STATE LAND AUDIT REPORT

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on

Rural Development and Land Reform

M514 Marks Building

30 March 2011

CHIEF SURVEYOR GENERAL

Mr M RIBA

1

Content

BackgroundProject ObjectivesMethodologyDatabase AnalysisDatabase & Spatial data LinkageFindingsConclusions & RecommendationsQ & A

2

Background

In December 2009 the Office of the Chief Surveyor-General was tasked by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to compile a comprehensive, accurate, complete and reliable database of all land parcels registered in the name of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

3

Project Objectives

To create Comprehensive State Land Database that includes-:

National GovernmentProvincial GovernmentMunicipalitiesFormer TBVC StatesParastatalsOther government entities

Geo-reference the database

4

Deliverables

Comprehensive database of all State Land as well as Private LandDigital Spatial Cadastral data linked to the Database (Digital Map) in ESRI Shp File formatGoogle Earth KML files formatStatistical Report on Number of parcels and Extent

5

Resources & Data sets

HRProject was undertaken solely by CSG staff

DATASETSDeeds Registration data - CRDCadastral Alpha Numeric Data – CSGCadastral Spatial Data

6

Methodology

Deeds data was received in ASCII (TEXT) file formatData Imported into Microsoft Access databaseData was then classified into State Land or Private Land using Owner Name. Classification was based on:

Official Government Entities list (www.gov.za)Demarcation board Municipals NamesHistorical Information

Performed Data cleaning and corrections

7

Methodology (cont..)

Each record was populated with additional information from cadastral database. i.e. SG Numbers & ExtentMAPPING-Each record linked with Cadastral Spatial DataData Analyses

8

Database Analysis

9

Total Private Land

PROPERTY TYPE NUMBER OF PARCELS PERCENTAGE (%)ERVEN/URBAN 4,441,745 92%FARM 332,908 7%HOLDING 42,788 1%

4,817,441 100%

10

PRIVATE LAND -

Erven

PROV EC FS GP KZN LMP MPU NC NW WC TOTAL

ERF 511,357 390,464 1,336,647 686,581 171,859 297,848 153,607 289,621 603,761 4,441,745

11

PRIVATE LAND -

Farm

PROV EC FS GP KZN LMP MPU NC NW WC TOTAL

FARM 36,499 43,541 37,343 47,587 33,723 29,144 19,280 41,334 44,457 332,908

12

PRIVATE LAND -

Holdings

PROV FS GP LMP MPU NC NW TOTAL

HOLDING 5,402 26,358 834 2,834 3,459 3,901 42,788

13

Total State Land

PARCEL TYPE PARCELS %

ERVEN/URBAN 1,085,084 93.9%

FARM 64,976 5.6%

HOLDING 5,448 0.5%

TOTAL 1,155,508 100%

14

STATE LAND -

Erven

PROV EC FS GP KZN LMP MPU NC NW WC TOTAL

PARCELS 104,834157,020 235,734 137,310 46,146 107,855 53,396 132,454 110,3351,085,08

4

15

State land -

Farm

PROV EC FS GP KZN LMP MPU NC NW WC TOTAL

PARCELS 8,361 5,435 9,976 11,646 6,261 7,156 2,390 6,559 7,192 64,976

16

STATE LAND -

Holding

PROV FS GP LMP MPU NC NW TOTAL

PARCELS 557 3,347 796 2,834 98 477 5,448

17

LMP PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 171,859 46,146

FARM 33,723 6,261

HOLDING 834 796

18

FS PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 390,464 157,020

FARM 43,541 5,435

HOLDING 5,402 557

19

MP PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 297,848 107,855

FARM 29,144 7,156

HOLDING 2,834 98

20

NW PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 289,621 132,454

FARM 41,334 6,559

HOLDING 3,901 173

21

NC PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 153,607 53,396

FARM 19,280 2,390

HOLDING 3,459 477

22

EC PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 511,357 104,834

FARM 36,499 8,361

23

KZN PARCEL DISTRIBUTION

PARCEL TYPE PRIVATE STATE

ERVEN/URBAN 686,581 137,310

FARM 47,587 11,646

24

Database linkage with Cadastral

This process facilitated the geo-referencing of the state land databaseCommon denominator of Land Parcel Indicator (LPI) was used during the processOf the total deeds data of 5,972,949 land parcels, 1,016,390 were spatially unmatched against 7,560,616 spatial data units, which constituted 24% on state land and 17% on private land

25

UNMATCHED STATE LAND

Province State Land Not Linked % Not Linked

Eastern Cape 113,195 17,289 15%Free State 163,012 16,464 10%

Gauteng 249,057 110,276 44%

KwaZulu-Natal 148,956 22,520 15%

Limpopo 53,203 12,604 24%

Mpumalanga 115,109 31,855 28%

Northern Cape 56,263 6,577 12%

North-West 139,186 32,465 23%

Western Cape 117,527 15,496 13%

TOTAL 1,155,508 265,546 24%

26

UNMATCHED PRIVATE LAND

Province Private Land Not Linked % Not Linked

Eastern Cape 547,856 119,079 22%Free State 439,407 15,652 4%

Gauteng 1,400,348 346,917 25%

KwaZulu-Natal 734,168 42,413 6%

Limpopo 206,416 27,721 13%

Mpumalanga 329,826 68,478 21%

Northern Cape 176,346 8,259 5%

North-West 334,856 69,130 21%

Western Cape 648,218 53,195 8%

TOTAL 4,576,734 750,844 16%

27

State Land Limpopo -

Farm Portion28

Private & State Land -

Limpopo29

FINDINGS

Some names registered under the government do not exist anymore e.g. Bophuthatswana, Various names were used during registration: Dept. of Land Affairs, Land Affairs, Minister of Land AffairsNot all surveyed diagrams are registered since its not compulsory to register a propertyIncorrect LPI’s resulted in unmatched records in both sides

30

FINDINGS cont’

Township properties extends must be deducted from the parent.Parcels in the township are registered under municipality which should be transferred to the individuals.Components of consolidations that have been removed from the cadastral spatial database should be brought back.

31

RECOMMENDATIONS

The need for verification of this database against databases managed by Public Works and PLSSConsistent names should be used during registrationThis database should be made accessibleCRD should introduce a process of classifying State Land.

32

RECOMMENDATIONS cont’

Implementation of e-cadastre will go a long way to solve data problems however:

CRD should embark on data cleansing to eliminate data discrepancyCSG should embark on capturing all registered land parcels not in the cadastral spatial data and fix all 21Digit SGKeys

33

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of developing a State Land database have been achievedChallenges encountered have been listed and recommendations madeState Land database should be properly managed and maintained by CRD and CSG

34