Hansards gee die notules van al die onerskeie vergadering sin Parlement. Lees meer oor die Mafisa, Casp, Ilima en Lesema Grants. Dit kom al sedert 1998 al waar daar toelaes aan swart plaasboere uitgedeel word deur die parlement. Dit is regdeur al die provinsies wat dit plaasvind.
Voortspruitend uit verskeie Hansards, volg aanhalings en uiteensetting van verskillende Hansards wat Mafisa, CASP/ Ilima / Letsema behels.
Die “Ilima/Letsema” was geskep om slegs swart boere te akkommodeer en finansiële steun te verleen. Daar was ook verskillende ander punte van belang waaraan aandag gegee is soos opleiding en finansiële steun wat verleen is.
Neem ook kennis dat blanke boere en blankes in die algemeen nie deel vorm van die Nasionale Ontwikkelingsplan nie (NDP) wat ook diskrimineer teenoor ons blankes en menseregte skend. Dit word so uiteengesit in die swart bemagtiging wetgewings en beleidsdokumente.
Soos ook duidelik gelees kan word, bestaan die projekte al vir etlike jare vanaf 1998. Verskeie politieke partye is hierop verteenwoordig en die Vryheidsfront plus was ook op hierdie komitees. Vind maar self uit hoeveel al gespandeer is, en hierdie is nie al die Hansards en fondse wat bestee is nie.
SINCE 1998 (20 years)
2012 HANSARD OF PARLIAMENT
The Portfolio Committee, joined by Chairpersons of provincial portfolio committees, was briefed by the national and provincial heads from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) on the performance of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Ilima-Letsema, Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA), and the Landcare Programme.
The report on CASP noted that an allocation of R1 billion was made for the period 2011/12, and 87% of the total budget had been spent. Gauteng and North West struggled to meet the 90% expenditure goal were Gauteng and the North West. 10% of funds had been spent on the training of farmers, and further amounts were earmarked for support of extension services and the upgrading of the qualifications of extension officers. R50 million had been allocated for the development of agricultural colleges, which existed in all provinces except for the Northern Cape and Gauteng. Figures were given, in respect of all provinces, of funding available and spent, projects implemented, beneficiaries reached, jobs created, farmers trained, extension officers recruited, and upgrades to facilities. Challenges and mitigatory steps were also outlined, which included delays in procurement, inability to retain technical staff, poor planning and lack of skills. A decision was taken to decentralise procurement processes, and Occupation Specific Dispensation would attempt to address skills problems, whilst a database of contractors was to be created. Provinces struggled to afford the escalating costs of building materials. National Treasury had allocated R157.8 million to improve the state of agricultural colleges.
MAFISA was a government-supported financial scheme that aimed to increase productivity in farming and agribusiness operations. MAFISA had nine intermediaries, both public and private, who were registered with the National Credit Regulator, and details of their names, allocations, lending and repayments were provided. MAFISA charged farmers 8% interest and retained 7% as payment for its services. DAFF had transferred R320 million of its R500 million budget to various participating intermediaries, and was reviewing performance annually at present, but would increase this to quarterly reviews. Reports were given of intermediaries struggling to recover funding, who were likely to withdraw, and another whose contract was to be terminated. Lists were provided of projects that had succeeded or failed. MAFISA had created 19 853 sustained jobs over the past three years. It challenges included lack of insurance, and lack of plans for recovery if intermediaries were not able to repay. In response to previous queries from Members, Land Bank had agreed to lend the money to intermediaries at an interest rate of 4% instead of 8%.
A report was given on the numbers of tractors and other implements delivered or outstanding, noting that all provinces other than Free State and the Western Cape showed a 100% delivery rate.
He noted an apology from Ms Tina Joemat-Pettersson, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the Deputy Minister, Dr Pieter Mulder, the MECs from Mpumalanga, North West and Gauteng, as well as Committee Members.
Ms Mtshiza said the Ilima-Letsema programme focused on increasing food production and rehabilitating irrigation schemes and other value adding projects. The presentation included a list of the grants that had been allocated to each province. It also mentioned the numbers of households, schools and communities that had been assisted through the various Food Security Programmes of each province. 87 731 hectares of agricultural land had been planted during 2011/12. The Ilima-Letsema programme had created 14 029 jobs during 2011/12. There was a lack of detailed plans on the duration of project support, and many project plans did not include a proper exit strategy.
LandCare is a community based initiative underpinned by the goal of optimising productivity and sustainable use of natural resources.
The purpose of the programme is to enhance a sustainable conservation of natural resources through community based participatory approach, to create job opportunities through expanded public works programme model (EPWP), to improve food security and well being of society as guided by six indivisible principles.
LandCare is expected to address international obligations on United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), Land degradation neutrality and Outcome 10 which necessitate additional financial resources.
Uiteensetting vanaf 1998 – sowel begrotings en byvoordele
Policy imperatives informing investments
1. Create 1 million jobs (NDP: 2030 vision)
2. Put 1 million hectares of unutilised land under production by
2019 (Fetsa Tlala)
3. Support 300 000 smallholder producers by 2019 (NGP)
4. Expand 1.5 million hectares under irrigation by 500 000 (NDP:
5. Ensure food security for all (Constitutional Mandate)
6. Ensure sustainable use of natural resources
7. Grow agricultural contribution to the GDP – driven by the
Revitalization of Agriculture and Agro-processing Value Chains
Since 2010/11, on average 31 945 farmers per year were reported to have received
support through CASP in the form of fencing, boreholes, irrigation systems, dairy,
poultry and piggery structures, pack houses, storage facilities etc.
Since 2010/11 on average 70 927 farmers per year were supported with inputs for
production of mainly maize and vegetables through Ilima/Letsema grant. These
include starter packs for backyard food gardens given to vulnerable households.
A total of 122 834 beneficiaries of CASP received training from 2010/11 to end of
quarter one of 2017/18.
• Mpumalanga Province reported more beneficiaries trained (36 711) in the period
under review followed by Gauteng with 16 160 and Western Cape 13 338 respectively.
• North West trained the least number of farmers followed by Limpopo and Northern
VERSKEIE PLASE IS BETROKKE
Casp/Ilema allocations and expenditures
Hansard CAP/llima-Letsema landcare programme
National Treasury and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) presented on the provincial agriculture grants. According to Treasury, the purpose of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support programme (CASP) was to facilitate agricultural development by targeting beneficiaries of land reform, restitution and redistribution, and other black producers who had acquired land through private means. Challenges included poor spending in agricultural colleges; poor planning in the provinces due to a lack of competent staff to manage the grant; drought; DAFF monitoring capacity, and lack of correspondence between transfer of funds to provinces and cash flow requirements in provincial business plans, which led to unspent funds. The purpose of the Ilima/Letsema projects grant was to assist vulnerable black farming communities to achieve an increase in agricultural production. Challenges included a lack of staff to manage programmes; drawn out procurement processes; drought, and non-attendance of training courses by beneficiaries. The purpose of the LandCare grant was to promote sustainable use and management of natural resources through community based activities. Challenges included delays in procurement processes; proliferation of alien invasive species, and regular requests to change project lists in the provinces.
DAFF said policy imperatives of CASP and Ilima/Letsema are to create 1 million jobs in terms of the NDP 2030 vision and to put one million hectares of unutilised land under production by 2019. CASP was reaching most of its target groups, but relatively few youth and disabled persons were involved in the programme. A challenge was that CASP had achieved little progress in promoting commercialisation, as only 33% of farms could be considered commercial.
In discussion, Members had remarks and questions about cooperation between the DAFF and Rural Development and Land Reform; fluctuations in CASP spending, projects and beneficiaries; the movement of agriculture colleges from provincial to national; land restitution and land redistribution challenges; accounting for the movement of funds; monitoring and evaluation; education, training and skilling of farmers; land acquisition and rehabilitation; planning and staffing; enhancement of commercial farming; drought relief; agri science and research, and extension officers.
Briefing by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on the provincial agriculture grants
The briefing was presented by Ms Elder Mtshiza, Chief Director: CASP, DAFF, and Ms Lydia Bosega, Director: LandCare. Policy imperatives of CASP and Ilima/Letsema are to create 1 million jobs in terms of the NDP 2030 vision, and to put 1 million hectares of unutilised land under production by 2019.
Since 2010/11, on average 31 945 farmers per year received support through CASP. The figure for Ilima/Letsema was 70 927 per year. CASP was reaching most of its target groups, but relatively few youth and disabled persons were involved in the programme. A challenge was that CASP had achieved little progress in promoting commercialisation, as only 33% of farms could be considered commercial. Both programmes were challenged in terms of supply chain management and procurement processes, and support to farmers was not comprehensive. The LandCare programme experienced challenges that included limited allocations to the programme despite more jobs created; insufficient funding for sub-programmes like conservation agriculture and junior care; the need for additional financial resources to address international obligations; and the fact that other government programmes duplicating LandCare mandates were given more funding.
DAFF Minister, Mr Senzeni Zokwana, commented that DAFF wanted to submit that there had not been enough success with contributing to black industrialisation, as only 33% of farms were commercial enterprises.
The Auditor-General (AG) reported that there had to be better monitoring and evaluation and strategic realignment had to improve. The section devoted to CASP allocation had to be transformed and there was a monitoring and evaluation unit in the Department that could assist with that. Work had to be done with extension services. LandCare could be promoted through non-tillage, to prevent soil erosion through heavy rains, and to reduce the use of diesel and emissions. Vaccines had to be available at comparable prices. The National Market Council could assist small farmers and climate change could be dealt with through improved adaptation, science and technology.
Mr T Motlashuping (ANC; North West) referred to slide 7 of the CASP presentation that indicated spending percentages. It was 99.7% in 2015/16, and then dropped to 95.4% in 2016/17. He asked if the fluctuation was due to poor planning or unreasonable targets. In 2004/5, the number of projects came to 510. There were 46 500 beneficiaries. In 2016/17 there were 400 projects and 25 958 beneficiaries. It was stated on slide 13 that “on average” 31 945 farmers per year were supported through CASP. He questioned the use of the term. He asked Treasury why responsibility for agricultural colleges was taken from provincial to national. He asked if it had been because budgets were not spent adequately.
Mr L Nzimande (ANC; KZN) commented that during the provincial week in KZN, the tea estate at Nkandla was visited. High quality tea was produced there; it was ranked third in the world. But there was under spending on the estate since 2012/13 and he asked Treasury about that. Fertilizers were stopped by the government, and there had been no LandCare since then.
Mr O Terblanche (DA; Western Cape) told the Minister that food projects were close to his heart. During the provincial week the Committee was exposed to some projects and he was impressed with some of the projects. It was clear that large patches of land were not needed. The lesson to be learnt from Philippi was that whatever was done was adapted to local conditions. Water was recycled; there was an organic approach and agreements with markets like Woolworths. The junior care school in Worcester had its own vegetable garden. The question that was posed by Philippi was how many would be enabled to become independent farmers. There was a woman there who had received training and was ready to start her own enterprise. On the negative side, it turned out that there was not proper guidance for some projects, and a lack of proper training. People were left to their own resources. In the Eden district there was huge potential to root out black wattle, which could save water. He wished to congratulate the Minister and the Department, but more could be done. Agriculture could create jobs and establish food security. There was malnutrition in South Africa and DAFF needed a bigger budget.
There was growth potential at Nkandla, with 600 hectares under production. 100 hectare plots were being made available to people by chiefs, but land was not taken care of and rehabilitated, and food security was not produced as intended. Land acquisition and appropriation was not proceeding satisfactorily, as lands were lying idle. Growth projections on the ground were needed. He asked the Minister about the rationale behind taking the agricultural colleges to national level. He asked if that could assist CASP and other grants. He asked if the migration to national would affect easy access. Learning packages had to be created for people who were not headed for large scale commercial farming. There had to be skilling and artisanry. Learning packages had to be intended especially for beneficiaries of CASP. There was competition between economic development and land zoned for agriculture.
Mr F Essack (DA; Mpumalanga) referred to the last bullet point on slide 7 of the Treasury presentation. The transfer of funds to provinces did not correspond with the activities and cash flow requirements in the business plan, hence the significant unspent funds in provincial bank accounts. The same statement was made on slide 19. He asked how the matter would be attended to. The third bullet on slide 7 stated that poor planning in provinces resulted in poor performance due to a lack of competent and dedicated staff to manage the grant. He commented that it could cause serious problems in the following quarter. He referred to bullet three on slide 31. The DAFF capacity for monitoring had to be enhanced to identify weaknesses and support service delivery in provinces. Funds were allocated to the DAFF to enhance capacity, but little progress had been made with filling posts. He asked about outcomes on the way forward.
On monitoring, the Minister said DAFF could be more linear and focused with four Deputy Director-Generals (DDGs) instead of eight. On land reform and restitution, he said DAFF and DRDLR had to deal with the way in which land was sold to government. Farms had to be received in operational form; a livestock farm had to have 400 head of cattle on it. The current Act addressed private acquisition. When there were climate change challenges, local government had to declare a disaster area. The President could pass a decree that when adverse conditions due to climate change was foreseen, small-scale farmers could cull animals. They could sell cattle and put money in the bank, and buy back when the climate became more suitable. Maize could be planted instead of sorghum. There were often big fires in the Western Cape and officials had to be trained in disaster management. Production of feed had to be promoted and the planting of grass could be promoted, instead of maize. DAFF and DRDLR could work together to create a one-stop funding model. Space had to be created for soft loans for small-scale farmers and other departments could be involved.
He agreed with Mr Terblanche that organic production was important. Worm farming and organic production had to be developed. Food security was highly important and 13.7% of South Africans went to bed without food. Asparagus was being planted in Quaqua; it was funded by government and accessed by small-scale black farmers. The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) owned land, and in the Eastern Cape people formed trusts, but the role of trusts had to be debated. When people formed a trust, the tendency was to lease the land, and not to use it productively. KZN had to deal with soil erosion when soil was washed away by heavy rains.
Ms Mtshiza responded to Mr Motlashuping about fluctuations in the number of projects and beneficiaries related to CASP. In the beginning the CASP scope was too wide. Only R200 million was available and there were 46 000 beneficiaries. Resources were spread too thinly. DAFF had to join forces with Treasury to help farmers to break even. It had to be known what resources farmers needed to enable them to produce food. There were farmers who had land but could not attract loan funding. DAFF brought infrastructure to stimulate productivity. Farmers had to be helped to access funding from the Land Bank. It was difficult when it was not a going concern that was supported. Support was expressed as an average because some projects were ongoing and it enabled DAFF to know how much money was required. The information management system had to be looked at, and actual bodies who received funds had to be talked to. It could be phrased as per year, if the term “average” was confusing.
The problem with the Ntingwe tea estate was that it was government owned. When government resources were depleted, it prioritised the operations of the State, and business was not the primary concern. There was an excellent model in the Eastern Cape. DAFF wanted to share the Macadamia model with interested parties. There are 400 hectares under cultivation at Ntingwe, but workers only came to work when they wanted to, because they knew that it was a government entity, and they could not be kicked off the land. It could not attract private funding, as no bank would finance a government department, because government was not expected to run a business. The Ntingwe turnaround strategy was based on the fact that it was State owned, and value could not be opened up.
On commercial farms, Ms Ms Mtshiza said the weakness was that smallholders had a portion of the farm that was for subsistence, and a portion that was commercial. Only small injections were needed to remain sustainable. There was a need to consciously industrialise, but it could not be done if grant funding was not blended; 20% to 25% of CASP funds were earmarked so that funding could be blended with the Land Bank. The Land Bank was being engaged with about that modality and Treasury will make R100 million available. The model that DAFF proposed also spoke to Nieuwoudtville. The best rooibos tea in the world was grown there, but it was not right that it was State owned. The State did not market aggressively enough, which was why the tea was not available on shelves. There was good will to turn around the dying Nieuwoudtville community.