ATC221012: Report of the Select Committee on Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy on the oversight visit to the Northern Cape, dated 11 October 2022

NCOP Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy

Report of the Select Committee on Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy on the oversight visit to the Northern Cape, dated 11 October 2022

The Select Committee on Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy having conducted oversight in the North Cape, from 15 – 19 August 2022 reports as follows:

1. Background and Introduction

The Committee has prioritised oversight over the post-settlement support received by beneficiaries of land reform programmes. Of particular concern is the economic well-being of communities that has successfully reclaimed land that was rightfully theirs, but do not have the means to develop or sustain viable and sustainable economic activity on this land.

While the majority of focus lies with the re-distribution of agricultural land and the challenges experienced by Communal Property Associations (CPA’s) in terms of maintaining viable farming ventures, there are also challenges experienced by claimants of non-agricultural land. In the Northern Cape Province, a number of restitution cases returned land inside or adjacent to National Parks and other under-developed areas to their rightful owners. Unlike most other later land reform initiatives, the Riemvasmaak community had also chosen to be organised in a Trust rather than a CPA, which affects the way in which some DALRRD aid can be supplied. The post-settlement support for these communities would therefore have required a different approach to what is typically employed by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). Alternative means for ensuring economic sustainability for the communities settling the land could be required, which in turn, would require the active participation of other Department such as the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment (DFFE) should the community attempt to become part of the eco-tourism economy.

During parliamentary engagements since 1994, and continuing to the present, members of the NA and NCOP had highlighted information coming from their constituencies indicating that the establishment of critical economic development support for the Riemvasmaak communities in the Northern Cape had not materialised as planned. Some of the restitution cases date back to 1994. As some of the oldest examples of land reform in the democratic era of South Africa, it is alarming that recipient communities could still be struggling to benefit economically from the land returned to them.

The committee has already developed a keen understanding of the challenges faced by recipients of developed agricultural land requiring the support of the DALRRD, but has not done any oversight on the outcomes, economic opportunities and challenges experienced by communities that successfully claimed undeveloped conservation land. While the DALRRD is still responsible for post settlement support of and oversight over the CPAs managing the land, the committee is interested to perform oversight over restituted conservation land in order to determine current land use and potential of economic integration into the conservation and ecotourism economy.

Economic development and opportunity is also the focus of this inter-action. In the past, the committee has focused intensively on the development of Social and Labour Plans by mines, as well as how these and other economic development activity from the mining sector was integrated into local government’s Industrial Development Plans (IDP).

During these oversights, there was little opportunity to engage with local communities, while other oversight destinations was to mining areas where, at the time, the security risk of meeting with dissatisfied mining-affected communities was deemed to be too great. During the past year, it has come to light that the communities surrounding the Northern Cape mining town Kathu is struggling with the same challenges. There is little opportunity given to local communities in terms of:

Being employed in the mines in any form other than manual labour;
Gaining technical training and experience from mines;
Being able to become a supplier to mines and developing a viable business entity;

Having any significant opportunity, before mining is approved, to be informed about the application and its implications, and to be given the opportunity to give inputs on this. Consultation with communities and consent for mining applications takes place away from affected communities.

As the dissatisfaction of mining-affected communities is only growing, the committee deems it important to visit such communities and to enter into discussions with such communities in order to determine what the challenges are that they experience, why these communities are pro-actively joining the lobby against mining and what economic benefits, if any, mining has brought to them.

The committee further wished to engage with those community members that are attempting to establish themselves as small-scale miners. There is a need to determine whether there is sufficient economic opportunity and government support for such small enterprises to develop and thrive.

In order to ensure that Committees are afforded the time and opportunity to do this, the NCOP set aside the week of 15 – 19 August 2022 for oversight activities.

The delegation consisted of the following members of Parliament, Ms TC Modise (Chairperson, ANC), Mr Z Mkhiva (ANC), Mr AJ Nyambi (ANC), Ms W Ngwenya (ANC), Mr CFB Smit (DA), Mr MA Nhanha (DA), Mr A Arnolds (EFF), Mr FAB Du Bryn (FF+) and Parliamentary support staff, Mr AA Bawa (Committee Secretary), Mr J Jooste (Researcher), and Ms A Zindlani (Committee Assistant).

Augrabies National Park and Riemvasmaak community

The aim and objective of the site visit was to focus on the committee’s identified themes of environmental management (DFFE) as well as land reform (post-settlement support services for recipients of land reform). In terms of the environmental management focus of the committee, it is known that South Africa is challenged to expand the land area under conservation management in order to ensure environmental resilience in the face of climate change and the expansion of human activity. Co-operation with private land-owners (and potential need for co-management and profit-share agreements) is needed for this to become a reality.

The Riemvasmaak community land claim settlement is one of the earliest examples of restitution in the country, and it is therefore important to determine what successes and setbacks have been experienced, and whether this knowledge can be applied to land reform practice moving forward. From past parliamentary oversight and publications, it would appear as if the recipient communities are also plagued by many of the challenges faced by more recent recipients of land reform, but there has been little focus on claimed land that are then managed for tourism/conservation activity. The land claimed by the community formed part of the Augrabies National Park, and was deproclaimed by Parliament with the express requirement that land use remain conservation/tourism focused. To date, ,there has been no formal co-management agreement reached with SANParks to incorporate their land into conservation/tourism activities linked to the Augrabies National Park that it borders. The community has independently initiated some eco-tourism ventures, but it is unclear how successful these have been.

Additional to the Riemvasmaak community, the rural communities around Kakamas and Augrabies have also initiated land claims, but the settlements of these claims are delayed. Some claims are old-order claims (submitted before the 1998 cut-off date), while others were submitted within the second claims window. The communities were not satisfied with progress on and communication regarding the claims with the DALRRD, and wished to engage on the topic during the committee’s engagement.

Mining affected communities of Kathu

The oversight will also focus on the committee’s identified theme of mining impacts. In this case, the detail of the focus is on impacts of mining activity on surrounding communities, economic opportunities offered by mines in terms of employment and entrepreneurship, and opportunities for small-scale miners to benefit from mining resources in the area.

These focus areas are all important factors in South Africa’s mining sector, where dissatisfied local communities are increasingly growing hostile towards mining activity. Community organisations and NGO’s are increasingly turning to legal avenues to prevent further mining expansion. Although this is often dismissed as entitled environmental groups using poorer communities as a cause to further their own agenda, the reality is much more complex. With little in the form of economic benefit seen by local communities, mining simply becomes another negative form of land use affecting these communities. Their concerns are genuine and needs to be understood in order to assess how national policy and development focus can be improved in order to ensure that economic benefit from mining is felt by local communities.

Meetings and Site Visits

2.1. Public Meeting and DMRE Presentation in Khatu

Challenges and constraints highlighted

An animated but ultimately peaceful engagement was held with the local community. It was clear from the engagement that community members were not at all satisfied with their degree of involvement in, or benefit from the mining sector. The delegation allowed ample time for all those wishing to raise their concerns to speak to the committee. The following points are a general summary of issues raised during engagement:

CPA inclusion in mining authorisation decisions: Representatives of a CPA from the Lohatla area complained about the disregard for CPA shown by the mining companies operating in the area. Mining and prospecting applications are not discussed with the community owning the land. The Department also do not consult sufficiently and rights are allocated without the land use preferences of the CPA taken into account. Mining companies do not, in return appear to show any employment preference to community members.

Benefits accrued to the communities: Communities are not experiencing and enjoying the benefits of mining activities and it seems that the benefits are enjoyed by communities and people outside their municipality and Northern Cape region. Communities raised concerns about transport companies from Durban; Cape Town and Johannesburg and other areas operating while the local community is not considered for tenders.

Community support and Infrastructure development: Mining companies are being given mining licenses and rights that have a lifespan of 30-40 years. However, communities are yet to see benefit. Communities are requiring that the mining houses should assist in the building of infrastructure such as schools; clinics; roads and houses due to the huge profits that that mining companies are making from the extraction of minerals in their region. Areas such as Mapoteng have no high school and their children are struggling to get to school since they have to go to neighbouring areas. Community members indicated that they do not want hand-outs but want to be presented with opportunities to work with the mining houses. Community members also indicated that Kumba Iron Ore have built houses for their employees that have all the infrastructure such as road; amenities, parks, school, clinics. The communities that were relocated for the mine to expand received houses, but none of the other social infrastructure. The area of re-settlement had 10000 people but the clinic is under-resourced and is unable to cater for the medical needs of the majority of the community members.

Mining charter/Social and Labour Plan: According to the members of the community, there is no progress concerning the mining charter and non-compliance with the mining charter and economic benefits that should be enjoyed by surrounding areas as set out in the charter. There is no monitoring and evaluation of the mining charter or implementation of Social and Labour Plans by the DMRE even though licenses were issued by the department. Community members want the department to monitor and hold the mining houses to account on the promises and objectives of the charter and S&LP and if possible, the department should withdraw the mining licenses of non-compliant mining companies. Mining houses are not complying with the SLPs after these are signed. Thus mining companies are not adhering to the projects that are in their SLPs and IDPs of the municipalities, yet mining licenses are renewed. Community members are accusing the LED manager and mining companies of colluding with contractors that are from Johannesburg and Gauteng where business opportunities related to S&LP implementation are concerned. The DMRE has one S&LP officer who is incapable of conducting inspections of over the 34 mines that are within the JTG municipality, while the DMRE has only one official based in Kimberley to focus on SLP and Small-scale mining. Community members state that they have written business proposals and plans but that the LED Manager have indicated that it cannot be implemented. Corruption and nepotism have been cited as been rife in the municipality and that there is collusion between the DMRE officials, mining houses and municipality officials. Kumba has started a business forum which exclude local businesses and the forum is where business opportunities are provided to people and companies that are from outside the JTG. Nepotism in prevalent. The DMRE is not holding the CEO and Kumba to account on everything and non-compliance to the conditions of its mining right/license. Namaqualand residents requested that the DMRE should provide a list of records of all the SLPs by the mining houses since their inability to comply with the SLPs is due to non-inspection of them by the DMRE officials.

Unemployment: Employment opportunities for community members are hard to come by within the municipality, especially for the youth and women. Part of the reason for this is that the raw materials from mining are processed in other places and countries. Products from minerals mined in South African are brought back as finished and final processed products from other countries, which is exacerbating unemployment opportunities. Community members are requesting government to build smelters for iron ore and manganese to provide opportunities for the production of finished products from minerals mined in the area. Community members are proposing that mining companies should review hiring policies to accommodate those that have no matric certificate, considering the prevailing circumstances and level of education within the area for certain positions.

Safety and security: Lack of employment opportunities and the appalling living conditions experienced have resulted in the youth and community members turning to criminal activities and putting the lives of the communities in danger. The communities suffer theft of property and general lawlessness due to high number of unemployed youths. Community members are appealing to the department and government in general to ensure that the mining house build recreational facilities for the community members and provide opportunities to prevent the lives being in danger.

Small-scale mining: Community members wanted to know about the policy developed by the DMRE that was supposed to benefit Junior Miners and Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining. The community wanted to know when will it be implemented. Also, they wanted to know that process of application for mining permits, financial and non-financial assistance would be and what SMMEs opportunities would be created within the broader mining activities. Another area where community members are proposing government support is in cheaper rail transport. Road transport costs are very high and it was proposed that government should investigate the possibility of allocating the small-scale miners loading space and capacity on the over 200 trains that are loading iron ore and manganese from JTG to Saldanha Bay and other areas for export opportunities.

Zama-zamas: According to the community, illegal mining activities are rife, and the department needs to address that before it gets out of hand. The mining houses must rehabilitate the mines once they are closed to avoid illegal mining to take place as well as future challenges of environmental degradation.

Environmental degradation: Climate change was cited as a challenge currently and environment has been damaged by mining activities. The municipality mentioned that dust is a major challenge experienced by the community members in the JTG areas and are concerned about the future damage to be caused by the mining activities. There are some mining companies that only does bulk sampling after the received the prospective license and the department should monitor the rehabilitation of companies that do bulk sampling as well. The Community specifically enquired what the procedures and processes were they had to follow when they wish to report cases when the mining houses are not complying with all the requirements of their licenses, relevant Acts and municipality regulations. Community members complained that blasting that occurs from mining activity of Kumba is negatively affecting their lives, damaging their houses as well as causing constant dust that comes from mining activity.

Post mining planning and development: The committee wanted to hear what plans are in place for the JTG municipality regarding sustainable development and economic sustainability of the area after mining companies has closed. At the current moment, the areas don’t experience any economic benefit from mining activity. There are no universities that focuses on engineering to take advantage of mining or even technical colleagues to teach and collaborate with mining houses. In terms of logistics, there are no opportunities for local companies to enter the transportation business.

Relocation challenges: People that have been moved to Mapoteng and Siyathemba feels neglected and have been treated badly. In Mapoteng, the municipality does not provide any services to community members, and they raised several issues such as lack of proper housing; high electricity bills; non-provision of services; sewerage running across the streets; lack of infrastructure; no amenities and recreation facilities for their children and no high school in the area. In addition, electricity services are cut off when community members will be in arrears with only municipal services. Communities are requesting a 24/7 clinic and for the government to build a hospital in their area. The Siyathembe community raised concerns about different compensation that were received by community members when they were relocated from Dingleton by Kumba, while other community members were aggrieved about the process and the way it was conducted. It was stated that there were significant differences in compensation given to different families. Furthermore, they indicated that a better life that was promised was now turned into a nightmare since they are not enjoying the same benefits they used to while they were in Dingleton. The infrastructure is inadequate and their family houses were poorly built and are now falling apart.

Engagement with the Municipality

While timely communications were sent to the local government of the Gamagara municipality, there was no delegation arranged to meet with the committee. The committee briefly met with the Mayor of the municipality before the public engagement started.

Recommendations made

The committee recommends that the DMRE furnish it with the details of all S&LP proposals that were presented by mining companies in the Gamagara municipality and surrounds, together with reports from the DMRE/local authority verifying the existence and completion of these projects before mining licenses were renewed.

That the DALRRD and DMRE are provided with an opportunity to comment about the complaints put forward by the CPA affected by mining activity on its land. In particular, the departments need to clarify whether all correct avenues of communications were followed when consulting with the CPA after mining/exploration applications were received, and after such rights were awarded.

That the committee communicate its concerns about the lack of economic development and opportunity in the Northern Cape with the Select Committee on Trade & Industry, Economic Development, Small Business, Tourism, Employment & Labour and its NA counterparts. The committee should further communicate its concerns regarding lack of higher and tertiary education opportunities in the rural municipalities with the Report of the Select Committee on Education, Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture and its NA counterparts. Lastly, the committee should communicate its concerns regarding the municipal funding model and infrastructure challenges with the Select Committee on Finance as well as the Select committee on Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs, Water and Sanitation and Human Settlements and their NA counterparts.

The committee continues to follow up the DMRE regarding its Artisanal and Small-scale mining policy implementation, and interventions planned for the Northern Cape.

That the committee seeks clarity from the DMRE and the Select Committee Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs, Water and Sanitation and Human Settlements regarding the complaints of Dingleton and Siyathembe residents that were relocated to make way for Kumba Iron Ore mining expansion.

That the committee relays the community’s concerns regarding illegal mining activity and fears of escalation in the region to the DMRE and Select Committee on Security and Justice.

That the department liaise with the DFFE in order to furnish to Kathu communitee representatives with the requested information regarding legislation and regulations applicable to environmental management of mining activity, inclusive of the process of reporting concerns about breaches of mine EMPs.

Issues raised by the Parliamentary Delegation

The committee noted that it is not the first time that most of the matters raised by the Kathu communities have been captured. Indeed, it would appear to be a blueprint of concerns of mining-affected communities across South Africa.

During presentations to the Select Committee by the DMRE Executive, the manner in which mining revenue is used by the National Treasury had been defended. It was stated that the mineral wealth of South Africa is a national asset, and as such, should be shared equally across all provinces and for all budget allocations. It remains a glaring fact, however, that rural provinces that bear the brunt of the negative impacts of mining and significantly under-funded in terms of infrastructure development, public facilities, and the provision of basic services. When the lack of economic opportunity, linked to the poor state of infrastructure development, is added into the equation, it is almost impossible for the communities concerned not to suffer the outcomes observed by the Select Committee. Poor education opportunities lead to low skill levels. Insufficient schooling, transport and employment opportunities lead to frustrated, unemployed youth, high crime rate and social-economic challenges, and migration away from these areas in search of better opportunities.

According to the latest figures released by Statistics South Africa, Youth in South Africa continue to be disadvantaged in the labour market with an unemployment rate higher than the national average. The Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) for the first quarter of 2022, indicated an unemployment rate of 63,9% for those aged 15-24 and 42,1% for those aged 25-34 years. Graduate unemployment rates remain lower compared to those of other educational levels. The unemployment rate among young graduates (aged 15-24 years) declined from 40,3% to 32,6% between 2021 and 2022. In a recently published study that tracked the employment status of rural and urban individuals over time, it was revealed that the number of unemployed rural individuals were twice as high as their urban counterparts.

Under these conditions, the following conclusions have to be made regarding the observations made not only in Kathu but also in Kakamas and Augrabies:

Where government investment in rural municipalities is insufficient, communities have little chance of receiving an education that results in them receiving in-demand skills;

Low economic opportunities persist in municipalities with chronic infrastructure challenges. The reduced employment opportunities lead to communities focusing on the largest employer in the municipality, such as the public sector, mining or agriculture, with a mix of employment expectation and suspicion. Those unable to find employment are at risk of growing resentful towards the employed as well as the industry.

Poor representation in these rural centres by departments such as the DMRE likely contributes to the possibility of mis-communication with communities, as well as inadequate oversight over industry such as mining. There is a real risk of the type of contraventions highlighted by the community taking place, with DMRE staff spread thin over regional centres.

Regardless of all the challenges highlighted by the community, such as failure to support S&LP commitments, broken relocations promises and damage to economic infrastructure, mining companies cannot be treated as the source of all investment in rural economies. The type of S&LP projects communities are seeking, should actually be provided by government. It is incorrect to seek the development of schools, parks, clinics and recreational facilities solely from the private sector. While better targeted S&LP linked to the municipal LED can be requested, the responsibility for rural development and upliftment lies first and foremost with government.

2.2. Public Meeting and DARDLR in Augrabies

Challenges and constraints highlighted

The Committee travelled to the settlement of Augrabies in order to meet with communities that have benefitted from settled land claims, as well as those communities that are still awaiting the finalisation of their claims.

The committee had hoped to engage a particular community, the Riemvasmaak group, as their land claims differs significantly from the experience that the committee has with settled claims on agricultural land. This community had received a portion of a national park as part of their settlement. As a condition of the de-proclamation of the section of Augrabies National Park claimed by the community, Parliament stipulated that the land could only be used for conservation and tourism-related activity. Early in the process of land reform, the DALRRD did not have resources dedicated to post-settlement support, while later assistance was heavily skewed towards commercial agriculture. The committee was interested to determine what post settlement support the community has received. The committee noted with regret that no representative of the Riemvasmaak community was present at the engagement; prompting discussions with South African National Parks regarding support given to the Riemvasmaak community after the public engagement was complete.

The engagement with the Augrabies community, as well as representatives from a number of claimant groups from Kakamas was very productive. The engagement included representatives from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, who were able to provide responses to questions raised by the community representatives.

A significant portion of the concerns expressed was related to the claims were submitted in the period 2014 to 2016. The most common challenge was with poor communication between the Department and claimants. The Department clarified that the claims were still considered valid, but will not be processed until the Department complies with the court ruling that stipulated that old order claims have to be finalised and/or the relevant Bill (Restitution of Land Rights Act) amended before new claims can be considered. Community members wanted to know how long it was going to take before an amended Restitution of Land Rights Bill will be processed by parliament.

Concerns were raised that many of the original claimants have since passed away, while other community members were worried that a lack of communication between claimants and the Department could indicate that claims will be lost in the interim. Claims committees selected by claimants to represent their case also expressed their concern about the fact that information regarding the fate of their claims are not clearly communicated, causing conflict with other claimants who feel that their claim is being mismanaged. Community members further highlighted concerns about claimant lists. For both old order and new claims, speakers highlighted that they are not in possession of claimant lists and can therefore not verify whether they or on the list, and check if people not entitled to the claim has been added to the list.

The Department clarified that with new order claims, only the individuals that submitted claims, and not the entire group of claimants, will receive periodic updates on the status of claims. The processing and finalisation of old order claims demanded far greater engagement with the entire claimant group, which is also one of the causes for delays in the finalisation of these claims.

In reply to the Department’s clarification on the fate of old order claims lodged before 1998 and new claims, community members reminded the department that there was still claims from 1998 that were outstanding. The Department responded by providing the details of all outstanding old order claims in the Northern Cape, as well as the status of these outstanding claims. The Department further outlined the steps that need to be taken in order to trace all claimant families and reach a unanimous decision as to the type of settlement that would be accepted.

The representatives of the Maremane claimant group, who was also present at the Kathu engagement, attended this meeting as well. The grievances listed at the meeting was the same as in Kathu, with the representative stating that he has not received satisfactory feedback from the DMRE at the meeting. The concerns revolve around the permission that mining companies received to mine on CPA land (deeds not transferred) without due consultation with the CPA. Recommendations were made in this report regarding the need for the matter to be addressed (section dealing with the Kathu public meeting). An additional concern raised by the group, which is directed at the DALRRD, revolved around the continued destabilisation of the Maremane CPA by former claimants that accepted financial compensation at the time of settlement. The representative insisted that the matter be finalised and a full list of beneficiaries who are members of the CPA be furnished to them without delay.

A unique dimension to the land reform focus of the Augrabies community was the fact that many have reverted to post-2014 land claims in a desperate bid to resolve challenges associated with township development. The original settlement, referred to as “the island” is surrounded by farmland. There are no options for expansion and the community is desperate for land to expand the settlement. Additionally, the community had highlighted a lack of healthcare and education facilities in the settlement.

A final concern raised by a number of speakers was that many claims have underlying challenges related to the beneficiary list that is supposed to accompany the claims. Many of the original claimants have passed away, while in other cases, there is confusion as to whether specific individuals for part of the recipients or not. The Department was requested to assist claimants in a more transparent way by providing detailed lists of all the beneficiaries linked to each claim.

Engagement with the Municipality

While the day’s engagements did not include local government representation, the invitation of stakeholders to the event, as well as catering for the community was undertaken by the Kai !Garib local authority. A brief introduction with the major and her executive was undertaken before the meeting started. The committee expressed their appreciation to the representatives of the municipality who facilitated the meeting, and the community for the orderly manner in which the engagement was conducted.

Recommendations made

The committee resolved to continue discussions with the DALRRD, the DFFE, SANParks as well as the Riemvasmaak community in order to get a clear picture of the nature of government support provided to the community in pursuit of rural development needs as well as in achieving the requirements of the parliamentary conditions of de-commission.

The committee resolved to support the community members in finding clarity needed on claims submitted. The committee further expressed its dissatisfaction with the fact that the Department only had regional representation, some distance away from affected communities, and did not perform any outreach to these towns and settlements to assist communities with claims. The committee proposed to the Department that their regional offices are too far away from claimant communities such as residents of Kakamas and Augrabies, and that the Department should facilitate better engagement with the community through regular visits to claimants rather that to indicate to them where the regional offices are located.

The Committee notes the frustration of the Augrabies community related to the lack of opportunity to expand the settlement, and the lack of social services. The committee is of the opinion that the land reform process may not be the ideal avenue through which to address these challenges, and resolves to communicate the community’s concerns to the Select Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Water and Sanitation and Human Settlements for consideration.

The committee acknowledge the request of the representative of the Maremane CPA to assist in the clarification of the CPA’s list of members, and to find a solution to the illegal occupation of CPA land by claimants that accepted financial settlements in the past, should this challenge be confirmed by the DALRRD.

The committee notes with concern that the Department did not clarify the impact of the Constitutional Court ruling on the settlements of old-order claims and the revised Restitution of Land Rights Bill (B 19B—2017) on the processing of claims lodged after 2014. The fate of claims submitted after 2014 is very clear and should be explained to all concerned claimants.

1. 1. Issues raised by the Parliamentary Delegation

The Restitution of Land Rights Bill in its current configuration (2017 version, post Constitutional Court Ruling) clearly stipulates that upon the finalisation or referral in terms of section 14 to the Court of all claims lodged on or before 31 December 1998, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner shall certify in writing that such claims have been finalised or referred to the Court, and shall publish a notice in the Gazette and in the media circulating nationally and in the province, stating the date

on which the Commission shall start processing claims lodged—
(a) from 1 July 2014 until 28 July 2016; and
(b) in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act, 2018.

While the Bill allows for exceptions to allow the processing of post-2014 claims together with 1998 claims under specific circumstances, these conditions are rare and typically involves overlap with pre-1998 claims. The fact therefore remains that even if the Bill is passed in its amended form, it is unlikely that any of the claims discussed in the meeting will be processed soon. With or without the processing of the amended Bill, claims submitted before 1998 has to be processed first as per the Constitutional Court ruling.

The Department is aware of this and should be communicating honestly with the communities of Kakamas and Augrabies. In a written response dated 28 June 2022, Minister T. Didiza said the Land Claims Commission has a total of 6 685 outstanding claims dating from the 1988 deadline. The commission had in the 2020-21 financial year settled only 17 claims involving 230 claimants. There are over 160 000 new order claims submitted after 2014.

2.3. Local Government Meeting in Upington

Challenges and constraints highlighted

As expected, the scale of the municipality was one of the main constraints that impacts service delivery. Many communities, such as Rietfontein, could be up to 280 km from the main urban hub of the municipality. Wards are enormous, requiring a significant amount of travelling by ward councillors and municipal officials to reach all community members. The municipal sources of income is limited. Main sources of income is the sale of electricity, grant allocations and rates. Large parts of the municipality has low population density, resulting in limited income from selling electricity and municipal rates. A large portion of the municipalities’ residents is indigent or unemployed, which requires the provision of basic services but yields limited income.

A significant challenge experienced by the municipality is the fact that it was merged with the Mier local municipality without transferring Mier’s grant funding to the amalgamated municipality. Mier is a rural population that is sparsely populated, thus it generates very little income, but requires great distances to be covered in order to provide services. This leaves Dawid Kruiper municipality with the responsibilities and expenditure of Mier municipality but none of its government funding. Financial challenges that result has forced the municipality to approach banks for loans to perform critical infrastructure maintenance, such as the repair of roads.

Even without this challenge, the municipality is hardly able to meet its financial l obligations through grant funding and the sale of electricity/rates. Whenever electricity pricing increases, the electricity usage from residents drop as many are poor/unemployed and cannot afford the constant increases. The main underlying cause for this financial situation is the manner in which equitable share is calculated. The current allocation is simply too little to sustain service provision where unemployment is rising and income from selling of electricity is dropping. The situation is made worse by large numbers of migrants from other areas of the province/country relocating to the municipality in search of work. The challenges associated with this inward migration is twofold. First, the waste water and electricity supply network is being pushed beyond capacity, resulting in system malfunction, and second, the number of indigent families qualifying for free basic services increase. Without the unemployment challenge being addressed at provincial level, the municipality will continue to struggle with the provision of basic services.

A final general concern raised was service provision challenges related to agriculture. On the one hand, the migration of seasonal workers into the municipality at certain times of the year creates sporadic spikes in service requirements. The second concern raised was that many farm workers have lost their jobs/accommodation on farms, and then need RDP housing. The municipality has little expansion capacity.

Solid waste removal

In terms of challenges experienced by the municipality, the municipality highlighted general problems, which included:

Challenges with containing illegal dumping in informal settlements;
Challenges in replacing ageing waste collection vehicles;
Challenges in some areas with the theft of or vandalising of fences that surround waste disposal sites;
Budget shortfalls;
Logistic challenges, in particular, the large distances that municipal vehicles have to cover to provide services;
Human resources are hard to obtain as it is difficult to attract skilled professionals to the municipality; and
Ageing infrastructure.

DFFE feedback

In response to the municipal presentation, the Department provided feedback focusing on the following inputs:

The department has a nationally funded programme to assist municipalities with the replacement of yellow fleet waste removal vehicles;
The department can also support municipalities with MIG arrangements with Treasury and COGTA in order to motivate for the replacement of waste removal vehicles;
The department highlighted that they actively engage with municipalities through an awareness campaign to ensure that the municipalities use the waste collection grant that is available to local government;
The department is actively trying to reduce the volume of solid waste reaching landfills through the extended producer responsibility, that makes producers responsible for the entire life cycle of the products that they introduce on the market, from their design until end of life;
A value is assigned to specific items to attempt to reduce it reaching landfill sites, while informal waste pickers are supported to formalise waste sorting activity;

Electrification and energy supply

The municipality informed the department of the current challenges experienced in terms of electricity supply and the electrification of households within its borders. The main issues to be summarised from the interaction is the following:

The municipality is able to provide a large percentage of households with electricity, but those communities that cannot be linked to the national grid current have no immediate alternative electricity source. A section of the Mier area was connected to a line coming from Namibia in the past but as this line reached capacity, the supply was cut off;

Revenue from the sale of electricity is decreasing due to the price increases forcing poorer households to use less electricity, and the high level of unemployment within the municipality;

The municipality is trying to be more pro-active regarding electricity supply and management, but are experiencing some challenges with the implementation of existing plans. The municipality is currently unable to implement a planned shift towards the use of smart metring since Treasury has indicated that it wishes to implement a national rollout of such an initiative. The municipality had developed a master plan for the inclusion of renewable energy into its energy procurement mix three years ago. A site for a potential plant has been identified, but no development could be achieved to date. It is worth noting that the Northern Cape, including the Dawid Kruiper municipality, plays host to the largest number of solar energy developments in the country. All these plants, however, feed into the national grid and does not have any procurement deal with the hosting municipality;
Outlying areas purchasing power from ESKOM directly are challenged with the way ESKOM handles payment that is in arrears. The municipality, however, itself does not owe ESKOM any money;

The renewable energy projects within the municipality is being projected as an employment and skills development opportunity, but this is not the case. Developers have their own skilled labour, and only employ local people in labourer positions. This does not provide sustainable jobs, industrial development or technology/skills transfer;

Greater assistance from ESKOM is needed in order to assist the municipality with the supply of local capacity needs.

Engagement with the Municipality

The committee delegation was welcomed by the mayor, who apologised for being delayed as a result of the visit of the province’s Premier that overlapped with the committee’s oversight.

The municipality was requested to provide a presentation to the committee outlining the challenges they experience with the provision of waste removal and electrification services. As this is the largest local municipality in the country, and is characterised by thinly spread communities, the committee was eager to learn about challenges experienced in order to determine how the municipality could be assisted.

The municipal officials responsible for the two portfolios were introduced, and provided an overview of the municipal services offered to the community. The overviews provided were detailed in terms of service provision, but the officials did not provide sufficient details on the challenges experience, which prompted the delegation to request that the officials elaborate on the challenges that they face honestly. They were assured that the NCOP does not perform oversight over local authorities, but engage with them in order to determine what assistance is needed.

At this point, the officials, with inputs from the Departmental officials present, elaborated in detail about service delivery challenges experienced by the municipality. Discussions about waste removal was still brief, and included some references to sewerage management, which falls outside the oversight role of the committee. Far more serious and numerous challenges related to electrification were experienced, and these were relayed to the committee. The challenges with electrification responsibility are very closely linked to the municipal funding model and percentage of equitable share that is allocated to the provincial and local authority. This was a repeated theme that emerged during oversight.

Recommendations made

The committee resolves to liaise with the municipality, DFFE and Treasury in order to ensure that all forms of grant support available to municipalities to upgrade its solid waste removal fleet is made available and accessed by the municipality.

The committee further recommends that during its engagements with the relevant parliamentary committees, Cogta and Treasury regarding the challenges the municipality is facing in terms of revenue and grant income, that the challenges communicated by the municipality in terms of solid waste management is relayed to the responsible entities.

The committee recommends that during its engagements with the relevant parliamentary committees, Cogta and Treasury regarding the challenges the municipality is facing in terms of revenue and grant income, that the challenges communicated by the municipality in terms of the supply of electricity and upgrading of electricity infrastructure is relayed to the responsible entities.

The committee resolves to engage the DMRE regarding employment and skills transfer opportunities related to renewable energy projects under construction in the province, with the aim of relaying the municipalities concerns regarding the lack of permanent employment opportunities and skills transfer created by these projects.

Finally, the committee resolves to communicate with and continue to engage the DMRE and Treasury related to the need for smaller rural municipalities in good standing with ESKOM to be assisted with the procurement of alternative energy supply, particularly in cases where connection to ESKOM’s electricity grid is not possible. To this end, the committee further resolve to engage the DMRE regarding the wealth of renewable energy projects in the Dawid Kruiper municipality, and opportunities for municipalities to procure additional electricity capacity directly from such projects.

how these and other economic development activity from the mining se

The committee expressed its appreciation to the municipal officials for the detailed breakdown of challenges and opportunities related to the delivery of services. The committee expressed its concern over the underlying socio-economic challenges faced by the municipality, resolving to address these with the relevant departments and parliamentary committees.

3. Summary of observations during oversight

The committee embarked on the oversight visit with the expectation of making observations and recommendations related to the narrow focus topics selected during the planning of the week. What transpired, however, was the observation of major underlying challenges stemming from national policy and the current economic climate working together to create significant challenges for the local governments visited. The observations and recommendations made by the committee regarding specific local government/departmental competencies were listed in detail at the end of each visit report.

In terms of opportunities for involvement in the mining sector, observations mirror the challenges observed in other provinces. The mining sector remains largely closed for local entrepreneurs, while there are no opportunities for local residents to be skilled and become employable in specialised mining professions. Communication between the department, mining companies and local communities remain a challenge, with a large degree of mistrust expressed during the meeting. There is doubt about the impact of Social and Labour plans at community level, and allegations that mining licenses are renewed without due oversight over the impact and completion of S&LP. The relocation of communities to make way for mining expansion was highlighted as a concern, as was the negative impact of mining on mining affected communities.

A major underlying theme that has been flagged as a challenge during past oversight visits to other provinces was the significant expectation of mining companies by local communities of investment in infrastructure and social services. These extend past the requirements of S&LP commitments, and overlap with the responsibilities of government. It has to be emphasized once again that while mining companies should be better held accountable for the implementation of S&LP commitments, the industry cannot be expected to provide services and infrastructure that is the responsibility of government.

In terms of land reform, the immediate matters to follow up on for the community is the details required regarding support offered to the Riemvasmaak community. The community representatives could not attend the meeting. The second issue that is of great concern is the lack of communication from the department regarding the fate of claims submitted after 2014, as well as the inaccessibility of departmental offices to outlying communities.

Many of these are critical to resolve and require interaction between the committee and the department it oversees. It is necessary, however, to highlight the bigger picture of observations made during oversight, which will require of the committee to liaise with other committees and state entities that does not fall under its oversight responsibility.

The local municipalities visited were well maintained overall, within the constrains of budget and capacity. The committee was impressed with the overall management of these municipalities, but were well aware that the economic well-being of the municipalities was not guaranteed. The reality of the current economic challenges, large-scale migration into areas of mining and agriculture, lack of space for housing expansion, large-scale unemployment and the sheer scale of municipalities are pushing these municipalities to the brink. The situation underlines the challenges that Local Government Week interactions between the NCOP and SALGA has highlighted on numerous occasions. Revenue from rates and the sale of electricity is shrinking, while the manner in which equitable share is calculated negatively affects local government.

Of particular concern is the observation of the incorporation of the Mier municipality into Dawid Kruiper municipality without the transfer of the former municipality’s equitable share allocation. This situation cannot remain unaddressed, as it is impossible for a municipality of this size to deliver services to all citizens with a reduced budget. Distances that have to be travelled, the number of unemployed individuals and indigent households, influx of jobseekers and cost of doing business is especially acute in terms of electricity provision. The municipality is in good standing with ESKOM, and there are a wealth of renewable energy projects in the municipal district. There is an urgent need to investigate the options for the municipality in terms of the procurement of alternative sources of electricity in order to contain the cost of electricity procurement as well as the ability to provide services to outlying communities that cannot be connected to the national grid.

Report to be considered.

Documents