ATC120523: Joint oversight visit on the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme and Land Reform in the Northern Cape, Limpopo Provinces, Free State and Mpumalanga, dated 23 May 2012

Rural Development and Land Reform

1

Report of the Portfolio Committees on Rural Development and Land Reform; and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries regarding a joint oversight visit on the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme and Land Reform in the Northern Cape, Limpopo Provinces, Free State and Mpumalanga, dated 23 May 2012.

 

The Portfolio Committees on Rural Development and Land Reform; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, having undertaken joint oversight visits to the Northern Cape (28 February to 1 March 2011), Limpopo (2 to 4 March 2011), Free State (25 to 29 July 2011) and Mpumalanga (2 to 5 August 2011), report as follows:

 

Introduction

 

The Portfolio Committees on Rural Development and Land Reform; Agriculture, Forestry and Fishers (the Committees) resolved to undertake a joint oversight in the provinces of Limpopo, Northern Cape, Free State and Mpumalanga. The Committees jointly visited 45 projects as listed in Table 1 of this report. The focus for the oversight visit was to assess implementation of the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) and land reform programmes of redistribution, restitution and tenure reform.

 

The CRDP is a strategic priority within the current Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) of government. It seeks to enable people in rural areas to take control of their own destiny with the support of government through optimal use and management of natural resources in order to achieve creation of vibrant and sustainable rural communities. It hinges on a three-pronged strategy of coordinated and integrated broad-based agrarian transformation, rural development, and an improved land reform. Land reform entails transfer of land to the previously disadvantaged individuals and communities in order to redress the inequalities in the patterns of land distribution that resulted from a long period of dispossession and racial segregation under the apartheid government policies.

 

The Committees assessed progress with regard to land redistribution and provisional complementary support services. It focussed on the interventions of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). The Committees sought to assess progress being made towards achieving outcome 7 of the MTSF which aims to ensure “vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities and food security for all”.

 

1.1 Objectives of this report

 

The objectives of the oversight visit was firstly, to assess progress in the implementation of rural development initiatives under the CRDP involving youth development initiatives under the National Rural Youth Service Corps, commonly known as NARYSEC. Secondly, investigate the extent of the challenge of post settlement for land reform beneficiaries. Thirdly, assess how the Revitalization and Development Programme and other support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) could address the weaknesses of the current post-settlement support from government.

 

In view of the objectives of this oversight visit, this report will:

 

­ describe achievements and short-comings in relation to implementation of the CRDP, especially with regards to infrastructure development, job creation and food security;

­ describe the practices regarding post-settlement support for land reform projects and highlight prospects for, and threats to the wider programme of recapitalization and development for land reform projects across South Africa;

­ assess implementation of the different models of joint ventures under land reform, that is, share-equity schemes, strategic partnerships, and mentorships; and

­ highlight implications for policy as well as practice and conclude with recommendations for how both the DRDLR and DAFF should act.

 

1.2 Sources of information and outline of the process

 

This report draws on analysis of various reports submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (from the four provinces) and provincial offices of the DRDLR. It also draws on the briefing sessions conducted by government departments and stakeholders, discussions of Members of Parliament with project beneficiaries, and observations by Members of infrastructure and usage of land at the identified projects.

 

The approach adopted by the Committees involved the following:

 

Ÿ Briefing session with Members of the Executive Councils and/or senior government officials in the identified provinces. These sessions were a useful platform for the delegation to be appraised about the state of agriculture, progress in land reform and rural development initiatives in the respective provinces.

 

Ÿ Site visits at CRDP sites and identified land reform projects where the delegation conducted site inspections and walkabouts at various projects. The delegation further interacted with projects beneficiaries, relevant project managers and extension officers from government departments. The Committees always insisted on the departments making specific commitments to address specific concerns and requests from beneficiaries.

 

Ÿ Stakeholder and concluding meetings to conclude and debrief the entire visit as well as consider comprehensive responses of the departments on some of the pending questions which departments could not respond to at the time of site visits. Those meetings provided an opportunity for the delegation to discuss key findings and consider plans of action for further reporting by the departments.

 

Table 1 below, lists various projects visited by the Committees. As demonstrated, the Committees covered a range of land reform projects, mainly the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD), Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG), Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), Restitution (involving joint venture models and self managed farms) and Tenure security projects. The Committees took care to ensure that various districts in the identified provinces were visited.

 

Table 1 : Projects visited by the Committees

Programme	Free State	Northern Cape	Limpopo	Mpumalanga
CRDP	Diatalawa, Makholokoeng	Riemvasmaak (Vredesvallei and Sending)	Muyexe	Mkhondo
LRAD/SLAG	Pitso Sikhoto, Jan Zim, Letoka, Mbele	Silvermoon Valley Junction Sandraai Arbeidsgenot Realegoba CC Spanenberg Blucuso Trust	Sisimuka , California CC, Bophelo Farming, Amukelani, Solester, Makgatho,Kwena, Machinana Trust	Nsimu Yami, Maphepheni
PLAS	Swaatkopies, Cecilia, Mieliespruit,Khotle, Kromspruit	-	-	Ryton, Madjeliefde,
Restitution	Bethany, Blesbokfontein, Mokgachane, Boitumelo,		Moletele, Mokgolobotho	Giba Tenbosch Champeign
Tenure Reform	Betlehem (Sisonke), Masisi,	-	-	Maphepheni

 

1.3 Composition of the delegation

 

The delegation comprised: Hon Johnson, Mr ML (ANC), Hon Sizani, Mr PS - Chairpersons and the leaders of the delegation; Hon Matlanyane, Ms HF (ANC) - the co-leader of the delegation; Hon Twala, Ms M (ANC); Hon November, Ms N (ANC); Hon Phaliso, Ms NM (ANC); Hon Nyalungu, Ms RE (ANC); Hon Xaba, Ms PP (ANC); Hon Inkosi Mandela, MZD (ANC), Hon Pilusa-Mosoane, Ms NE (ANC); Hon Inkosi Cebekhulu, Mr NR (IFP), Hon Tolo, Mr L (COPE), Hon Gaehler, Mr LB (UDM); Hon Abraham, Mr S (ANC); Hon Prince Zulu, Mr ZB (ANC); Hon Bosman, Mr LL (DA) and Hon Steyn, Ms A (DA).

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3.1 Parliamentary and Ministries’ officials

 

Ÿ Parliamentary officials supporting the delegation were: Nyamza, Ms P (Committee Secretary); Martin, Ms D (Committee Secretary); Manenzhe, Mr T (Content Adviser); Mgxashe, Ms N (Researcher), Pepeteka – Siyo, Ms T (Researcher) and Cele, Ms Y (Committee Assistant).

 

Ÿ The Ministries of Rural Development and Land Reform, and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries were represented by Mr. Z Zweni, Mr. Mr M Mashaba and Mr R Sebifelo respectively. In addition, provincial and national departments were also represented during the visits.

 

1.4 Plan of development

 

The report proceeds in three main sections: Firstly, it provides an overview of land reform, rural development and agriculture. Secondly, it documents observations about implementation of the CRDP, post settlement support for land reform projects and thirdly, other agricultural support mechanisms. The report concludes with conclusions and recommendations to the DRDLR and DAFF.

 

2. Overview of land reform, agricultural support and rural development

 

South Africa has various policies and strategies to achieve rural development and food security. The Medium Term Strategic Framework 2009 - 2014 and Outcome 7 of the 12 outcomes of Government for service delivery provide guidance on how government should implement strategies and policies. In the context of this oversight visit, critical issues under consideration were the rural development, land reform and food security, as part of the key programmes being implemented to achieve “vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities and food security for all”. The DRDLR has been given the responsibility to be the overall driver and coordinator for Outcome 7, which is about development and implementation of a comprehensive rural development strategy. The strategy is implemented in collaboration with DAFF.

 

Restitution is one of the key components of the land reform programme which has progressed amid difficulties. Of the entire 79 696 land claims lodged, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) had finalized 57 726 claims. According to the Strategic Plan 2011 – 2014, the CRLR was yet to finalize 18 297 claims, with about 3 673 land claims that still required research. The CRLR was further verifying the accuracy of the number of land claims lodged and outstanding under the Records Management Project of the CRLR.

 

At the time of the oversight visit, the entire land redistribution (including restitution) had redistributed 7 per cent of the white owned agricultural land against the 30 per cent target to be achieved by 2014. Post settlement support for land reform, including provision of agricultural support in terms of capital and extension has proven to be a mammoth task for government; hence many of the farms transferred had become unproductive. Since 2009, government has introduced the Recapitalization and Development Programme (RADP) to assist in increasing productivity of land reform farms as well as supporting other emerging farmers. Through RADP, DRDLR has assisted land reform beneficiaries to enter into strategic partnership and joint venture schemes in order to bring all agricultural land transferred under land reform into full production.

 

2.1 Northern Cape

 

The Northern Cape covers 30 per cent of South Africa ’s landmass and has an arid climate. In the east the average annual rainfall is 450-500 mm, while in the west it is 200 mm. In 2010, the total population of the province was about 1 103 900, accounting for 2.3 per cent share of the total population of South Africa . The province is one of the poor provinces of South Africa . Provided that farmers had access to irrigation water, mainly from either the Orange or the Vaal Rivers , farmers grow a variety of crops. The greater part of the province is predominantly utilized for extensive natural grazing. Animal and animal sector products sectors accounts for 50 per cent of the entire agricultural land use whereas the field crop sector and horticulture account for 25 per cent each. The economy of the province is dominated by agriculture and mining but the agricultural sector remains the main employer.

 

According to the 2009/10 Annual Report of the CRLR, a total of 3696 land claims lodged by 31 December 1998 were already settled. On the 31 March 2010 the Regional Land Claims Commissioner’s office ( Northern Cape and Free State ) was yet to settle156 land claims in the Northern Cape . The 2011/12 Annual Report of the CRLR indicated that 19 land claims, involving 5 rural claims, 8 urban and 6 dismissed claims, were settled during the financial year.

 

Land redistribution (SLAG, LRAD and PLAS) faced enormous challenges with regard to access to capital. Some of the projects were less productive hence the need to up scale service delivery by both government and non-government entities. The challenge of post settlement also affected the land restitution projects.

 

Since 2009, the DRDRL began to coordinate implementation of the CRDP as a pilot project at Riemvasmaak (Sending and Vredevallei). The pilot was implemented under the provincial championship of the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). The DARD further developed a plan to rollout the CRDP across the rural wards in the Northern Cape with intention to address the challenges of job creation, social cohesion and infrastructure development.

 

2.2 Limpopo

 

Limpopo province covers 10.3 per cent share of the total land area of South Africa and is the fifth largest province and one of the poorest. By 2010, Limpopo had a total population of 5 439 600, accounting 10.9 per cent share of the total population of South Africa . Majority of the population live in the former Bantustans characterised by overcrowding, tenure that is legally insecure and lack many of the economic opportunities found elsewhere in the urban centres.

 

Alongside commercial farming is the small-scale and subsistence agriculture on communal lands. This forms part of the mainstream economic activity of the large section of the rural poor. Agriculture is an important source of income, where maize, fruit and vegetables are the main crops. The agricultural sector is reported to be the largest employer, outside the public sector, employing many of the workers who live on farms with their families under precarious tenure.

 

Land reform was being implemented on some of the high value land in Limpopo where subtropical fruits are being produced for export. Such crops are bananas, tea, avocadoes, mangoes and macadamia nuts. The land restitution programme affects many of such areas of high value and prime agricultural land. Hoedspruit and Tzaneen, sites visited in terms of the programme for oversight, a number of claims have been settled and redistribution projects (LRAD, PLAS and SLAG) have been implemented. New forms of equity schemes known as strategic partnerships have been initiated and implemented on large land restitution projects and some of the redistribution projects that the Committees visited.

 

As at 31 March 2010, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner’s Office of Limpopo (RLCC) had settled a total of 3070 land claims lodged by the cut off date and 419 land claims were yet to be settled (excluding 16 cases before the Land Claims Court). For the financial year that ended on 31 March 2011, the CRLR had settled 94 claims involving 38 rural and dismissed 218 land claims. A review of redistribution projects highlighted challenges related to up scaling of redistribution of land to contribute to the target of redistributing 30 per cent of agricultural land by 2014.

 

The CRDP was being piloted at Muyexe in an attempt to facilitate development in rural areas. The pilot project was expected to provide a model for rolling out the programme for comprehensive and integrated rural development. At the time of the visit, the focus of the CRDP was on phase 1, focusing on meeting the basic needs of ‘communities’.

 

2.3 Free State

 

The province of Free State accounts for 10.6 per cent of the total land area of South Africa . By 2010, the province had a total population of 2 824 500, which is 5.7 per cent share of the total population of South Africa . Majority of the poor people are located in the former Bantustan areas. The landscape of Free State is dominated by agriculture, characterised by a diversity of agricultural products such as wheat, sorghum, sunflower, soya and cherry crop. Horticulture is increasing and becoming export-oriented. On the other hand, livestock farming is also a significant agricultural activity among the many commercial and emerging commercial farmers and is evidenced by the number of land reform projects in livestock farming.

 

As at 31 March 2010, The RLCC ( Free State and Northern Cape ) settled 2661 land claims lodged by the 31 December 1998 involving 40893 ha. During the financial year that ended 31 March 2011, 11 land claims involving 10 rural and 1 urban land claims covering 3837 ha were settled.

 

A review of the many redistribution projects shows that a substantial amount of land was transferred under the land reform programme. Both redistribution and restitution projects faced the challenge regarding the sustainability of production of farms transferred and access to capital. However, interventions such as the partnerships between VUKANI farmers and government with beneficiaries have begun to ensure that projects are revitalized and developed.

 

On the CRDP front, rural development initiatives have been implemented in Diyatalawa and Makholokoeng. The interventions also focussed on phase 1 of the CRDP which deals with meeting the basic needs through infrastructure development.

 

 

 

 

2.4 Mpumalanga

 

Mpumalanga Province occupies 6.3 per cent or 76 495 of the total land area of South Africa , with a total population of 3 617 600 or 7.4 per cent share of the total population of South Africa . The province is known for its forestry plantations and abundance of citrus and many other subtropical fruits such as mangoes, avocados, litchis bananas etc. Nelspruit, one of the largest citrus producing areas in South Africa , is found in Mpumalanga . This, therefore, explains why land reform is such as important programme in this area and why it should be addressed in manners that address the questions of equitable land ownership as well as agricultural growth.

 

By 31 March 2010 Mpumalanga had settled 2755 land claims involving some 400050 ha and the RLCC: Mpumalanga was yet to settle 645 land claims. During the 2010/2011 financial year, the RLCC: Mpumalanga settled 29 land claims involving 8 rural, 6 urban, and 15 dismissed land claims.

 

Review of land reform projects visited showed that the province has a huge challenge to manage processes of transfer of large capital intensive agricultural land; Hence, attempts of introducing strategic partnerships and mentorship programmes to assist land reform beneficiaries. The Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Administration (DARDLA) reported that it supported 288 farmers or land reform projects with specialized advice, and assisted with technical support from planning to implementation of projects. There were also 20 approved partnerships and 19 others in progress that the DARDLA supported. One of the key programmes was Masibuyele Emasimini, where the DARDLA assisted in planting 730 ha on subsistence production and 30 ha on commercial scale. It further supported user associations and established commodity groups. A critical and significant contribution of the initiative is its job creation drive where 370 jobs were created thorough the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP).

 

The provincial government together with DRDLR was also implementing CRDP at Donkerhoek, in the Mkhondo Municipality under the championship of the DARDLA.

 

3. Summary of observations of the delegation during the oversight visits

 

This section provides observations of the delegation with regard to Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, restitution, Pro-active land acquisition strategy, Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development, and tenure reform. It should be noted that this section does not attempt to provide observations for individual projects visited by the delegation but it pulls together common threads from different projects under similar programme.

 

3.1 Comprehensive Rural Development Programme

 

· A number of employment opportunities were created under the CRDP. However, a majority of those jobs were linked to infrastructure development and therefore were for a short period of time. Very few permanent positions were created. For example, 901 jobs were created at Muyexe, whilst 145, excluding NARYSEC, were created at Riemvasmaak.

 

· NARYSEC targeted to reach out to a number of young people, providing skills and creating a pool of skilled resource people in the local areas. However, there were challenges with regard to deployment of the recruits. Many of the trainees indicated that they were not placed anywhere and had no clear job description and as a result they just claimed their stipends at the end of the month. Although the NARYSEC representatives at Muyexe were satisfied with the work they were doing, those in Riemvasmaak reported that they were unhappy and that they just collected stipends at the end of the month There was no capacity building and usage of their skills.

 

· The delegation noted that some Councils of Stakeholders (CoS) were established. However, in most of the CRDP sites visited, the CoS did not meet regularly. An example of a failed CoS was in Diyatalawa which was reported to have failed to meet for 12 successive months. Some of the reasons why it had not met were because of poor coordination by government, lack of coherence in the vision for rural development especially the Free State Department of Public Works and Rural Development and the DRDLR. The delegation was further informed that the mandate of rural development was shifted from the Department of Public Works to Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

 

· The CRDP, in its initial phase, appears to have been dominated by large-scale infrastructure development At least until the visit of the delegation, there was less emphasis on ensuring that people took charge of their own development, capacity building programmes were limited to NARYSEC.

 

· The delegation observed over-reliance on service providers for activities that the project beneficiaries themselves could implement. One of the worst experiences during the oversight was a case in Diyatalawa where Department of Public Works and Rural Development in the Free State procured services of consultants to cultivate and plant backyard gardens for residents of Diyatalawa. The initiative undermined the efforts by government to empower rural people and ensure that they took charge of their own destiny.

 

· The greatest concern of the delegation was that there was evidence of lack of coordination and integrated planning by government departments. The DRDLR, as a driver for CRDP, had not found a working model that ensured all the provincial and national departments supported the programme, hence in places like Diyatalawa one would find houses completed but unoccupied. Another example was that the school built at Diyatalawa was not being used (at least for a year after it was completed). The explanation given was that there was no water yet as water supply points were about 100 meters away from the school.

 

· Planning of projects was not people driven. For instance, the government purchased dairy cattle for Diyatalawa irrespective of objections from the project beneficiaries. At the time of the oversight visit, the beneficiaries reported that there were conflicts between the beneficiaries and the government as the beneficiaries were ill advised about the dairy cattle and consultations were very minimal. The example was that the Department of Public Works and Rural Development in the Free State had taken away machines at the milking parlour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Redistribution

 

· Many land reform beneficiaries continued to be dedicated to farming. Even though projects have not become what they intended, majority of these farmers (who farm at different levels) have stayed on farms amid difficult and constraining factors. These farmers, who can be regarded as smallholders, also produced at different scales.

 

· There was an increasing trend among LRAD and SLAG farmers to buy out those beneficiaries who might not have had interest in farming. The delegation found these incidences in the Free State and Northern Cape . However, the delegation could not establish if there were clear policies to guide how beneficiaries could be bought out of the farms. In a particular case in the Northern Cape , Silvermoon Project, about 10 beneficiaries were bought out at a price of R5000.00 each. In Limpopo , the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had initiated a project to deregister beneficiaries but the project had stopped at the time of the visit.

 

· Overall, the delegation noted that there were increasing efforts to coordinate post settlement support to land reform projects, especially the LRAD, SLAG and PLAS farmers. It further observed that there was still a huge gap in provision for support and room for improvement. Progress has been noted with regard to provision of capital inputs, operation capital and kinds of start up capital.

 

· A Majority of PLAS farmers interacted with were without signed lease agreements at the time of the oversight visit. There was also no clear decision communicated to the beneficiaries about the terms of the lease. Farmers informed the delegation that there were different lease periods; for example, some spoke about five years whereas some highlighted that it could extended for 10 years and more. There were no clear responses why farmers did not have lease agreements. Due to the absence of long-term leases, farmers also felt lack of security was hesitant to invest on the farms because they did not own those farms.

 

3.3 Restitution

 

· The CRLR has resolved to strategic partnerships for transfer of prime agricultural land to land claimants. In Free State , Mpumalanga and Limpopo , various models of strategic partnerships were being implemented. There were however challenges with regard to payment of rent and sharing of dividends. The case of Mokgoloboto, just outside Tzaneen in Limpopo illustrates the problems of strategic partnerships and contested notions of what strategic partnerships should do. On all the strategic partnership projects visited, outside job creation for beneficiaries, there were no material benefits to households because of lack of sharing of dividends. Farm worker share equity schemes in the Northern Cape failed to empower the farm workers to play an active role in management of farms.

 

· The models of strategic partnerships do not solve the problem of landlessness because it leaves farms intact and people living on marginal lands. However, the Moletele case has illustrated that the claimant communities do want to return to their land, especially parts of the land that were not fully developed. The CPA has reported that it continually dealt with the demands of land from both the claimants and traditional leadership institutions. This issue remained unresolved.

 

· The cost of restitution is increasingly becoming unaffordable. Many of the claims on high value agricultural land are being settled in phases. In both Moletele and Tensboscch, the particular claims were not yet fully settled (it was unclear whether these land claims were part of the 95 per cent settled claims because they are not yet settled in full). Some cases would still need to go to court whereas some required further research and mediation prior to courts.

 

3.4 Agricultural Support

 

Ÿ The delegation noted improvement in coordination between the DRDLR and the provincial departments responsible for agriculture and rural development. This was evidenced by the kinds of support that the LRAD and PLAS projects received.

 

Ÿ Although some projects received adequate extension, there was a dire need for extension support on land reform projects. Such could be coupled with access to low cost inputs, credit, research and marketing.

 

Ÿ Recapitalization and development programme of the DRDLR had started to ensure that all agricultural land acquired for land reform were productive. The delegation noted that support has been provided to projects for a five year period. The model is further reliant on strategic partnership and mentorship arrangements to provide skills, capital and marketing.

 

Ÿ CASP has been the only major funding mechanism that the delegation was able to find in relation to land reform support programmes by provincials departments responsible for agriculture and rural development. For the production on irrigation schemes and other agricultural land in the communal areas, a programme of mechanisation and Masibuyele Emasimini has been used in Mpumalanga .

 

4. Conclusions

 

In view of the above observations the following conclusions can be made:

 

Ÿ It is unclear what amount of land claims were yet to be resolved in the provinces visited. Failure to quantify the number of land claims could undermine efforts to plan for the finalization of claims and making available resources required for conclude the restitution claims.

 

Ÿ When land reform beneficiaries accumulated huge debts, especially with the Land Bank, they failed to accumulate savings for further reinvestment on the farms. Failure to repay the loans resulted in farms being repossessed. These arrangements could reverse the gains of land reform.

 

Ÿ Strategic partnership and mentoring of land reform beneficiaries sought to ensure skills transfer in farm management and marketing. Strict monitoring and evaluation of interventions such as mentorship and strategic partnership programmes could ensure that projects are rescued prior to their total collapse.

 

Ÿ Effective coordination of support for restitution and redistribution requires dedicated capacity to deal with a range of issues such institutional arrangements and farm management and production. In the absence of the Post-Settlement Unit in the CRLR, and Social Technical Rural Infrastructure Facilitation branched (STRIF) being perceived as dealing with CRDP sites and household profiling only, there was a huge gap in terms of coordinating support for restitution beneficiaries. This gap could potentially harm farm productivity and sustainability of land reform.

 

Ÿ Absence of clear performance agreement with the NARYSEC recruits could lead to non-performance of the youth being recruited.

 

Ÿ The success of a programme of rural development is reliant on coordinated and integrated planning which entail that a range of sector departments come into a local sphere to contribute to local development initiatives in a coordinated and integrated manner.

 

Ÿ The allegations of fraud and corruption at the Communal Property Associations (CPAs) of Giba and Tenbosch; and the Diyatalawa CRDP project could further create negative perceptions about land reform and rural development.

 

5. Recommendations

 

In view of the observations and the conclusions of this report, the following recommendations are made:

 

Ÿ The DRDLR together with the CRLR should, within two months after adoption of this report, report to Parliament about progress in settlement and finalization of all land claims lodged by 31 December 1998. The report should outline the verifiable number of land claims still to be settled and finalized, the estimated amount of funding required for settlement and finalisation of all claims, and plans to secure such funding and by when all those land claims would be settled.

 

Ÿ The CRLR should, within two months of adoption of this report, present to Parliament the verifiable statistics about performance of restitution since 1994 to date. This information should clarify the 95% of settled land claims per province. How many of the settled claims were finalized and files closed; and how many of those were partially finalized (settled in phases)? Further information should provide

 

Ÿ There is a need to assist the LRAD beneficiaries struggling to repay their Land Bank loans. However, the means of assistance should be sought in consultation with the beneficiaries themselves. Therefore, the DRDLR should facilitate support mechanisms from DAFF and the Land Bank in order to ensure that the gains attained through enabling access to land by the black farmers are not undermined. The DRDLR and the DAFF should report to Parliament about the plans of support and progress to that effect within two months after the adoption of this report.

 

Ÿ The DRDLR and DAFF should include in the monitoring and evaluation of programmes indicators that illustrate whether developmental initiatives are improving the livelihoods of beneficiaries. Success of land reform projects, especially joint ventures (strategic partnerships and equity schemes) should not only be judged by increase in productivity and maximisation of profits only. Changes in socio-economic conditions of the beneficiary households should be accorded even greater attention.

 

Ÿ The DRDLR should put in place mechanisms that clarify the role of STRIF in post settlement support for land restitution, LRAD and PLAS projects. Support mechanisms should transcend the narrow focus on profiling and training of beneficiaries but extend towards coordination of extension support from the DAFF/DARD, Municipalities and any other government or non-government agencies involved in agriculture and rural development.

 

Ÿ The DRDLR and DAFF should be involved in the formulation of all agreements for strategic partnership or equity schemes. The Northern Cape DARD and the Provincial DRDLR should within one month of the adoption of this report, submit progress report in support of Silvermoon to finalize mentorship or strategic partnership – whichever model is deemed appropriate.

 

Ÿ The DRDLR should enter into performance agreement with the NARYSEC youth and clearly detail what their roles should be and the DRDLR should report to Parliament within three months after adoption of this report.

Ÿ The rural development initiatives should consider initiatives that could result in long-term and sustainable jobs for the rural communities.

 

Ÿ The DRDRL should investigate allegations of corruption and fraud at Diyatalawa ( Free State ), Tenbosch CPA and Giba CPA ( Mpumalanga ) report to Parliament within three months after the adoption of this report.

 

Ÿ The DRDLR and DAFF should enhance their capacity for coordination of land reform and agricultural support programmes, integrated as a broader strategy for rural development.

 

 

 

Report to be considered