MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY

Wednesday, 11 February 1998 (at 09h40)

PRESENT:

Chairperson: Ms J Y Love

African National Congress

Mr J D Arendse, Mr P C Cronje, Mr N L Diale, Mr M W Duna, Mr M S Gininda, Mrs R T Mabudafhasi, Mrs N Mabude,  Mrs M C Mabuza, Mr M M Masala, Ms N B Mfono, Mrs M L Ngwenya, Mrs B M Ntuli, Mrs M S Seperepere, Bishop L J Tolo, Mr J F Van Wyk

National Party

Mrs M J Badernhorst, Dr E A Schoeman, Mr A S Van der Merwe, Mr I D van Zyl, Mr A H Nel

Inkatha Freedom Party

Mr J H W Mentz, Mr R R Mbongwe

APOLOGIES

The following members tendered apologies:

1. Mr M K D Davhana

The Chairperson welcome all present in the meeting.

The following departmental officials were in attendance:

Mr M J Botha, Deputy Director: Agricultural Resources Concervation (ARC), National Department of Agriculture (NDA); Ms A Stolz, Senior Admin Officer: Subdivision of Agricultural Land: ARC, NDA; Adv R Van Zyl, Senior Legal Officer: NDA; Mr K Monnik, Programme Manager; Mr J Schoeman, Meteorology: Institute of Soil, Climate and Water: ARC and Dr D Grossman, Ministerial Advisor.

The Committee received an introduction from the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) around the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Repeal Bill [B101-97].

1. Background and objectives of the Bill by Adv R Van Zyl

The Committee was informed that the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act has been in existence since 1970. Eighty percent of the Act is about the rezoning of Agricultural land. It defines the Agricultural Land as all land not otherwise zoned in South Africa. The Minister of Agriculture has a blanket control of agricultural land.

The Committee was also informed that the National Department of Agriculture (NDA) has done away with the regulations of size and price relating to the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (1970). Their position as NDA is that the market forces should mainly determine the Subdivision of Agricultural Land. The Committee was further informed that the intention of the NDA is to repeal the Act (1970) and simultaneously put the objectives of the Act with regards to the rezoning of the Land an alternative Legislation. It was mentioned that the major intention of the NDA is to protect prime agricultural land in the whole of South Africa.

It was mentioned that the NDA is busy drafting a new Resource Conservation Act which it intends to replace the Subdivision Act's function of preserving land for agricultural purposes. It was also mentioned to the Committee that the Senior Management of NDA and Land Affairs have signed an agreement in this regard.

Adv Van Zyl concluded her presentation by mentioning the reasons for repealing the Act (1970). She indicated that the Act (1970) is outdated, does not give specifics about the size of Agricultural Land in the country and that the Act (1970) does not cater for small and emerging farmers. This was reinforced in the past. The NDA main intention as far as land use is concerned is to allow people to apply and get permission from the Minister. The Minister then decides whether to give the applicant land for other use but the criteria are only whether the land is seen as high potential land or not.

2. Discussion

The Committee wanted to be clarified as to how much prime agricultural land is already used for other purposes; why repeal the Act now and then move into a vacuum without putting something else in place; why the department is relinquishing power without a plan; and whether it is possible to rezone the portions of land (which have been subdivided) back into one entity.

The department explained to the Committee that the prime agricultural land used for other purposes is estimated at 8 million hectares and of that land only 411 000 hectares was changed from agricultural use through the Subdivision Act. It was also explained that as far as rezoning is concerned, this would also only be in terms of a new Act. At present subdivision is allowed only for different forms of agricultural use when the land is highly agricultural potential land. It confirmed that subdivided portions can be consolidated into one portion. People who have large farms and want to subdivide those farms into smaller farms are allowed to do so. However, the NDA is opposed to a person taking a large productive farm dividing it into smaller pieces and selling it for residential development.

The Committee wanted clarity about prime agricultural land in the former Transkei: who administers the land which belongs to the government; what spending has been undertaken by the ARC institute for Soil Climate and Water since 1994 that can justify the institute saying that the reason it has been unable to carry out a soil mapping of the area is because it had no money.

The department explained to the Committee that the surveying of land in former Transkei and other TBVC former homelands is a long term process because until recently these areaswere not considered to be part of South Africa. It was also mentioned that surveys were only done in areas considered as parts of South Africa, but the NDA has identified it as a priority to survey all pieces of land where appropriate surveys have not been done. As far as the administration of land which belongs to the government is concerned, this isadministered by the Department of Land Affairs. It was also mentioned that both departments (NDA and DLA) are working very closely on agricultural land owned by government, and that there is a programme in place to either sell off or lease the land. But the land is taken piece by piece on a project basis. The response of the NDA as far as the spending patterns of the ARC institute for Soil Climate and Water is that the department identified the need for surveys at least two years back and went through the process with the Institute of putting a proposal before the state tender board. It was mentioned to the Committee that the NDA have been struggling for almost two years now to the state tender board to authorise such expenditure from the NDA's budget for this purpose.

The Department was unable to explain why the repeal of Subdivision Act should proceed at this stage. It was agreed that the public hearing on this matter would be postponed that the Chair person would discuss the matter with the Minister and report back to members of the Portfolio Committee.

The meeting deliberated and adjourned at 11:20 until 17 February 1997.