SAFCOL land claims issues: Department Public Enterprises, SAFCOL & Mpumulanga Department Cooperative Governance briefings

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson stated that the meeting was a follow up on the oversight of the Department over the dispute between land claimants and South African Forestry Company Limited (SAFCOL). The Committee was trying to bring all stakeholders together to resolve the issues, since the land occupation not only undermined SAFCOL’s work but also hampered its growth. The Committee was mindful of the claims t land, and believed that the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) was an important role player, but at the same time the Committee also recognised that people could not simply lay claim to land and move on to it, as this would lead to chaos. The perception was also created that different government departments were pitted against each other. This Committee urged that communities needed to work together with SAFCOL and the provincial government departments to stabilise the situation.

He noted that the three affected Ministers had been invited to attend this meeting but they were unable to but had assured the Committee they were busy with other efforts to resolve the matter. The MEC of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs from Mpumalanga was also invited to brief the meeting on the progress in attempting to resolve the conflict between SAFCOL and the land claimants, but he too was not present. However, a Manager was present, and the Committee would give him the opportunity to report to the Committee. The Chairperson also asked the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and SAFCOL to be open in presenting their challenges to the Committee.

Department of Public Enterprises briefing
Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudi, Deputy Director General, Department of Public Enterprises, noted that his Department (DPE) faced various challenges around the SAFCOL matters. SAFCOL had been regarded as the “landlord” of the land that was now subject to the dispute since 2008. All the complaints which related to the slow progress of land claims were directed at SAFCOL, although it had no direct involvement in the land claims process. For this reason a task team from the DPE and SAFCOL was set up to try to fast track resolution. However, he reported that despite that task team being in place, there was still not much progress. At present, there were 29 claims, of which only three had been settled. The greatest challenge faced by the DPE related to the future role of communities once they had taken lawful possession of the land.

SAFCOL briefing
Mr Francois De Villiers, Acting Chief Executive Officer, SAFCOL, tendered the apologies of the Chief Executive Officer for not being able to be present today.

Mr Leslie Mudimeli, Senior Executive, SAFCOL, thanked the Committee for affording SAFCOL the opportunity to present on its challenges. He fully acknowledged that the land matters were sensitive issues, and reported that since the land claims process was slow, the community often tended to take matters into their own hands, which had been the case in the Jersey Vale area. Communities had moved on to the land, built houses and even built a school illegally. The problem here was compounded by the fact that the community allegedly even got permission from the local Councillor to build the houses and the school, using bricks and mortar, so they were not merely temporary structures. SAFCOL had taken up the matter and was trying to work with the communities to resolve their grievances, by way of Joint Community Forums (JCF), which offered the opportunity for engagements and consultations on problems associated with settling the land claims.

Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs briefing
Mr Nhlanhla Mashego, Manager, Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), stated that part of the problem in this matter was linked to the role of traditional leaders. As the representative of COGTA, he was not aware of any direct conflict between the claimants and SAFCOL. However, when he had made contact with the traditional leader to enquire if he was aware of any conflicts, that person had noted various concerns, which was cited as including graves being destroyed, claims from former employees who said they had not received their pension payouts, the fact that tenders for forest cutting had not been awarded to local communities, the fact that only very few local people were employed by SAFCOL, despite the unemployment rate in the area being very high and complaints that the plantations were situated too close to the residential area, and posed risks from criminals targeting the residents but being able to hide in the plantations.

He did, however, note that there were some positive spin-offs from the SAFCOL involvement in the area, including the fact that the area was being upgraded and renovations were done, and computers had been given to schools.

The Mpumalanga Provincial COGTA had been requested to do an investigation into the land claims matters. Those making the land claims had a high expectancy of getting what they wanted. As yet, COGTA had not yet had an opportunity to undertake the investigation, since it was busy with this briefing. However, it was aware, from the discussions with the traditional leaders, that there were also other land claimants, such as those from the Mpulana community. They had informed him that their land claims brought no benefits to the community and that they had heard nothing positive from the Land Restitution Office. The claims were taking far too long to process. This, however, seemed to be the extent of the problem there, and the Department was not aware of any other grievances.

Discussion
The Chairperson said it was clear that there were concerns from the community, but there was a problem also around the illegal building of houses and the school.

Mr Mudimeli assured the Committee that SAFCOL was committed to engagements and consultations with the communities.

Mr A Mokoena(ANC) said that he was disappointed with report presented by COGTA, which seemed to indicate lack of action. If that was the type of service delivery provided by COGTA, he thought it was no wonder that communities resorted to protest action. He reminded the officials that politicians would shortly be entering into elections, and this kind of attitude would really not help Parliament to progress further. He reiterated his disappointment.

Mr D Ximbi (ANC) shared these concerns, and also pointed out that he was concerned that the MEC was not present. It seemed that the whole governance structure was leading to problems. It was claimed that the illegal houses had been built with the concurrence of the local councillors, and he pointed out that surely the school could not have been built without knowledge of some government officials. This made him very worried about what was being done by the Premier and the MECs. It seemed that the various government departments were working at cross-purposes. Provincial and local governments were supposed to give clear guidance to communities, but did not seem to be doing so.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) also said that he was very disappointed with COGTA’s feedback. The issues addressed at the meeting were raised many months ago, and the assertion that COGTA was unable to conduct thorough investigations as yet, because it had to ready itself for the briefing to this Committee, was “nonsense”. No progress had been made with the issues in dispute. This was particularly disturbing since 61% of the land on which SAFCOL operated was subject to land claims. At the same time, the Committee did realise the challenges faced by SAFCOL. He was concerned that even though the MEC and COGTA had now become involved, there was no new input. He felt very strongly that a message should be conveyed back to the MEC that treating Parliament in this manner was unacceptable. He further pointed out that COGTA had said that no conflicts were reported to that department. However, he pointed out that the SAFCOL Chief Executive Officer sat on the Joint Committee Forum, which had clearly set out some of the problems and he was concerned that inconsistent information was being fed to this Committee by COGTA, which was disappointing. SAFCOL had confirmed also that there was very little progress with the land claims.

Mr Mokoena added that the mere fact that the MEC was not there “said it all”, in his opinion. The provincial department needed to be more proactive. Whilst he conceded that there had been some progress in providing sanitation and the playing equipment for children, which were positive points, he too was concerned that someone, somewhere, must have given permission for the building of houses. He too was very surprised to hear that no conflicts were being reporting to COGTA. He asked that there should be less talk and more action to try to resolve the issues. He was not sure whether the reports that three claims had been settled were correct, but was overall very disappointed with the report.

Mr C Gololo (ANC) asked that COGTA start taking this Committee more seriously. He was also adamant that the Committee needed a report from the MEC.

Dr Koornhof said that there was sympathy for those who invaded the land, and for their need to build a school on the other side of the river, so that learners did not have to face danger when trying to cross the river. However, it was also clear that these acts of lawless behaviour, much as they could be understood, could not be tolerated and that point had to be clearly understood by the communities. He said that the whole issue was whether the participants to the dispute were getting any closer to a solution.

Mr Tlkakudi said that the future role of SAFCOL was closely linked to the land claims. He said that it was also important that any discussions to try to reach settlement should take into account the need to promote rural development.

Mr Mudimeli assured Members that three of the land claims involving SAFCOL-occupied land in Limpopo had been settled. One other claim, which had also been settled, did not involve state land. SAFCOL fully appreciated the challenges of the communities, and this was the whole reason for trying to negotiate through the JCFs. SAFCOL had formed three cooperatives. There were some difficulties in setting up the forums, but they were clearly for the benefit of the communities, as they centred on skills development. The land claims had been difficult to handle, and clearly they impacted on the communities.

Ms G Borman asked if there were any title deeds for the people who had built the illegal houses.

Mr Mashego answered that there were no title deeds as this land fell under the jurisdiction of the traditional leaders. This was a real challenge; people wanted to own and hold deeds for their own houses but presently it was not possible to do this on traditional land. Since the land had been invaded, the COGTA had engaged with municipalities, requesting assistance, but even the Land Reform offices had not given it, referring to the difficulties that were posed under existing systems, rather than making a conscious effort to act. The Premier of the Province had now instructed the municipalities not to allow any further invasions.

The Chairperson said that a strong message needed to be conveyed to the MEC was that the Committee was not pleased at his absence, and therefore rejected the report from COGTA. He asked if COGTA was involved in the JCF.

Mr Mudimeli gave clarity that COGTA was not involved in the JCF, but the local chiefs and the community were.

The Chairperson said that there was a need to find out how COGTA could be kept informed of the consultations and developments between SAFCOL and the community.  

Mr De Villiers wanted to emphasise the important role that SAFCOL played and its strategic value to the country, and said that he had been encouraged by this Committee’s involvement in the issues.

The Chairperson repeated that the MEC’s apology, and the report from COGTA, were deemed unacceptable by the Committee. The MEC would be informed of this by a letter. The Committee would also be writing to the Chief Executive Officer of SAFCOL to offer its condolences on her recent loss.

Mr Mashego wished to apologise again for the absence of the MEC, and for any shortcomings in the report, but assured the Committee of COGTA’s desire to cooperate fully and offer concrete assistance in finding solutions.

Draft Committee Minutes: Adoption
The Chairperson tabled the first set of draft Minutes, relating to the meeting in which Eskom had briefed the Committee. They were adopted by the Committee, subject to a grammatical correction in paragraph 3.1.

The second set of draft Minutes related to the briefing by SA Express Airways was tabled. These were adopted, subject to an amendment of the figure of R535 million cited under the subheading “Responses”.

The meeting was adjourned.