement in the Annual Plan of the NAMC, appreciation of its interventions on market access and the need for expansion of its footprint to all provinces with respect to facilitation of market access for smallholder producers.


  1. Appreciation and commending of the PPECB for the clear and well articulated Annual Plan and the continued sterling work in assisting farmers with exports of perishable products and capacity building of smallholder farmers for export markets without government financial support.


6.         Committee Recommendations


After discussions and deliberations on the 2021/22 Annual Performance Plans (APPs) and Budget of the Department and the Entities (Budget Vote 29), the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development makes the following recommendations to the National Assembly (NA) for the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development regarding Budget Vote 29.

The Minister should -


  1. Provide quarterly updates on the finalisation of the fit-for-purpose organisational structure of the Department that clearly indicates how persistent duplication of functions among Programmes and lack of relevant qualifications and expertise among some senior management service level personnel that was reported by Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) will be addressed including the strengthening of the Policy Unit.


  1. Submit to Parliament an updated Legislation and Policy Review Programmes with clear time lines and available resources for processing and finalisation of such legislation and policies during the current financial year and the medium term period. In the case of legislation, indicate timeframes for planned introduction to Parliament.


  1. Ensure the development of an Action Plan to review and streamline the Department’s existing support programmes and conditional grants into an integrated Producer Support Programme/Scheme that was envisaged when the National Policy on Comprehensive Producer Development Support was developed to avoid duplication and resource wastage. The Action Plan should show the alignment to the Department’s new mandate and the Farmer Production Support Units that are expected to be central to the implementation of the Agriculture and Agroprocessing Master Plan. 


  1. Strengthen Reporting Guidelines and ensure the development of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Frameworks for conditional grants and all funds that have been transferred for concurrent functions including those transferred to other service providers, Entities and the Land Bank for programme implementation. Further ensure quarterly monitoring of provincial allocations and that provinces and the Land Bank report on the utilisation of such funds on a regular basis. The Department should report to Parliament on its M&E activities during each quarterly briefing.


  1. In addition to the M&E Frameworks, ensure that the Department signs Service Level Agreements (SLAs)with the Land Bank, the IDC and other relevant commodity or partner organisations particularly for the implementation of the Blended Finance Initiative, the AgriBEE Fund and the Land Development Support programme before such funds are transferred. In the absence of the necessary accountability frameworks, transfer of funds should be withheld.


  1. Submit to Parliament comprehensive progress reports on disbursement of Mafisa loans, the implementation of transformation activities through the AgriBEE Fundand the support of land reform farms through the Land Development Support programme.Further ensure that all farms acquired and allocated through the land reform programme are matched with the relevant farmer or settlement support including relevant extension services, access to finance, production inputs and market access; and provide reports accordingly.


  1. Ensure that the Department collaborates with the ARC to develop a Strategy for sourcing support for the continuation of the National Red Meat Development Programme (NRMDP), which was previously implemented by the NAMC and played a crucial role in improving communal livestock farmers’ profits by linking them to markets.


  1. Strengthen the Department’s contribution to the implementation of the National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security by streamlining food security initiatives within the Department to maximise food availability and stability; and measuring impact of interventions. Submit progress reports in Parliament that quantify primary production activities for both crop (yields) and livestock (reproductive capacity as represented by improvements in calving or lambing rates) production systems, funding instruments and resource allocation for each activity.


  1. Fast-track the participation of the agricultural sector in the Trade Agreement on African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) while ensuring protection of local producers from unfair imports; and capacity building of smallholder producers to enable their full participation in the Agreement on AfCFTA.


  1. Investigate and report to the Committee about all Government financial support services to the agricultural and agroprocessing sector from the 2020/21 to 2021/22 financial yearsincluding the programmes or funding instruments that are implemented through, for example, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition; the Industrial Development Corporation; the Jobs Fund; the National Youth Development Agency and the Department of Small Business Development inter alia. The report should also highlight the purpose of each programme, the targeted beneficiariesand how these different programmes are coordinated to avoid duplication, maximise impact of interventions and to prevent double-dipping by some of the beneficiaries.


  1. Ensure that the Chief Land Claims Commissioner submits comprehensive quarterly reports to Parliament outlining key performance indicators related to the roadmap to the autonomy of the Commission and reports to the Land Claims Court regarding the settlement and finalisation of  ‘old-order’ land claims. Further, engage with National Treasury to ensure that there are resources to meet the needs of an autonomous Commission on Restitution of Land Rights with fully resourced and capable Regional Land Claims Commissioners located in each province.


  1. Ensure that the Ingonyama Trust Board and the Ingonyama Trust officially tables its 2021/22 budget in Parliament by submitting an addendum to the APP it tabled earlier this year. The budget should reflect, and align to, the purposes for which the ITB and the Ingonyama Trust were established.


  1. Fast-track the finalisation of the work of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on the review of the Property Valuation Act and clarification of the mandate of the OVG. In the meantime, ensure that all vacant positions including those of the Valuer-General and the Chief Operating Officer are filled.


  1. Enhance the capacity of the Department to support Communal Property Associations (CPAs) in line with the CPA Amendment Act. Further ensure that support to CPA transcend the narrow focus on compliance to the CPA Act; it must also focus on capacity building of CPA structuresand members to ensure compliant and functional legal entities that can effectively administer communally-owned land reform farms for the benefit of the members. 


  1. In light of the reputational risk that can be posed by inadequate biosecurity to the country’s agricultural exports, strengthen the Biosecurity sub-programme through additional resources; and further ensure that the Department develops a functional alert system to promote proactive response to disease outbreaks and other biosecurity threats.



The Committee further recommends that,unless otherwise indicated, within three months after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly, the Minister should submit to Parliament, responses to the above recommendations.


Report to be considered.


No related documents