THE CROSSWAYS FARM VILLAGE PROJECT

A Report Prepared for The Portfolio Committee On

Rural Development And Land Reform

THE CROSSWAYS FARM VILLAGE PROJECT

A Report Prepared for The Portfolio Committee On

Rural Development And Land Reform

CONTENTS:CONTENTS:

1. Purpose of the presentation2. Geographic Backdrop3. The Thornhill Development Forum Concerns4. The Department’s (DRDLR) Involvement5. The Context of the Comprehensive Rural

Development & Community Empowerment Possibilities

6. Progress To-date

PURPOSEPURPOSE

• The Department of Rural Development and Land was Reform requested to provide a response to matters of concern raised by the Thornhill Development Forum

• Letter Dated 31st October, addressed to the Chairperson: Port. Comm. (Faxed by “Melanie”)

Where Is Thornhill?Where Is Thornhill?

What Are The Concerns?What Are The Concerns?

1. “The Crossways Farm Village development is in our Ward and now we hear we are to be declared a CRDP site.”

2. “We have some concerns about how our participation in the project is unfolding – without our knowledge.”

3. “We are confused as to the process followed and the priorities for which government money (R64m) is earmarked.”

4. “All of the money is being spent within the boundaries of Crossways.”

The Extent & Bases of The ConcernsThe Extent & Bases of The Concerns

• Thornhill is one in a cluster of poverty-ridden settlements in Ward 7:

• Loerie (The Biggest ito current IDP of Kouga LM)• Thornhill• Longmore• Sunningvale

• Meeting attended by 35 people, 0n 27th Oct. in Thornhill• Acknowledgement: “We are soon to meet the

representatives of Loerie.”

Bases of ConcernsBases of Concerns• Draft Minutes: Cacadu & Metro Agrarian & Land Issues

Committee (CAMALISC). Held in DRDLR Offices in Port Elizabeth on 8th September: Which NOTED that the DSC “distances itself from the project as it is regarded not to be in line with Land Reform Policy”

• Attendance: 23 Present; 6 Apologies• Draft Ad hoc Minutes: CAMALISC. Held in DRDLR

Offices in Port Elizabeth on 26th September: Which raised concerns, again. NOTED that the project “does not appear to be fully in line with the Land Reform Policy (PLAS).”

• Attendance: 9 Present; 1 ApologyRECOMMENDATIONS MAKING BODIES

• Unsigned, Undated Memorandum of the DRDLR

THE DRDLR’s InvolvementTHE DRDLR’s Involvement

MISSION:To initiate, facilitate, coordinate, catalyze and

implement an integrated rural development programme.

August 2007: CMAI presented project to Municipality.February 2009: Kouga Municipality confirms support for the development.February 2009: “New Ruralism” Project is presented to the Department of Land Affairs, Dr Mulder and Councillor Stuurman.

8

THE CRDP CONTEXTTHE CRDP CONTEXT

VIBRANT, EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE RURAL COMMUNITIES

9

CRDP ContextCRDP Context

The Three Phases may be facilitated:

* Sequentially or* Simultaneously

Social Social Mobilisation and Mobilisation and

OrganisationOrganisationPlanning, Planning,

Technical SupportTechnical SupportProjects CostingProjects Costing

InstitutionInstitutionBuilding, Technical Building, Technical

Support, Skills Support, Skills DevelopmentDevelopment

Rural EnterprisesRural Enterprises& Food Security& Food Security

Political Political Consultation Consultation and Directiveand Directive

• Political Heads at National and Provincial consult and agree on CRDP site

• Consultations with Dept HODs, Municipalities and Traditional Leaders

• Political Heads at National and Provincial consult and agree on CRDP site

• Consultations with Dept HODs, Municipalities and Traditional Leaders

• Desk top analysis of IDP and Special Plans of the District and Local Municipalities

• Physical visits to the possible sites

• Analysis of sites and final decision on actual sites

• Desk top analysis of IDP and Special Plans of the District and Local Municipalities

• Physical visits to the possible sites

• Analysis of sites and final decision on actual sites

• Inter-Departmental Planning Committee meets

• Projects Allocation to Depts.

• Allocation of Youths to Village Sector Committees

• Selection of Rural Development Monitors (Rangers)

• Final constitution of Council of Stakeholders

• Inter-Departmental Planning Committee meets

• Projects Allocation to Depts.

• Allocation of Youths to Village Sector Committees

• Selection of Rural Development Monitors (Rangers)

• Final constitution of Council of Stakeholders

• Political Walkabouts to households

• Community Consultations• Training of unemployed

youths in NISIS • Household Profiling• Community Profiling• Presentation of Findings to

Community • Debate of Findings and

Choice and Ranking of issues of Development

• Sign-off of Priorities • Grouping of Households into

Social Cooperatives • Selection of Household Heads

for Council of Stakeholders representation

• Political Walkabouts to households

• Community Consultations• Training of unemployed

youths in NISIS• Household Profiling• Community Profiling• Presentation of Findings to

Community• Debate of Findings and

Choice and Ranking of issues of Development

• Sign-off of Priorities • Grouping of Households into

Social Cooperatives• Selection of Household Heads

for Council of Stakeholders representation

CRDP Concept ImplementationCRDP Concept Implementation

GeoGeo--Spatial Spatial AnalysisAnalysis

• Formation of Cooperatives

• Formation of Enterprises

• Registration of Entities

• Formation Secondary Cooperatives / Community Benefit Company

• Skills Development to Entities

• Formation of Cooperatives

• Formation of Enterprises

• Registration of Entities

• Formation Secondary Cooperatives / Community Benefit Company

• Skills Development to Entities

Funding of Coops• Brickmaking• Building Construction• Paving block-making• Paved Street Construction• Fence Manufacturing• Fence Construction• Household Gardens

Establishment • Crop Fields & Mechanisation • Environmental Management• Early Child DevelopmentAgro-Processing

Funding of Coops• Brickmaking• Building Construction• Paving block-making• Paved Street Construction• Fence Manufacturing• Fence Construction• Household Gardens

Establishment• Crop Fields & Mechanisation • Environmental Management• Early Child DevelopmentAgro-Processing

CRDP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSCRDP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSCRDP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

COUNCIL OF STAKEHOLDERS(Organs of civil society, government, business, co-operatives, beneficiaries, workers, community development workers, traditional institutions, etc.)

OFFICE OF THE PREMIERCRDP Champion (MEC with rural development function)

MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORMDEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORMProgramme Development, policy and legislation development and Coordination

Household Co-operatives & other enterprises (groups of 20)

Stakeholder commitments

Conditionalities, code of conduct & disciplinary panel

Stakeholder commitments

SOCIAL COHESION AND DEVELOPMENT

Mayors of District and Local Municipalities as CRDP champions in the third sphere

Human Solidarity/ UbuntuDevelopment:-Shared growth and prosperity;-full employment;-relative income equality;-cultural progress

12

Reality FacedReality Faced

• A galloping private initiative• Intent on implementing a government issued ROD

• Formation of Community Trust a pressing issue• Protracted CRDP: Social Mobilization; Cohesion

Building Processes• Council of Stakeholders, the most important

Community/Ward projects decision-making structure• Immense Community Empowerment Possibilities• Choosing the SIMULTANEOUS OPTION• To move communities from CONSUMERS to

PRODUCERS: “Shoppers or Shop-owners”

The Record of Decision was received for the project from the EC Provincial Government in May 2010

By November 2010: Project is launched.December 2010: Meeting held with Texas A&M University (Dr Edwin Price and Dr Mulder.)February 2011: Kouga Municipality request DRDLR for the joint development of Thornhill and Crossways and inclusion as a CDRP site.May 2011: Department intensifies discussions across Branches: SPI; RID; LR & STRIF about land acquisition for the empowerment communities.

THE EVOLUTION OF CROSSWAYSTHE EVOLUTION OF CROSSWAYS

SECOND LAUNCH NOVEMBER 2011

LAUNCH OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE: NOVEMBER 2011

What Has The DRDLR Done Thus far?What Has The DRDLR Done Thus far?Status Quo Report for Ward 7Household Profiling

• Household Profiling Completed in Thornhill• Household Profiling continues to Loerie; Longmore;

Sunningvale, …Recruitment of Community TrusteesInterviews of Community Trustees (Jan. 20th, 2012)Community Approval of TrusteesLand Valuations completedNegotiations taking place (Feb, 2012)Continuing Community Consultations …

CompositionNot selected 56 (2.6%)

Head/acting head 451 (21%)

Husband/wife/partner 156 (7.3%)

Son/ daughter/ stepchild/ adopted child

908 (42.3%)

Brother/sister/step brother/step sister

60 (2.8%)

Father/mother/ step father/ step mother

24 (1.1%)

Grandparent/great grandparent

31 (1.4%)

Grandchild/great grandchild 361 (16.8%)

Other relative - e.g. in-laws or aunt/uncle

74 (3.4%)

Non-related persons 6 (0.3%)

Niece/nephew 21 (1%)

TOTAL 2148

Marital StatusNot selected 17 (1.7%)

Married 426 (42.1%)

Cohabitation 17 (1.7%)

Widow/widower 112 (11.1%)

Divorced/separated 32 (3.2%)

Never married/single 409 (40.4%)

TOTAL 1013

Household Size0 3 (0.6%)

1 53 (11%)

2 69 (14.4%)

3 76 (15.8%)

4 51 (10.6%)

5 66 (13.8%)

6 45 (9.4%)

7 36 (7.5%)

8 27 (5.6%)

9 19 (4%)

10 12 (2.5%)

11 14 (2.9%)12 4 (0.8%)

13 3 (0.6%)

14 2 (0.4%)

TOTAL 480 Household Head GenderMale 186 (41.2%)

Female 265 (58.8%)

TOTAL 451

Age of Household Members0-4 424 (19.7%)

5-9 292 (13.6%)

10-14 311 (14.5%)

15-19 254 (11.8%)

20-29 226 (10.5%)

30-39 119 (5.5%)

40-49 174 (8.1%)

50-59 150 (7%)

60-69 108 (5%)

Over 69 90 (4.2%)

TOTAL 2148

Age of Household Heads

0-4 7 (1.6%)

5-9 3 (0.7%)

15-19 12 (2.7%)

20-29 34 (7.5%)

30-39 42 (9.3%)

40-49 105 (23.3%)

50-59 92 (20.4%)

60-69 83 (18.4%)

Over 69 70 (15.5%)

10-14 3 (0.7%)

TOTAL 451

Expected Household profiling baseline data - Demographics

Household has access to the following:Yes No No Response

Garden / small plot 373 97 10Field for cultivation 209 260 11Grazing land 383 80 17Dam 128 331 21River 310 153 17Market place / shop to sell produce and/or stock 83 376 21Market place / shop to buy materials / supplies for cultivation and keeping stock 99 354 27

Household type of access to land

Not selected 13 (2.7%)

Own 48 (10%)

Rent 8 (1.7%)

Given 411 (85.6%)

TOTAL 480

Household uses all the landNot selected 21 (4.4%)

Yes 238 (49.6%)

No 220 (45.8%)

Don't know 1 (0.2%)

TOTAL 480

Reason household is not using landNot selected 254 (52.9%)

lack of seeds 35 (7.3%)

lack of fertiliser 98 (20.4%)

lack of water 42 (8.8%)

lack of labour 3 (0.6%)

too old / too young 4 (0.8%)

too little money 43 (9%)

not interested 1 (0.2%)

TOTAL 480

Expected HH baseline data – access to land

Participation In Social Groups, Organisations, Clubs, etc...

Female Male TOTALburial society 259 164 423community garden group 11 9 20community/civic group 13 8 21consumer organisation 2 1 3cultural organisation 2 2development committee 4 4employer organisation 2 1 3environment groups 3 2 5farmers association 63 39 102mens social club 2 2neighbourhood watch 53 29 82Nothing 213 175 388parents/school association 14 8 22Peace organisation 1 1pensioners group 1 1political parties / trade unions 131 81 212professional organisation 3 3religious group or church group 138 77 215scouts/guides organisations 1 1 2sewing group 2 2social welfare organisation 4 1 5sport club/gymnasium 7 23 30stokvel group 41 4 45study group 3 7 10trade unions 2 4 6Tribal authority 27 19 46voluntary service group 6 3 9womens group 14 2 16Youth group 2 3 5Total 1018 667 1685

SkillsComputer skills 27 (1.7%)Baking 249 (16%)Cooking/catering 290 (18.6%)Painting - walls 116 (7.4%)Brick laying 61 (3.9%)Waitressing 7 (0.4%)Security 12 (0.8%)Home and community-based care giving

17 (1.1%)

Welding 9 (0.6%)Carpentry 10 (0.6%)Electrical 8 (0.5%)Plumbing 5 (0.3%)Child care/ECD development 23 (1.5%)Plastering 43 (2.8%)Farming 191 (12.3%)Sewing 78 (5%)Bookkeeping 8 (0.5%)None 269 (17.3%)Other 136 (8.7%)TOTAL 1559

Expected HH profiling baseline data – Skills and Social participation

S T R IF

Results Shared &Confirmed With The OwnersResults Shared &Confirmed With The Owners

Consultation with the CommunityConsultation with the Community

S T R IF

Community DialogueCommunity DialogueDebating the FindingsDebating the Findings

S T R IF

Community DialogueCommunity Dialogue

Ranking the PrioritiesRanking the Priorities

1. Water1. Water2. Clinic2. Clinic3. Roads3. Roads4. Electricity4. Electricity5. Fencing5. Fencing6 .Sanitation6 .Sanitation7. Post Office 7. Post Office 8. Community Hall8. Community Hall9. Classrooms9. Classrooms10. Playground + Sports Grounds10. Playground + Sports Grounds

The IssuesThe Issues11. Aged People Pay11. Aged People Pay‐‐pointpoint12. Crime/Police Station12. Crime/Police Station13. Shopping13. Shopping14. Wild Animals14. Wild Animals15. Hotel/Tourism15. Hotel/Tourism16. Tribal Authority Infrast.16. Tribal Authority Infrast.17. Grazing Camps17. Grazing Camps18. Bursaries / Library18. Bursaries / Library19. Maize Mill19. Maize Mill20. Cemetery Improvement20. Cemetery Improvement21. Orphanage21. Orphanage

Development Issues Are Then Ranked Development Issues Are Then Ranked 

S T R IF

Community AssetsCommunity Assets

Associational Living In MuyexeAssociational Living In Muyexe1.1.

Traditional HealersTraditional Healers

2.2.

HomeHome‐‐based carebased care‐‐giversgivers3.3.

Churches: {ZCC; AFM; KGCC; Nazarene; IPC; URC; HMC}Churches: {ZCC; AFM; KGCC; Nazarene; IPC; URC; HMC}

4.4.

Soccer Teams x3Soccer Teams x35.5.

T/Dance Groups x NumerousT/Dance Groups x Numerous

6.6.

Ntirhisano Groups x NumerousNtirhisano Groups x Numerous7.7.

SocietiesSocieties

8.8.

HawkersHawkers9.9.

Cooperatives: Vegetables(40)/Bricks Cooperatives: Vegetables(40)/Bricks 

x2(13+30)/Bread/Beads (10)x2(13+30)/Bread/Beads (10)10.10.

FarmersFarmers

11.11. Creche {Stipend (R2000Creche {Stipend (R2000‐‐00)x3 + Parental Contributions x 4}00)x3 + Parental Contributions x 4}

S T R IF

Community EngagementCommunity EngagementEmbracing and Owning the FindingsEmbracing and Owning the Findings

S T R IF

Community EngagementCommunity EngagementAgreement on TopAgreement on Top

NARYSEC: Youth Empowerment ProgrammeNARYSEC: Youth Empowerment Programme

Is a programme that is targeting youth in all rural wards in South Africa

Skills development will include discipline, patriotism, life skills, rights awareness and specific skills areas empowering youth to change rural areas.21 recruited Kouga LM

29

THE DEVELOPMENT AT CROSSWAYS Steams ahead …

The Empowerment Possibilities …

DRDLR and Crossways farm Village VISIONDRDLR and Crossways farm Village VISION

Food SecurityAgrarian developmentRural developmentEnterprize creationJob creation

“We want to be real shareholders in the local economy”--Thornhill Development Forum.

the dialogue continues …

ENKOSI / Thank You