Land Care Programme Conditional Grant: 1st quarter 2011 performance reports

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson invited the National Treasury to give an executive summary on the purpose of the Land Care conditional grant, and how provinces performed in the period under review. The Chairperson indicated that provinces were expected to make corrections to the National Treasury submission soon after it was presented. Based on a view that the submission by National Treasury was based on reports from provinces, the Committee did not expect any differences. He said the Committee had instances where there were various differences and explanations with Treasury reports. The programme for the day was outlined and provinces were asked to give clarity on what the National Treasury had presented.

National Treasury. 1st Quarter [2011] Conditional Grants Spending: Land Care Programme Grant.
Ms Julinda Gantana, Chief Director: Provincial Budget Analysis, National Treasury, told the Committee that the Treasury presentation would focus on first quarter spending, signed by heads of departments (HODs) and given through to heads of provincial treasuries. She said the numbers were published in terms of the first quarter spending.

 Ms Ogalaletseng Gaarekwe, Budget Analyst / Chief Director, National Treasury, said the grant sought to conserve natural resources through community participatory programmes. She said cooperatives were formed to deal with the programme and they created job opportunities through the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP). This also ensured enabling environment for food security and poverty alleviation. In the first quarter spending, only 5.5% was spent. Gauteng had not spent a cent in the first quarter whilst the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal reported considerable declines in expenditure. The Northern Cape spent about 8.1% in the first quarter and had improved by 1.72% more than the previous financial year.

Ms Gaarekwe said challenges for expenditure in the first quarter included delays in procurement. The Eastern Cape, Free State and North West reported no jobs created against the targets, and also that no land users benefited from their programmes. Five provinces  - Western Cape, Free State, Gauteng, North West, and Northern Cape reported that no hectares of cultivated land were rehabilitated or protected. Treasury noted the improvement in spending by the end of July -  from 5.5% to 14.8%. Ms Gaarekwe said only Free State, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal had spent 30% of the grant so far.

The national Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries had expressed concern regarding late submission of performance reports by provinces in terms of the Division of Revenue Act (DORA).

(See presentation document for full details.)

Discussion

Mr A Lees (DA, KwaZulu-Natal) wanted to know why KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and Mpumalanga were projected not to meet their budget this early in the financial year. He also wanted to know the formula used to allocate funds, as some provinces had vast tracts of land, and what the money was spent on in those provinces that reported no land users’ benefit and what exactly that meant.

Ms Gantana referred the ‘not meet budget’ question to the concerned provinces, but said the first quarter spending in KwaZulu-Natal seemed low. She said grant's allocation was with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as it was a schedule five grant and had a business case attached. It would be costed and that would inform the allocation per province. The zero spending by some provinces could be an issue of a particular spending indicator. It could be that the people benefited but the reports submitted to Treasury indicated a zero spending against that particular indicator.

KZN Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development 2010/11 Close-out report & 1st Quarter 2011 expenditure on Land Care Programme: Poverty Relief and Infrastructure Development Grant
Ms Lydia Johnson, Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Agriculture, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), said that the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs, KZN, took Land Care seriously as it created jobs for communities. It had put in place measures to monitor the expenditure patterns, would receive monthly reports, and oversight visits would be conducted. She said the Department wanted to spend all the money allocated and respond quickly to blockages as under-spending was not an option for KZN. She explained that the R476 000, appearing as under-expenditure expenditure on the presentation, was actually a roll-over as the province had utilised 94% of its budget in the last financial year. She handed over to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to expand on the low expenditure and why the Department believed it could expedite progress on expenditure.

Mr Sibusiso Shongwe, CFO, Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs, KZN, said that, as per the objectives of the programme, the Department wanted to enhance sustainable conservation of natural resources through community based participation. He said the Department was looking at job creation, skills transfer and improving food security among the previously disadvantaged and to enhance sustainable livelihoods. The Department received a total amount of R8.71 million but the actual spending was R8.24 million. He said the under-expenditure was as a result of an irrigation scheme in Zululand that could not be finalised. The Department had received confirmation that the roll-over had been approved.

Mr Shongwe said in the first quarter the Department received an allocation of R925 000 but had only spent R173 000 (19% of Quarter 1 transfer) of that amount. The Department started late in the project due to delays in signing of service agreements with the project beneficiaries. Another contributing factor was the delays in the procurement of goods. Currently the Department sat at 2% expenditure of the total budget but it hoped to pick up on the third and fourth quarters. He outlined how the projects would be monitored, including getting the buy-in from the community. The Department took a lot of time to ensure that beneficiaries understood the programme and its objectives. As part of monitoring, there would be frequent project visits and presentation of monthly reports to the meetings chaired by the MEC. He provided the list of projects the Department wanted to complete this year.

Mr Shongwe identified lost time as a result of delays in signing the agreements and procurement as a challenge. He said there was a new initiative to ensure that by the end of the third quarter there were no under-expenditure challenges. The Department would increase labour teams to meet the individual project targets. Also the Department was working on new models that would fast-track procurement processes. (See presentation document for full details).

Discussion
Mr C de Beer (ANC, Northern Cape) started the discussion by wanting to know why the irrigation scheme project in Zululand was not finalised last year. Why were there delays in signing the agreements and procuring services? And how was the Department hoping to catch up in the third quarter spending? He also asked for the explanation of the phrase ‘increase the labour team’ in real figures.

Mr Lees wanted to know if the Zululand irrigation scheme project had stalled for discontinuation given that the roll-over for the project was paid out, and yet total spending on the current financial year was still less than the roll-over itself. That project should also be listed on the project list so that the Committee could keep track of it. He wanted to know which of the projects were earmarked for increased labour teams.

The Chairperson asked the Department to convince the Committee on whether it would be able to catch up on the spending. He requested that the Department also to  clarify the number of jobs it hoped to create. He wanted a confirmation on whether all agreements that led to the delays were signed. It would be important to clarify these things.

Ms T Memela (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) requested the actual location of the projects.

Mr Silas Hlophe, Senior Manager: Monitoring and Evaluation, KZN, responded that tenders for the procurement led to appeals by bidders and that led to further delays. He said in KZN it was permissible by law to appeal as the Provincial Treasury housed a tribunal for appeals on tenders. The Department had approved a panel for approved service providers and expression of interest for two years. He said the Department had received approval for the roll-over in May, and all plans were in place for the Zululand irrigation project to go ahead.

The Chairperson wanted to know reasons for the further delays on the projects especially that approval was given in May. One would have expected that with regards to last year’s stalled project one would immediately start with the work. What could be the reason for the delay now?

Mr Hlophe replied that it was a combination of reasons. He said the Department agreed not to continue with the project as a separate project. In terms of planning the Department was late, but in terms of expenditure there was substantial amount of work done on the ground.

Mr Shongwe said increasing labour teams encouraged all those on operations of the project to catch up. He said the Department was looking at creating 7 200 job opportunities for the whole cycle and all agreements had been signed.

The Chairperson reminded the delegation of an earlier question about an indication of the exact locations of the projects. Experience had taught that some of the reports the Committee received were misleading. He said some provinces claimed spending millions on projects, and yet those were non-existent. Parliament therefore had taken a view that these reports had to be tested by either visiting by Committees, or by asking Members to make unannounced visits during constituency periods.
Mr De Beer suggested that in the future provinces provide quarterly action plans for the duration of the current Parliament. He said this should speak to the budget’s allocation spending per quarter for easy way of measuring performance.

Mr Lees sought further clarity on the envisaged labour increases and wanted to know the outcomes of the appeals that led to the procurement delays. Were any of them upheld, leading to the processes starting afresh?

Mr Hlophe said most of the appeals were not upheld, but there were administrative issues that led to the prolonged appeals. He said the time spent on resolving these was long and impacted on service delivery, but the province as a whole was looking into that, as most of them were not strong appeals.

Ms Johnson said the appeals system was abused by bidders when they failed and finalising the issues took long. It had been resolved with the MEC for Finance that the turn-around time needed to be shorter. So appeals would not be a factor going forward. For an MEC the low expenditure was of concern and as a result the Department would begin monitoring closely. The Department could not afford to under-spend when it could create a lot of jobs through these programmes.

Northern Cape Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development: Land Care Review  for 2010/11 and 1st Quarter 2011/12
Mr Norman Shushu, MEC for Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Northern Cape, introduced the presentation and said it was not about reporting but about money that needed to be constructively utilised to change lives of the people. He said the Department took seriously the fact that it should spend appropriately so that interventions and contributions were positive to the quality of life in the province. He indicated that the presentation would be done by Mr Veljoen Mothibi, the Head of Department, Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.

Mr Mothibi said the Department wanted to encourage farmers and communities in the sustainable use of land and also raising awareness on conservation. The Department wanted to involve more people and address the issue of soil degradation rather than look at the symptoms. The projects focused on areas of invader plants, awareness campaigns and stop water systems. He said the land and resource management process in the province included using indigenous knowledge systems. The Department had embraced themes in its programmes and they included soil care, veld care, water care and junior land care. These were the projects that 2010/11 allocation focused on.

Mr Mothibi said challenges they had last year included veld fires and those were attended to. The Department received R5.995 million and had spent R5.1 million (86%). It had committed R846 000 (14%) and had requested a roll-over as the money was committed into two projects. It also had a junior Land Care project in Siyanda and towards the end of the year the Department would host a Land Care conference. In the last financial year the Department had about 500 learners in the programme. He said the young people were taught how to care for the land in the junior Land Care programme. This year followed the same patterns of allocation.

Mr Mothibi said the Department agreed with what the National Treasury had presented. The Department would monitor expenditure up until the end of the second quarter. It had established a project coordinating committee, involving other departments. Project managers had been given instructions to report continuously to senior managers. The coordinating committee had been mandated to monitor portfolio evidence where the projects were happening, by way of visits and on-site meetings with stakeholders. He said the officials were answerable to MEC Shushu, but also project visits were undertaken, particularly by National Treasury and the national Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. (See presentation document for full details.)

Discussion
Mr M Makhubela (COPE, Limpopo) sought clarity on the awareness campaign allocation. He wanted to know it the sum total was informed by the number of campaigns achieved in a particular year.

Mr Lees said he wanted to know if roll-overs that kept coming from the Northern Cape were approved. He also enquired about how the National Treasury dealt with the roll-overs and why they took so long to approve.

Mr De Beer wanted to know what was meant by Stop Water System in the Namaqua district. He disputed the statement that there were regular visits by officials to the projects. He said the area was his constituency and he interacted with farmers on a regular basis.

The Chairperson said the Department seemed to be spending much money on awareness campaigns. He said it was concerning that the entire budget appeared to be spent on awareness campaigns. Would the money not be better spent on real work at projects than in awareness campaigns? He said the projects in the Northern Cape did not speak to the real objectives of the grant particularly agricultural productivity. He wanted to know the number of projects that benefited as it seemed that the same projects were carried over from last year. He enquired about the involvement of cooperatives driving the projects and job opportunities targeted in this financial year.

Mr Mothibi said the Department had not received confirmation of approval on the roll-over but the money had already been committed on two projects. He said in this financial year the Department would give farmers money to deal with the issue of water regulation for livestock. He said the Department was looking at cleaning and repairing boreholes and windmills. Small farmers complained about water for livestock as windmills were not working. The Department had also installed solar panels so that they could harness sun energy to ensure water was available. He said the Department considered introducing a ward based approach in dealing with water utilisation, but also in the coming week would set up a team to scrutinise under-utilised water sources.

Mr Mothibi said the Department had a budget for awareness, but examined it on a case by case. He said large-scale farmers helped in this process especially educating small farmers about water conservation. Awareness did not occur only to inform people about the projects but also to educate them about resource management. He agreed with the Committee that awareness be done at the point of introducing the project as opposed to a separate budget allocation. He said there would be provincial assessment next week to determine the projects that would be funded. And plans would be submitted to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the end of September.

The Chairperson wanted to know if some of the issues the Committee had raised would find expression in the plan. He also enquired about the reasons for the under-expenditure in the first quarter.

Mr Lees wanted to know about how roll-overs worked. The question of the roll-over remained hanging. The Committee was told it had not been approved but the money had been committed.

Ms Gantana said the process of roll-overs included any unspent conditional grant being returned to the National Treasury unless it was committed. She said the Department would then be required to produce proof of that commitment in the form of an invoice or proof of a tender being awarded. Treasury communicated very early with departments when it was satisfied with the proof of commitment; if not, the province was required to surrender the money. She said there was no reason why the Department could not start paying the outstanding invoices.

The Chairperson berated the Department for not following up on their correspondence with National Treasury. He described as ‘irregular’ the situation where the Northern Cape contacted Treasury in May, and was still without response in September. He requested that the matter be taken up with the Treasury delegation after the meeting.

Mr Mothibi said under-expenditure in the first quarter was as a result of bidders not responding as the Department did not have qualified people to deal with agro-chemicals, on the invader plant control section. He said the Department was hopeful that it would spend the money at the end of the second quarter.

Ms Memela said she was disappointed with the presentation and requested the Department to always check if they were on track with the objectives of the grant. 'Roll up your sleeves! We dealing with people, very desperate people.'

MEC Shushu promised the Committee that he would work on the challenges. He said there would be no repetition of under-spending as it impacted on delivery.

The Chairperson said the Department needed to look at the objectives of the grant as agricultural projects created jobs and involved a number of individuals. The Committee had expected the money to go into the actual work on the ground, not awareness campaigns and conferences. The Northern Cape might be a semi-desert province, but its people were interested in agriculture. He said there was no use having land that did not produce.

Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform: CASP, Letsema and Land Care  4th  Quarter 2010/11 and 1st Quarter 2011/12 Performance Review
Ms Zoleka Capa, MEC for Rural Development and Land Reform, Eastern Cape, outlined challenges the Department faced at the beginning of the financial year. She agreed with the National Treasury report, but said there would be differences as she had prepared a presentation on all three projects undertaken by the Department. She said weaknesses that led to under-spending included reconfiguration of management in the Department. Inability by new managers to adapt led to the national Government withholding the funds in the previous financial year. Also, while projects were awarded, people did not claim because they could not do work due to heavy rains and terrain. Material used in fencing could not be delivered on time. She said the province struggled with invading species and land lay fallow in rural areas of the Transkei. There was no point in removing these species and not using the land as this, in terms of land care, led to erosion.

Ms Capa said contractual challenges with the Post Office in finalising agreements on payment methods for service providers contributed to the delays, but had since been resolved. Social facilitation on identified project sites had already been done; there would be no further delays. She said monitoring and evaluation had been strengthened. Too much poverty had caused competition among the poor to get into the projects and, as a result, a strong team of traditional leaders, ward committees and the Department had been established. The team would look at recruitment and issues of maintenance of the projects and infrastructure and that would constitute an on-going form of employment. She apologised for future delays but said the department was on top of things.

Mr Felix Hobson, Senior Manager: Land Care implementation, Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Eastern Cape, said in the previous financial year the Department undertook 188 projects and of this number 102 were completed. He said the unfinished projects contributed to deviation and had led to the Department asking for roll-overs. The rainy weather was to blame for the delays in the construction. He said invoices for roll-overs were at hand in the first quarter but the money was not paid because the provincial Treasury did not have funds.

Mr Hobson said reasons for deviations and delays were alluded to by the MEC and included the reconfiguration of management, difficulties with the Post Office and the wet weather. The reason the Department wanted to use the Post Office was because it had pay-points in almost all of the rural areas. He said the Department had incurred under-expenditure of  R609 000 for Land Care for the 1st quarter of 2011/12. This arose from setting up the procedure to pay EPWP community workers directly, using the Post office as payment agent,  as part of community construction projects. The Department had a verbal indication that the roll-over would be approved but there was nothing in writing. He said the Department would not commit to that, because if it failed officials would be held liable. The Department hoped to pick up on expenditure as materials were on-site and the construction should go ahead full steam. There should be no under-expenditure when it came to Land Care and jobs created would increase. The Department had projected 2 545 jobs for the current financial year but up to so far 614 people had been employed.

Mr Hobson said the programmes developed capacity by training the youth to take care of the infrastructure. A number of projects that were on tender stage at the end of the 1st quarter had been adjudicated and were underway. He said at the end of the second quarter, expenditure would be very different. The Department did not foresee under-spending in this financial year. It had instituted a task team of senior people, who visited districts on bi-weekly basis to identify bottlenecks in projects delivery. He said the Department did not have any concern that it would be under-spending in 2011/12. (See presentation document for full details.)

Discussion
Mr Makhubela asked whether people were taken to work without any preparation on Land Care. When listening to the remarks of the MEC, one got the impression that she had been briefed only last night, as her opening remarks constituted a separate report. It appeared as though the MEC was trying to answer the report now; why was she not briefed?

Mr De Beer wanted to know the amount requested for roll-over and whether the request had been approved.

Mr Lees asked for the link between withholding of the fourth quarter funds, the roll-over amount, approval from Treasury and the actual spending.

The Chairperson requested that the focus be on Land Care, especially that Treasury had told the Committee that there were no jobs created under the programme in the EC and that no land users benefited. The Department should also explain the payment method used last year, as it had cited negotiations with the Post Office as a contributing factor to delays in expenditure in the first quarter. He asked if the Department was using the services of consultants on the conditional grant, and if so, at what cost.

Ms Capa replied that the Department had integrated its programmes, and had at all times been hands-on on all the programmes. She said payment method last year had had challenges that led to the Department being innovative. People were suspicious and as a result the Department thought of a different method, outside the communities, so that complaints could be taken up with the Department. She said no consultants were used on Land Care. She also said people were not put on jobs without the necessary training. The Department wanted them to have accredited qualifications, so it needed agents that offered accredited training.

Mr Hobson said staff in the area of fencing was trained by Capegate, but it was not a specialised training. They provided a good training with the right clothing and equipment. Many of our communities already had that skill; all that Capegate did was consolidate, so in future the Department would not ask people from outside. He replied that the roll-over was R800 000 and in terms of the procedure one needed to indicate the order numbers to show that there was a commitment. He said invoices were submitted and payment was effected in thirty days. He said payments were made on funds allocated for projects this year, and that led to some aspects of some projects being placed on hold.

Mr Hobson disputed the statement by Treasury that no jobs were created in the first quarter, saying the reason was that the employment statistics were covered under the Expanded Public Works Programme.

The Chairperson wanted know if the R800 000 had been committed and the status of the approval.

Ms Capa replied that the commitment was submitted to Treasury in April, but the Department struggled to access the money from the Provincial Treasury. She apologised for confusion at the Department. The Department had thought of its programmes as integrated and therefore did not have a breakdown of the money spent, but next time would report separately on the projects but integrate implementation.

After some interrogation of the commitment of the R800 000 by the Committee, it appeared that the Department had an amount of R33 million already committed but was awaiting for approval of the roll-over. Mr Hobson said 17 projects were on hold as a result of this money, and if the roll-over was approved, projects would resume in November and, if not, in the coming financial year.

Ms Gantana clarified that Treasury would not withhold funds if there was proof of commitment, and that all the funds in the Eastern Cape were with the Provincial Treasury, which had approved the roll-over. She said there could be various reasons for the provincial Treasury to withhold the funds.

The Chairperson made known his frustration and requested that Treasury liaise with its office to ascertain blockages and delays. This needed to be attended as a matter of extreme urgency. If this was not sorted it meant the Eastern Cape would have compromised 18 of its projects. The Treasury delegation was instructed to brief the Committee after the meeting on the status of the Eastern Cape roll-overs.

Mpumalanga. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration. Conditional Grants: 4th quarter 2010/11 and 1st quarter 2011/12
Mr Andries Niekerk, Acting Chief Director,  Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration, Mpumalanga, said the purpose of the conditional grant, as elsewhere, was to enhance conservation of natural resources, create job opportunities through the Expanded Public Work Programme, and improve food security. He said the Department was rolling out the Land Care programme in four districts – Ehlanzeni, Gert Sibande, Bushbuckridge and Nkangala – in the province.

Mr Niekerk said the Department had spent 99% of the budget in the previous year and had created about 119 jobs, with 1 141 benefiting from Land Care in the province. This year the Department was also considering the four district municipalities. He said the Department had up to so far under-spent by R694 000 in the first quarter due to procurement of fencing, drilling material, boiler and livestock infrastructure. He said some of the challenges experienced included slow progress by emerging contractors.

Mr Niekerk said the Department had also planned that some of the projects would commence in the second quarter. (See presentation document for full details.)

Discussion
Mr Makhubela wanted to know about the causes of the delays in procurement.

The Chairperson enquired about the number of projects and their exact locations. 'All I heard was awareness campaigns; I could not hear where the projects were.' He also asked about the total costs particularly with the Land Care grant.

Ms Candice Dlamini, MEC, Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration, Mpumalanga, said the procurement delays pertained to the materials being sourced elsewhere from the sites.

She indicated that the number of projects and the exact ward locations would be sent through to the Committee the following day. She said the Department slowed down in the employment figures in the first quarter. That number would pick up in the second quarter as the Department had projected 1 500 jobs for the current financial year.

Free State. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.  4th quarter 2010/11 and 1st quarter 2011/12 Land Care Spending Review
Mr Mosebenzi  Zwane, MEC, Agriculture, and Rural Development, Free State, said the Department had requested Treasury to avail 10% of the provincial grant in the first quarter as projects were seasonal in the province. Most of the implementation work became more effective during the third and fourth quarter. He said 8% of the first quarter had been spent on awareness campaign “Asvoel”. By the end of the second quarter the Department would be able to spend about 50% of the grant. He said during the previous financial year the Department created 174 job opportunities and targeted 200 for 2011/12. He said 18 projects were ongoing.

Ms Dimakatso Mogorosi, Head of Department, Agriculture, and Rural Development, Free State, said the purpose of Land Care was no different  from the purposes given in the previous presentations. The Department empowered land users to use and manage land resources optimally. She said it was not only the farmers that ought to be made aware but also school going children. Also the Department was making farmers aware of fires. She said people got stressed out during fire outbreaks without taking the necessary steps. She said the Department was in the drive to establish artificial pastoral land and that it hoped to achieve its objectives.

Ms Mogorosi talked the Committee through the Mollo campaign, whose focus was on fires. She said it was not just awareness, but also six fire fighters had been recruited to assist farmers. The Junior Land Care was continuing and schools were expected to attend a week-long workshop about the environment at Zanstroom. The Department had sent 1 000 learners to the camp in the previous financial year, and targets were projected the same for the current financial year. She said after the camp, children were given trees to plant at their schools and there was follow up. The camp had already been launched by the MEC.

Ms Mogorosi concurred with the MEC that the Department had spent 100% of the budget and that there were no problems with the projects. She said spending patterns were similar to the previous year and all the systems were in place. She said Treasury was very impressed with the Free State's performance and even wanted to avail extra funding. In the first quarter of the current financial year the Department had only spent 8% but that had improved to 42% by middle of the second quarter. With the first rains in the province one could expect the rate on expenditure to pick up. She said the Department was comfortable that it could spend the allocated amount before the end of the year and could even be given additional budget by Treasury.

Ms Mogorosi said challenges to the programme included scarce skills, and provinces were stealing technicians from one another. She said although salaries of the technicians had been standardised, technicians' skills remained scarce. The Department was also giving bursaries to students to go study this specific field. It also was liaising with tertiary institutions to provide students with experiential learning at the Department. She said there was a chance that these students would be absorbed by the Department. She said there was a challenge of monitoring all the projects, but the project leaders were also helping with on-sight monitoring.

Ms Mogorosi said there were no deviations and the Department did not encounter any problems with project plans. (See presentation document for full details.)

Discussion
Mr Makhubela raised concerns at what he called stereotyped way of reporting on vision and mission statements. He said Departments needed to provide details on their presentations.

Mr De Beer sought clarity on whether the focus had shifted or was still based on the same farms covered in the previous financial year.

The Chairperson queried discrepancies in the details, figures and duplication in the presentation.

Ms Mogorosi said the projects for the year were mainly looking at eradicating invader plants, and that forced the Department to wait for the rains. She said normally with these kinds of plants the Department had to work more than once, and that reflected as duplication in the presentation.

Mr Peter Thabethe, FS HOD Department of Rural Development said variation in cost was largely as a result of the method used to eradicate invader plants. .He said the labour intensive way looked cheaper than the chemical way, and was repetitive. In Land Care one had to balance the two ways because one had to create work and at the same time deal with the natural resources.

The Chairperson described as highly distorted the information in the Free State  presentation. He said some of the figures in the report were misleading. He instructed the Department to correct all errors and submit the report in seven days. He informed departments that next time they appeared they would present the three grants – Land Care, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and Ilima/Letsema – at once. He said interest in calling departments to Parliament was to see how they spent the allocations. It had become a serious challenge, that departments and municipalities were not spending their grants. He said the Committees were interested in comparing expenditure, and check as to whether departments were in line with objectives of the grant. He said the Committee did not want to expose anyone but rather ensure that departments worked honestly. Executive members spent a lot of time out of their offices, so these hearings helped  them  keep pace with the officials and share experiences.

He thanked the MECs present and promised to assist them.

The meeting was adjourned.