4. COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Portfolio Committee, having interacted with KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the projects management teams including the beneficiaries of the different projects, concluded as follows:

. No progress was made by the Provincial Department on Fetsa Tlala and there was no accountability for the funding that has been allocated to some of the projects for Fetsa Tlala for the 2014/15 financial year.

. The Mechanisation Programme is implemented haphazardly and inconsistently. While the Province reported that Jozini had only 6 tractors for 20 Wards, one of the cooperatives operating under Makhathini Irrigation Scheme indicated that they received 4 tractors from the Department, whilst there were other projects such as Vukuzenzele that needed a tractor. Where mechanisation services mostly through tractor ploughing, were provided to the visited projects, this was done a few days before and/or on the day of the Parliamentary visit.

. Most of what was reported on written reports and presented was not visible on the ground. While Makhathini Irrigation Scheme was reported by DAFF in Parliament as fully operational, only one project, which is supported by a GM maize seed company was seen and it was noted that the refurbishment of some of the canals was fairly new. Also under Makhathini Irrigation Scheme, had it not been engagements with cooperative members, the delegation would have not known that the Jozini Value-adding Centre that was built by COGTA was incomplete and not yet operational. In addition, contrary to previous reporting, the FMD red line fence was recently constructed and was far from being finished.

. Contrary to what was reported including the budgets that were reportedly allocated for the 2014/15 financial year specifically to Vukuzenzele and Gobindlala/Biva/Senzokuhle Projects, there is little or no support that is given by the Department to the farmers at the two projects. The Department's written report on Gobindlala was the opposite of what the project beneficiaries reported during engagements with the delegation.

. For almost all the projects that were visited, market information and access to markets, transport costs and lack of storage facilities are still the greatest challenges that threaten the sustainability of the projects.

. Lack of coordination of activities and collaboration between different departments including the different spheres of Government was still a concern to the delegation.

. No assistance has been provided or attention given to the plight of the coastal and fishing communities of Kosi Bay and Nkundusi (near St Lucia) who were forcefully removed from their ancestral land and thereafter denied fishing access to those areas from which they derived a livelihood. The Committee noted with concern that DAFF has not responded to numerous reports and pleas for assistance from the communities, and the DRDLR never responded to their land claims.

. In addition, although DAFF knew that the Committee would also be visiting fishing communities during the oversight to KZN, there was no official representing DAFF's Fisheries Management Branch that accompanied the delegation to respond to queries.

. Given the challenges that were reported by almost all the project beneficiaries, which were mostly related to issues that have been consistently raised by the Committee, the delegation was not happy with the obvious and persistent lack of physical project monitoring by DAFF, which transfers funds to provinces for the development of smallscale producers. The projects that were visited showed minimal or no Departmental support and little or no impact has been made to change the lives of the people involved.

. As DAFF has not been giving attention and/or consulting with the fishing communities in the areas visited, the implementation of the SSF Policy may be a challenge as the communities are not in good terms with DAFF's choice of implementing agency in the province, i.e. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, which has been reportedly harassing the communities that it is supposed to assist. What communities know about the SSF Policy, they have been briefed on and workshoped by Masifundise/Coastal Links, not the Department.

. The Committee further agreed that a joint meeting should be arranged between the Portfolio Committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Rural Development and Land Reform and Environmental Affairs to discuss all the challenges that were raised by the fishing communities during the oversight visit. The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee should also brief the Chairpersons of other Portfolio Committees (Rural Development and Land Reform and Environmental Affairs) on the challenges prior to the joint meeting.