Chairperson, there is widespread recognition and agreement that the land reform programme is in crisis. In its current state it is therefore unlikely to achieve its objective of creating a more equitable pattern of land ownership, human settlement and agricultural production. Minister Nkwinti, you yourself, in your opening speech of the National Land Reform Consultative Workshop, said and I quote:
I acknowledge that we have not done well in managing the Land Reform Programme, as government, causing strain, pain and frustration. In some instances Land Reform programmes have not yielded the intended results.
Minister, we thank you for admitting to these failures, but this is not enough. In 1994 the ANC government set a target for the land distribution programme, aiming to transfer 30% of white commercial farmland, which is 24,6 million hectares, to black South Africans by 1999. The implementation date has since been extended to 2014 and again to 2025. By March 2011, just 7,4 million of the 24,6 million hectares had been transferred through the various land reform programmes.
Two major challenges face the land reform programme at present. The first is to speed up the transfer of land. The second is to support productive use of transferred land.
Dit is verblydend om te sien dat die departement nou self erken dat die jaag van hektaar, ten koste van die oordrag van grond, sonder die nodige opleiding en finansile steun van die departement, nie volhoubaar is nie. In my begrotingsrede, twee jaar gelede, het ek die Minister gewaarsku dat die oordrag van grond slegs die eerste stap in die grondhervormingsproses behoort te wees. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[It is heartening to see that the department itself is now admitting that the pursuit of hectares, at the expense of the transfer of land, without the proper training and financial support, is not sustainable. In my budget speech, two years ago, I cautioned the Minister that the transfer of land should be regarded as merely the first step in the land reform process.]
Inadequate budgetary allocations, unrealistic deadlines and a lack of postsettlement support for land reform beneficiaries have continued to hamper both the redistribution and restitution components of the land reform programme.
The DA is concerned about the slow process of restitution in particular. This has proven to be a long drawn-out process without proper communication to farmers and claimants. Statistics, which are presently being reviewed by the department, indicate that approximately 95% of the claims that were lodged have been resolved.
During previous years, the department's poor financial and administrative management resulted in officials continuing to negotiate and sign offers to purchase with willing land owners. This resulted in outstanding commitments of approximately R12 billion. As a result, R700 million of the restitution budget was used to settle court orders, based on litigation awarded in favour of applicants. This situation is not resolved yet and needs the department's urgent attention.
A clear plan of action that will include a payment schedule must be drawn up and communicated to all affected parties. It is a concern that expenditure for this programme is expected to decrease at an annual rate of 8,2% without the department's having any idea as to what funds are required to complete this exercise.
There are also indications that government wishes to move away from a market-based willing-buyer, willing-seller approach to land acquisition and to shift towards a more proactive yet narrower state approach.
This is evident in the introduction of a number of new policies, such as the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy, called Plas. Under Plas the state buys land directly from the owner, rather than providing grants to applicants to buy the land. It is clear that the department does not have the capacity on the ground to identify appropriate land to be acquired, to engage with people in identifying land needs and to inform the choice of land - or the ability to go about this in a systemic way.
The Auditor-General noted in the 2009-10 report, and I quote:
... the department did not have a database of all previous and current beneficiaries who benefitted through different programmes and projects to ensure compliance with the criteria to qualify for land reform and restitution subsidies and prevent mismanagement of grant funding. Adequate monitoring controls did not exist to detect fictitious beneficiaries receiving grant funding, both in terms of initial contracting and ongoing contract management for the LRAD programme.
This new system would rely on a department that had the required personnel and systems in place to be able to monitor and evaluate all acquired farms on a regular basis. These staff would not only have to be trained in financial management, but also need some kind of understanding of agricultural principles.
If the department had met the above criteria, it would not have been necessary to embark on a Recapitalisation and Development Programme. The focus of this programme would be on improving the productivity of the agricultural land that had been redistributed since 1994. This programme would seek to assist land owners with efficient utilisation of irrigation, increasing production potential, mentoring of emerging projects and share- equity schemes.
The department plans to recapitalise and develop 387 farms and 27 irrigation schemes across the country during this financial year. A budget of R331 million has been set aside in the current financial year for this. The DA supports the move to include strategic partnerships and mentors to assist with the development of these farms, but with the objective of transferring title to the beneficiaries. The Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, CRDP, is the latest manifestation of government's attempt to integrate agricultural support, land reform and broader rural development. This CRDP is currently being rolled out in 60 wards, using the "war on poverty" methodology. This is theoretically about high-level co-ordination of activity by different departments, based on household profiling and community planning. In reality, it looks more like a desperate flurry to achieve something in the very short term, without preparing the ground adequately.
The budget for the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, period for this programme increased from R3,5 million in 2007-08 to R342,4 million in the current financial year, at an average annual rate of 360%.
The Comprehensive Rural Development Programme includes the National Rural Youth Service Corps, Narysec, initiative. Under this programme the department has targeted reaching 22 000 youth by 2014. The DA supports programmes that target the development and employment of youth. This programme, however, was not well planned and as a result, necessitated a virement of R133,7 million in the 2010 adjustment budget - very nicely just before the elections, Mr Minister.
The call of the President to create 500 000 jobs in the rural sector over the next 10 years could be the reason why these positions were created in such haste.
Ek kry die indruk dat meer mense meer werk kry, maar dat daar in werklikheid al hoe minder plaasvind. Op 'n onlangse oorsigbesoek aan Muyexe, het ons aan die jeug gevra wat hul van hul nuwe werk dink. Die antwoord was dat hul nie genoeg daarvoor betaal word nie. Dit laat ernstige vrae ontstaan oor die uitvoerbaarheid van die program. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[I get the impression that more people are getting more jobs, but that, in reality, less is happening. On a recent oversight visit to Muyexe, we asked the youth what they thought of their new jobs. The answer was that they are not being paid enough for it. This raises serious questions with regard to the feasibility of this programme.]
Given the performance with regard to the current land reform programme, it might have been better to give the new department the mandate of building capacity to implement land reform. Currently, there is insufficient financial support for the agricultural sector as a whole, which means that agriculture plans cannot be carried out.
The government should restrain itself from designing plans that it is unable to implement because of a lack of resources. It is better to be honest about what can be achieved than to make grand promises that cannot be met. [Applause.]