Hon Deputy Speaker, Ministers, hon members, good afternoon, the ad hoc committee's oversight visit was to assess how land reform was being implemented, how successful the projects were, and what some of the challenges were. The ad hoc committee visited a total of 27 projects and/or schemes in Limpopo, North West and KwaZulu-Natal, and 10 of these were Communal Property Associations, CPAs.
This government, through the Department of Public Works as the custodian of state assets, from 01 April 2007 to 31 March 2010: assisted in the land reform process and released 661 000 hectares of land for restoration purposes. It further released 21 000 hectares for redistribution purposes, including tenure.
The department is also in the process of finalising and tabling before Parliament the Expropriation Bill. The Bill aims to align the existing Expropriation Act, Act No 63 of 1975 with the Constitution. This Bill will allow for property to be expropriated for the public or in the public interest subject to just and equitable compensation and not just the market price.
The following are some of the findings made by the ad hoc committee, specifically related to CPAs: land can only be transferred to a legal entity, CPAs and trusts that have been constituted in terms of the law; the most commonly used legal entities for holding of land by beneficiaries are CPAs. Since the inception of the Communal Property Associations Act, Act No 28 of 1996, there existed approximately 1 500 registered CPAs to date.
The Communal Property Associations Act is the legal basis for the establishment of a CPA and requires agreement between community members, which is written into the Constitution. The ad hoc committee found that there have been numerous challenges in the manner in which some of these institutions were established, who is represented on them, and how they are managed.
Examples of challenges are that some members of a CPA appear to have signing powers without any form of internal controls, as was the case with the former chairperson of the Morobola CPA who withdrew R400 000 from the CPA without the consent of other members. In the case of the Tshakuma CPA, which forms part of the Levubu claim in Limpopo, claimants only received 50% of the land that they had claimed.
There were also a number of cases following restoration, where title deeds were not transferred to the CPAs. Some projects, as in the case of Marobola CPA, used most of their income for security and maintenance due to the theft and vandalism that was experienced. Another requirement of the Communal Property Associations Act is that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform monitor and support CPAs and make sure that they meet the requirements of the Act.
The ad hoc committee found that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform had difficulty in implementing its monitoring and support responsibilities in respect of the CPAs. The department's role of monitoring and supporting the legal entities was made difficult by the existence of approximately 1 500 registered CPAs, as previously stated. The department reported that it struggled with capacity constraints, particularly human resources.
The ad hoc committee found that the department opted to provide onsite technical support to land reform beneficiaries through the use of consultants who serve as strategic partners on the projects. However, there is no clear definitive role that these strategic partners play. In most instances, the value of the land was based on its productive capacity. Where there is no activity no income was generated, as was the case in Rathateng CPA in Brits, in the North West Province. This lack of productivity decreases the value of the land.
The following are a few examples of successful projects: The Bakgatla-ba- Kgafela claim, for example, consists of a good relationship between Chief Nyalala Philane and the CPA. The CPA committee consists of equal numbers of people representing traditional leadership and beneficiaries.
Some CPAs used the income for social development such as building or renovating schools, as in the case of the Makuleke CPA in Limpopo. In many projects there was an established local market for selling vegetables and fruit to a supermarket and local vendors. The Snymandrift CPA, for example, also sells its products as far afield as Botswana.
Property in conservation and protected areas such as the Makuleke CPA in Limpopo and Dikgatlong CPA in the North West, is comanaged by members of the CPA, the private sector, and the state. In these cases the beneficiaries did not settle the land, but received their title deeds.
Based on the findings from the oversight visit, the ad hoc committee made a number of recommendations as presented in the report, dated 22 October 2013. Some of these recommendations include: that there should be proper guidelines on how the CPAs should function; that the role of traditional leaders within the CPAs be clarified; that the relations between the beneficiaries and the strategic partners should be managed; and that the support and monitoring role of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform be strengthened.
In conclusion, the ad hoc committee embarked on a fact-finding mission that included public hearings, workshops and the oversight visit. In this process, we learnt a lot in terms of the urgent need for continuing the process of the reversal of the legacy of the 1913 Land Act. Even though this process was undertaken under very tight timeframes that presented challenges, at the end of the day, we achieved the overall objective of the ad hoc committee.
I therefore wish to thank hon Thibedi for his leadership, members of the ad hoc committee for their thoughtful engagement during the process, and the support staff that assisted throughout this vigorous exercise. I thank you. [Applause.]