ATC131022: Report of the ad hoc Committee to exercise coordinated oversight on the reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act of 1913, dated 22 October 2013

Ad Hoc Committee on the 1913 Native Land Act

Report of the ad hoc Committee to exercise coordinated oversight on the reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act of 1913, dated 22 October 2013.

The ad hoc Committee to exercise coordinated oversight on the reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act of 1913, (the Committee), having conducted its business from between 6 August and 22 October 2013, reports as follows:

1.Introduction

1.1. Background to the establishment of the ad hoc Committee

On the occasion of the 2013 State of the Nation Address, the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr JG Zuma, noted that the year 2013 marked a centenary of Natives Land Act of 1913. This piece of legislation is commonly referred to as the 1913 Land Act. The promulgation of the Natives Land Act on 19 June 1913, as the President remarked, “…turned black people into wanderers, labourers and pariahs in their own land”. It began an atrocious dispensation in which Africans were prohibited to own or rent land outside of designated reserves. The areas designated for blacks constituted approximately 7.13 per cent of South Africa's total land area. Further provisions to segregate blacks were legislated under the Development Trust and Land Act, No. 18 of 1936 which provided for the conversion of the reserves into Bantustans or ‘self-governing territories, thus achieving the objective to restrict black people to 13 per cent of the total land area of South Africa, and later into ‘independent states’ within South Africa. The system continued until it was abolished during the reforms linked to the establishment of a democratic South Africa

The post-apartheid South Africa is confronted by the legacy of the notorious pieces of legislation such as the Native Land Acts. Such legacy manifests in the triple challenge of unemployment, persisting poverty and deep inequalities, the consequences of policy mechanisms that dispossessed the majority of Africans of their land. This racially-based system of land ownership disrupted and destroyed the land-based livelihoods and the economy for black people. The redress of the injustices of land dispossessions also is a Constitutional imperative in terms of Sections 25 (5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution (1996). The provisions set out a broad legal framework for land redistribution, tenure reform and restitution. Government has made the programme of land reform and rural development one of its top five priorities in the Medium-Term Strategic Framework.

The National Assembly acknowledged an initiative of the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform to facilitate processes to mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act. On 6 June 2013 to it passed a resolution to establish an ad hoc Committee to exercise coordinated oversight on the reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act. The National Assembly further recognised that the programmes and interventions to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act cut across different portfolios, hence the terms of reference emphasized a coordinated oversight that involved the following portfolio committees: Rural Development and Land Reform; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Human Settlements; Public Works; Arts and Culture; Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

1.2. Terms of reference for the ad hoc Committee

The resolution of the National Assembly provided a comprehensible mandate through the terms of reference that guided the Committee conduct its business. It mandated the Committee to exercise its powers in terms of Rule 138 (Rules of the National Assembly, 7th edition pg 50). Rule 138 of the Rules of the National Assembly relates to general powers of a committee. The Rule empowers a Committee of the National Assembly, amongst others, to summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath of affirmation or to produce documents; receive petitions, representations, submissions; conduct public hearings; determine its own procedure.

The particular terms of reference mandated the Committee to –

assess the extent to which the programmes of land reform and rural development have addressed the legacy of the Native Land Act of 1913, especially with regard to the committee’s[1] mandate in respect of land divisions and agricultural development;
assess the success, or otherwise, of the land restitution programme;
enquire about the systems put in place for, and to monitor processes towards, the re-opening of the lodgement of land claims so that the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights can implement a programme that is fair and transparent to all South Africans; and
make recommendations on the removal of blockages obstructing the restitution of land rights.

The resolution further stipulated that the Committee should report by 20 September 2013. The deadline for reporting was extended until 22 October 2013 due to the short time availed to the Committee for its work. The Committee was established on the eve of a two-month long constituency period and oversight weeks by various Portfolio Committees, hence it could not commence with implementation of its programme of action.

1.3 Composition of the ad hoc Committee

The Committee, in accordance with the resolution of the National Assembly, consisted of 12 members of the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform; and representatives for the following Portfolio Committees: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Arts and Culture; Public Works; Human Settlements; and Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, in accordance with the following proportions: African National Congress (11), Democratic Alliance (4), Cope (3), Inkatha Freedom Party (1), and other Parties (1). Table 1 of this report illustrate membership of the ad hoc Committee. On its first meeting of 6 August 2013, the Committee elected Mr. JD Thibedi, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform, as the Chairperson of the ad hoc Committee. It further adopted its programme of action, which entailed its approach to the coordinated oversight, key thematic areas of focus as well as sources of information as discussed in section 2 of this report.

Table 1: Membership of the ad hoc Committee as per the prescriptions of the resolution

AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS	DEMOCRACTIC ALLICANCE	CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE	INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY	UNITED DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT
Thibedi, Mr JD	Swathe, Mr M	Berend, Ms S	Cebekhulu, Mr RN	Ntapane, Mr ZS
Xaba, Ms PP	Mileham, Mr K	Botha, Mr T
Matlanyane, Ms HF	Dreyer, Ms A	Ramatlakane, Mr L
Ngwenya-Mabila, Ms P	Steyn, Mrs A	Njobe, Ms MA
Zulu, Prince ZB	Mokgalapa, Mr S
November, Ms N	Steenhuisen, Mr J
Nkosi Mandela, ZMD	van den Berg, Mr N
Cele, Mr M
Dambuza, Ms N
Mabuza, Mrs C
Johnson, Mr L
Sunduza, Ms T
Nhlengethwa, Ms D
Twala, Mrs M
Ngcengwane, Ms ND
Mavunda, Mr D
Moss, Ms L
Sosibo, Ms J

Source: Parliament (2013) Announcements, Tablings, and Committees (ATC), 11 July 2013

1.4. Scope and limitations

The scope for assessing progress made to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act wider than the programme of land reform. However, the mandate for this committee restricted it within the context of land reform in general, with a particular attention to the reopening of lodgement of land claims. The report, therefore, attempts to address the contribution of land reform to the reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act but acknowledges that land reform is a component of wider rural development strategy; it is more than agriculture.

Due to limited time and resources available for the Committee, oversight visits were limited to three provinces, namely, Limpopo, North-West and KwaZulu-Natal. The choice of the three provinces was based on the outcomes of the proceedings of a workshop to mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act. The Committee had only one week available in the Parliamentary programme to visit these provinces. Proceedings of the oversight visit unearthed critical challenges that required follow-up visits. However, the timeframes for the Committee did not allow such follow-up visits for an intensive fact finding mission. But the report, especially the appendixes (1.a – 1.c) detailing the sites visited; provide recommendations on actions that government should take to address the gaps and challenges observed.

The overall body of this report does not attempt to provide the detailed presentation of the findings from particular sites visited by the Committee. It presents an analysis of the committees’ observations according to the broad themes that have emerged. In similar veins, the key conclusions have been organized in terms of the broad themes whilst the recommendations have been organised according to respective national departments. The specification of recommendations (including the site-specific ones) makes it easy for the relevant Portfolio Committees to track implementation progress and make follow-up on key commitments made by departments during the oversight visits.

1.5. Structure of the report

Following this introductory section, the report is divided into six main sections, namely:

Section 2. Approach and methodology: It presents an explanation on how the Committee conducted its business, especially key considerations as well as processes facilitated by the committee in order to gather information necessary for the compilation of this report;

Section 3. Overview of the legacy of the Natives Land Act: This section presents an analysis of the legacy from a historical perspective and illustrates how the Natives Land Act continues to shape contemporary rural South Africa. In view of the mandate of the Committee it specifically looks at the legacy from the communal or former homeland areas as well as the commercial farming areas points of view.

Section 4. Summary of observations from site visits: This section provides a brief account of particular observations made during the sites visits. Detailed presentation is contained in the appendixes of this report.

Section 5. Programmes (and progress) to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act: It presents an overview of observations and findings of the Committee in relation to implementation of policies to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act. The presentation follows the themes of restitution, tenure security, redistribution, development support.

Section 6. The state of readiness of government to reopen the lodgement of land claims: This seeks to directly respond to the mandate to assess if government is ready for the reopening of the lodgement of land claims. It provides an analysis of the briefings by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights on the reopening of lodgement of land claims and insights emerging from oversight activities.

Sections 7: Synopsis of key conclusions: This section ties together the observations in the form of conclusions that could be drawn from the observations

Section 8: Recommendations: It presents recommendations to the National Assembly

2.Approach and methodology

2.1 Approach

Given the strategic importance of the programme of land reform as an integral part of the rural development strategy, and part of mechanisms to address the apartheid racially-based and skewed land ownership patterns, the Committee adopted an approach to ensure the centrality of public participation in its approach, both in gathering data and deliberations. Its programme of action ensured that the policy effects of the various programmes, especially in relation to the transformation agenda, were discussed from an evidence-based point of view with the support of academic and research institutions and civil society organisations as well as relevant government departments.

The Committee commenced its work with a national workshop to mark the legacy of the Natives Land Act. The workshop brought together Members of Parliament and Members of Provincial Legislatures from the relevant portfolio committees. In addition, government departments as well as experts from academic institutions, civil society organisations and members of the public made inputs to the discussion by the public representatives. The workshop strategically focussed on the history of the Natives Land Act and how it continues to shape contemporary rural South Africa. It further engaged with current policy mechanisms to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act. Particular perspectives on the National Development Plan, the New Growth Path and the Green Paper on Land Reform provided a framework for the Committee’s discussion on the vision for agrarian transformation in South Africa.

Subsequent to the national workshop to mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act, a land reform policy workshop which focussed on restitution, land redistribution, communal land tenure security, land tenure security on commercial farms, and development support was convened. The process enriched the debates about the extent to which current policy could resolve the legacy of the past unjust apartheid laws, policies and practices.

The approach of the Committee hinged on the following essential considerations:

The reversal of the legacy of the Natives Land Act requires integrated and coordinated interventions by all section of the society. The Committee adopted a holistic approach which viewed the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform as a coordinator of government interventions;
Emphasis on public participation in its activities to create platform for critical engagement between citizens and public representations in Parliament. Involvement of citizens, as consumers of services, in matters of service delivery is important in a democratic society;
Capacity of the state to make interventions that would result in better delivery of development services to the rural poor, a particular focus was on the reopening of lodgement of land claims, delivery of land to the landless and provision comprehensive development support;
Key policy questions that could resolve the challenges confronting beneficiaries of the programme of land reform, and contributing to the daunting task of the reversal of 100 years of land divisions.
The legacy of the Natives Land Act was deeply entrenched; therefore a radical approach was required to resolve landlessness, tenure insecurity, poverty and under-development.

2.2 Methods

Review of relevant policy documents and research reports: The Committee reviewed recent annual reports of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights in order to acquire recent data about the pace of land reform and how much land has been transferred to blacks as a means to reverse the 13 per cent and 87 per cent land divide. In addition, it reviewed the mid-term review of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2009- 2012), to understand the policy shifts and progress being made to address the challenge of rural development and land reform. It also considered other policy documents from relevant government departments for example, reports of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and the National Planning Commission.

Briefing by the various government departments and entities: On 19 August 2013, the Committee received briefings from the following government departments: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform/the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, Department of Public Works, and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The presentations addressed the progress and challenges of restitution; the proposed Expropriation Bill and how it would assist in fast-tracking land redistribution; and farmer development support programmes, especially the smallholders and land reform beneficiaries. In addition, the Committee received a briefing by the Afrikanerbond which raised historical perspectives on land and land dispossessions in South Africa.

Engagement with members of the public, civil society organisations and academic/research institutions: The Committee hosted two workshops with national stakeholders to focus on the legacy of the Natives Act and to consider the emerging land reform policies that are meant to address the existing challenges and weaknesses in the land reform programme. Secondary to that, the Committee facilitated the stakeholder engagement processes during the oversight visits in the three provinces that it visited. The provincial stakeholder processes created platforms through which public representatives, civil society organisations and government could dialogue on the emotive issue of land redistribution. The Committee obtained various perspectives in relation to the legacy of the Natives Land Act as well as the challenge confronting land reform generally and restitution in particular.

Site visits in particular projects identified by the Committee, in consultation with the Provincial Land Reform offices and the Regional Land Claims Commissioner’s Offices. During the site visits, the delegation (which split in different groups to have a wider coverage of the districts identified) received briefings by representatives of land holding entities, mainly the Communal Property Associations (CPAs) and Trusts. In addition, the delegation also interacted with some of the strategic partners, and traditional leaders in specific areas. The project tours and the interactions enhanced an understanding of the depth of challenges of land reform and by extension implementation of policy mechanisms to reverse the legacy of Natives Land Act. However, such proceedings also made useful proposals on how government can improve on its strategies and interventions.

Table 2: List of activities of the ad hoc Committee

Date	Description of Activities
7-8 June 2013	Hosted the National Land Workshop to mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act, 1913
6 August 2013	Convened the first meeting to elect the chairperson and adopt the Committee programme
19 August 2013	Briefing session by various government departments and civil society organisation (Afrikaner bond)
1-7 September 2013	Conducted oversight visits: Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and North-West
15 October 2013	Considered the Workshop Report, Oversight Report and the overall ad hoc Committee report
17 October 2013	Deliberated on the overall report of the ad hoc Committee
22 October 2013	Considered and adopted the final version of the report; tabled the report to the National Assembly

Table 3 illustrates projects that the ad hoc Committee visited according to provinces and land reform programme.

Table 3: Lists of projects/schemes that the delegation visited in the three Provinces

	Limpopo	North-West	KwaZulu-Natal
Redistribution	Mikes Chicken Farm	Mongatana Trading CC	Mkhuzane Trust
Restitution	Makuleke CPA Levubu Cluster[2] Marobala CPA Makgoba Trust New Pietersburg CPA	Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela CPA Rathateng CPA Reboetsoe CPA Dikgathlong CPA	KwaCele CPA Enkumbuleni Trust Amangcolosi Trust Izanqawe Trust Amaqamu CPA Emaqcekeni CPA
Irrigation Schemes	Makuleke CPA		Masomini Scheme
Tenure Upgrade		Syferkuil/Swartboom Community

3.The legacy of the Natives Land Act

This section summarises the Committee’s debates on the legacy of the Natives Land Act. It draws on the inputs made by academics and researchers as well as review of relevant policies and reports by government departments.

The Natives Land Act emerged from a complex historical context of conquest and subordination as well as successive attempts to resolve the ‘native question’. It was an attempt to implement the ideology of segregation in the rural areas that had become defined as ‘white farms’. The Act provided that African reserves (or the ‘native locations’) were legally distinct from white farming areas and forbade movement between the two categories of land. With the exception of the Cape Province, it also forbade Africans to purchase land outside of the reserves. Therefore, a large proportion of land, eventually 87 per cent was classified as white whilst initially only 7 per cent and later increased to 13 per cent represented the reserves. The Act also rendered illegal share-cropping and insisted on Africans being out of white land unless they were labourers under the terms of the Master and Servant Act. The Act did not originate land dispossessions but it formalized and consolidated a long historical process of division of ownership and possession of rural land on racial grounds. It further laid the foundation for territorial segregation and political subordination of Africans and blacks generally in the Union of South Africa. It destroyed African peasant prosperity while marking the triumph of agrarian capitalism.

The post-apartheid South Africa, therefore, inherited a dual agrarian structure with large-scale commercial farming comprising some 37,000 farmers, and a very small-scale ‘subsistence’ farming comprising about 2 million farmers, with small-scale market-oriented farming of about 200,000 farmers. This structure was not only a result of the Land Acts but decades of other kinds of policies which supported large-scale commercial farming (mainly by whites) at the expense of the small-scale ‘subsistence’ farming in the old Bantustans (mainly by blacks). These are some of the legacy issues that the land reform programme should address.

3.1 The communal areas (former homelands)

Both the 1913 and 1936 Natives Land Acts originated the boundaries of the old Bantustans, resulting in South Africa being a divided country, with 13 per cent set aside as the only place for occupation and use by black people. Research evidence demonstrates that the most deprived areas in the countries are located in the rural former homeland areas. Further analysis shows a spatial pattern of multiple deprivations that continue to persist; hence it is argued that the spatial legacy of apartheid can be directly linked to the land divisions originating from the Natives Land Act. The Committee also noted, from the research evidence presented, that a higher percentage of the population with less than R400, 00 per month per capita is mostly located within the former homelands boundaries. Therefore, the legacy question is that extreme poverty is concentrated within the boundaries of former homeland territories.

In these areas, the former homelands, a large number of small-scale subsistence or semi-subsistence farming, growing crops on very small plots with not much marketed output existed. In addition, a small number of market-oriented farmers also exist. The divide of large-scale commercial agriculture and small-scale subsistence farming created a gap in-between. This is what some researchers and analysts referred to as a ‘missing middle’. The Committee noted that the programme of agrarian transformation generally, and land reform in particular, should address this gap in the agrarian structure of South Africa. The view was that if land reform made interventions in that space, it would correct the structure of extreme inequality; the spatial inequality which underpins this highly skewed and unequal agrarian structure.

3.2 Commercial farming areas

The 1913 and 1936 Land Acts laid the foundation for grand apartheid (1948) as well as Farmer Support Programme that exclusively targeted white farmers in the 1970s. The Natives Land Act did not only suppress black farming in the communal areas only, it also ensured that no black person farmed in the commercial farming areas, even as a sharecropper. The suppression of the sharecropping economy in the commercial farming areas took place across the country, but started in the Free State. However, enforcement in the early days was difficult hence in many areas such as the then Northern Transvaal continued to have African households continuing to live and cultivate on land that had become white farms. The Committee further observed that the suppression of black farming and an increase in the support to white commercial farmers distorted the geography of the commercial farming areas. The divisions of the Natives Land Acts resulted in parallel land markets and dualism.

The massive amounts of state subsidy and support helped the large scale commercial farmers over many decades become the productive competitive farmers of today. The 37 000 of large-scale commercial farmers occupy 67% of all agricultural land in South Africa but their numbers are decreasing. These are very large farms and they are even growing larger due to concentration of land ownership because of competitive pressures. The large-scale commercial farms produce 90 to 95 per cent of marketed output and dominate the agriculture sector. The Committee supported government’s programmes that are aimed at transformation of the agricultural sector. For example, the AgriBEE Transformation Charter whose key elements seeks to transform the commercial sub-sectors in terms of ownership and management, address the challenges of the commercial and development sectors and addressing the challenges of the developing sector with preferential procurement, enterprise development and poverty alleviation.

4.Summary of observations from oversight visits

This section draws on the analysis of the observations during the oversight visit as detailed in Appendix 1.a, 1.b and 1.c of this report. The overall observation from the oversight visits was that government has made strides to ensure access to land by people who would otherwise have had no opportunity to access land. The beneficiaries were at different stages of use of land depending on the kind of support available to them. They appreciated being given land as opposed to financial compensation. Land was being seen as a resource that could benefit them and the next generations.

Almost all projects have reported creation of job opportunities, although at varying degrees due to scales and types of production, profitability and support given to enterprises. However, in some settings sustainability of the jobs was one of the concerns for beneficiaries. The challenge to job security was due to competitive pressures that confront the agricultural enterprises and disputes within the legal entities. Yet, some Communal Property Associations (CPAs) and Trust visited were beginning to invest their profits in public goods. For example, schools were build (e.g. Makuleke CPA), evidence of dividends being shared (e.g. Mansomini), setting up bursary schemes (e.g. Ravele CPA within the Levubu Cluster), and a range development benefits. However, not all projects have reached that stage.

Of all the 27 project/schemes visited, 10 of them were CPAs. All of the 10 CPAs, reported the challenges of internal disputes related to access and control of resources, clarification of the roles and responsibilities in cases where institutions of traditional leadership and the CPAs co-exist alongside each other. In addition, the challenges of leaders who do not accept the democratic choice of members to change leadership at the end of the term of office of committees have been observed. Visits to Chief Mhinga in Limpopo and Chief Pilane in the North-West illustrated the extent of challenges that government experience in attempting to resolve the conflicts involving traditional authority over land and resources as well as the place of new institutions such as CPAs in ownership and management of the resources.

Almost all enterprises, schemes and projects visited were being hamstrung by the high operational costs. The cost of electricity was particularly reported as challenge in KwaZulu-Natal sugar plantations. The Committee resolved that this matter requires the government’s close attention in order to avoid project falling into debt. Government intervention could help them maximise the use of the profits for reinvesting in production or creating reserves for the business.

5.Progress on the implementation of programmes to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act

This section presents the Committee’s observations according to four thematic areas, mainly restitution, tenure security, redistribution and development support.

5.1 Restitution

Section 25(7) of the Constitution (1996) provides that “a person or community dispossessed of a right in land after 19 June 1913 is entitled, to an extent provided for in an act of Parliament, to restitution or equitable redress”. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights reported that over 97 per cent of the 79696 land claims lodged by 1998 had been settled. However closer scrutiny of the statistics show that of the total 79582 settled claim (a combination of claim forms and rights) had been settled whereas 58990 have been finalised. But 20592 claims in the books of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights have not yet been finalised or implementation of the settlement agreement had not taken place. The Commission also reported that about 8733 land claims were not yet settled. Of the total unsettled claims, 82 per cent of them or 7226 claims were not gazetted and only 18 per cent or 1507 were gazetted but not yet settled (See Table: 4).

Table 4: Status of various land claims

Status of claims	No of claims
Total lodged	79696
Not gazetted	7226
Gazetted but not yet settled	1507
Settled (claims as lodged), i.e. claim forms	59415
Settled (claims as settled), i.e. claim forms + rights	79582
In process of being implemented	20592
Implementation finalised	58990

Source: CRLR (2013) Presentation to the ad hoc Committee on 19 August 2013

As illustrated in Table 5 (below), the settled land claims have benefitted about 368090 households, with a total 134873 female headed households. However the cost of restitution has been high due to the cost of land acquisition. Since the inception of restitution in 1995, the state has paid over R15 billion rand for land purchases and R7, 5 billion rand in financial compensation. About 69119 of the land claimants were awarded financial compensation instead of restoration of land. This is mainly due to the urban nature of land claims which rendered it not feasible to restore original land. Although the CRLR has settled the majority of the land claims, in actual fact more work was still required to finalise them.

The Committee expressed concerns because 50 per cent of the total land awarded to claimants or 1, 5 million hectares had not been transferred to beneficiaries. This suggested that there was enormous work ahead for the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to finalise all the work.

Table 5: Cumulative statistics for restitution (1995 – August 2013)

Province	Claims		Dismissed	HHs	FHHs	Ha
Province	rural	Urban	Dismissed	HHs	FHHs	Ha
Eastern Cape	419	16207	291	65139	25295	136753
Free State	41	2858	209	7614	2716	55747
Gauteng	1717	11866	702	14320	5448	16964
KwaZulu-Natal	2196	13641	141	85421	26503	764358
Limpopo	2294	1326	438	48492	18206	603641
Mpumalanga	1611	1235	202	53525	17362	460964
Northern Cape	133	3593	255	21900	9097	569341
North West	626	2924	319	44268	18408	399407
Western Cape	1426	15469	633	27411	11838	4140
TOTAL	10483	69119	3190	368090	134873	3011315

Source: CRLR (2013) Presentation to the ad hoc Committee on 19 August 2013

The Committee further observed that restitution of land rights is a complex programme which depends to a certain extent on the ability of the government officials to negotiate settlements with the parties; that is purchase prices with land owners and settlement options with claimants. It further noted that social facilitation skills to resolve conflicts are particularly important for restitution. In view of the amount of outstanding work to finalise existing claims, as well as the additional work that could be brought about by the reopening of the lodgement of land claims, the Committee called on the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to increase its capacity to address the challenges of restitution. The Committee further noted that among the outstanding land claims there are issues of land claims on the national strategic assets such as national parks and other protected areas.

5.1.1 Land claims on protected areas and national heritage sites

The Committee observed that the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was experiencing a challenge with regard to resolving land claims in the National Parks, and other areas of strategic importance. In conservation parks and protected areas such as Makuleke and Pilanesberg, the land was not actually restored to claimants. Although claimants are awarded the freehold titles to the land, claimants are not permitted to occupy the land. The land and enterprises are managed in terms of co-management agreements, comprising members of the CPAs as land owners, private sector investors and government represented by SANPARKS. The claimants receive dividends from enterprises and payment for what the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform regards as ‘loss of joy’ (R10, 000 per household). However, in the case of Bakgatla-ba-Kagafela the claimants have not received the R10 000 promised to each household for loss of joy due to challenges relating to verification of claimants and the court battles involving the CPA and the traditional leader.

The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was experiencing challenges with regard to reconciling the inherent historical heritage of disposed communities with the current land use patterns which have economic, social and natural ecosystems benefits. The Committee noted that finalisation of these kinds of claims most often takes too long, as it was observed in the Pilanesberg claim by the Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela and many outstanding land claims in the Kruger National Park.

5.2 Tenure Security

Tenure security reform, especially the communal land tenure, has been the most difficult and slowest programme of land reform. However, Section 25(6) of the Constitutioon provides that “A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress”. And Section 25(9) provides that Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6). Parliament has passed a range of pieces of legislation to address land tenure in both communal land areas and commercial farming areas.

Communal land tenure security

As discussed above, these areas constitute the 13 per cent designated to black people in terms of the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts. No less than a third of the country’s population live in these areas that are characterised by over-population, non-existent or frequently dilapidated infrastructure, scarcity of quality agricultural land, environmental degradation, landlessness, land shortage and land related conflicts. Another key variable defining these areas relates to lack of equitable public investment in infrastructure, industrial and agricultural development. The areas are beset with challenges of land administration inherited from the colonial and apartheid regimes.

In the post-apartheid era, Parliament passed the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996 (Act No 31 of 1996) commonly referred to as IPILRA, as a temporary measure for protection of certain right to and interests in land which not otherwise adequately protected by law, until a comprehensive new legislation was in place. The Act was never a permanent piece of legislation and it remained weak in terms of protection of the rights of individuals in the communal areas. In 2004, Parliament passed the Communal Land Rights Act, 2004 (Act No.11 of 2004) which was declared unconstitutional after it was challenged by a group of communities. As a result, South Africa remains with a weak and temporary arrangement for protection of tenure rights and interests in land of the majority of South Africans living in the communal areas and whose rights are inadequately protected in law.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform’s policy review processes which began in 2009 resulted in the Green Paper on Land Reform approved by Cabinet and published for public comment in August 2011. The consultation process resulted in development of a Communal Land Tenure Policy which was approved by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform in June 2013. The policy proposes communal land ownership under communal tenure system with institutionalised use rights. Its objectives are:

to promote rural economy transformation; to strengthen security of tenure of people living in these areas to secure the rights and interests of the vulnerable, and enable household members to bequeath the land to their children;
to clearly define authority and responsibility (among all players across the board from traditional councils to community members and government) within the context of transforming the rural economy;
to promote special reconfiguration of communal areas through special planning land use management and special development frameworks; and
to place the household as a human agency to drive change; and to ensure deliberate community investment interventions through the agrarian transformation strategy to enable communities to fully participate in the rural economy.

The policy proposed that the outer boundaries of a particular communal area should be owned by a traditional council or a CPA, rather than the status quo in which the state owns communal areas. The proposal seek to ensure that the households are the owners of the land and that their rights should be secured and protected across the residential, economic, social and other service areas. It further promotes that the communal areas be shared by a community and iNkosi, with the royal household as part of the leadership. With regard to the powers to allocation of land, the proposed communal land tenure policy suggests that such powers to exercise this authority would be vested within traditional authority of a particular area. The crux of the proposed model is about institutionalisation of use rights to ensure that the rights of every household within a particular communal land are clearly identifiable, and that households can pass them on from one generation to another. The intention is to redefine and reconstitute communal areas through spatial planning and land use, spatial development frameworks, improved land use regulations and economic policies to sustain growth. The policy provides for land adjudication, strengthens the security of tenure through institutionalised use rights by households, promote social solutions to social problems and enact protective mechanisms to ensure that communal residents do not lose land through foreclosure by making provisions for ‘rights of first refusal’ to community in the first instance.

Having observed critical challenges that confront the CPAs, the Committee urged the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to critically think through the role of CPAs as a governance structure because they were never envisaged to play governance role. The Commitee argued for a legal protection of the rights of individuals prior to the transfer of title to the Traditional Councils to counter the ‘trumping’ of the rights of households and families, thus undermining their legal security of tenure and stripping them of any redress against abuse of power.

Women’s land rights

Protection of women’s independent land rights, especially in rural areas, faces huge challenges due to the absence of adequate protection of their tenure rights in law. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act has no strong mechanisms to protect the rights of individuals, let alone women. The Committee was informed by some stakeholders that the most affected were widows and single women who cannot access land on their own.

In most, if not all projects the Committee visited, men occupied leadership positions. For example, in Mansomini irrigation scheme in the Illembe District, the majority of participants were women, but leadership was given to men. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform must make a deliberate effort to ensure that the role and visibility of women in rural development and land reform processes are enhanced, especially in projects supported by government.

Transfer of land to traditional councils and their current legal status

The Committee acknowledged that land can only be transferred to valid legal entities. However, with regard to Traditional Councils, the Committee heard about failure of some of the provinces to comply with the provisions of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Frameworks Act, 2003 (Act 41 of 2003) abbreviated as TLGFA and the provincial traditional leadership laws enacted in 2005. According to the Committee, this brings into question the legal status of existing Traditional Councils. Section 28(4) of the TLGFA provides that “Any tribal authority that, immediately before the commencement of this Act, had been established and was still recognised as such, is deemed to be a traditional council contemplated in Section 3 and must perform the functions referred to in Section 4; provided that such a tribal authority must comply with Section 3(2) within one year of the commencement of this Act”. Section 3(2) of the TLGFA provides that 40 per cent of the members of a Traditional Council must be elected, 60 per cent are to be appointed by the senior traditional leaders, and 30 per cent of the members of Traditional Counicls must be women. But even this low threshold, the requirement was not met and as a result the Act was amended in 2009 to extend the date of compliance for 7 years untill 2011. Research on elections of the Traditional Councils accross South Africa by the Community Law and Society at the University of Cape Town shows that in Limpopo no elections had held since the TLGFA was passed. It therefore concluded that all Traditional Councils in Limpopo were not legally constituted and had no legal status. The same study shows that most of the Traditional Councils in South Africa were not constituted in terms of the TLGFA.

Land tenure security in commercial farming area

The State has three policy instruments to address the question of tenure security for people living on privately owned farms; namely, the White Paper on South African Land Policy (1997), the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 (LTA), and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) of 1997. These policies/pieces of legislation provided that people have rights to remain on farms and granted them options to secure long term rights so that they remained on those farms or to get their own land elsewhere (of course with government assistance). Already in 2001, government acknowledged that both LTA and ESTA were failing to protect the rights of farm dwellers. A review of these laws was then launched but was never concluded until the 2011 Green Paper on Land Reform processes which resulted in a new proposal for land tenure security for commercial farming areas. In the absence of amendment of LTA and ESTA, realisation of tenure security and human rights for people living on commercial farming areas is a continuous struggle. Farm worker uprising such as those witnessed at deDoorns attest to this assertion.

The Committee noted that there were no sufficient statistics about the rate of evictions in South Africa. The only reliable data was conducted by a land rights NGO in Limpopo, Nkuzi Development Association together with Social Surveys, which found that approximately a million people were evicted from farms between 1994 and 2005. In the recent years, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, through the Land Rights Management Facility managed by a consultant legal firm, Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc Attorneys, has been able to keep data about eviction cases referred to it. The 2011/12 Report on the performance of the Land Rights Management Facility shows that 433 mediation eviction cases were dealt with whereas a total of 907 legal cases of evictions were referred to it. During the oversight visit to the North-West, the Bojanala District, the Committee also heard about the cases of evictions and lack of resources from municipality to address these challenges, hence failure to provide emergency housing and other forms of relief to the evictees.

The National Housing Program for Farm Residents championed by the Department of Human Settlements proposes that the state should subsidise the development of housing stock on farms. It does not prioritise security of tenure; hence it provides settlement options in agri-villages where farm workers could be resettled closer to farms. However, the approach was criticised for its lack of provision of secure tenure for farm dwellers on land that they occupy or land they could own.

5.3 Redistribution

The purpose of the land redistribution programme in terms of the White Paper of the South African Land Policy (1997) is to redistribute land to the landless poor, labour tenants and people living and working on commercial farms and emerging farmers. Land redistribution has been extensively criticised on two fronts; firstly, on the ground that it is too slow, thus suggesting that it must be speeded up and better ways for acquiring land at reasonable cost be found, and secondly, that its beneficiaries are not productive enough - suggesting that they must either be disciplined or land must be given over to those with skills and the means to make it productive or perhaps commercial strategic partners. It also suggested that the state should find better mechanisms for providing development support to the beneficiaries of land redistribution, and land reform in general..

The Committee observed that the overall vision of a land reform process since 1994 was to redistribute 30 per cent of white-owned agricultural land at least by 2014. The policy on land redistribution has evolved from delivery of land through the Settlement Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) which targeted the poor households (that is, only those with incomes below R1 500) to the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) in 2001. The LRAD was introduced to include all black South Africans not employed by the state but mostly with a portion of own contribution in the purchase of land. The current policy mechanism for land redistribution is the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), which is basically the state purchasing privately owned land and leasing it to potential emerging black farmers and focuses primarily on creation of a class of black commercial farmers.Between 1994 and 2013, about 2.8 million hectares were redistributed and benefited 225,895 people. Since 2009, there has been an increase in land acquisition through PLAS, acquisition of 922,185 hectares as compared to 160,354 acquired under LRAD during the same period.

In 2012, policy pronouncements were made to inform the society that government would not meet the target to redistribute 30 per cent of agricultural land by 2014. The focus became the delivery of quality and sustainable land redistribution programme. The Willing-Buyer Willing-Seller approach to acquisition has been criticised for the slow pace of land reform. Already in 2005, the National Land Summit had rejected the ‘Wiling-Buyer Willing-Seller’ principle. The conferences of the ruling party took a decision to ensure the Willing-Buyer Willing-Seller principle; and subsequently the President announced, during the 2012 SONA, that government would use ensure that land acquisition and compensation occurs in a ‘just and equitable’ manner.

The mid-term review report of the DRDLR (2009 to 2012) shows that on average per year about 800 households benefited from the redistribution process accounting for a budget of R1.5 billion per year. The Committee noted that large sums of money were increasingly benefiting the few. In addition, noted that if the land redistribution policy mechanisms were not changed, it would take too long to reach the majority of the poor. This therefore calls on for the state to intervene by finding mechanisms to ensure acquisition of land at an affordable rate. The Committee noted the proposal for the establishment of the Office of the Valuer-General.It hailed it as a step in the right director towards clarifying how the value of the land would be determined. However, it raised critical questions about a need for policy clarity about interpretation of section 25(3) of the Constitution. For example, how is the history of acquisition, market value, past subsidies, current use and the purpose of expropriation or the purpose of future use would be weighed up. The Committee further called on for a common approach on land valuations between Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and the Department of Public Works.

The Committee noted that the National Development Plan and the New Growth Path proposed expansion of smallholder production as a means to develop the economy. However, both LRAD and PLAS focus on transferring existing farms without changing the unit of production and transferring to often a small group of people or a company.It is unclear how smallholder production would be supported without options for sub-division of agricultural land. The Committee noted that a critical policy mechanism was needed to enable sub-division of land for redistribution to the indigent families and poor households whose needs of land are for subsistence production. The restrictions to land subdivision make subdivision impossible although it need not be.

5.4 Development support after the transfer of land

The Committee noted that land reform is not only about agriculture but agriculture is a crucial component of land reform. Land reform should address the various land needs of the beneficiaries, for example, those who want land for residential purposes such as the New Pietersburg land claimants in Limpopo and the beneficiaries of Emagcekeni Trust in KwaZulu-Natal. Therefore, post settlement should not only be been seen in terms of the Farmer Support Programme or the existing Recapitalisation and Development Programme which targets farming with strategic partnerships. The Committee asserted that the post settlement phase of land reform should be viewed in terms of broader land use and development support. However, the lack of visibility of programmes of the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries in many of the land reform projects was identified as a key weakness.

The following sub-sections address what the Committee considered as the central issues related to provision of post settlement and development support for land reform beneficiaries and they are grouped in three categories; namely, institutional arrangements in land reform projects, land use and development, and strategic partnerships.

5.4.1 Institutional arrangements within land reform projects

In terms of government policy, land can only be transferred to a legal entity which constituted in terms of the law. The two main forms of legal entities being used were CPAs and Trusts. However, CPA was the most commonly used legal entity for holding land by beneficiaries. The 2009/10 Communal Property Associations Annual Report of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform reported that there were 1500 CPAs registered in South Africa. In all the CPAs and Trusts, the Committee observed that there were challenges internal challenges. With regard to Trust, engagement between the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Rural Development and Land reform was needed to address those challenges. The cases of Emagcekeni, and Amaqamu (KZN) and Makgoba Trust (Limpopo) illustrate the Trusts also experienced challenges, especially the conflicts between chiefs and claimants as well as unlawful occupation of properties and court battles.

Having observed that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform encouraged registration of CPAs, and further having noted that the CPA Act provides the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform with certain powers to intervene in the running of CPAs when necessary, and that the majority of landholding legal entities under land reform were CPAs; the Committee spend more time deliberating on the functionality of the CPAs.

Communal Property Associations

Majority of the CPAs that the Committee visited were characterised by conflicts over access and control of resources as well as disputes about leadership positions. These challenges factionalise some of the CPAs and render them dysfunctional. The case of Ratombo and Marobala-o-itsose CPAs (Limpopo) and Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela (North-West) illustrated to the Committee how dysfunctional land holding institutions affect the sustainability of land reform projects. At Ratombo CPA funds and assets of the community are being abused due lack of credible leadership and accountability, Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela CPA illustrated the failure of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to provide support as required in terms of the CPA Act. The Committee noted that there was something fundamentally flawed with the structuring of the CPAs as well as the support structures offered by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. To illustrate, the majority of the CPAs do not hold Annual General Meetings as required by the CPA Act and therefore election of new committees do not happen until there are infightings about the leadership positions.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform reported that CTH has been appointed to assist with conflict management and resolution in the CPAs. However, there were evidence of many court cases within CPAs, for example the Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela in North West and Marobala-o-itsose in Limpopo. Failure to provide support in negotiating disputes result in protracted court processes that affect production, hence in such cases land remain fallow and property gets vandalised pending the court outcomes.

Institutions of traditional leadership

Many rural restitution projects involve large groups of people, either as clans, tribes, or communities. Coexistence of the new land holding and management institutions (CPAs and Trusts) and the institutions of traditional leadership (chiefs, headmen and traditional councils) have also posed challenges. However, there are different ways in which communities have structured themselves. The case of Makuleke CPA illustrates how a community and its local traditional leadership can work together post restoration of land reform but remain in conflict with the traditional council and the chief of the area (who is regarded as an outsider) who wants to exert his authority over the CPA. On the other hand, the Makgoba Trust illustrates how the community and their local chief remain in conflict. This has become very problematic in rural areas where ‘customary law’ and all its precepts are implemented (de facto) concurrently with the (de jure) legal status of CPAs, Trusts, and companies. In cases where chiefs have been made ex-officio member of the executive committee of the CPA, it is based on recognition of the chief as a rightful claimant and a traditional leader for the group/community/tribe.

Comprehensive pre and post-settlement support

South African land reform has suffered lack of comprehensive support programme. The Committee noted that the imperative, at least until 2009, was to push acquisition of land in order to reach the target to redistribute 30 per cent of agricultural land by 2014. In this process, not focussed attention was given to development support. The challenge was further compounded by lack of coordination between the former Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land Affairs, although they were both under the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs.

With regard to pre-settlement support, the Committee observed that that beneficiaries were not well informed on the choices (and the inherent legal implications thereof) of the various types of legal entities that can be formed. Equally important is preparation of claimants for management of farms and businesses that they would acquire once land was transferred to them. The post settlement process has been, to a large extent, characterised as uncoordinated, fragmented, and inadequate. Therefore, the several programmes and programs from government department and entities, the Land Bank, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Department of Economic Development, Department of Trade and Industries, Department of Water Affairs, and others, has been poorly coordinated. For example, the Symandrift claims citrus production collapsed due to lack of water, the Mkhuzane Community Trust in KwaZulu-Natal has raised challenges of water shortages. The Committee could not establish any mechanisms in place to ensure that such services were supplied. Failure to coordinate these activities results in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform taking over responsibilities of other line function departments.

Strategic Partnerships

The Department of Rural Development Land Reform has opted to provide on farm technical support to land reform beneficiaries through the use of investors, acting as strategic partners, and consultants serving as mentors. The Committee observed that the Recapitalisation and Development Programme has a pre-condition which coerces beneficiaries to enter into strategic partnerships and mentorships. However, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform lacks a systematic process for monitoring and evaluation of those partnerships.

The projects visited elucidated some common challenges confronting strategic partnerships and mentorship programmes. The Levubu cluster, comprising six CPAs and one Trust, illustrated how government approved release of restitution development grants to the strategic partner company without approval of CPAs and Trust. When the funds were exhausted the partnership collapsed and left the 7 communities with debts of between R4m and R8m each. However, in some cases such as the Mkhuzane Community Trust in KwaZulu-Natal, the strategic partner (SB Mathe from AGB Mathe Business Services) appointed by the community seem to be working well. The Company has invested from its own sources through the purchase of equipment, fixing irrigation system, payment of salaries for farm workers, paying for electricity and other inputs costs. Other success cases are Mansomini irrigation scheme in KwaZulu-Natal and Makuleke CPA in Limpopo.

6.State of readiness for the reopening of land claims

The Committee requested a briefing by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to address a question drawn from the terms of reference for this Committee. The question related to an enquiry about the systems and processes put in place for the reopening of the lodgement of the land claims to accommodate those who have failed to lodge claims by the cut-off date of 31st December 1998, those whose dispossession occurred prior to 1913 – mainly affecting the Khoi and San people, and to cater for claims on heritage sites.

The Committee noted that the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, the legislative basis upon which the lodgement of land claims would be reopened, was tabled in Parliament on 5 September 2013 and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform on 9 October 2013. The Committee expressed its concern regarding the limited time available for the relevant Portfolio Committee to process the legislation and deal with the varied responses and to the Bill. However, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was confident that it was ready for the reopening of the lodgement of land claims before the end of the financial year. Table 6 below summarises the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights’ readiness for the reopening of the lodgement of land claims. The state of readiness has been assessed in terms of facilities, IT systems for lodgement, standard operating procedures, communication strategies, human resources, and integration with other programmes of the Department.

Table 5: State of readiness for the lodgement of land claims

Key Result Area

Status

Next steps

Facilities

52 lodgement sites have been identified across the country (14 of the 52 are the existing DRDLR/RLCC offices). DRDLR and DWP have negotiated the needs and DPW and other landlords are attending to the requests.
A service provider was appointed to develop offices layouts for all 14 offices.
A task team has been formed to define a prototype of how new buildings that will be acquired must have and look like in terms of security, OHS, and IT.

Finalise implementation of requests for corrective action for office space and layouts
Acquisition of buildings for other lodgement sites
Appoint project manager from DPW to assist in acquisition of properties for the lodgement sites

IT lodgement System

The system has been developed, tested and gaps fixed.
System integrates the deeds and spatial Information to access historical data about a property, e.g. land claims
Sought Home Affairs services to integrate land claims screening and validation with ID database so that fraudulent claims can be identified at early stages. MOU referred to the DG for approval
Negotiations with ESKOM about comprehensive IT infrastructure solutions that will enable effective hosting of lodgement data as well as faster system.

Finalise integration of Deeds and SPLUM, as well as Home Affairs data
Conduct and UAT
Finalise the development of user manual and train officials
Deploy system to provinces
Finalise and implement IT infrastructure solutions

Standard Operating Procedures

Processes and SOPs for front office, manual data capturing and back office support have been drafted
A manual claim form has been amended

SOPs for lodgement have been developed

Finalise processes and SOPs for the ‘front end user' of IT system
Finalise back office Standard Operating Procedures and workshop them

Communications

The citizens manual and translated into all official languages
Adverts on consultation processes for the Bill

Anti-fraud campaigns were conducted in Limpopo and North-West Provinces

Revise the communication plan
Finalise a comprehensive plan for a ‘knock and drop’
Print citizens manual and repackage the manual claim form to improve on security

Human Resources

Project coordinators and senior project officers have been appointed in each lodgement office to oversee lodgement; and finalising appointment of data capturers, and registry clerks

Appoint data captures and registry clerks

SPLUM and NARYSEC

SPLUM is working RLCC offices to develop standard descriptions, mapping and integrate its data with the new IT system
NARYSEC youth were trained on restitution processes and a plan for a ‘knock and drop’ has been consolidated to integrate communications, restitution and NARYSEC officials.

Procurement of equipment for the 14 offices and to be delivered to provinces
Purchase of 9 mobile units for reach of far flung areas

The Committee expressed concern over lack of critical engagement and planning around the type of skills required and how it would attract them. The only existing information was that the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has built networks and partnerships with research institutions to assist them with research. However, experience from the previous ‘Validation Tender’ shows that critical in-house expertise is required to fast-track settlement of land claims.

Critical engagement with the unexpected policy dilemmas where restoring land to legitimate claimants clashes with other legitimate public goods such as conservation and protected areas, for example, the Kruger National Park (Limpopo and Mpumalanga), Isimangaliso Wetland Park, the Pilanesberg Nature Reserve (North-West) and other protected areas, and the land demands of the South African National Defence Force in Lohatla (Northern Cape), Madimbo Corridor (Limpopo). The Committee proposed that the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights should consider having thorough policy discussion around some of these issues which have haunted the process of restitution for the past 15 years and it appeared that there was still lack of policy direction around them.

Another critical question for the Committee related to the cost of reopening of land claims and how government would fund the process. Table 6 presents the financial implications for the reopening of land claims. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights reported that reopening of lodgement of land claims would cost the state an estimate of R1, 36 billion for operational costs alone. Without clear assessment of the types of claims to be received and identification possible areas, there has not been any estimation of the cost of settlement of these claims.

Table 6: Financial implications for reopening of lodgement of land restitution claims

Activity	#	Year 1 (R)	Year 2, 3,4&5	Total (R)
Procurement: Desktop	416	6 240 000		6 240 000
Procurement: Scanners/Photocopier/fax	52	2 720 000		2 720 000
Procurement :Furniture	52	6 825 000		6 825 000
Procurement : Water coolers	52	182 000		182 000
Procurement :Network Points	468	468 000		468 000
Procurement :SWITCHES	52	4 160 000		4 160 000
Procurement Laptop	88	1 936 000		1 936 000
Procurement Printer	113	678 000		678 000
Stationery & Consumables	61	12 200 000	12 200 000	61 000 000
ID Buddy	61	427 000		427 000
Numbering system	52	1 625 000		1 625 000
IT: Network points, Switches, WAN, Telkom Servers	52	104 485 544	8 400 000	138 085 544
IT infrastructure upgrade		150 000 000	0	150 000 000
Communication: print, radio, newspapers, branding		16 078 015	5 000 000	36 078 015
Additional compensation of employees		102 315 483	108 454 412	576 761 889
Upgrading of office sites	52	7 800 000	0	7 800 000
Operational cost	61	61 000 000	67 100 000	372 411 100
Rental of buildings	52	1 430 000	1 573 000	8 730 293
Total (R)		479 140 042	201 154 412	367 397 547

7.Synopsis of key conclusions

Based on the observations/findings presented in this report, the Committee drew a range of conclusions that are presented below. The conclusions can be categorised into six thematic areas; namely, a vision for rural development and land reform, restitution, redistribution, integrated development support, institutional arrangements and tenure security.

A vision for rural development and land reform

The Green Paper on Land Reform and various policies that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has worked on constitute the efforts by government to fix the challenges confronting land reform and rural development which in turn could assist in enhancing implementation of programmes to reverse to legacy of the notorious Natives Land Act. Finalisation of policies in the absence of a complete White Paper on Land Reform Policy, which could be a coherent policy document that presents a vision for land reform, could result in adoption of contradictory policies, and further pose limitations to a focussed Parliamentary oversight on implementation of such policies.

Land reform is a necessary condition to reversal the legacy of the Native Land Act, 1913 in order to ensure nation building and social cohesion. It results in respect of all citizens and redress the colonial and apartheid legacy of devaluing the heritage of black people in general. It might facilitate inculcation of the attitude of trust in the society, commitment to healing the ills of the past and stronger economic performance based on equitable access and efficient use of land, supported by a commitment by current landowners to support land redistribution.

Restitution

Land restitution is mainly facilitated process in which the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights support claimants to lodge their claims; investigate them; and offer settlement awards in accordance to the provisions of the Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994) as amended. Failure to conduct a proper assessment of skills requirement could affect the Commission’s capacity to resolve many of the complex claims already in its books, new claims and the conflicts that arise from the restitution processes.

Reopening of the lodgement of land claims and the pressure to finalise the existing land claims received by the 31st December 1998 could pose a strain to both restitution and redistribution. It could cause a strain the sense that there is a real possibility of claims to be lodged on land already restored to other claimants or land already transferred to other individuals, groups or communities in terms of redistribution policies such as SLAG or LRAD. The view that restitution is a rights based programme creates a perception that restitution takes precedence over redistribution.

Restitution projects, as illustrated by the Levubu cluster, and Nkumbuleni CPA, and Dikgathlong CPA, has a huge potential to create jobs for the rural poor, with preference given to the members of land claimants communities. The Levubu experience showed that failure to manage the collaborative business enterprises such as the joint ventures and strategic partnerships created uncertainty in the labour force and decrease in labour productivity.

The Committee concluded that there were many positives that restitution programme has created however these were underreported in public media. However, the weaknesses in the programme could be associated with weaker capacity of the Commission, conflicts within claimant groups/communities, tiffs for leadership positions by the CPAs/Trusts and the institutions of traditional leadership.

Redistribution

The shift from SLAG and LRAD to PLAS is making the state become a ‘landowner’ leasing the land to potential beneficiaries. The current redistribution programme, in which the state is the owner of the land, could create challenges of management and administration of leases under the PLAS programme. Weaker capacity of the state to manage these could result in a total collapse of many privately. Evidence of other programmes to management state land has shown that there were weaknesses in state land management.

Interpretation of land redistribution as synonymous with commercial agriculture creates limitations to in policies to reach out for the land needs of those categories of rural poor people, for example, small-scale subsistence producers, farm workers and farm dwellers, whose land needs and aspirations are not commercial agriculture. The new Agricultural Landholding Framework Policy which determines minimum and maximum land holding sizes does not offer opportunities for land access to category 1 of farmers (small-scale subsistence producers). It thus excludes them to enjoy the Constitutional imperative for “fostering conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis”.

The proposal for the Office of the Valuer-General creates a real possibility to ensure that land transactions are regulated. The Committee concluded that this office could result in land redistribution, especially land acquisition, being more cost effective. The office offers an alternative approach to the willing-buyer willing seller approach that has bedevilled the South African land redistribution programme, and such an alternative is based on the ‘just and equitable’ compensation in a manner not inconsistent with Section 25(2)(b) and 25(3) of the Constitution

Integrated development support

Coordinated and integrated development support, with involvement of local municipalities as the lowest form of government closest to people, is essential for a thriving land and agricultural reform in South Africa. It could address the many challenges related to poor infrastructure on farms given to communities, lack of access to services such as water, electricity and farm roads.

Lack of involvement of strategic departments such as the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the pre-settlement phases of both land redistribution and restitution is among the root causes of the failures of land reform. Another contributing factor is poor planning related to acquisition of where a long period of time lapses between purchase of land and actual occupation. Related to these challenges, is the actual release of funds under the Recapitalisation and Development Programme. Such delays have led to vandalisation and/or collapse of many farms purchased for land reform purposes.

Provision of development support to irrigation schemes in the communal areas presents opportunities for revitalisation of rural industries as well as building the rural economies. This could contribute in addressing rural poverty and supporting secure livelihoods for the majority of people who are dependant of land-based livelihoods.

Strategic partnerships and mentorship programmes do not always lead to desire results due to lack of adequate and systematic monitoring and evaluation. As have been observed in Limpopo, the collapse of such partnership left communities in debt and state grant funding having been used to by private sector partners with no tangible benefit to the beneficiaries.

Institutional arrangements

Conflicts between the institutions of traditional leadership and the newly formed land holding legal entities stall development in some of the land reform projects. Similar conflicts could also be observed in rural areas where institutions of traditional leadership and community structures contretemps over access and control of natural resources, i.e. access to royalties and revenue from mining proceeds, dividends from CPAs or Trusts’ agricultural businesses. Lack of clarification of roles and responsibilities in these projects, especially CPAs and institutions of traditional leadership seems to be a major constraint to development.

Tenure security

The absence of comprehensive tenure legislation, since the CLRA was nullified by the Constitutional Court, it means that the imperatives in Section 25(6) of the Constitution have not been realised yet. With the weak IPILRA, rural people especially individuals could find their rights being trumped by those of a community. Independent women’s access to land is very crucial intervention in the fight against food insecurity in rural areas. Provision of secure access to land for production could assist in changing the power relations in rural areas. The weakness of LTA and ESTA means that farm workers would continue to live under insecure land tenure and therefore be prone to evictions by land owners. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform should put in place mechanisms to monitor and prevent unlawful evictions whilst drafting new policies and legislation to strengthen the tenure rights of farm workers

8.Recommendations

As a result of the observations/findings and the conclusions of this report, the Committee recommends the following:

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to –

Finalise the consultations on the Green Paper on Land Reform and publish a coherent policy document in the form of a White Paper on South African Land Reform Policy. The White Paper, aligned to the National Development Plan, should present a high-level shared vision for land reform and agrarian transformation to provide a framework for development and implementation of all land reform policies. The White Paper should be used by Parliament as one of the oversight tools to monitor progress in implementation of policies to redress the legacy of the Natives Land Act, 1913.

Convene a national dialogue, in the form of land summit that brings all sectors of the society, to debate agrarian transformation and strategies put in place to address questions of landlessness, rural poverty and inequalities to resolve some of the existing varying interpretations of the proposed land reform policies to achieve a shared vision as well as nation building and social cohesion.

Work with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to -

Assess the skills requirements to ensure timely settlement of existing claims and newly lodged claims.
Develop a monitoring and evaluation system for strategic partnerships, mentorship programmes, and joint ventures. Data obtained should help the Department and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to present a factual figure about progress towards achievement of strategic objective of 100% productivity of land reform projects by 2014/15.
Draw lessons from emerging from South African best practices around land reform in general, and restitution in particular, especially in relation to coordination of development support, private sector involvement in land reform, support to smallholders/irrigation schemes, and resolution of conflicts within CPAs and Trusts.
Prioritise settlement of restitution claims lodged prior to 31 December 1998. Such an approach should take into cognisance the possibilities land claims being lodged on the same projects; and proper policy stance should adopted on how to address overlapping claim on previously settled land claim.
Ensure timely provision of progress report to claimants who are waiting for the settlement of their land claims in order to avoid unnecessary complaints about allegations of fraud which are based on lack of information.

Improve, as a landowner of PLAS farms, to manage PLAS land leases effectively. In addition, the Department should further draw lessons from the work of the Department of Public Works to establish the challenges in state land lease management and find mechanism to address those challenges in its systems.

Restructure the land redistribution programme to enable citizens, especially the rural poor and farm dweller households to acquire land that they could call their own, rather than being lessees on state-owned land. Such access to land should address their differential land needs for housing, small-scale subsistence production and heritage/religious purposes. This approach would require -

Careful district-based or area-based planning for land redistribution that addresses the needs and aspirations of the would-be beneficiaries.
Develop a smallholder production model and relevant development support mechanisms that are not only pro-commercial production as in the case with the Recapitalisation and Development model of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

Finalise the policy and legislation on the establishment of the Office of the Valuer-General, simultaneously with the adoption of the White Paper on Land Reform Policy, in order to give meaning to the implementation of the ‘just and equitable’ compensation as an alternative to the willing-buyer willing-seller approach to land redistribution.

Draw up Memorandum of Understanding with key departments such as DWAE, DAFF, DPW, COGTA, DTI, and EDD detailing a coordinated development support strategy with clear roles and responsibilities. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform should continue to play a facilitative and coordinating role, rather than duplicating the roles of other line function departments.

Finalise the CPA Amendment Bill in order to address the existing challenges in relation to access and control of resources, administration and governance issues within the CPAs as well as protection of the rights of individuals within the large groups. Whilst the CPA amendment process is in progress, the Department should submit a progress report on the CPA regularisation processes detailing pre-determined interventions, progress in the implementation of those interventions, emerging challenges and how those challenges are being address both in policy and in practice.

Work jointly with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on strategies and approach to address the challenges confronting Trusts established for the ownership of land acquired under the land reform programme. Both the Departments should joint document a report with verifiable interventions.

Consider amending the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996 to protect rights of individuals in communal areas, whilst developing a comprehensive piece of legislation to give effect to Section 25(6) of the Constitution. Further work to clarify tenure security in communal areas should address the following:

The role of institutions of traditional leaders within the context of the Constitutional recognition of customary law and living customary law as well as individual rights and liberties.
Recognition of the CPAs established to own land transferred to beneficiaries of land reform
Redress the apartheid boundaries that locked black people within overcrowded areas to decongest rural areas.

Coordinate, with the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, policy mechanisms that would ensure protection of independent access to land by women and further ensure protection in law of the women’s independent access to land;

Coordinate, and ensure that, the role and visibility of rural women in rural development and land reform processes are enhanced, as well as encouraging women’s leadership and independent participate in decision-making on matters affecting their lives.
Consider the Committee’s specific recommendations for individual sites as reported in appendix 1.a; 1.b; and 1.c of this report and make interventions as per the Committee’s recommendations.

Report to the National Assembly, together with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, on the above recommendations within three months after the adoption of this report by the House.

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to –

Be the lead supporting department for land reform agricultural projects by implementing comprehensive farmer and development support programmes that include start-up low cost capital inputs, research and development, access to marketing, skills in farm and production management and other development support required.

Put in place systems to foster coordination with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in order to with both pre and post settlement support in land reform

Assist, as part of the pre-settlement support, with feasibility studies on the suitability of some farming ventures before the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform spend large sums of money on projects through Recapitalisation and Development Programme.

Develop a comprehensive agricultural plan which provides for a framework for development support to rural development and land reform projects. The Department should further establish, within its structures, capacity to support agricultural land reform by providing dedicated support in strategic partnerships, mentorships and equity schemes for large-scale commercial production.

Incorporate in its plans support for the smallholder farmers whose production is mainly for subsistence purposes. This could address the development needs of the majority of rural producers, about 2 million subsistence producers in rural areas. The support provided should be in the form of, but not limited to, the following:

Inputs costs;
Infrastructure for irrigation;
Water;
Fencing; and
Extension advice

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should report on the above recommendations within three months of adoption of this report by the House.

The Department of Human Settlements and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to -

Conduct assessment of all settled and finalised land claims as well as other farms transferred in terms of other land reform programmes to identify projects with needs of human settlements development. Such assessment should also include the DRDLR assessment of human settlements needs based on its CRDP household profiling reports. Both the departments should jointly submit this report about the findings of the assessment and the plans put in place to address the identified needs to the National Assembly within three months of adoption of this report by the House.

The Department of Public Works to -

Conduct an audit and identify state land which is available for land reform. With the assistance of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Department of Public Works to document a plan of action on how identified state land would released for land reform purposes with clear timeframes and targets.

Finalise the legislation on expropriation in order to align expropriation of land with the Constitutional imperatives for a just and equitable manner of compensation and expropriation of property or a right in land in the public interest.

The Department should submit a report on the above recommendations to the National Assembly within three months after the adoption of this report by the House.

The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to

Conduct an audit of Traditional Councils with specific focus on their legal status and compliance with the Traditional Leadership and Governance Frameworks Act, 2003; particular attention should be on the constitution of the Traditional Councils in terms of the Act.

Develop policy mechanisms to support the CPAs with municipal services such as water and electricity as well as allocation of commonages to poor households.

Conduct, in support of rural development and land reform, awareness campaign about land reform and land holding legal entities so that both CPAs and Traditional leaders are aware of their positions and responsibilities when land is awarded to communities either in the form CPAs or Trusts.

The Department should submit a report on the above recommendations to the National Assembly within three months after the adoption of this report by the House.

Department of Arts and Culture to

Document a report about the location of the various heritage sites in South Africa, their statuses and how land claims on heritage sites could be resolved from an Arts and Culture perspective. The Department should submit this report to the National Assembly within three months of adoption of this report by the House.

Report to the National Assembly about measures that would be put in place for development and maintenance of heritage sites.

Report to be considered.

Appendix 1.a – 1.c: Overview of projects observations and recommendations

Appendix 1.a: Overview of records of site visits in Limpopo Province
District	Name of a project	Overview of observations		Site-specific recommendations
District	Name of a project	Achievements	Challenges	Site-specific recommendations
Vhembe	Levubu Cluster (6 CPAs and a Trust)	Land restoration of about 5000 ha of prime agricultural land 1000 jobs created across 7 legal entities Revitalisation of projects after the collapse of strategic partners Two CPAs showing profits, one invested over a million	Uncertainty of jobs due to projects collapse Conflicts within CPAs Forensic audit results kept by the Department	The DRDLR/CRLR to - Submit status report with regard to the applications for the Recapitalisation and Development Programme Submit the Forensic Investigations on the Strategic Partners in Levubu, and the report be available to land claimants Ratombo and Masakona conflicts resolved
Vhembe	Makuleke CPA (land restoration) and Mhinga Traditional Council	Over 200 jobs created for CPA members Community-based Greenhouse Project) Investment of CPA profits in public goods such as schools Functional irrigation scheme, it caters for commercial and subsistence production	Conflicts between the CPA and Mhinga Traditional Councils Unprocessed land claim of the Mhinga Traditional Council Ongoing court cases between the CPA and Mhinga Traditional Council about recognition of Makuleke chieftaincy	The DRDLR/CRLR to: Consider drawing on research reports from the area and develop a best practice guide for CPAs and local headman Report about the Chief Mhinga’s land claim Observe the outcomes of court processes to ensure that they could support
Capricorn	Mikes Chicken Farm CC	Redistribution project, a consortium of six companies and 21 beneficiaries Job creation: 150 permanent workers and 400 contract workers It supports other small-scale growers	Proper housing for the workers	The DHS to Consider assisting the project with its programme to development housing for farm workers
	Marobala CPA	Restitution awards for 427 households organised as a CPA Lease grazing land to members of the CPA to generate funds the operational costs	Misappropriation of funds by CPA executive Beneficiary verification incomplete Officials for RECAP did not know about the application	The DRDLR to Provide report the status of the application for the Recapitalisation Progress report on resolution of the conflicts within this project
	Makgoba Trust	Trust was established in 2004 to acquire land restored to them in terms of restitution	Disputes between the Trust and the traditional leaders stalled development. No evidence of regular engagement between DRDLR and the Trust together with the traditional leaders	The CRLR to report about progress in resolving the conflicts and plans for development support
	New Pietersburg	Successful settlement of the land claim Claimants were given choices of cash compensation or financial compensation	Local municipality selling privately selling land restored to claimants Prolonged process to develop housing Grants allocated for development escalated from R20,5m to R70m due delays	The CRLR to – Facilitate intervention by DHS and the Polokwane Local Municipality to address the challenges

Table 1.c: Overview of records of site visits in North-West Province
Bojanala	Project Name	Overview of observations		Site-specific recommendations
	Project Name	Achievements	Challenges	Site-specific recommendations
	Mongatana Trading and Projects CC	Efficient extension support from the Department of Agriculture Access to R3m CASP, R206,266 LRAD Grant, R1,5 m loan, and beneficiary contribution of R1m Recapitalisation fund R4,96m: upgrade access road, construction of broiler houses; upgrade electric fence; purchase tractor; slasher and grading blades; and Strategic Partner: AgriDelight	The farm lack access to the value-chain and a processing facility in the form an abattoir. Still dependant on the large corporate companies, therefore the farm is a contract grower for a company that supply 1-day old chicks, feeds and medication Mongatana has no direct access to markets	The DRDLR and the DAFF to Conduct feasibility study and provide advice in terms of the best solutions to the challenges of linking the farm with a value challenge, funding a processing facility (broiler abattoir) individually or as a cooperative for a larger group of producers.
	Bakgatla-ba-Kgafela CPA	Portion of land claim on Pilanesberg Nature Reserve settled. Co-management with North-West Parks and Tourism Board proposed Department has budget allocation to support the CPA	Co-management was not yet operational pending finalisation of negotiations with the Parks Board CPA and Traditional Council are in conflict over the best suitable legal entity (CPA or Trust) Lack of progress in releasing funds 32 villages made it difficult to facilitate agreements	The CRLR and the DRDLR to: Facilitate discussion on CPAs and Trust with all the 32 villages and obtain a resolution Facilitate mediation, with the help of COGTA, to ensure that chieftaincy disputes do not affect the sustainability of the land restitution projects
	Reboetsoe CPA	Restoration of 1147,1249 ha to the Zandrift community 237 households and 1200 beneficiaries benefits from the projects Recently the DRDLR appointed strategic partners to assist the CPA	Factions within CPAs Allegations of members of CPA fraudulently leasing some portions of the land without CPA approval No accountability on revenue from rentals 7 years of neglect and underutilisation resulted in vandalisation of the farm R1m debt owed to Magalies Water Board (inherited from the previous owner and not settled at the time of transfer	The CRLR to investigate the Magalies Water Board issue and report to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform; and include the CPA in the regularisation project and report about progress in strengthening the CPA and resolving allegations about certain members having absolute control of the CPA
	Dikgathlong CPA	Functional lodge, being re-established after vandalisation and collapsed to due lack of support Supported by the NW Parks and Tourism Board for grading	Factions within the CPA and allegations misuse of funds by the Executive Bad media publicity due to the allegations Not all beneficiaries were in the validation list	DRDLR and the CRLR to Review the validation of CPAs list and ensure that there is an agreed list for all beneficiaries and facilitate mediation for the CPA and resolve the conflicts
	Syferkuil/Swartboom Community	This is a tenure formalisation project on 786 ha, benefiting 4000 households Moretele Municipality provided 20% of stands with low-cost houses for poorest community members	The delay of the SPLUMA affected the project About 80% of the land was held communally under a traditional authority; absence of a clear communal land tenure policy it has been difficult to finalise the matter. DRDLR has taken too long to coordinate municipalities and traditional authorities to finalise the matter	DRDLR to Report about plans to finalise this tenure upgrade for the community, especially after SPLUMA was signed by the President

Table 1.c: Overview of records of site visits in KwaZulu-Natal Province
District	Project Name	Overview of observations		Site-specific recommendations
District	Project Name	Achievements	Challenges	Site-specific recommendations
Zululand	Mkhuzane Trust	Land restoration between 2008 to 2012, in phases for 247 beneficiary households Trust sought assistance of AGB Mathe Business Services as a strategic Partner. Strategic partner assisted in purchase of tractors and implements; payment of salaries to employees; and fix water and irrigation system. Production: citrus, vegetable and sugar cane with established to sell their produce (Contract with SPA)	No funds has been received from the DRDLR as yet, but application has been lodged Dilapidated facilities such as pack house; no storage facility; Lack of capital to revitalise the business; High electricity cost	DRDLR and CRLR to Report on progress with the application for recapitalisation Work with the Trust to establish the causes of high electricity cost and seek alternatives
Umzinyathi	Izanqawe CPA	10979 ha were restored to the CPA with 199 verified beneficiaries, working primarily on timber farming; which 6898 hectares is under interim lease management while planning is under way and 3919 hectares is self managed by the community; Integration of land use: Timber, human settlement and animal grazing. Market: the Natal Co-operative Timber company. 104 permanent and six seasonal job opportunities were created. Employees work a 5 hour shift and earn R13.00 per hour On the second phase of restoration, the CPA formed strategic partnership (51% CPA and 49% investor).	Lack of proper housing, running water and electricity. Education: Government built a school, and a crèche but children walk for about 16 km to reach a school. Inadequate health and safety measures in the operations Lack of financial assistance as well as assistance in the running and managing the project.	DRDLR should consider coordinating involvement of the Expanded Public Works Programme from the Department of Public Works in order to increase job creation while reducing personnel costs.
Illembe	KwaCele CPA	Land restored in 2009, a sugar cane farm. It received a grant of R17 306 250 from the department. Strategic partnership for 15 years is signed: shareholders - 51% by Trust and 49% by the strategic partner. Job creation 200 workers (120 from the CPA) Share dividends are shared amongst the beneficiaries. Bursary scheme: funded students who took course in agriculture	The cost of electricity is too high, therefore project in debt Lack of access to low cost capital Water logging.	The DRDLR and CRLR to – Work with the Trust and relevant municipality to establish the causes of high electricity cost and seek alternatives
	Masomini	There are three cooperatives namely Mansomini, Dakalaka and Mthundeni and their strategic partner is Glendoli Sugar. Access to market: it supplies sugarcane to Gledhow Mill. Job creation: created 500 jobs for beneficiaries and other people in the community. The cooperative has accounts to beneficiaries on the income generated and their expenditure. In 2012, it distributed R1m to beneficiaries	Shortage of water as a result they need to build another dam; High costs of electricity cause debt; and Social mobilization through strategic partners	The DRDLR to – Coordinate support interms of infrastructure support for irrigation. For example construction of Dams Assist the Cooperatives with capacity building Assist with recapitalisation fund
	Amangcolosi CPA	1900 ha of sugarcane and 5 000 ha land that is set aside for commercial use. Leased out grazing fields as a control measure. The CPA owns 32 cattle. Built five classrooms at a local school to increase the number to seven. Bought two computers for the high school December 2012, all beneficiaries received R5 000 part of dividends. Initiated a community garden to alleviate poverty in the area.	More people are coming forward claiming to be part of the CPA	DRDLR to finalise verification and facilitate conflict resolution or management where it arises
Umgugundlovu	Enkumbuleni CPA	About 2494 ha were restored to claimants in phases 211 households beneficiaries; Creation of 101 permanent and 20 seasonal jobs The game lodge and citrus orchards - main sources of revenue. Partnership for with Three Cities: offers training and mentorship in the hospitality industry Prioritised for recapitalization to revitalise orchards R13m received from the National Empowerment Fund to buy game and lodge movables assets. The project also received a grant of R4 508 340.00	Lack of capacity to enhance the community Lack of funding to make the project fully functional. Joint Venture with Ithala Citrus Estate collapsed because of decline in production, debt and ultimate liquidation	DRDLR to report about the support to the project and systems to unlock development funding
	Amaqamu CPA	A total of 315 households with 1890 beneficiaries participate in this project. The total cost settlement for the lodge claim was R10 940 million.	Another court matter related to interdict for the sale of residential stands by iNkosi. The hotel that was supposed to be profitable was dilapidated. No visible support given by the Department. The municipality lodged a case against the Trust for allowing building houses on land not zoned for residential use.	The DRDLR should verify the list of beneficiaries and Trust The DRDLR and Municipality should find a solution about properties built on land not zoned for residential purposes The DRDLR should expedite measures to revitalise the business model of the once thriving hotel.
	Emaqcekeni Trust	Government purchased land for 477 people at the cost of R13,241,473m.	Invasion of the land without proper settlement planning, The settlement was not in their IDP and the area is zoned for agricultural purposes and not for residential The Trust was not properly constituted and does not host meetings as required by the Trust Deed. Only one member of the Trust was active and financial statements were not made available to other members.	DRDLR should make interventions to address question of land invasion and clarification of property description to avoid invasion of Mr Tshabalala’s land

[1] The committee’s mandate refers to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform which has proposed to assess how government has addressed the racial land divisions of the past and decongested the rural areas

[2] Levubu cluster comprises seven land restitution claims, namely: Tshakhuma Trust, Ravele CPA, Ratombo CPA, Masakona CPA, Shigalo CPA, Tshivhazwaulu CPA, and Tshitwani CPA

Documents