Chairperson, the answer to the first question is, yes. The Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme, ISRDP, is currently being integrated into the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme.
Communication regarding this process has been sent out to all nodal mayors, provincial heads of departments in the nodal areas, and technical stakeholders that were involved in its implementation in the nodes. Stakeholders are also being consulted on how to integrate the lessons of the ISRDP into the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, CRDP.
The answer to the second question is, yes. Strong institutional arrangements are key to the eradication of poverty in rural areas. The premiers of provincial government are currently assisting the Ministry in getting the commitment of all provincial government departments so that we can get the desired results from the integrated implementation of the CRDP.
A council of stakeholders consisting of members of community-based organisations and forums, traditional councils and communities, school governing bodies, government and community policing forums, and ward committees will be established. In fact, it has already been established at Muyexe. The council of stakeholders will, inter alia, enforce compliance with the conditions for state support to the CRDP beneficiaries; ensure compliance to the agreed code of conduct; identify community needs, project management and implementation; and play an oversight and monitoring role. Thank you.
Chairperson, despite the significant progress made over the past 15 years, people living in rural areas continue to face the harshest conditions of poverty, lack of access to land, and basic services. Is the programme also linked to agrarian reform, so that the lives of the farmworkers and farm dwellers can be improved? Are there any support measures for them?
The second part of the question relates to traditional communities: Are traditional leaders taken on board in terms of consultation in this process?
Chairperson, the answer is yes. This programme is linked to agrarian transformation. In fact, as part of our rationalisation and restructuring of the department, we have brought together all these programmes under the key rural development programme of the department and the land reform programmes. These two key programmes are actually meant to deal with all rural areas, including farm dwellers. In this regard, we want to mention that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has a mechanism with a toll-free number to assist, particularly, farm dwellers who tend to be subjected to evictions. This is part of a defence mechanism that the department has put in place for them over the past few years.
We think this is one area that has been lacking publicity. We have taken a decision that we will publicise this information as much as possible in the media, both in print and electronically, in the coming weeks.
In terms of the second question, indeed, as I have just mentioned, we have started working with traditional leaders as part of the programme. In fact, they are central to participating and determining where land should be used, and what kind of use that land should be put to, etc. They are part of the council of stakeholders that we referred to. Thank you.
Chairperson, through you to the hon Minister, the IFP has a serious concern when it comes to rural development, because Ministers and MECs often bypass local government and traditional leaders when it comes to the implementation of the Integrated Sustainable Development Programmes, which often results in little or no progress at all. Our worry is that this happens especially when the traditional councils and local government do not belong to the ruling party. My question is whether the Minister is aware of these practices; if he is, what steps the Minister planning to take? Thank you.
Chairperson, unfortunately I am not aware of that scenario. However, if I may just say to the hon member that in cases where we have started with the work, I actually do not know who belongs to what party, because I don't participate in the selection. What we do is to go from door to door in the communities, without skipping any houses. We don't know whether there are members of the ANC, PAC or IFP in those houses. What we do know is that each household must be involved.
Traditional leaders, as I said, are actually quite involved. They participate in all the structures. When you get to KwaZulu-Natal, the hon members will see that and experience it as well. Thank you.
Chairperson, we have to accept, hon Minister, that we are not in a position to change the situation entirely in rural areas, despite the passion that you demonstrate in your work all of the time. However, if we don't take the issue of the roll-out of microlending to the rural areas to actually make them self-sufficient and also enhance agro-industry in the rural areas, we will not overcome this imbalance between the urban and the rural areas. Are there any plans for rolling out microlending in the rural areas?
Chairperson, that is perfectly correct. The hon members should have followed the policy speech, because in that speech we presented three phases of development. In the first phase we are really meeting basic human needs, and the second phase is about enterprise development. And we mentioned, specifically, that the second phase is a very important phase in terms of training and developing people, particularly in financial management.
In the third phase we look at agro-industries, microlending or microfinancing, and we think that this is an area we want to emphasise. It has become very important in terms of our ongoing work regarding microlending and agrovillage industries, to determine which rural areas we find to be the most critical.
Chairperson, hon Minister, did the recent policy platform on rural development held in Durban produce any new proposals to foster economic development in rural areas where previous efforts have failed, despite public and private investments; if so, what are the relevant details; and if not, what plans do you have to stimulate fresh thinking in this area?
Chairperson, I apologise, I did not get the first part of the question - please repeat that first part.
It was about the recent policy platform in Durban, a platform on rural development?
The one that took place on Sunday?
Yes.
Oh! Thank you, hon Chair. We have discussed this morning - my colleague, the hon Minister for Economic Development, and I - that that is what we are going to do. We are going to discus the outcome of that platform between ourselves and with top officials to look at the areas that will help both of us, in economic development and in rural development. Yes, we are going to do that.
Chairperson, hon Minister, why is the department identifying new pilot sites if the district municipality has already put a lot of time and money in the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme, ISRDP? Will this department consider using the already identified poverty nodes in the rural development programme? I know that you have answered it in your first reply. These pockets were identified specifically because they are rural and very poor areas. I am just wondering whether it is not because it was launched in the Mbeki era that we are now doing our own new pilot sites.
Chairperson, the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme, ISRDP, nodal area, for example, in the Free State has been identified as the Maluti-a-Phofung Local Municipality. We are going to the other nodal areas and other sites that we have identified because of their circumstances. For example, Riemvasmaak, where we are working now, is an area in the Northern Cape that received a huge stretch of land from government, but there was no support. So, we thought we should prioritise areas like those.
I think that in Mpumalanga the Mkhondo Municipality could also be - if I am not mistaken - one of the areas that were part of the nodal areas. So, we are not excluding them. In fact, we would like to start with them where possible. We will discuss and negotiate with premiers, and if they prefer a place different from that, we would go to it. I think in KwaZulu-Natal as well, Msinga ... Yintoni kanene igama lalaa ndawo? [By the way what is the name of that area?] [Interjections.]
EMsinga. [Msinga.]
Yes, Nkosi Shenge, eMsinga ... that's a nodal area in KwaZulu-Natal. Thank you.
Additional funding and other measures to expedite land reform process 77. Mr N Singh (IFP) asked the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform:
(1) Whether, in light of the Chief Land Claims Commissioner's statement that 97 percent of the land acquisition budget had been spent three months into the year, additional funds will be sourced to ensure that the land reform process is not delayed further; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether this lack of funds will necessitate an extension to the deadline for the completion of the land reform process; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether any additional measures will be introduced to expedite the land reform process and correct the inefficiencies that exist with its administration; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO1092E
Chairperson, the answer to this question, is that, as stated in the budget and policy speech, this model does not work. The speech was very clear. Alternative models to the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle are currently being investigated. The government is prepared to engage with landowners and other interested stakeholders to develop cost-effective models to expedite land reform delivery. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Minister for that very short answer. I wish the previous Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs were here to hear from you, Sir, that the model that the government used did not work, because time and time again we did indicate to the hon Minister in debates that the model did not work, but we were talking to a wall. Maybe sometimes a wall responds to the things that we say. But, hon Minister, it is a matter of concern that claims were gazetted in 1998, and in 11 years, as you say, we still haven't sorted out these claims.
We as the IFP support land reform because it is an important imperative that the government needs to pursue in order to redress the wrongs of the past. What I would like to know from the hon Minister is whether the hon Minister is aware that the Office of the Land Claims Commission has entered into contractual agreements with owners of land to buy their land, but they don't have the money to pay for that land? When will moneys be paid and how, so that the beneficiaries can take occupation of the land which they so richly deserve? Thank you.
Hon Chair, I am not aware of whether that specific scenario exists, but I will follow up on it. What I do know is that, on the desk right now, we have situations where agreements have been signed, but due to a lack of money, those agreements have not been carried through. We do know that. As a result, we have negotiated with Treasury - I think the commissioner has been saying all along that we do not have money - and, really, that is a very important aspect.
He made a broad statement which has been interpreted as "if we do not have money, we will not proceed". That is not correct. We can only speak for the current time. As you will remember, this is a new department and we will have to find money, given the fact that the commissioner has spent all the money that was available in the first quarter. We cannot then say those who have signed should not be serviced. We are looking for about R400 million to service those claims that are on the desk that have been signed already. And that's the scenario that the hon member is talking about. Thank you.
Chairperson, Minister, having replied very well, does the department have a system in place whereby it understands the exact figures in terms of how many farms it had signed contracts with, and how to pay the outstanding amounts? How long before these contracts are going to be settled? We have a contract in our possession from a farmer who has been waiting for payment from the department for five years already. When is he going to get his money? Thank you.
Hon Chair, the hon member has asked that question in written form and I've answered it. And now the hon member is asking that question again. I've got an answer here, but I wasn't ready for that particular question, because he asked it and I answered it. If I'm given a chance, I could try to look for that information here. But the hon members have got it. Thank you.
Chairperson, in light of the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme pilot projects launched in Giyani and Riemvasmaak, what is the status of the land claims, especially in the communities that launched the claims on the Kruger National Park?
Secondly, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner informed the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform that for the Kruger National Park alone, the department will need no less that R15 billion per year to meet the 2014 land delivery target. With the current global economic downturn, will all the land claims be settled by 2014, as per the department's strategic plan? I thank you.
Hon Chair, Cabinet took a decision in 2008 that the land in the Kruger National Park will not be restored to the communities who launched land claims on it, and that alternative redress would be sought in the form of financial compensation. It has come to light that the communities do not agree to financial compensation and have called for the restoration of the land. The Ministry will submit this matter to Cabinet for a discussion and a way forward. It is clear that we do not have sufficient resources to meet our targets - that is in terms of the second question. This is further compounded by the current economic crisis.
However, hon Chair, further interactions with National Treasury over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, period, regarding additional funding for land reform will continue. The commission remains committed to its mandate of ensuring redress for those who lost their land through past racial practices and legislation, and will further ensure regular communication with claimants as to the status of their claims. Thank you.
Mr Chairperson, in fact, what I wanted to ask was about the Kruger National Park. Can I ask the Minister - and thank you for that reply to the previous question - whether, when he submits this whole issue to the Cabinet, he will take into consideration the environmental part of the Kruger National Park and its tourism potential, and, further, that he will not reopen this matter just because there are one or two people who are eyeing concessions that will not be in the interest of the park?
Hon Chair, a categorical "no" to that last question. With regard to the first two questions about the environment and tourism, we should make it clear that we will further consult with the people there on this matter, and it involves a variety of communities, ranging from Limpopo to Mpumalanga as the hon member knows.
We want to assure them that government will not do anything without having consulted them to the full. Now that we understand that they are not happy, we have to go back to them and discuss it, and then make sure that Cabinet is well aware of the implications of its decisions.
Secondly, it is very important to note that those communities are not saying they want to walk into that Kruger National Park and grab it. They are saying there is a question that must be answered by government - this was our land. That's what people are saying, "This was our land and we want that to be recognised by the government and acknowledged." The form of that recognition and acknowledgement is what must be debated with the people. In our view and our understanding of what people are saying, there is no threat whatsoever to the environment and tourism in terms of the Kruger National Park. Thank you.
Particulars regarding projects to assist persons who are laid off at work 108. Ms F E Khumalo (ANC) asked the Minister of Labour:
(1) Whether there are any projects by his department to assist persons who are laid off at work; if not, why not; if so, what projects;
2) whether these projects provide long-term solutions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?