Department of Rural Development & Land Reform; Ingonyama Trust Board 2011 Strategic Plans

Rural Development and Land Reform

22 March 2011
Chairperson: Mr S Sizani (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department’s strategic plan for 2011-2014, focussing on the new outcomes approach, sought to create 500 000 jobs in the rural sector over ten years and to create employment for more than 22 000 youth over three years. It intended to do this via the Land Reform Programme, the National Rural Youth Services Corps (NARYSEC) programme and the roll out of the CRDP to all rural municipalities especially in 180 of the most vulnerable municipalities. In total it would cover 540 wards across all nine provinces.

The Land Reform programme budget, at R4.1 billion, was approximately half of the total budget of R8.1 billion. The Department wanted to improve productivity in land reform projects which needed revitalisation and to expedite the finalization of land claims. To date, 7.4 million hectares had been transferred to previously disadvantaged people The Department planned to gazette the Green Paper on Rural Development and Land Reform by May 2011 and the White Paper one year later.

Challenges faced by the Department were high unemployment in rural areas, slow economic growth, social fragmentation and poor service delivery. To enhance service delivery, it was in the process of filling vacancies within the Department, as the organogram had only been approved two weeks ago.

The NARYSEC programme aimed to skill youths to act as agents for change in rural areas. In the pilot phase 7 700 were recruited. In the second phase, this year, the focus would be on reskilling rural graduates to account for rural needs. It anticipated that 15 to 20 000 people would be recruited.

Members said the strategic objectives were very open ended. Why did the Department want to buy land but had an inadequate budget and were still R6 billion behind in previous commitments. Members said the Committee needed the Department’s short term goals in order to do its oversight function. How was the NARYSEC programme going to operate? What strategy did the Department have to monitor and ensure there was not a breakdown of farming ventures again? How many posts were vacant and how many did the Department intend to fill? How far had the programme to improve productivity on land reform projects been developed? Did the people recruited into the Department have the capacity to do the work required of them? Was there any plan in place to offset natural disasters? When was the government going to do a land audit? To what extent was there integrated planning with Minister Manuel’s National Planning Commission? How far had the completion of the Asset Register progressed? How many bursaries had been granted this financial year? There was a request to name one successful village in the One Village, One Product campaign. Members said that the Committee had previously asked the Department what it had learnt from the previous phase of NARYSEC. This had not been presented, yet the Department was moving to roll out the programme further.

The Ingonyama Trust Board had identified human resources as a challenge and had doubled its staff complement but this was still not enough and a revised organogram would be submitted to the Department. Because of the increase in staff, an administration block was being built to accommodate it.

A challenge for the board had been its outreach programme which was not well implemented, however this year it intended to fast track this programme and develop a comprehensive communication strategy.

The Board felt that the Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) Act was outdated and there was a need to review it to assist people living on the land. The purpose of the ITB Act was so that the board could transfer land to the traditional communities. Did it have the mandate to change this? This was affirmed as the Board were assisting communities in development therefore the Act needed to be reviewed and should be aligned to the current demands of the community.

The Department said the Act was designed to administer the farmland in the KwaZulu Natal territory (former homelands) on behalf of the Zulu people. As the custodian of the land, the ITB was approached by developers who wanted to prospect, mine or commercially develop on the land.

Two key operational issues were land management, which was its core mandate and royalties which would be affected by the new Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act No. 28 of 2008 where all royalties had to flow to the Treasury and not to the Trust. The board was liaising with the Ministers of Finance and Mineral Resources but the matter was not yet resolved. Planned quality improvements were land management audits, especially on land that did not have traditional authority over it but belonged to the ITB. The board owned about 2.8 million hectares of land (1491 title deeds). It had entered into cooperative and development agreements with local municipalities to enhance land management. Squatting was a challenge; when land was known to be ITB land, it became occupied within a month. A challenge for the board was getting its asset register up to date.

91% of the budget of R69.3 million came from funds derived from royalties, leases and rentals. Ten percent of this income was used for board expenses. The remainder, R6.8 million came from the Department.

The Committee asked why royalty income was still budgeted for in 2011/12 as expected income and what would happen to the ITB should no income accrue from royalties? Was there a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to detail how the Department’s money was spent? How many jobs would be created this year? Would the Asset Register be outsourced?
What was the situation concerning the Babanaga land claim? Members questioned whether the ITB was not shifting responsibility when it talked of moving offices to district municipalities. Members queried the number of hectares that belonged to the Trust. Would the surveying and registration of all state land ever get done?

The Chairperson said that because of a lack of time the Department could answer the remaining questions in writing before the recess on 31 March.

Meeting report

Department of Rural Development & Land Reform (DRDLR) 2011 Strategic Plan
Ms Ntsiki Mashiya, Deputy Director General: Support Services, explained that its strategic plan for 2011-2014 was the second comprehensive plan focussing on the new outcomes approach. It was seeking to create 500 000 jobs in the rural sector over ten years and employment for more than 22 000 youth over three years. It intended to do this via the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP), the Land Reform Programme and NARYSEC. Amongst its key priorities were to improve productivity in land reform projects, to expedite the finalization of land claims, to roll out the CRDP programme and to enhance service delivery. Challenges faced by the Department were poor service delivery, high unemployment in rural areas, slow economic growth and social fragmentation. The Department planned to gazette the Green Paper on Rural Development and Land Reform by May 2011 and the White Paper one year later.

To date 7.4 million hectares had been transferred to previously disadvantaged people and the CRDP has been rolled out to 60 wards. The Department was filling vacancies within the Department as the organogram had been approved two weeks before. The Department had five programmes spread across nine branches. In Programme 3 – Restitution it intended rolling out the CRDP to all rural municipalities. In Programme 5 – Land Reform, the Department intended to acquire and allocate strategically located land and improve the productivity of land reform projects which needed revitalisation. The Department had two entities: the Agricultural Land Holding Trading Account and the Ingonyama Trust Board. The Land Reform programme budget at R4.1 billion was approximately half of the Department’s total budget of R8.1 billion. By 2014 the total budget would increase to R9.3 billion.

Discussion

Ms A Steyn, (DA) said the strategic objectives were very open ended. She said the Department wanted to buy land but had an inadequate budget and were still R6 billion behind in previous commitments.

Mr S Ntapane, (UDM) said the Committee needed the Department’s short term goals in order to do its oversight function. How was the NARYSEC programme going to operate? How was it intending to roll out the CRDP programme? Was the budget adequate enough for the strategic plan?

Mr B Zulu, (ANC)
said that on oversight visits, the Committee had seen that farming ventures had collapsed. What strategy did the Department have to monitor and ensure there was not this breakdown again.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila, (ANC) said the plan was not clear about how many jobs it would create this year. How many posts were vacant and how many did the Department intend to fill? How many youths would be recruited by the NARYSEC programme and in which areas would it be rolled out?

Mr R Cebekhulu (IFP) asked how far the programme to improve productivity on land reform projects had been developed.

Ms H Matlanyane (ANC) asked if there was any plan in place to offset natural disasters. Did the people recruited into the Department have the capacity to do the work required of them?

Ms L Mazibuko (DA) said that the Department surely had to focus on recapitalising the farms that it had, before it considered purchasing more land. When was the government going to do a land audit? To what extent was there integrated planning with Minister Manuel’s Planning Commission?

Mr Mdu Shabane, Director General of the Department, said the Department would present the Annual Plan to the Committee, even on a quarterly basis. The Annual Plan would have the budget programme and be linked to specific tasks. Managing risk regarding land restitution and reform would be a tricky exercise to plan, keeping the commitments of the past in mind. The Department was working at provincial and national level to recapitalise broken farms. There was a greater working relationship with farmers and these farming bodies would have district, provincial and national level structures. There was a more comprehensive partnership to improve productivity on restituted land. The Department wanted to move from providing for basic needs to enterprise development and later on at a further stage develop appropriate infrastructure in rural areas to revitalise rural towns as economic hubs. Concerning the capacity of staff, he insisted that specialists in their fields would be brought in, although it would be a challenge as these skills were not readily available. The Department had decided that it would recapitalise all land reform land to make them more productive. More than 400 farms had been set aside. The Minister, provincial MECs and district mayors monitored the work of the Department across the three spheres of government. At a second level, DGs, HODs and district level municipal managers’ collaborated at a project level. The Department was ready to make a presentation to the Committee on the land audit.

The Chairperson said that no committee could operate without access to info. He asked why the Committee had not had access to certain reports and to the Annual Plan.

Dr Moshe Swartz, Acting Senior Executive Manager: Social Technical Rural Livelihoods and Institutional
Facilitation (STRIF), referring to the NARYSEC programme, said the Department had approached the Higher Education Department to skill youths to act as agents for change in rural areas. In the pilot phase a total of three people plus one disabled person were targeted in each of 2 900 rural wards. This was advertised in papers, municipal offices and amongst tribal authorities. Selection was done in conjunction with ward councillors and contracts were signed. In KwaZulu Natal though, a similar programme - the Ambassadors programme already in operation resulted in no recruitment in that province. The Ambassadors programme was a general programme and did not have the rural focus NARYSEC had. In total 7 700 youth were recruited. The youth were trained and exposed to how government works. In the second phase, to occur this year, the focus would be on rural graduates who would be reskilled to account for rural needs. It anticipated that 15 to 20,000 people would be recruited. On completion, the youth had the opportunity to continue or to look for employment in enterprises.

Ms Leona Archary, (Acting) Senior Executive Manager: Rural Infrastructure Development (RID), said the CRDP was rolled out since 2009 in 60 wards. The Department wanted to ensure that it was in the 180 most vulnerable municipalities. In total it would cover 540 wards across all nine provinces.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked why the target had shifted from 160 to 540 wards.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had previously asked the Department what it had learnt from the previous phase of NARYSEC. This had not been presented yet the Department was moving to roll out the programme further.

Dr Nozizwe Makgalemele, Senior Executive Manager: Geo-Spatial, Technology Development and Disaster Management (GTD), said disaster management was a joint inter-ministerial project. The Department aimed to mitigate the impact of disasters. It was planning a MOU with SA Weather Services to assist in predicting adverse weather conditions. It did post disaster assessments and intervention plans to give householders relief.

Mr Zulu asked if the Department had been of assistance as they said they would be in Thabankulu and Nongoma after recent disasters.

Ms Archary said they had and had built 110 houses in Vryheid.

Ingonyama Trust Board 2011 Strategic Plan
Mr Ngqabutho Bhebhe, CEO: Ingonyama Trust Board, identified human resources as a challenge. The Board had doubled its staff complement but this was still not enough and a revised organogram would be submitted. A challenge for the Board had been its outreach programme which was not well implemented, however this year it intended to fast track the programme He said the Ingonyama Trust Board Act was outdated and there was a need to review it to assist people living on the land. Two key operational issues were land management, which was its core mandate and royalties which would be affected by the new Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act No. 28 of 2008 where all royalties had to flow to the Treasury and not to the Trust. The Board was liaising with the Ministers of Finance and Mineral Resources but the matter was not yet resolved. Land management faced the challenge of restraining stakeholders who wanted to bulldoze their ideas across which sometimes lead to strained relations. He said currently the Trust was based in Pietermaritzburg where it shared offices with the Department but its operations were spread out across the province. Due to the increase in staff, the Board would be moving to temporary premises while an adequate administration block was being built to accommodate it. They envisaged establishing satellite offices aligned to municipal district offices to bring ITB services closer to its clients.

Planned quality improvements were land management audits especially regarding exclusive land. By inclusive land one meant land that it had a traditional authority over it and exclusive land was land that did not have a traditional authority over it but belonged to the ITB. The Board needed to develop a comprehensive communication strategy to assist in its outreach programme. Due to a scarcity of land, particularly in urban areas, demand had led property developers to approach the Board concerning developments on ITB land and the ITB should play a role to assist communities to develop business proposals when approached by developers. The Board owned 1 491 titles, about 2.8 million hectares of land. Half of the population in the province, 4.5 million, lived on ITB land. A challenge for the Board was its asset register which had been a challenge in previous years also but it would attempt address it this year. It would be doing an audit of all the Trust farms that had been given to the ITB. It was in discussion with nine Amakhosi to start the 100 hectare agribusiness project. It had entered into a cooperative and development agreement with local municipalities to enhance land management. Squatting was a challenge; when land was known to be ITB land, it became occupied within a month

91% of the budget of R69.3 million came from funds derived from royalties, leases, rentals etc. Ten percent of this income was used for Board expenses. The remainder, R6.8 million, came from the Department.

Mr Amin Miya, CFO: Ingonyama Trust Board, said that the budget had increased by 20%. The increased salary bill was because of the increase in staff numbers.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked what the original purpose of the ITB Act was and how had it evolved.

Regarding the One Village, One Product slogan, Mr Zulu asked the Department to name one successful village. He questioned whether the ITB was not shifting responsibility when it talked of moving offices to district municipalities. He knew of irrigation schemes which were not working. He asked how far the Asset Register had progressed. How many bursaries had been granted this financia
l year?

Ms Steyn asked why royalty income was still budgeted for in the 2011/12 expected income and what would happen to the ITB should no income accrue from royalties. Was there a MOU to detail how the Department’s money was spent? She queried the number of hectares that belonged to the Trust. She had instituted an independent search and the report mentioned a figure of 4 million hectares which differed from the Department’s figures. She said that there would always be issues until it was resolved. The Department’s strategic plan reported that it wanted to survey and register 30 000 hectares of state and Trust land yet there was still 2.8 million (or a disputed 4 million) hectares of land that still needed to be done. When would this ever get done?

Mr Cebekhulu (IFP) said there were no low cost housing developments on inclusive land.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked if the Asset Register was to be outsourced.


Mr Bhebhe said the purpose of the ITB was so that the Board could transfer land to the traditional communities. Did it have the mandate to change this ? He affirmed this as they were assisting communities in development. Therefore the Act needed to be reviewed and should be aligned to the current demands of the community.

Mr Mdu Shabane, Director General, said the Act was designed to administer the farmland in the KwaZulu Natal territory (former homelands) on behalf of the Zulu people. As the custodian of the land, the ITB was approached by developers who wanted to mine, do commercial developments etc. on the land. The ITB had actively searched for developers and developments.

The Chairperson said that that state of affairs ignored the role of other role players, for example the districts. How did the Trust align with other role players?

Mr Shabane said that the Department was engaged and involved in this but that the interface between the Board and the Department was weak.

Ms P Xaba (ANC)
raised the issue of the Babanaga land claim

Mr Shabane said that he would get a status quo report on land claims in the Babanaga area.

The
Chairperson said that because of a lack of time the Department could answer the remaining questions in writing before the recess on 31 March.
 
The meeting adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: