briefing the portfolio committee on water and sanitation on concerns raised by nkuzi development...

Briefing the Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation

on CONCERNS RAISED BY NKUZI DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION IN

RESPECT OF NANDONI DAM

19 November 2014

OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION1. Introduction2. Implementation of the Project3. Principles underlying the Project4. Role of the Public Protector5. Correspondence received from the Communities6. Complaints as reflected in the Public Protector Report7. Recommendations

2

1. INTRODUCTION• Construction of the Nandoni Dam is a major component of the

Luvuvhu River Government Water Scheme (LRGWS)• Construction commenced in 1998 and completed in 2005• Objective to bring about social upliftment and opportunities for the

communities living around Vhembe District Municipality, Venda, Limpopo Province• Consultations were held throughout the process of pre-construction

and construction• Project referred locally as “rolo fu kula” (strike rich) and that

communities will do everything possible to extort money from DWS

3

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT

• Development and implementation of the Relocation Action Plan (RAP) made of representatives from:

DWS,BKS (Pty) Ltd (Service Provider),Affected individuals and communities (CRC) involving 33 villages in

Venda, Municipality andTraditional leaders.

4

3. PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PROJECT

• People should not be left worse-off than they were before the construction of Dam

• Compensation of the affected individuals and communities for land, crops, natural resources, graves, medicinal plants, etc

• Compensation for loss of rights• Sustainability, equity and transparency• Compensation based on like-for-likes

5

3. PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PROJECT ….

• Cash paid out as the last resort• Compensated land/property became property of the State • Consultation with the affected throughout the process took place

pre-construction and during implementation• Consultation with multiple stakeholders, agricultural experts, LEDET,

SANParks, Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Government Departments, etc.

6

4. THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR IN THE PROJECT

• Communities approached the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) and lodged complaints that certain issues remained unresolved during implementation

• Week long Public Hearings conducted by OPP and DWS where all those who were affected took part

• Complaints investigated and OPP Report produced (No. 4 of 2009/10) detailing findings and recommendations

• Facilitated meetings between the affected communities and DWS Joint Task Team (JTT)

• DWS Task Team appointed by former Minister Molewa

7

4. THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR IN THE PROJECT (CONT)• DDG: Mrs Zandile Mathe was appointed as Chair-person of DWS Task Team

and was kept abreast of all developments as well as feedback in respect of the JTT meetings she could not attend

• CRC made unfounded allegations that were not supported by any evidence, viz, that DWS took unilateral decisions without consulting them, agreements to compensation by DWS for 20 years for lost trees

• Accused the Chairperson (OPP) of being biased against them and rebuked them regarding their wishes and what was resolved, taking into consideration that other independent experts took part in decision-making and not necessarily that DWS acted unilaterally

• On 4 December 2012 , CRC sent an e-mail notifying OPP and DWS of their decision to withdraw from the JTT and that they would refer their complaints to Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR)

8

• To date, no correspondence has been received from LHR• Only one village (Budeli) was opposed to abandoning the JTT route to

resolve issues, but this was counter productive as issues were cross-cutting and not specific to Budeli

• OPP conducted 2 public hearing meetings with communities, together with the traditional leaders to ascertain the decision made to withdraw from JTT and withdrawal was confirmed by communities

• Implications of such decision explained fully to the communities at these meetings

• Chairperson wrote Report and presented to the Public Protector• OPP has applauded the DWS for the extent of consultations and this was

confirmed by the Portfolio Committee about a decade ago

9

4. THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR IN THE PROJECT (CONT)

5. CORRESPONDENCE TO MINISTERS

• Different correspondence received by previous and current Ministers on same complaints – Dated 12 February 2013 to former Minister Molewa regarding

the intended strike on 25 March 2013 by the Mphireleni Budeli Civic Association

Another dated 5 September 2013 Letter by Nkuzi Development Association to the Portfolio

Committee Another received by present Minister dated October 2014, and

strike at Nandoni Dam• Same issues raised, despite having been addressed previously

10

6. COMPLAINTS AS REFLECTED IN PUBLIC PROTECTOR REPORT AND RESPONSES

• Control of safe access and security around the Dam, including safety issues around the Dam

• Water Safety Awareness Campaign since 2009 with other Government Departments, such as Transport

• Former DP (Ms R Mabudafhasi) held safety awareness

• 2 boats acquired to patrol the Dam

11

6. COMPLAINTS AS REFLECTED IN PUBLIC PROTECTOR REPORT AND RESPONSES (Cont)

• Measures to prevent water animals, such as crocodiles and hippos from straying in residential areas

• Construction of physical barriers walls and relocation of families too close to the Dam

• LEDET and SANPark to control wild animals. Policy to destroy (hippos) and catch animals coming into contact with human beings

• To date, there has never been a case reported of these animals spotted straying in residential area

• Not feasible to construct wall around Dam as this would costly and deny communities access to Dam

• Local School relocated and need for barrier wall fell off

12

• Water Users Association established

• Relocation of families identified as living close to the dam

• Water user Association has been established ito Water Services Act, 1997 and published in the Government Gazette

• International standards was used to determine acceptable levels of closeness to the dam

• DWS Ligudu Survey Report indicated that it is not necessary to relocate these families

• To date, no incident of dam flooding has been reported

• Local Municipality to assist in building RDP houses for these families

13


• Compensation for loss of land and alternative land as a form of Compensation

• Reality: no land is available• Traditional authorities requested

previously to make land available for own subjects

• Land previously identified was subject to land claims

• To mitigate for loss of land: communities compensated with bigger stands that they previously had

• Substantial amounts paid into Trust Funds controlled by the Traditional Leaders [3 Trusts] to mitigate for loss of land and food production

• DWS developed a Sustainable Utilization Plan aimed at creating opportunities for the communities

14


• Review of the rate of payment for fruit farmers for loss of land rights, fruit trees and loss of production

• Consultation with the Agricultural Research Council for Tropical and Sub-Tropical Crops for Mulendane found that the commercial citrus farms had zero value as they were not suitable for commercial benefit

• No justification was found for a compensation not greater than R10 000 per hectare

• However, the payment was made in good faith with the intention that farmers intended making a living out of this

• Formulas used for payment resulted in compensation tariff per hectare for cash crops and individual tree per speci irrespective of whether dead or alive and included sampling

15


mdletshem

Sentence is contradictory.

• Revisit the Mulendane orchards to verify if parts of fields were affected by the Dam and now sub-merged under water

• Allegations investigated and confirmed

• Recommended that DWS Regional Office to consult with the Provincial Dept of Agriculture to ascertain the extent of this as well as ascertain if there were unjust errors of calculations paid.

• Costs implications, should be dealt with by the NWRI Branch (Construction)

16


• Finalize issue of Mphego complaints whose fruits were allegedly damaged by grater and not compensated

• Complainant who allegedly received only R4 483.85 for a 200 hectares of orchards

• Grader demarcated boundary line between the Territorial Authority and Government waterworks as requested by the community. Plants and crops were damaged while marking. However, everything inside the purchase line was compensated for. Complainants were requested to re-submit substantiated claims during the CRC meetings of 2007/8, and no such claims, have been received

• Investigated found that the size of orchard was 5 hectares and not 200 hectares. Owner confirmed that he was compensated, except for 0,99 hectare, but, was satisfied with payment

17


• Finalize the complainant of 11 farmers who were allegedly not paid or partly paid at Tshilungoma Village

• No names were forwarded to the DWS to verify information

• Alleged complainants requested to provide their names, Identity documents, their names and ID of previous neighbours and stand numbers for verifications. If found to be true, NWRI Branch should compensate

• To date, no substantiated claims have been received

18


• Effect payment of compensation referred to in paragraphs 5.6; 5.7; 5.9; 5.18; 5.20; and 5.21 4(b) in the PP Report

• No further substantiated claims have been received by the DWS

• Investigations revealed that the following people were paid: Nyawasedza Mudzanani, Ms Magwadzeni, Ms Mulaudzi & Ms Mudau

• Investigations also uncovered that most people claimed for the same piece of land through extended family members (e.g. Mudau ME, Nyawasedza, Mudzanani) collected payment but did not inform rightful claimants

19



• Investigations revealed that Ms Magwadzeni was fully compensated and has confirmed this

• In respect of Ms Mulaudzi, she has chosen to relocate to Lesotho after her husband passed away

• Investigations revealed that the true claimant was Ms Nyawasedza Mukandi and that Mudzanani is her elder sister and did not own any fields. Compensation paid to Nyawasedza Mukandi

20


COMPLAINTS AS REFLECTED IN PP REPORT AND RESPONSES ….


• In respect of Ms T. Mukovheni, compensation was taken by her grand-daughter, Ms ME Mudau, who lodged claim on behalf of her grand-mother, without her knowledge. She has refused to pursue criminal charges against grand-daughter

• In respect of Mr JM Ramovha, allegation needs to be investigated further by accessing records, once she has furnished her ID Number

21

6. COMPLAINTS AS REFLECTED IN PP REPORT AND RESPONSES ….


• In respect of Mr Madwela, it was revealed that his real names are Samson Dugisi Matwela, ID No: 360101 5501 0 8 5 and alleges that he never received any compensation. That his fields were adjacent to that of Modjadji Ramovha, who has confirmed this and now staying in Dididi. Aerial maps should be consulted to verify the claim. BKS (Pty) Ltd have been requested to provide records, but to no avail. Claim that the prescribed periods ito the Archives Act has prescribed and that records no longer available and members of BKS have died

22


• Compensation for a toilet seat at site T45

• Installation of water pipes and taps in the residential sites

• Installation of a 1.5 fence at stand B75 replaced by a 1.2 metred fence

• Toilet seat donated by Ms Henriette Anderson (DWS) and handed over to owner

• This is the function of the District Municipality and communities requested to consult the relevant Municipality

• Allegation confirmed and DWS Regional Office requested to consult with the Directorate: Construction to replace

23

• Allegation of no pedestrian gate not provided at B60

• Gates of 1.6 metres at B61 and poles of 1.8 metres at B73

• Investigations revealed that pedestrian gate was indeed installed when fence was erected. Pictures available for confirmation

• Owner of B73 said he was satisfied with the gate. Now claims he was not paid for a certain field (new claim)

24



• Repair of the 29 houses identified to have cracks and roofs leaking

• 28 of the 29 houses have been repaired by the DWS

• The owner of the 29th house (B63) has refused to grant access to the contractors employed by the DWS, insisting on a brand new house, despite the fact that he was warned of the unsuitability of the stand before the house was built, however insisted that the house be built there

25


• Medicinal plants • Medicinal plants were replaced, however, communities did not look after them and water them regularly

• Traditional healers were allowed to continue harvesting medicinal plants from the buffer zone around the reservoir despite having compensated traditional authorities for this land

26

COMPLAINTS AS REFLECTED IN PP REPORT AND RESPONSES ….

• Put measures to ensure that Trust Funds are properly managed

• Installation of electricity at Tshitomboni and Dididi as happened in Mutoti

• Construction of a bridge

• Falls outside the DWS’s mandate, and any affected complainant should report matter to the relevant Ombudsman

• Not the function of DWS. However, ESKOM has already provided electricity to both villages

• Building of bridges not competency of DWS, but the relevant Municipality. Communities encouraged to approach their local Municipality in this regard

27

• Extension of play-ground by at least 7 metres

• Recover fraudulent monies paid to Mr Ramagoma

• Construction of a bridge

• No justification for this. Recreation facilities are the competency of the relevant local Municipality and Dept of Sports and Recreation. Complainants advised to follow-up with them

• Monies have already been paid back to DWS as he is now employed by DWS

• Building of bridges not the competency of DWS, but that of Dept of Transport and local Municipality

28


7. RECOMMENDATIONS• Communities have walked out of the JTT and have indicated that they will

refer their complaints to LHR.• Political intervention at the level of Minister and Mayors in the District

and Local Municipalities.• Communities should be encouraged to look well after their properties and

do regular maintenance to their own houses.• DWS and District Municipality to partner and ensure that the Reticulation

of water in the area is expedited• DWS to compensate in deserving and confirmed outstanding cases as

indicated above, especially where the complaints are genuine and substantiated.

29

7. RECOMMENDATIONS ….

• There will be huge financial implications for DWS and funding may be difficult to obtain or DWS will decide to re-prioritize

• Matter may, as a last resort, be referred to a competent court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon once and for all (Expropriation route).

• Re-opening case may set a precedent that will be difficult to manage in future cases where communities have to be expropriated for the public interests.

30

Thank you

briefing the portfolio committee on water and sanitation on concerns raised by nkuzi development...

Documents

project communities

construction project

affected communities

project development

public protector opp

communities crc

project people

public protector report