Land Care Programme Grant: engagement with National Treasury, DALRRD and selected provinces; with Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the purpose of the meeting was to gain clarity on the expenditure trends in the provinces in terms of the Land Care grant, because it was the Committee's mandate to practice oversight over the Land Care programme.

Minister's overview

Ms Thoko Didiza, Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development, said it was important to take cognisance of the work performed under the Land Care programme, and that one should bear in mind that the agriculture sector was under a concurrent function. A national delegate usually procured funding from the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) for the programme, which was disbursed to the different provinces based on the business plans provided by each province in line with the principles of the programme. It was necessary to continue supporting this programme and encourage provinces to implement it. It was a community-based programme that enabled the management of the country's natural resources.

The importance of the management of resources was contained in schedule four of the Constitution. The national Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) was responsible for the financial administration and the environment, while provinces were responsible for the development and implementation of programmes. This programme was implemented under legislation, specifically the Conservation of Agricultural Resource Guide Act 43 of 1983. The mandate was to maintain the production of potential land in the country, particularly agricultural land. The goal of the programme was to optimise productivity and enhance the sustainable use of natural agricultural resources. It was important for the environment, because the environment would not only feed the country today, but tomorrow too.

When soil degradation occurred, species for habitation and the basis of production were lost in communities, which affected the overall agricultural process. Invasive plants diminish vegetation used by our resources. This programme was important to ensure that the level of awareness was raised in communities. At the same time, partnerships were made with communities to ensure rehabilitation, prevention of further degradation, and the misuse of natural resources. In the execution of the programme, it was important to remember that it was not just a programme, but an important element enabling agricultural productivity in our country. It enables the protection and maintenance of natural resources.

Land Care Programme grant expenditure

Mr Dipepeneneng Serage, Head of Department, North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, introduced the presentation on behalf of the DALRRD on the LandCare Programme grant expenditure for quarter four (2021/22) and quarter one (2022/23).

He said the Land Care programme was a community-based natural resources management programme implemented through the concurrent function, as per schedule four of the Constitution. The national Department was responsible for the financial administration and setting of the environment, while provinces were responsible for developing and implementing projects.

The presentation captured the information of four provinces -- Gauteng Limpopo, Northern Cape and North West

There were six indivisible Land Care principles.

• Integrated sustainable natural resource management, where the primary causes of natural resource decline were recognised and addressed.
• Fostering group or community-based and led natural resource management, which includes all land users, both rural and urban, so that they take ownership of the process and the outcomes.
• Developing sustainable livelihoods for individuals, groups, and communities utilising empowerment strategies.
• Government, community, and individual capacity building through targeted training, education, and support mechanisms.
• The development of active and true partnerships between governments, Land Care groups and communities, non-government organisations, and industry.
• The blending together of appropriate upper-level policy processes with bottom-up feedback mechanisms.

The Land Care process was outlined in detail. First, the Land Care Guidelines were provided to the provinces. The provinces compile business plans, hold a provincial assessment panel (PAP) and submit them to the DALRRD. After review by the National Secretariat, the national assessment panel (NAP) is held to assess and provide recommendations. The NAP feedback letters are forwarded to provinces for amendments. The request for approval of the national business plan is submitted to the Director-General (DG) of DALRRD. Once the DG's approval is granted, provinces would then implement projects with the LandCare committee, partners and communities. The National Secretariat, provincial coordinator, and other provincial monitoring and evaluation (M&E) departments' officials monitor the implementation of the Land Care projects.

Mr Serage provided an overview of the LandCare financial performance for 2021/20. The annual budget was R83 337 000, of which R80 578 000 was transferred, and there was an expenditure of R74 581 168. Gauteng received only R2 257 000 from the annual allocation of R5 016 000. The overall unspent transferred amount was R5 996 832 due to unsatisfactory financial performances by the provinces.

Turning to the LandCare financial performance for 2022/23, he said the national business plan comprising seven provinces -- except Gauteng and Mpumalanga -- had been approved on 8 June. The business plans for Gauteng and Mpumalanga were not received during the NAP. The LandCare annual budget was R84 920 000, and R4 941 000 had been transferred to the seven provinces. The expenditure was R3  543 041 by Kwazulu-Natal (KZN), Limpopo and the Western Cape.

He gave details of the performance of Gauteng, Limpopo, Northern Cape and North West for quarter one of 2022/23. The provinces' business plan approval had been finalised in June, so there was no expenditure except for Limpopo. Limpopo had an output on awareness conducted, and the establishment of Land Care committees. The actual work done for the remaining provinces would be verified and reported on in the second quarter. Gauteng was yet to finalise its 2022/23 business plans. The presentation provided more detailed information on the output performance of the provinces.

National Treasury briefing on Land Care Programme grant

Mr Emmanuel Pillay, Director: Provincial Budget Analysis, National Treasury, conducted the presentation of the LandCare Programme grant for 2021/22 and the first quarter of 2022/23.

He said the purpose of the Land Care grant was to promote sustainable use and management of natural resources by engaging in community-based initiatives that supported the pillars of sustainability -- social, economic and environmental -- leading to greater productivity, food security, job creation and better well-being for all. The goal was to optimise productivity and enhance the sustainability of natural resources.

The presentation provided a list of grant outputs, including the hectares of land rehabilitated, a description of farmers, youths, and other people the programme had benefited, the kilometres of fencing erected, and green jobs created.

Most provinces had reached their target for LandCare spending in 2021/22, or came very close, except for Gauteng, Limpopo and Northern Cape. Graphs were presented portraying the number of land users and people who benefited directly or indirectly, the kilometers of fences erected around the grazing and arable land, the hectares of land where weeds and invader plants were under control, and the hectares of land under the system of conservation agriculture for 2021/22.

In the first quarter of 2022/23, spending was very low, with some provinces having no spending recorded. Only Kwazulu-Natal performed on all four measurement factors. Eastern Cape had performed on the number of land users and people benefited, and the Western Cape had performed on land where weeds and invader plants were under control. The rest of the provinces had no performance recorded for the first quarter.

The challenges and risks included late approvals of business plans and transfers to provinces. Delayed transfers resulted in projects being implemented later than planned. There were procurement delays, especially goods and services delivered late -- after the planting season -- having a negative effect on the delivery of outputs. Other challenges included the late appointment of service providers, fencing projects delayed by rain and difficult terrain, materials delivered late, prohibitive material costs, and contractors declining orders.

Mr Pillay said Treasury had made recommendations to mitigate the challenges noted. The sector must streamline the business plan process so that business plans are approved and transfers are made according to the payment schedule. Procurement delays were to be resolved to ensure goods and services were delivered on time, considering the seasonal nature of outputs. Given the numerous challenges provinces face, the sector needed to reassess the delivery of fencing projects. Overall monitoring of the grant was to be strengthened so that challenges and risks were highlighted early and mitigated.

Discussion

Chairperson Mahlangu said that the presentations had addressed the Committee's concerns. The issue she raised was sensitive to her, because she was from Mpumalanga. The Department's presentations mentioned the poor spending of Mpumalanga and the challenges faced with planning resulting in the late transfer of funds. On the other hand, the presentation of National Treasury mentioned that Mpumalanga was one of the provinces that performed well. She asked for clarity on whether Mpumalanga performed well or not. Generally, the trend was that in the first quarter, all provinces had slow spending trends. Her concern was over what steps both the Department and National Treasury were taking to address the delays in the business plan approvals. It seemed that the issue was with planning, which resulted in difficulty and delays with transfers of funds, employment of contractors, and procurement.

The conditional grant should be monitored very strictly according to the conditions attached to these funds. It was very concerning that some provinces had not submitted their business plans or their plans on how to spend the money. Money could not just be granted without concrete plans. Therefore, those involved with the approval of the funds must be convinced that the money spent was linked to the conditional grant. The delays had an impact on service delivery.

Her largest concern with this programme was whether there was value for money. The Department conducted regular monitoring of the provinces, but it seemed like the provinces were still struggling. She asked what consequence management actions had been taken. If the situation was continuously nursed along without consequence management, the programme would continue not bearing good results. Some people were paid to do the planning, but it seemed they were not doing their work. What happened if the money spent did not match the service delivery? At the end of the day, towards the end of the financial year, one would experience fiscal dumping.

She asked what the acceptable turnaround time for the grant was, the turnaround time for the completion of business plans, and whether provinces were sticking to the turnaround time. Was there a valid reason for Gauteng and Mpumalanga not submitting their business plans? It was important to clarify these issues, because the money would not always be available and could be allocated to something else. She asked the Department and National Treasury how they could assure the Committee that there would be value for money, and if there would be job creation through this programme.

Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) asked the Department to highlight which provinces were still facing challenges around delivery, which challenges these were, and what plans had been put in place to mitigate these challenges.

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) emphasised that money could not just be given without knowing what it was spent on. If there were no business plans, there could be no money allocated. He did not believe that the business plans were a hindrance, but that the Department was not performing its functions correctly. There were long delays in evaluation and there was little room for any innovative ideas because the programme was straightforward.

He asked if the Committee could hear from the Members of Executive Councils (MECs) about what issues were faced in their provinces, and whether the grant was being prioritised. The numbers presented and the issues highlighted for Gauteng were appalling. Gauteng should be prioritised, especially because of its market value. He suggested that the grant should be devolved to the municipal level, and should be open to the local municipality. Due to the concurrent mandate, it did include the local municipality, and therefore grant needed to be reviewed. The Johannesburg local municipality was not concerned with agriculture, while municipalities such as West Rand, Midvaal and Lesedi were.

He concluded by saying that the devolution of this grant was worth investigating to ensure that the goals were being achieved. There were massive invasive species and encroachment coming into Gauteng, so municipalities must be more involved to achieve the Department's mandate.

Mr J Smalle (DA, Limpopo Legislature) asked the National Treasury whether there was just general acceptance or approval of business plans without checking their quality, or whether some degree of thought applied where business plans did not meet the requirements. A Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report was finalised in Limpopo concerning the fencing projects related to this programme, with some very serious fingers pointing towards maladministration and wasteful expenditure. It was important to evaluate whether there was value for money.

He was concerned that numerous key performance indicators (KPIs) presented under the LandCare programme were zero. From an early point, the effectiveness of the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill should be evaluated as to whether there was an overfeed of business plans that were not linked to the budgets that were set aside for the provinces. He asked whether it was possible at an earlier stage to offer budget allocations to provinces that had been proactive in their planning and had been proactive in the quality of their business plans.

Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN) said the recommendations were very weak. The recommendations by National Treasury were that the business plan process needed to be streamlined, procurement delays needed to be looked at, and monitoring needed to be centralised. These recommendations were very vague and could be said in any situation. The issue was that there was no reflection on how the Department and National Treasury planned to implement the recommendations.

There was a concurrent function embedded in the Constitution. National Treasury and the Department could not instruct provinces due to the division of power. Bearing this in mind, how were business plans meant to be streamlined? Were National Treasury and the Department providing support to the provinces, and were they doing enough even with their limited resources and capacity? Saying that overall monitoring needed to be strengthened was so abstract. He acknowledged that Members of Parliament made the same vague promises, but nothing happened. The public deserved better from the Treasury and the Committee. Next year, the same meeting would occur and the promises would be the same. He suggested that a one-page document be drawn up on the action taken. The provincial committees for agriculture and finance needed to monitor the programme and send their reports to the Committee, just as the Committee needed to send its reports to the provincial committees.

Mr E Njadu (ANC, Western Cape) said that animals were crossing the roads in rural areas, and asked whether the sector was doing anything to ensure that there was proper fencing to keep animals off the road to avoid road accidents. His other concern was the acceptable turnaround time to process business plans for this grant. He asked what specific steps were taken to prevent delays in business reports, the transfer of funds, the hiring of contractors, and procurement by the Department and National Treasury.

Northern Cape's response

Ms Mase Manopole, MEC: Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Northern Cape, said that both presentations had captured the Northern Cape accurately. In the last financial year, the allocation was received late. The Northern Cape was always committed to spending the allocated money. The team had developed a strategy to spend the money, and the expenditure was 77%, despite receiving the money only in the third quarter. The Northern Cape was committed to working with the Department to speed up the process of approving business plans and spending the money allocated. She would personally exercise oversight to ensure the spending was being carried out.

National Department's response

Ms Sebueng Chipeta, Chief Director: Forestry Regulation and Oversight, DALRRD, said that Mpumalanga had had a late start. When Mpumalanga received the initial transfer, they added several beneficiaries on the ground, which led to many people benefiting and land being recovered. Despite the late start, they had used the grant as expected.

She said that KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape could do better than other provinces because both provinces had an equitable share and depended not only on the Land Care grant. The overall output of the programme was affected by delays, business plans, and late transfers. There were five focus areas and challenges in terms of distribution, but also in terms of getting detailed information in the business plan. Other challenges included the limited number of rain check and soil check specialists.

She assured the Committee that overall the programme had value for money, because strategies had been developed to assist with the disasters faced in the programmes. One such strategy was conservation works, which managed land degradation. The land structures that had come up as a result of this programme were also proof of its value for money. Other challenges faced in the programme were the limited availability of funds and limited land resources.

Guidelines were presented to provinces in June, and their plans need to be completed in September. In November, the NAP meeting would be held to address any challenges. Between January and March, everything would be signed and approved. The aim was to do the first transfer by 1 April. She admitted that there were challenges that had delayed the transfer, but assured the Committee that the Department was putting in an all-out effort to support the provinces. Provinces and the national Department complemented each other with their capacities to support the farmers who needed extra support.

She confirmed that many KPIs reflected zero while others were doing well. Most KPIs were sharing financial resources. Some provinces had unique challenges, such as droughts; in this case, more resources were captured and degradation occurred. In most cases, if any issues needed to be addressed, an engagement would occur to look into the overall picture of the issue faced within the programme. The procedures used were very clear -- there were certain roles performed by the national Department and certain roles by the provinces, and some of the procedures included facilitating the transfer of funds. To facilitate the transfers, the previous expenditures in business plans and the outputs of the previous business plans were looked at. The national Department had procedures to check up on provinces. If it was found that there was a need not to transfer, the Department would "fine tune" and addresses the challenges on the ground. With procurement issues, the provinces were being encouraged to utilise the repeat transaction (RT) contracts, because this managed the supply chain management challenges that provinces experience. These contracts had proved to assist and fast-track procurement

She said that to ensure value for money, the Department was roping stakeholders into the National Assessment Panel, including Treasury colleagues, to look into business plans and see the challenges. This helped to determine what the focus of natural resource management should be, coupled with the need to create jobs, protect land and manage land productively.

(Chairperson Njadu took over from Chairperson Mahlangu due to technical difficulties).

Mr Serage said that the National Department realised the challenges and what the Department needed to provide. He acknowledged that the Department had been entrusted with the huge responsibility of servicing the country by assisting provinces. Mr Carrim had expressed very well that it was exhausting to hear the excuses of officials, so the Department would improve in this area, especially relating to the business plans.

He addressed the concern that the Members had raised about how the Department handled business plans. He said the Department would be convening a workshop that would look closely into each province. Officials from financial administration, M & E, and the national Department would also be allocated to work with provinces. This would help provinces function within the concurrent function and assist the Department in developing realistic strategies for the coming financial year.

He said the fencing issue was within the ambit of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) and other spheres of government. The Department could allocate fencing only within the general grazing field -- fencing used to control livestock crossing roads was not within this programme's ambit. The Department could, however, develop a strategy with colleagues from other spheres of government to address the concern.

He said the Department was committed to focusing and assisting provinces with peculiar challenges that required focus, relating to their capacity to procure. Some provinces made use of their equitable shares to start the process, and the Department should be able to complete the process by the end of this calendar year to ensure that by April, provinces are ready.

Gauteng

Ms Matilda Gasela, Head: Gauteng DALRRD, said that it was disheartening to see the performance of Gauteng. The province was not disregarding the importance of the programme. It had had challenges, including internal issues and the capacity of the Department. Only two officials were assigned to this programme, and one had serious health issues. There was also an issue with the structure, which has since been resolved. The province now had other officials on board to avoid continuing to struggle. The strategy employed to ensure the optimal performance of the programme was that 234 graduates had been employed who would work alongside 156 expanded public works programme (EPWP) young workers.

The province acknowledged the concerns that had been raised, and advised the Committee that an engagement would be held on 5 September to resolve all the issues.

Limpopo

Mr Richard Selemela, Senior Scientist: Limpopo Department of Agriculture, described some of the strategies Limpopo used to mitigate the poor implementation of the programme. The Head of Department of Limpopo had been in communication with the DG to ensure that the province expedited the implementation plans. He acknowledged that processes had not come to fruition in the past three years, and that there had been poor expenditure. In previous years, there was a spike between January and March because of the approvals in October. He said the province was already preparing to have the business plan ready by 30 September, which was the guideline given to each province. Limpopo had put in place term contracts in areas such as fencing, personal protective equipment (PPE), and EPWP workers to ensure that the programme was expedited.

In terms of the DORA, receiving officers needed to ensure that the province had the capacity to implement the programme. Limpopo had reorientated the structure's configuration to ensure there was capacity in the province, including going to a lower level and including local municipalities. Once the provinces had approval, the 2023/24 plans would be implemented. There was a session held in August regarding the business plan of Limpopo, and all efforts would be made to ensure that there were no delays and compliance in terms of the grant framework.

North West

Mr Thupi Mokhatla, Head: Department of Agriculture, North West, said that in the previous year, the province had an under-spending variance of 2.64% in quarter four, which had been due to a chemical shortage at the end of the financial year. The province had requested and received approval for rollovers, which had assisted with the chemicals being delivered and service providers being paid. In quarter four, the province experienced challenges at the start, as the traditional leader had refused to allow the training of workers and the delivery of materials. The MEC was in the process of resolving the issues involving traditional leadership.

In the first quarter, the target for the province was zero and in the second quarter, the province aimed to increase the expenditure. In the first quarter, it conducted awareness campaigns, and procured chemicals and PPE, and workers were employed to start working in the second quarter.

DALRRD

Mr Mooketsa Ramasodi, Director-General (DG): DALRRD, said that Mr Carrim had focused on the issues at hand. The presentation by National Treasury had given an accurate representation of the work that had been done at a very high level between the Department and National Treasury. The Department was working on ways to ensure that all programmes planned to be implemented had a quicker way of resolving challenges, whether at the planning or the execution stage. The Department of Agriculture, in its various forms, would come together to deal with the issues. At the mining technology (MinTech) level, the biggest issue was the ground framework, which some provinces found very difficult.

The timeline set started in June, culminating with the proposals submitted in September and finalised in November. This timeline was in line with doing things quicker, and gave ample time for implementation by 1 April. MinTech was considering the issues of capacity within the different provincial spaces. There was an issue during the engagements on how, at a national level, monitoring and evaluation capacity could be employed for the work being done.

The Department was conducting audits to assist with issues relating to Land Care, because it was important to the country. The most important issue was employment opportunities, especially providing jobs very close to where people were staying and taking care of the nature and fruits of the area. This issue was part and parcel of climate adaptation and mitigation, which was an important aspect of the Department's work. 

National Treasury

Mr PIllay said that the framework of the conditional grant had a section towards the end regarding the process of approval of business plans. The 2023/24 process for next year started early in June with the department providing guidelines and culminated towards the end with the requirement that the business plans be approved before the transfer of the first quarter. The payment schedule had intended for the first payment to be made by 1 April, which was not done. The timeline from June to when the business plans were approved in November was at least nine months. He suggested that the process needed to be shortened somehow. The Treasury did not have the whole framework because it did not show up on the timeline. The quality of the programme always needed to be kept in mind. It would be ideal to conclude the business plans before the beginning of the year and not by the time of the first transfer.

Ms Ogalaletseng Gaarekwe, Chief Director: Provincial Budget Analysis, Intergovernmental Relations, National Treasury, said that the Conditional Revenue Act allowed for the allocation of grants, but generally, it was received from other sectors like human settlements, transport and education. There were sometimes agreements made by administration that certain provinces would not be able to deliver on the targets set, which resulted in money being allocated to other provinces. The Conditional Revenue Act provided for consequence management, in the sense that the Act gave power to the transferring officer to withhold funds if they believed that there was no delivery or an issue with the business plans, such as those highlighted for Gauteng. The issues highlighted for Gauteng had resulted in the fund being withheld, which was a consequence management mechanism. Treasury has various monitoring mechanisms, and meets with the sector quarterly to address challenges. The Land Care grant was one of the longest; it had existed for more than 15 years. These challenges were encountered with new grants, so it was extra important to address them with the Land Care grant.

Mr Ryder said that there had been a lack of input or anything different that would give him hope that better spending would occur from the responses. Mr Pillay's comment had been very brief, and he had almost missed it. Mr Pillay had commented on the timeframe, which was the most important thing to look at during this meeting. He asked Mr Pillay to unpack where the fault lay in the long process of business plans -- whether it was with the Department or the provinces.

Mr Pillay said that when conditional grants were looked at across the spectrum of all sectors, the framework indicated the timeframe. The process started in August or September with the sector and the provinces. The process and the timelines to be followed were all determined by the sector -- it all depended on how the sector was set up to deal with the different processes of the business plans. Some sectors' provinces had good capacity in terms of planning, and could put together business plans quickly without many issues, especially with the long-established grants. Although the process started in June and ended only in April the following year, it was a long protracted process and many other processes were not seen in the framework itself. September did not show up on the framework. He suggested that the sector, the national Department and the provinces should consider whether the long process was necessary. This process needed to be adapted without affecting the quality of the business plans. The time frame seemed longer compared to other grants, so it would be ideal to have the programme concluded before the beginning of the financial year.

The Chairperson said that the Committee agreed that the programme was important and needed to look at how to change the issues within service delivery and job creation. This was an old grant, and the obstacles needed to be removed. The common trend was poor spending, and the way forward was to ensure that there was value for money. Next time the Committee met, concrete evidence on expenditure needed to be given so that it could properly perform its oversight mandate of such grants. Value for money needed to be ensured by planning, evaluation, implementation and monitoring, to ensure the programme's success.

Committee minutes

The minutes of 10 and 24 August were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.