TO: PROF VAN ZYL AND THE RBS

REPORT ON THE STIAS VINEYARD COMMITTEE

Prof. Mark Swilling (Chairperson)

I was requested to Chair the so-called STIAS Vineyard Committee in order to find an
amicable solution to the problem arising from the objections raised by TATIB. Prof
Van Zyl attended the first meeting of the Committee and made it clear that the sole
mandate of the Committee was determine whether the agricultural practices applied in
the vineyard at STIAS were legal or not. The composition of the Committee was ‘fit-
for-purpose’ because it comprised representatives of TATIB and representatives of
the Faculty of Agri-Science who are responsible for managing the vineyard. However,
it soon became clear that the issue was the management of the vineyard but rather is
very existence. Given that the question of its existence is a legal question and not a
management question, it became obvious that the composition of the Committee was
not, in fact, ‘fit-for-purpose’. The Agri-Science representatives made it clear that they
cannot engage in or express an opinion on this matter for obvious reasons. As a result
the Committee was unable to adequately deliberate on this matter and therefore is not
in s position to deliver a report to the RBS as a Committee. There was no point
spending energy deliberating the complex matter of the management of the vineyard
when the existence of the committee is the most important issue.

As a result, this report to the RBS is issued in my capacity as Chairperson of the

Committee and does not reflect the opinion of the Committee as a Committee. It is
therefore essential that this report is read in this light.

Report:

1. At the first meeting of the Committee Prof Van Zyl defined the purpose of the
Committee which was to establish whether the agricultural practices as applied in
the STIAS vineyard were legal or not.
2. During the first meeting it became clear that the ‘legality’ of the vineyard referred
to two aspects: whether the vineyard’s existence was legal, whether the
management of the vineyard was in accordance with the law.
3. It was agreed the first priority was to determine the legality of the existence of the
vineyard.
4. However, the representatives of the Agri-Science Faculty made it clear that their
expertise is limited to management aspects of the vineyard and therefore they
cannot engage with respect to the legality of the existence of the vineyard.
5. Both parties (TATIB and the University) were requested to provide
documentation with regard to the legality of the existence of the vineyard. TATIB
provided documentation to the effect that the existence of the vineyard in terms of
the zoning is illegal because Erf 6338 is zoned residential. The University
provided documentation that described the process that has led to the current
situation, including its intention to apply for an appropriate zoning. Significantly,
the documentation provided by the University did not contradict the material fact
that Erf 6338 is zoned residential.
6. The University did argue that the vineyard was planted in good faith on the
assumption that the application for rezoning to private open space would be
granted by Stellenbosch Municipality. No evidence has been provided to the
Committee that Stellenbosch Municipality either considered or approved such an
application.
7. There is no evidence to dispute the fact that the erf in question is zoned
residential. A residential zoning does not make provision for a vineyard to be
planted that covers almost the full extent of the erf.
8. The only real dispute is whether the vineyard was intended to be merely a
domestic non-commercial vineyard or not. For the Agri-Science representatives,
because the vineyard was not intended to be commercially viable it cannot be
deemed to be an agricultural undertaking in the commercial sense of the word and
instead should be construed as a domestic residential vineyard equivalent to many
others in the gardens of Stellenbosch residences. For TATIB, the original STIAS
brochure plus the use of treatments normally used in commercial vineyards is
evidence that the vineyard cannot be construed as just another domestic backyard
vineyard. There is no agreement on this matter. TATIB has, however, delivered
strong legal opinion that has not been contradicted by counter-submissions from
the University.
9. Because no contrary evidence was presented, the only possible conclusion that can
be reached at this stage is that the existence of the vineyard is indeed illegal. .
10. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the financial value of the erf is very high
precisely because it is zoned residential. If it is rezoned private open space or
agricultural, this will result in substantial financial devaluation and eliminate
future uses of the erf for constructing additional useful University buildings.
11. As a result the University has two legally correct courses of action:
a. remove the vineyard as soon as this is practically and financially possible
in order to adhere to the current zoning – this should be seen as the
primary duty of the University as a law-abiding member of Stellenbosch
Municipality who is obliged to be committed to behaving in accordance
with the Stellenbosch zoning scheme;
b. immediately apply to have Erf 6338 rezoned, bearing in mind that this is
a long and complex task that will involve a full EIA plus a participatory
planning process that will give every neighbour a chance to object to this
application.
12. Recommendation: my recommendation is that the Committee is reconvened and
requested to appoint a mediator who will also act as an expert. In other words, a
mediator must be appointed who is an expert in property law/town planning
issues. The duty of the mediator will be to arrive at a final position based on
engagements with the parties involved, Stellenbosch Municipality and other legal
experts. This mediator will have the confidence of all parties.

As Chairperson of the Committee, this is my view of the outcome of the deliberations

of the STIAS Vineyard Committee. If the University elects to include a person
competent to deal with the legal issues into the Committee then the Committee can
continue and I am confident it will be able to reach consensus as to the most
appropriate course of action, especially if my recommendation in point 12 is accepted.
I believe significant trust and understanding was built during the course of the
meetings between the parties involved. This can be used as a foundation for further
constructive work. However, the University may also want to use this report to decide
on which course of action to pursue as described in point 11 above. Whichever option
is adopted, I believe that the University is obliged to formally request me to convene
the Committee so that the University can formally present its position for noting or
further discussion.

I would like to propose that if the University selects option 11 (a) that the University
Management renews and broadens the mandate of the Committee to continue its work
in order to assist the University to establish a new vineyard. The Committee members
did agree that in the event of the vineyard being uprooted, it will not be practically
possible to replant the same vines on another location. However, the ideal would be to
establish a vineyard close to the centre of town, ideally on a portion of University-
owned land that is zoned for agriculture. The vineyard should be developed as a
vineyard that is not treated chemically in any way. This should be seen as a research
project that involves the maximum number of students from the Faculty of Agri-
Science. If this idea is accepted, then the Committee can assist with the following:

1. identification of a suitable site;

2. research into how best to establish and manage a chemical-free vineyard,
including inviting farmers and experts who have knowledge and expertise in this
regard;
3. fund-raising for the entire operation, from uprooting, to relocation and technical
research;
4. building a viable business model, including identifying a new group of sponsors.*

(* It needs to be noted that Ian Odendal who is a TATIB member, established

businessman and resident opposite the vineyard, has already met the Dean of Agri-
Science to suggest ways of raising the funds for the new chemical-free experimental
vineyard.)