OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE LAND
1. The Department of Defence (DoD) controls land in each of the nine provinces of South Africa. These properties range from the larger training areas, Army bases, Air Force bases and ammunition depots, to smaller properties such as communication sites, shooting ranges and even remote observation posts of only a few square metres.
2. The bulk of the land currently under DoD control is classified as State Land which is reserved for DoD purposes. This land is legally owned by the South African Government with the Department of Defence having a reservation of use, although the deeds are held by the Department of Public Works which is the national custodian of all state land and facilities. Some DoD land is Defence Endowment Property received from the Government of the United Kingdom in 1922 which is also classified as State Land. Such property is governed by an Act of Parliament, Act no 33 of 1922 (the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act)1.
3. The second largest category of DoD controlled land is property which is leased for use by the DoD. These properties include shooting ranges used by local Part Time Force members as well as many of the sites used for the countrywide communication network which are leased from farmers in rural areas.
4. The DoD also has "rights of use" agreements with land owners that allows certain land to be used for DoD purposes. For example in Northern Kwazulu-Natal the DoD's right of use on Forestry property amounts to approximately 53 000 hectares.
5. The DoD is one of the largest users of property in South Africa, holding approximately 0,4 per cent of the country's surface for a wide range of defence-related purposes. In comparison, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence holds approximately 1,2 per cent of the country's surface and also leases a large training area in Canada. The United States DoD controls 1,1 per cent of the country's land, while the real estate of the French armed forces represents 0,4 per cent of the country's surface.
6. The property requirements of the DoD stem from its core functions and activities. The SANDF is in a transitional phase regarding its functions, posture and force structure. The Defence Review envisages a primarily defensive posture with new tasks such as regional security co-operation and peace support operations being taken on. These changes will have a significant impact on the composition and extent of the departments' property. The DoD's current property portfolio mostly reflects the previous era that was characterised in part by operations in Angola and Namibia and adversarial relations with neighbouring countries. With the shift to a defensive posture the property portfolio is sure to be downsized.
7. The DoD is continually striving to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, driven by the need to fulfil its constitutional obligations to the people of South Africa, at the least possible cost. The transformation process and the introduction of new management models in the department are likely to result in the disposal of excess facilities and infrastructure.
8. The DoD currently has approximately 493 200 hectares of land under its control. For easy reference, this is around a quarter the size of the Kruger National Park. This figure excludes small pieces of military land in the former TBVC states (the exact size of these cannot be determined, as the title deeds of state land in these areas are not available).
9. Since 1986, the DoD has returned approximately 234 000 hectares of land to the Department of Public Works, largely as a result of urban and agricultural pressures, internal DoD rationalisation, and restitution claims. Appendix 1 (Appendix 1: The larger DoD terrains handed back to PWD since 1986) provides an indication of the larger terrains that have been handed back since 1986.
10. The distribution of current defence land, as well as the land returned to the Department of Public Works per province (excluding former TBVC states) is reflected in Map 1 (Map 1: Defence land per province). Appendix 2 (Appendix 2: Distribution of land within the Arms of the Service) indicates the DoD land in each province which is allocated to the different Arms of Service (excluding the Surgeon General). It also provides a breakdown of the three main categories of DoD property (Defence Endowment Property, lease agreements and State Land reserved for DoD purposes). Map 2 (Map 2: The large tracts of Defence land (distribution wrt size)) shows the spatial distribution of property controlled by the three Arms of Service in the various provinces.
11. The division of total defence controlled land per province is as follows: Mpumalanga 2 per cent, Gauteng 5 per cent, Western Cape 1 per cent, Eastern Cape 4 per cent, Free State 7 per cent, Northern Province 13 per cent, Kwazulu-Natal 3 per cent, North West Province 8 per cent and Northern Cape 48 per cent. The Northern Cape thus has almost as much DoD land as all the other provinces combined. However, only three military areas represent the bulk of this total area: Army Battle School at Lohathla (135 000 hectares), Vastrap Weapons Range (50 000 hectares) and Schmidtsdrift Training Area (35 000 hectares).
12. Armscor controls four pieces of land in South Africa which are indicated in Table 1. Since the 1980's, Armscor has been implementing a comprehensive environmental management plan for all its facilities in co-operation with external experts.
DoD LAND AND USE REQUIREMENTS
13. The DoD acquires land with a specific primary operational purpose in mind. These purposes include the following general categories, each of which implies certain major considerations that have to be taken into account in determining the size of properties. However, it should be noted that more than one of these activities can take place on any portion of DoD land.
13.1 Training areas
13.1.1 Specific force design to be trained. The specific force design for which training is required (for example deployment of mechanised or motorised infantry in conventional, peace-keeping or area protection roles) will determine the area of land needed to train the force. The effective use of DoD forces necessitates competency in more than one type of deployment. This means that the area needed for training will be determined by the force design which requires the largest portion of land for training.
13.1.2 Type of training to be conducted. The types of training to be conducted also have an effect on the area of land needed for training. Smaller areas are required for dry training, field craft training and vehicle training than are required for training with live ammunition. A variety of geographical features and veld types should be present to simulate different scenarios within which skills are to be acquired.
13.1.3 Type of weapons to be used. The types of weapons and the combinations in which they are deployed have a profound influence on the area of land required. The safety arc for each weapon is clearly defined and should be strictly adhered to.
13.1.4 Expansions in force design and development of new weapon systems. Provision is made for expansions in force design and the development of new weapon systems although this is difficult to predict.
13.1.5 Spatial implications of safety templates. Safety templates drawn up for specific weapons systems and ammunition form an integral part of any military base where armed training takes place (see Appendix 4: Spatial implications of safety templates). The size of a military base where armed training is performed is to a large extent determined by the ammunition used in training and the linked safety templates. The size of a military training area usually increases with the use of higher order ammunition, which requires larger safety templates.
13.2 Base areas, administrative areas, maintenance areas and stores depots. The sizes of these facilities are to a large extent determined by the amount of infrastructure needed to perform their functions.
13.3 Ammunition depots. Ammunition depots are used to store large quantities of ammunition for DoD use. Variables that have an influence on the size of these depots include the types of munitions to be stored and the prescribed safety margins. Different types of munitions, for instance pyrotechnics and projectiles, are stored in separate bunkers for safety reasons. Clearly defined safety distances are maintained between bunkers, as well as on the perimeter.
13.4 Weapon ranges. The size of weapon ranges is determined by the maximum application distance and safety arcs of weapons to be employed.
13.5 Naval bases. The size of these facilities is to a large extent determined by the amount of infrastructure needed to perform their function and to allow for the training of personnel.
13.6 Air Force bases. Apart from runways and infrastructure provision, a large number of variables, such as restricted air space, aerial approach zones, safety areas on the perimeter and radio frequency requirements, are taken into account in determining the size of an air force base.
13.7 Telecommunication installations. A major consideration in determining the size of telecommunication installations is the required presence of a magnetically clear spectrum around the facilities.
13.8 Rifle ranges. Rifle ranges are designed and established according to a set of clearly defined guidelines. Variables which might come into play include land use activities on adjacent properties and the distance from residential infrastructure.
14. Map 3 (Map 3: Defence land allocated to the Arms of Service) shows the spatial distribution of the larger DoD properties, and also provides an indication of their relative size. The legend to the numbering used on this map is the same as reflected in the preceding map. Table 2 indicates the category into which the facilities fall. This table accounts for approximately 422 000 hectares which represents 86 per cent of the total DoD property portfolio. The remaining 14 per cent is made up of numerous smaller properties.
General considerations taken into account in determining the size of DoD land
15. A number of less well-defined variables applies when determining the actual size of land acquired for DoD purposes.
15.1 Size of properties on offer or available. When State Land becomes available for DoD use, the size might exceed minimum departmental needs. The properties constituting this land may be of such a nature that sub-divisions are deemed detrimental to future non-DoD utilisation of the land. The same principles come into play when land is acquired on the open market.
15.2 Sustainable area of land. The principles of sustainable use are adhered to in determining the area of land needed for DoD purposes, for example rotational use of different portions of the property to allow for regeneration of vegetation. Larger portions of land are usually be required in semi-arid areas than in areas of a higher rainfall and more vibrant vegetation in order to execute the same DoD activities.
15.3 Maintaining the spatial integrity of land. The spatial integrity of land, with regard to previous and current utilisation practices in the surrounding areas, must be maintained. This implies that land no longer needed for DoD purposes should be handed back in a condition that favours previous and current utilisation practices in the surrounding areas. In the case of agriculture, subdividing existing economically viable properties to fit minimum DoD requirements would be inappropriate.
15.4 Topography. The topography of a region where a DoD facility is to be established has an effect on the size of the property. For example, it may be necessary to acquire larger portions of land to obtain sufficiently large, relatively flat areas of land when a clear line of fire is required.
Factors which have an influence on the location of DoD properties
16. Location has an influence on the area of land needed to execute the DoD function. The location of DoD land is determined by a number of factors:
16.1 Command responsibility
16.2 Strategic considerations
16.3 Distance from infrastructure
16.4 Accessibility
16.5 Availability of state land
16.6 Socio-economic considerations
16.7 Regional development considerations
16.8 Climatology
16.9 Altitude
16.10 Environmental considerations
17. The approved Force Design of the transformed DoD will serve as the basis for considering the logistic support requirements of the department. This re-definition of core military activities and design will subsequently influence existing military land and facilities. This may result in land and facilities that are redundant and the disposal thereof will have a right-sizing effect on the DoD's facility and land portfolio.
DISPOSAL OF DOD LAND AND FACILITIES
18. The Department of Public Works is responsible for providing and managing land and facilities for other government departments. This entails acquisition, leasing, administration and disposal of all State Land in South Africa. State Land which is surplus to the requirements of other government departments is usually handed back to the Department of Public Works.
19. As extensive rationalisation is anticipated in view of the DoD's transformational goals, the handing over and subsequent disposal of redundant state land will need to take place in a coordinated manner. As discussed above, the new force design will provide the planning framework for determining the nature and extent of rationalisation.
20. In October 1997, Cabinet approved proposals to establish two inter-departmental committees to deal with various aspects of base closure, conversion and the disposal of redundant defence land. Further proposals will be tabled with Cabinet for its consideration as this process develops.
Challenges in the closure of defence facilities
21. The closure of military bases presents both opportunities and serious challenges. Some of the major problems associated with military base closure are the following:
21.1 The loss of employment opportunities in the military and associated industries as well as within local supporting economies.
21.2 Some military properties are environmentally contaminated and often require very costly clean-up operations.
21.3 Maintenance and protection of the bases before reuse or ultimate disposal can be costly.
22. The development opportunities arising from the reuse of bases can be plentiful depending on the geographic location and infrastructure of the base concerned. Developmental factors will be a major consideration taken into account when evaluating the various land use and conversion options for redundant bases.
23. Base closure is a complex issue requiring careful consideration of processes, role players and time frames. The complexity of the issue is such that it would be premature to try to finalise the process of disposal or give an indication of which bases are to close within the time frame of the Defence Review. It is envisaged that the process will be taken forward through interdepartmental committees which will:
23.1 Analyse the Defence Force's property holdings and utilisation and align these to the DoD's strategic direction and rationalisation imperatives. This will be executed within the ambit of the line function of the Department of Defence and the oversight function of parliamentary committees.
23.2 Develop a strategic plan that will locate military base conversion within micro and macro economic development and other policies of government.
23.3 Contextualise base reuse within the broader context of defence downsizing and the transformation of South African society.
23.4 Assess the existing resources, opportunities and constraints presented by individual or collective properties.
23.5 Collect and collate baseline data relating to each property's reuse abilities and time frames.
23.6 Compile feasibility studies pertaining to various potential uses and users.
23.7 Provide a real estate and general marketing service for base reuse.
23.8 Act as a focal point for facilitating all stakeholders interested in and affected by base closure and reuse.
23.9 Monitor and evaluate base reuse.
Multiple use of DoD facilities
24. The maintenance of DoD facilities is costly. There is great pressure on the department to become more cost-effective in its facilities management, while at the same time ensuring that it does not lose its autonomy and proficiencies. The reduced defence budget necessitates that alternative ways of financing maintenance be explored, especially as most facilities were developed for a higher frequency of use than is currently experienced. In particular, the conscription of National Servicemen is no longer taking place and the number of aircraft in the South African Air Force has almost halved. Certain elements of the DoD (for example, hospitals, training centres, runways) have to be strategically distributed across South Africa so that in many cases bases will be downsized rather than closed.
25. Under-developed land and under-utilised facilities can be made available for other uses, providing there is coherence with existing defence facilities and DoD activities are not compromised. The principal restricting factor in this regard is security and safety. In many cases, alternative use will require a portion of land or facilities to be isolated from the main defence activities.
26. Several requests from the private sector for the co-use of defence facilities have been received in recent years. The South African Air Force has approved the co-use of AFB Hoedspruit by the private sector. The objective of these development ventures is to minimise the cost of managing these facilities and to improve the infrastructure without drawing on additional state funds.
27. The DoD will enter into joint ventures with developers to ensure maximum utilisation of Defence Endowment Property. By law, both the Ministers of Defence and of Finance have to approve all forms of re-use of endowment property.
LAND CLAIMS AND RESTITUTION
28. The Restitution of Land Rights Act was approved by Parliament in 1994 and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was established in 1995. By the end of January 1997, 13 520 claims had been lodged, of which 10 507 were urban ones. The DoD is affected as certain restitution claims have been made against defence land.
29. The Government has set itself the following time limits (as set out in the White Paper on Land): a three year period for the lodgement of claims; a five year period for the Commission and the Court to finalise all claims; a ten-year period for the implementation of all court orders.
30. The restitution process provides a framework and various options which can be used to arrive at an appropriate solution through negotiation by the parties or adjudication by the Land Claims Court. Restitution can take the following forms: restoration of the land from which claimants were dispossessed; provision of alternative land; payment of compensation; alternative relief including a package containing a combination of the above, sharing of the land, or special budgetary assistance such as services and infrastructure development where claimants presently live; or priority access to state resources in the allocation and the development of housing and land in the appropriate development programme.
Principles guiding the DoD
31. The DoD has accepted the following principles to guide the resolution of restitution claims.
31.1 The DoD reaffirms its commitment to the Constitution and the Land reform programme of the Government.
31.2 A pro-active approach towards restitution is adopted.
31.3 Preference will be given to the restoration of land rather than other forms of restoration.
31.4 The DoD is committed to a speedy resolution of restitution cases.
31.5 Creative alternatives need to be explored in cases where land cannot be restored.
31.6 The DoD will not insist on alternative land being made available in cases where defence land is handed back to claimants, but will assess its requirements in terms of the core functions and activities of the department, i.e. no settlement will be dependent on the automatic substitution of land for land.
31.7 The DoD is committed to transparency in this process.
31.8 The DoD is committed to the resolution of land claims through negotiations and will only use the Land Claims Court as a last resort.
31.9 Any need for alternative land for the DoD arising from settlement transfers will be determined consensually amongst all relevant government departments and ministries on the basis of the line function of the DoD.
31.10 The land under claim will be made available for restitution unless the Department of Defence deems it not feasible. This non-feasibility could be due to the fact that :
* It might not be financially cost- effective
* The specific location of the facility might be unique in terms of military requirements
* The facility might be in the national interest from a strategic point of view.
32. All relevant state departments involved in any particular restitution claim decide on the state's position with respect to the claim. The Department of Land Affairs conducts all negotiations with the Land Claims Commissioner and the claimants on behalf of the state.
33. A summary of Department of Defence land subject to restitution claims is reflected in Appendix 3 (Appendix 3: Restitution claims against the SANDF as at 6 May 1998). These claims have been submitted for evaluation to the Land Claims Commissioner. The largest area already restituted to claimants is Riemvasmaak, measuring approximately 70,000 hectares. The DoD has also decided, in principle, to vacate the Schmidtsdrift and Mosita areas. The vacating of Schmidtsdrift is dependent on resolving the acquisition of alternative land between the Departments of Land Affairs and Public Works.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
34. The DoD's Environmental Services function, which was established in 1977, aims to ensure the environmentally sustainable management of military activities and facilities. An early emphasis on conservation of military training areas has expanded into a more advanced and comprehensive approach of military integrated environmental management. This means that the planning and execution of military activities takes into account the impact it will have on the environment.
35. The department is currently in the process of formally implementing military integrated environmental management over the whole spectrum of military activities at all military training areas to ensure that these activities do not jeopardise the long-term potential of land and other natural resources. One way of doing so is by formulating and implementing an environmental management plan for each training area in which training activities, environmental constraints and environmental management are integrated.
Clean-up of training areas
36. Military training activities have a variety of environmental impacts on land, water or air. One of these impacts is the contamination of training land with unexploded ordnance (UXO), shrapnel, targets and remains, as well as general waste. UXO can pose direct health risks to personnel as well as civilians entering contaminated land, while all forms of waste or pollution threaten the integrity of the physical environment and natural resources. Such contamination may restrict current military utilisation of the land, as well as sustained future military use and current or future non-military utilisation.
37. Current ad hoc instructions and procedures, mainly based on safety considerations, make provision for the regular clearing of training areas immediately after training exercises, as well as on an annual basis. This entails the clearing of all UXO and other debris which is detected visually. The DoD is currently in the process of drawing up more comprehensive corporate policy and guidelines to include underlying principles, environmental considerations, the standardisation of cleanup practices, the formulation and execution of waste management plans, the establishment of liaison forums, the introduction of community education programs, and the issuing of a Land Environmental Quality Statement when properties are disposed of.
Graves and burial sites
38. Some of the areas under military control contain burial sites. Relatives and descendants are allowed to visit these graves when training activities permit and with due regard to their safety. The DoD has always been very sensitive in this regard and this practice will continue. An inventory of all graves on military controlled areas is being compiled. Standardised procedures regarding access to such burial sites on military properties are currently being drafted.
External environmental expertise
39. The DoD has been participating in external environmental forums since the 1970's. This ensures that the department's environmental policy and activities are consistent with national environmental policy, and promotes co-operation with environmental bodies.
40. Since 1993 the DoD has initiated Military Environmental Advisory Forums to enlist the support of external experts in the management of military properties. In some areas these forums are well established, and it is the department's intention to extend this initiative to cover all military properties.
CONCLUSION
41. By effectively integrating environmental considerations into the planning and execution of all military activities, the DoD can minimise the adverse effects of its activities as well as make a substantial contribution towards the conservation and sustainable utilisation of environmental resources in South Africa.
 |
 |
 |