Chairperson, I doubt that I can really take light there. I want to link up with the excellent problem-based speech Mr Nketu has made and with what the hon the Minister said towards the end of her speech on agriculture, and that is the need to continually reflect on, prioritise and co-ordinate the budgets and activities of the national department, the provincial departments and parastatals.
I believe that is really at the heart of the problem which we must address in the NCOP, that is, the extreme pressure at the moment on agriculture budgets in this country as a whole, especially in the provinces. We are aware of the problem. It is a very complex situation, because this extreme pressure on agriculture budgets, especially in the provinces, flows from the macroeconomic demands which are being made on the Government at the moment. Let me give hon members two examples.
Just recently the MEC for agriculture in the Eastern Cape sent me a copy of an agricultural development Act which the Eastern Cape government has passed. The people from the Eastern Cape will most probably be aware of that Act. That is exactly the type of thing we want provinces to do, because that is the type of agricultural development which should take place at provincial level. But what is the problem? We have a beautiful, well-thought-through Act in the province, but we do not have the money to fund that Act. What must we do? We have other problems as well. We have problems in respect of veterinary services, which is a Schedule 5 function, that is, an exclusive function of provinces, with the exception of the regulation of the function. That Schedule of the Constitution was written by the likes of the Willie Hofmeyrs, the Bulelani Ngcukas and the Dirk du Toits of this world. At that stage, when they wrote it, they did not know a thing about agriculture. Now we discover the problems one encounters with this Schedule, because animal diseases do not occur in one province only. Diseases do not know provincial borders. Also when dealing with international trade and animal and plant diseases, one discovers that diseases do not know borders of countries. Therefore, this is a matter which is not restricted to a province as such.
What happens is that when money is scarce, when there is not enough money to go around, this type of pressure starts building up. Experience internationally shows that the only solution is to step up the level of intergovernmental interaction the moment there is this type of pressure on a budget. The fact of the matter is that a province cannot undertake large, ambitious agricultural schemes at a time when there is macroeconomic pressure, because then macroeconomic management takes precedence for the country's growth as a whole.
One then sits with the problem of the harmonisation of social conflicts, about which we have heard a lot in this Chamber today. These problems one could have solved if one had a lot of money. But perhaps it is a good thing that we do not have that type of money and that we have to look for real solutions. It is actually a pity that the MEC for agriculture in the Western Cape had to leave. I presume he left for Zimbabwe to have negotiations with the Zimbabwean agriculture Minister, and we therefore do not mind recusing him.
The provincial MECs have to deal with big problems, and a lot of those are structural in nature. As I have said, the nature of animal and plant diseases and the nature of South Africa's international obligations are such that there can be no doubt that things such as veterinary services are matters of national interest. We cannot simply say that it is the problem of the provinces that by August of this year veterinarians do not have petrol to put in their bakkies to go out into the country to look after the animals, because there is no money left. That concerns the national level as well. The only way in which we can start addressing this problem is if we work together very closely, far more closely than we are doing today. I think that should be a concern of this honourable Council.
In other words, the main constraint for agriculture in this country, from a public finance point of view, is the way in which agricultural funds are being allocated in the provinces for the different services that have to be delivered. As one would say in Afrikaans: ``Landbou suig aan die agterspeen.'' In other words, agriculture gets too little in comparison to the other major services which have to be rendered by the provinces.
Any agricultural strategy that we develop in this country has to work in this context. It will stand or fall by the answers we find to these budgetary constraints. I was wondering whether we are doing the right thing by depending on the equitable share of provinces to deliver agricultural services in the provinces. Will that suffice? When one thinks about the problems of maintaining veterinary services in the provinces, should one then not rather start thinking - I am asking this as a point of debate - about making use of conditional grants? Then we would know that this money would go towards agriculture or veterinary services or towards extension services that one wants to do, or towards a soil resource conservation programme. Then we would know that this money would go to the province for that, and the province knows best how to go and spend that money, because it is near to the problems.
In other words, should we not rather work in terms of section 214(1)(c) of the Constitution in the sense that we work according to these programmes and that we negotiate, on a co-operative basis, what type of programmes we are going to implement and thus channel the money in that way? In other words, I am asking whether it has not become necessary for us to use another mechanism for farming services in the provinces, such as extension or veterinary services, namely through constitutional allocations or conditional grants.
The point is that both national and provincial governments are in this boat together. We cannot escape it. Our objective should be to maximise the scope that we have for economic growth and for minimising inefficiencies. We can only do that if we maximise the capacities that we do have and make full use of them. One of the ways in which to maximise capacities is to ensure that they do not stand idle. It does not make economic sense if a provincial capacity stands idle, because then one is wasting money. The money could be used to activate a service, otherwise one should get rid of a service that one cannot fund in any way whatsoever.
One does not maximise capacities if we do not get the provinces to do what they should do. They must be able to do that. In other words, what I am saying is that there are two basic requirements if we want to get a comprehensive agricultural strategy going, as the hon the Minister has explained.
Firstly, there should be development of capacity within each provincial government in terms of educated staff, using and controlling financial resources correctly and, applying technological facilities in order to address agricultural development and maintenance effectively in a system of intergovernmental interaction. We will be coming with that Bill to hon members first. That is the type of system or structure that we envisage, which will be done, for example, in the Meat Safety Bill. We hope to get hon members' agreement on it. That is the type of intergovernmental system that we will try to develop here.
Secondly, we can only be saved in agricultural government by effective intergovernmental co-operation and co-ordination. This may happen through statutory provisions, indeed, but it must also happen - and that is the most important part - through practice and convention. To reach our goals of effective co-operation, the first requirement is the establishment of a political culture of co-operation, mutual respect and trust. Those words stand in the Constitution, but those words do not mean a thing if they merely stand in a law or constitution. They must be effectuated by individuals working in this sphere, specifically the agricultural sphere.
That is our challenge. This political culture of co-operation is far more important than legal structures, procedures and technicalities provided for by laws. To develop a sense of trust requires a sense of tolerance from the side of the provinces towards national Government and from the side of national Government towards provinces. If one does not create this trust, it will lead to distrust. It will engender pressures for legislative detail that then again become straitjackets of inflexibility.
I believe that in the field of veterinary services, for example, and the field of extension services, we are heading for doom if we do not work in this co-operative way. I think we are not doing too badly at the moment. We have elements of assistance that co-ordinate, for example, veterinary activities.
What needs to happen - that is the place where it should happen first, apart from at the level of leadership provided by hon members and politicians - is that intergovernmental co-operation - this is the most important thing I want to say to the House - must expand into bureaucratic bargaining processes and systems because there the co-operation happens with low visibility. As the House knows, politicians always want high visibility, and then a lot of things are messed up in all the big shows that are created. If the intergovernmental relations are really happening at the level of our officials and if they are interacting without bargaining, then we begin to expect results. That is being done at the moment.
I also went overseas as the hon MEC for the Western Cape did. My Minister allowed and instructed me to do so! [Laughter.] I just take orders, as hon members can see! I went overseas to look into the issue of BSE, which stands bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It is a disease that affects the brain and nervous system of cows.
I want hon members to know that, in South Africa, we cannot handle a crisis like that. We just do not have the capacity. If we experience a crisis of that nature, it would be too big for us to handle. If we were to have an outbreak of BSE in South Africa, we would simply lose our red meat producing capacity in this country. This is big stuff.
What we must do is prevent it. We must see to it that our systems are in order, that our services are running, because if they go wrong, they go wrong in a big way. Then one has to destroy a lot of cattle. We have to be quite wary about this. We do have elements of a system to co-ordinate veterinary affairs, in spite of what is written in the Constitution. We have to do that. It does exist on the basis of mutual trust.
We must develop business plans together in the agricultural sector. It is difficult to execute, because one always needs the capacitation for intergovernmental relations. We need experts to help with intergovernmental relations of that kind, and really do it well.
The best would probably be to implement the suggestion that we organise ourselves around sectors in agriculture. In other words, if we, for example, have to co-ordinate some veterinary services, then we would do it around the red meat industry or the industry around pigs, we would do it around poultry, we would do it around the small stock industry in those sectors, and try and co-ordinate our actions.
What must be done? I believe that, for agriculture we must develop intergovernmental relations of a special kind. Agriculture is special. [Time expired.] [Applause.]