I wrote this report on a whim, and gave it to the city council gratis. This cemented many relationships that were important later on in the life of iZindaba Zokudla. This report also preempted many of the issues we are struggling with, and I have to say is quite cogent!
A proposal: a food security strategy for Johannesburg
Written by Naudé Malan, Development Studies, University of Johannesburg
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx nmalan@uj.ac.za
Introduction
Johannesburg is a world class city, but its people do not necessarily enjoy all the benefits of this status. There are many who are not food secure in this city, and the policy interventions and opportunities to address this have been made but there are still a lot to be done. There is no reason for this state of affairs to continue. Johannesburg as a local government entity has both the opportunity and the capacity to transform itself into a food secure city. Food security strategies have to primarily address the causes of food insecurity in Johannesburg and below an analysis of these causes are made, as well as suggestion to address the situation.
This discussion document describes and suggests a broad range of actions that could potentially improve food security in the city. The document is intended to lead to a more comprehensive process of developing a food security strategy in the City of Johannesburg, and as such is intended to elicit debate and participation in developing such a programme of food security. The assumptions of this document is that a strong healthy market in food would guarantee aggregate availability of food, but this would not make the poor food secure. Together with interventions in human development, the creation of opportunities and the improvement of safety nets, food security can be attained. This necessitates a broad policy approach and suggestions in that regard are made below.
An official food security strategy has to additionally address food insecurity with the ‘Right to have access to sufficient food and water’ (Act 108 of 1996 S 27 (1)(a)) in mind and the implications of this right and other requirements of the South African Constitution is also attended to. International opinion on the right to food indicates a broad range of measures to satisfy this right (FAO 2007). In general, the jurisprudence of rights have emphasised the prerogative of the state to decide on the most appropriate course of action to take in discharging its obligations. It also indicates that those in most desperate need have to be helped first, and also that there are numerous obligations applicable to private actors (Malan 2008). This allows us to bring into discussion civil society and business responsibilities for the right to have access to sufficient food and water.
A related concern, that is also evident in the Constitution, is the question of ecological and social sustainability. This underlies much of the recent debate not only in food security but also in agricultural strategy and in this document this is taken as a point of departure. Besides the important issue of ecological sustainability, food security has to devote attention to increasing people’s capabilities to gain access to food. This could be done through increasing the range of opportunities around urban agriculture but this has to be complemented by other considerations, as urban agriculture can supply only a limited – but significant - fraction of the food in a city, and other questions of food availability to the poor need to be considered. The document identifies and makes suggestions and recommendation on the most important actions to be taken by state, civil society, market-based and individual actors. These actions comprise a food security strategy.
The idea of food security has emerged in the context of national food security planning but has undergone substantial changes and refinement over the decades. An important publication was launched by the Food and Agriculture organisation of the UN and has listed what could be termed the most important issues in current approaches to food security. These range from democracy and good governance to safety nets to international actions. An effort will be made to attend to all these concerns, but the bulk of the recommendations below are structured around the current opportunities that are available within the local government structures in the CoJ.
The document below is structured as follows: The concerns of sustainable development are considered first, as these constitute the fundamental assumptions that underlie any responsible strategy for food security and urban agriculture. The concerns are very pressing and the needs similarly great. However, the ability to address these are crucially dependant on ecosystem health and economic prosperity, and an approach to food security has to be comprehensive. This necessitates that an attempt at food security has to take a long term view of food security. Actions should ensure that the natural and social base underlying this city’s ability to feed itself needs to be conserved. The right kind of policy can enhance the city’s long term ability to feed itself. This can be dealt with by taking social and environmental sustainability into consideration in developing policy in this regard. These concerns influence the maintenance and enhancement of a food safety net, the development of an urban agricultural strategy, and regulatory demands implicit in the above concerns.
Food security and sustainable development
Food security has been defined by the UN (1975) as “Availability at all times of adequate world supplies of basic food-stuffs...” (in Maxwell 2001:15). This definition is indicative of how the idea was conceptualised originally and clearly conceptualised food security as the availability of food either in the world or, more commonly, nationally. It is also clear from this definition that issues of distribution and ability of people to buy food were not included, and in a sense the evolution of the concept has reflected efforts to include these important issues in its definition. It is also clear that such a definition would not suffice for the current context. Food is almost exclusively produced by private individuals or private companies. The workings of markets have been the object of close analysis by theorists and have on the one hand been appreciated for their productivity and on the other criticised for their inequities. The state, inclusive of the local state has to adopt a more sophisticated conception of food security in order to not only counteract the inequities of the market but to enable private actors, who often will be marginalised and resource poor individuals to acquire the ability to gain access to, and produce food. A conception of food security that focuses only on the availability of food in a country, region or globally, inevitably would recommend strategies that would allocated distributional duties to the state, like the current food bank programme. It is clear that if there is no other recourse the state should step in and distribute food to those in need. However, the evolution of thinking on food security and also how social security could be achieved has to consider that social assistance type approaches have their limits. It is necessary to identify actions that would enhance people’s abilities to gain access to food, and these, be they job creation or even macro-economic strategies, would require a creative and innovative approach to the idea of a food security strategy.
Another question that has to be addressed is whether food security is only about the poor. From the limited discussion above it is clear that food security is primarily concerned with the poor and their access to food but if we want to adopt a capability-approach to food security, the object of inquiry becomes the entire food system and the issue is thus relevant to the whole economy and society. Recently it has become important to conceptualise the idea of food security even wider than availability and we need to look at the character and inequities of the economy and society, as well as a perspective on the ecosystem and its ability to deliver food in an acceptable, sustainable and progressive way. The word ‘progressive’ is used here to indicate that a healthy ecosystem will be able to increase productivity per area unity and it is clear that to address the future food security needs of the population an ecologically and socially sustainable approach is necessary. It is necessary to place sustainability in an economic and social perspective in order to appreciate its implications for policy. As the ecosystem is in fact a highly productive system, that does create a form of physical capital, the diligent management and use of ecosystem services does increase this capital, in this case fertility of the soil, over the long run. A properly manages ecosystem will thus increase benefits over the long run, much like interest earned on deposits in the bank.
The way sustainability intersects with the economic system is also important. This document embarks from the assumption that a healthy ecosystem is necessary for a healthy market in food to develop. The state should not embark on extensive regulation of the production, distribution and consumption of food in order to ensure food security (mainly for the poor), but focus on enhancing people’s ability to gain access to this market by investments in human capital (education, health and welfare) and by the creation of opportunities (in this case to grow and market food). If these systems fail, a strong safety net will be necessary. It is clear that the way to deal with the food security of the poor, and in particular the demands of a safety net (inclusive of fiscal and organisational demands on the state), would be to enhance and create opportunities for them to gain access to food. The place of urban agriculture and food gardens is between a safety net and wider facilitatory and regulatory interventions in society.
The prices of food will stabilise over the long run if produced from a well-managed ecosystem, as a healthy ecosystem will make it possible to increase productivity from the same unit land. There is an intimate connection between economic productivity and the health of the soil. Policy should take a long-term perspective and the state should act in the best interest of the population. In this regard it is imperative that the state adopt policies that encourage ecologically friendly agricultural practices as these do protect an interest that is in the long term benefit of the population. The CoJ, is in an unique position to demand better land-use practices for the food consumed here (although the exact way this could be done is not given a lot of attention here) and enhance the opportunities farmers would have to produce food in a responsible manner. Market-based or pure economic interests do not always overlap with those of the ecosystem because new and often synthetic inputs and technology are not dependant on the health of the ecosystem. However, once scarcities in these inputs are reached it could be too late to adopt a sustainable approach due to land degradation and it is necessary for the state to pre-empt this happening and adopt policy that would encourage a food system that is ecologically friendly. If land is degraded it is likely that food production will move to technology and capital intensive forms which would deprive the poor of an accessible and conducive economic opportunity, as well as increasing the relative price of food. A progressive approach to food security in a metropolitan area would start from the premise that sustainable production will lower the relative cost of food in the long run, which would be to everyone’s advantage. Urban agriculture is a livelihood strategy that is not only accessible to the poor but would also hold clear economic benefits for them. These benefits can be increased if a sustainable approach to food production within city limits is adopted. The presence of pathogens in a city – disease as well as chemicals and toxic substances – would demand a responsible, near-organic approach to food production in the city. As the customer and beneficiary of such an urban agriculture is not only the poor but wider society and the ecosystem, it becomes clear that a welldeveloped food security strategy is indispensable for the long term development of the country, and could enhance the development and role of a city like Johannesburg in food security.
It is also necessary to explore how sustainability would affect the population. Food production will have to keep pace with population increases, and this could be an opportunity to diversify the skills and means by which the people survive. Social sustainability deals with the transmission of cultural norms, economic capabilities and opportunities and social practices from one generation to another. Only if it is possible for people to afford a standard of living better than their own to their children will we be in a position to make real impact on poverty and marginalisation in our societies. This will only be possible if the resource base and the economic base on which our societies depend stays intact or increases. This can only take place if we keep intact the bio-physical resource base or the ecosystem, and if we adopt economic growth strategies that do not need unskilled labour and menial jobs. The creation of opportunities for urban agriculture is an opportunity to develop skills in the population so that their ability to gain access to food and other economic opportunities is enhanced. The resource base is also the abilities of the people. In this sense the food system must be based on practices that are open to the poor, and will enable them to produce food without incurring dependency on outside interests. Sustainable agriculture, in itself, implies the adoption of food production practices that are competitive with commercial farming, but which rely on a minimum of external inputs. In this regard a policy framework for urban agriculture can enhance educational interventions in the city, minimise waste, and make better use of the available land whilst affording the poor an opportunity for economic empowerment without creating unsustainable supply chains in the food production system. This, in the long run, will make it possible for South Africa – with its heavy dependence on commercial and often unsustainable rural-based agriculture and mining, as well as a highly sophisticated service economy (still inaccessible to the majority) to move to an economic structure that would be more equitable as more would be able to draw from the vast economic benefits there are. Similarly, we also have to adopt economic growth strategies that enable the increased cultivation of skills and knowledge and opportunities in society.
Who is food insecure in Johannesburg?
Food insecurity is not only a rural issue (Crush & Frayne 2009) but an important issue for urban municipalities. If we conceptualise food insecurity as much more than overall food availability, but as inability to buy or (in a limited sense regarding urban agriculture) produce enough food, we can start to identify those determinants and social predictors of food insecurity. These should form an important part of our efforts to combat food insecurity. In South Africa as a whole, indicators of malnutrition of children under five years have improved substantially, and in 2006 only 5.7% of our children were considered as malnourished (SAIRR 2009:493). This statistic does not present the whole picture and lower level assessments of food insecurity paint a picture of pervasive and chronic food insecurity. In this regard it is enlightening to note that 40.7% of the overall South African population live in ‘relative poverty’ (SAIRR 2009:303) whilst SALGA and others report that the City of Johannesburg has a 32,1% poverty rate (ibid 2009:309; For Ekurhuleni it is 36.6% and for the West Rand 32%). These figures are consistent with assessments of food insecurity. Food insecurity is a real and serious problem in Johannesburg. Addressing it should be an imperative, but it is clear that the nature of food supply, consumption and distribution would demand more than a food safety net approach. The ways we produce food does not distribute benefits or opportunities equitably. The reliance South Arica has on large scale commercial agriculture concentrates the benefits of food production in the hands of a few. This needs to change to offer any prospect of long terms food security for Johannesburg, and indeed for South Africa. In this regard the issues at stake in food security are multiple and this document below will attempt to make sense of what can be done.
In this document, two sources on poverty and livelihoods, and food insecurity will be drawn on to create a preliminary characterisation of food insecurity in Johannesburg. The Johannesburg Poverty and Livelihoods study (CSDA 2008) affords a perspective on food insecurity although this was not a primary issue for analysis. Only a limited characterisation of who is food insecure can be gained from this study, but it is important neverthless. In this study, based on households in the most marginalised areas of the city, ‘severe’ food insecurity was prevalent in up to 51% of households in Doornkop, and in 64% of households of Orange Farm. In Riverlea 27% of households were food insecure. Overall in this study (2008:20) 66% of households were ‘moderately or severely food insecure’. This study purposefully selected the poorest areas to study, so we can safely say that food insecurity is a major source of overall social insecurity in Johannesburg, and affects the poor severely. Intervention to increase overall food security will thus lead to a great improvement in the quality of life of the poorest in Johannesburg.
The study by AFSUN (n.d) indicated that 42% of households in three selected areas (Inner City, Alexandra and Orange Farm) were food insecure and that most insecure households experienced some form of economic exclusion, like low income earnings, unemployment or low-paying jobs. Female headed households also experienced higher levels of food insecurity. This indicates that amongst the poor in Johannesburg, food insecurity is a major problem. There is a major policy and intervention opportunity that needs to be addressed. In this study’s ranking of the impact on overall socio-economic security by different factors or vectors, loss of income and severe illness were the most important drivers of socio-economic insecurity. It is telling that the next most severe impact on socio-economic insecurity was food availability. Availability does not automatically mean that not enough food was produced, but that the household either had no means to buy it, or was affected by an economic shock that prohibits them from buying food. However, it could also mean that food was not available locally, and this could indicate the inability of market mechanisms to ensure food availability. This illustrates that the determinants of food insecurity (and consequent socio-economic insecurity) are to be found not in food availability in the country but rather in the economic opportunities available to people and their abilities to respond favourably to these opportunities. A study by Webb (2000), which is very critical of a food gardens approach, but inconclusive as to its potential, also points towards food availability as a problem. In this study, gardens did not produce enough to increase nutrition in participating households, whilst international evidence (see for instance IFPRI 2009) indicates that it can make a substantial difference to food security and overall nutrition. The conclusion is thus that production is either too low (which could be ameliorated by capacity building and increased production based on the opportunities and resources available to the poor) or that food is not available. South Africa produces enough food in the aggregate (or imports the balance), so food insecurity is driven by availability at local level: this means that it is either the ability to purchase food that is insufficient (poverty), that food is not available locally (to do with marketing and retailing), or that transport to and from where food is available is not there. This directs our recommendations for policy in important ways.
From the discussion above, and from my discussions with officials of the CoJ, the following are the most crucial in determining the food security status of households:
Who is head of the household? Female headed households, and child headed households are particularly vulnerable.
The make-up of the household: The key determining factors are the employment status of members of the household and the ratio between employed and unemployed members; If disabled or sick persons are members of the household; and, the nature of expenditure in the household (which could be affected by habits (eating and other) and availability at local level).
There are correlations and overlaps between food insecurity and receipt of social grants. The social grants are not enough to move many people out of poverty, but they do suggest that the household is relatively worse off. Grants cannot thus be used to exclude some households from receipt of food security benefits.
The degree to which food is available to the family. In this regard there are capability issues as well as entitlement issues. Both these can be affected by policy and a food security strategy. Urban agriculture creates opportunities and the degree to which someone can make use of these depend on their capabilities in this case how well they can farm) and on how access to this opportunity is structured (which could also depend on how well they can farm, but also on how access to these are controlled).
Urban agriculture could ameliorate some of these insecurities by affording an accessible and effective economic opportunity but will not constitute a total solution. It is clear that a safety-net approach to food security (that would accommodate households who are unable to participate economically) has to be supplemented by a capability-approach to food insecurity. Urban agriculture cannot address the more devastating impacts on socio-economic insecurity like loss of income and severe illness. However it would combat food insecurity by the creation of opportunities to grow food, which needs a targeted intervention for the right households. It could also do so by increasing the overall availability of food. If food gardens can be encouraged in the right areas and by the more strategic use of land, both these possibilities may be realised.
Food insecurity thus follows the lines of general socio-economic disadvantage in South Africa, but has specific features, revolving around gender, youth, economic exclusion and food availability. Urban agriculture has to be focussed on two categories of household: Female- and child-headed households, households with multiple unemployed members, and households in those areas where food is not available, due to economic (inability to buy) and/or geographic (due to location or lack of affordable transportation) exclusion. It also needs to be focussed on households and individuals who are able to successfully grow surplus food. A general approach to food production in Johannesburg, could improve food availability, as this is a major driver of food insecurity. In this regard it is clear that the following is implied in a strategy to address food insecurity:
1. The creation of a specific safety net to address food insecurity in households who cannot take advantage of opportunities to gain access to work or to food gardens.
2. The creation of an urban agriculture strategy to enable the poor to supplement their diets.
3. The development of policy interventions in the employment sectors as well as in the overall metropolitan food system to move the system to a more environmentally friendly, accessible and sustainable food supply system.
The remainder of this document will address these possibilities.
The enhancement and maintenance of the current food security safety net:
the food bank
The current food bank programme
The current approach to food insecurity in Johannesburg is to supply a food parcel to households who are food insecure. This approach has merits and it is difficult to think of terminating such an approach, even in the long term. It is however, clear that many households other than the so called orphans, disabled and child headed households, may be food insecure and it is necessary to investigate alternative and supplementary measures of including them into the system of social assistance for food security. The extension of the safety net has obvious fiscal difficulties, and even if these may be overcome the creation of a food production system will eventually become necessary. However, the impact of the food bank system may be limited, and with certain biases, from a geographic to a distributional one. In this regard it might be necessary to consider extending it over the long term, but to consider different ways of supplying the food. Savings could be had by integrating it with the food gardens, for instance.
Extending the current food bank system would need a dedicated budgeting process and fiscal provision ought to be made for it. The decision to do so would possibly have to be made at the National level. There are obvious fiscal limits to the food bank programme, but seen together with other interventions – like promoting urban agriculture – the fiscal impact of extending this safety net could be minimised by improving people’s ability to acquire food on their own. This food bank safety net also does not need to be of a kind where people are permanently in receipt of social assistance but rather needs to be flexible to temporary accommodate those who are successful in urban agriculture, and those who are not. The security of such a food safety net would have the effect of encouraging urban agriculture as it would allow people to take risks and spend time farming instead of looking for work. Poor people have to be very averse to taking risks, and a safety net in this regard could contradictorily encourage self-reliance.
The studies mentioned above are not specific enough in their recommendations regarding which and what kind of households are likely to be food insecure. In this regard further study is recommended in order to gain clarity on which kinds of households are food insecure, and what are the main drivers of their food insecurity.
The creation of an urban agriculture strategy to enable the poor to supplement their diets.
Knowledge of farming in South Africa is dominated by a technologically and capital intensive kind of agriculture. South African agricultural knowledge and current capacity is not readily appropriate for urban agriculture. On the other hand, household gardening and market gardening has a number of devoted followers but these techniques have not yet been widely adapted to urban areas, particularly to small areas with insecure tenure. Agriculture is not ‘knowledge’ but rather performance (Richards 1985), and we should expect a fair amount of experimentation before urban agriculture can ‘take-off’ and become not only ubiquitous but also productive. It is probable that this would take time but a large and growing literature has demonstrated that the productivity of gardening can match that of commercial agriculture. The whole surface area of Johannesburg must be utilised optimally to produce food and fibre, and we could even consider the implementation of an urban forestry approach. The proliferation of the right techniques could increase food availability, a key problem in malnutrition in South Africa. It is also important to note that ecologically sustainable agriculture does not rely on externally (often foreign) sourced inputs, and is labour intensive. It can both create jobs and lower dependency on other countries and distant rural areas for certain foodstuffs. It is also healthy and nutritious and could represent an ideal solution to food insecurity and poverty, permitted certain constraints are overcome. It could also increase the autonomy of those who are socially excluded due to lack of skills, income or location.
Many have championed the appropriateness of this kind of agriculture for a Southern context, but curiously, it has not enjoyed widespread implementation in South Africa. However, in order to make this work, an open approach to new forms of tenure, that could give security of tenure perhaps based on use of land, without transferring or affecting ownership, could represent the kinds of solutions necessary. This does not mean that ownership should be transferred, but that security of tenure could be based on use of land, and flexible mechanisms to protect harvests as well as ownership (mostly of absentee landlords) could be developed. This would give the implementation of urban agriculture a character that finds a balance and compromise between competing systems of land-use. South Africa, with clear divides between socio-economic classes, but a real need to bridge these, could benefit greatly from such an approach.
To implement an urban agricultural strategy would need consideration of at least the following:
The creation of food gardens on land that is readily available. This should be extended by finding more suitable land for urban farming. All appropriate and available land should be used for this purpose.
The creation of an agricultural extension programme. This could transfer skills, market produce and organise farmers. Included in this are training and educational interventions, to microcredit and microinsurance opportunities.
The creation of an urban agricultural educational programme. Many civil society organisations have already expressed their preference and willingness to develop curricula in this regard, and such a programme could ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of urban agriculture. The development of a proper regulatory framework to regulate and develop urban agriculture in the CoJ. This could range from food safety, to land tenure to organisation to rights to food.
A dedicated programme in urban agriculture in Johannesburg would be high-profile and attract attention from many sources. Johannesburg in one of the premier cities in the world, and as such could reap numerous rewards from a careful and thoughtful urban agricultural strategy. We also do not know enough of urban agriculture as it is currently practiced, particularly in townships, but it is probable that a large and underappreciated capacity is present there. In order to realise the possibilities of the urban agricultural strategy above, the following considerations need to be noted:
We do not know enough about the kinds of agriculture that are currently practiced in Johannesburg. A survey of urban agriculture in selected areas, similar to the approach taken by the Poverty and Livelihoods Study and AFSUN, would go a long way in identifying what the current state of urban agriculture is. This will enable us to identify who farms, and what are the major drivers behind the choice to farm in an urban area. These questions would include information on what kind of crops are being produced, what kinds of inputs are used, what kinds of seeds are used, the role of livestock, and the role it plays in overall household nutrition, amongst others. This survey could also include a look at the by-laws and other policy affecting urban agriculture, its interface with the property regime, and the state of employment. This will enable the creation of a targeted urban agricultural strategy. The right people could be targeted, the right kinds of crops could be promoted, and the right kinds of skills could be developed to increase the ability of people to feed themselves.
A preferential procurement strategy could create dedicated and stable markets for urban farmers. A strategy to create successful small business in the urban agricultural sector should be considered. Part of that could be gaining access to markets. Many schools do have the need for fresh and affordable vegetables as part of school nutrition strategies and a dedicated programme for urban agriculture could include these. Preferential procurement, as well as strategic labelling of urban produce (i.e. as part of Fair Trade or ‘Organic’ and ‘sustainable’ produce) could also enable food produced in urban areas to gain access to nice markets. This could represent a large market with large benefits.
It is also feasible that a dedicated partnership could be developed with international NGOs or foreign municipalities (for example the metroAg innoversity) that would create a conduit for skills, technology, expertise and capacity to flow towards Johannesburg. Such an initiative could also gain carbon credits and offset other kinds of carbon targets (as illustrated by South Africa’s commitments at Copenhagen) and will become an important part of a climate-change mitigation strategy. In this regard an urban agricultural strategy would become an important part of National development efforts.
Civil society cooperation
Civil society organisations are well placed for the development of an urban agricultural strategy. Because much of the expertise necessary for urban agriculture concerns local knowledge, and because great capacity exists in this sector, it is necessary to define and consider a number of roles for civil society organisations (see below).
Civil society cooperation is also necessary in the development of a food security strategy, and they are crucial partners for the implementation and proliferation of this strategy. Because agriculture is an activity best practiced in open markets (farming has inescapable anarchistic tendencies) the state should adopt a facilitative and regulative role, and allow farmers and farmer organisations to gain access to opportunities that are there and are created for urban cultivation. These will have both a welfare (as in the food bank programme, as well as in the food gardens programme) and an economic and free market character (particularly when farmers start producing for markets), and allowance should be made for both approaches, as is being discussed throughout this document.
It is not clear whether the most appropriate organisational form for urban agriculture would be the NonProfit Organisation. In this regard the cooperative movement and pending legislation should be considered. In any event provision should be made for the organisation of farmers, be they on council land or only affiliated to the CoJ’s urban agricultural strategy.
Another form of civil society involvement in urban agriculture and food security are food policy councils. It is not clear whether a single or common set of roles are evident in this regard, but in other areas of the world they have played roles in coordinating between role players in food security interventions. They could play a role similar to community development fora but with a focus on food security. The rights of food consumers and the rights of the poor could figure in the deliberations of such councils.
Organised business could play a role as social responsibility practitioners and also as recipients of food produced locally. The demands of sustainable agriculture would create more complex roles and interactions between consumers and the state.
Social policy and regulation: Law, education and health
The regulation of the market to ensure food security (perhaps a system of targeted programmes instead of over-regulation) would have to be dealt with in this strategy. Food security and its sustainability will need strong regulatory measures, and these will be very contentious, particularly when it affects economic policy. One could base these regulatory measures on a strong healthy market that would guarantee aggregate availability. Together with interventions in human development, the creation of opportunities and the improvement of safety nets, food security can be attained. This would make the regulatory approach both pro-poor and economically productive.
Legal framework
In order to implement an urban agricultural strategy, a number of legal frameworks have to be reexamined. These include, but are not limited to the following:
Regulation and law on land use, occupation and ownership
Urban agriculture is often practiced on land not owned by the cultivators. This presents a dilemma for advocates of this strategy, as both the security of tenure of the cultivators and security of ownership need to be protected. Some arrangement to allow use of vacant land by non owner cultivators need to be found that also protects the ownership rights of owners. Without such an arrangement, it would only be possible to practice urban farming on private land owned by cultivators, and thus bypassing the poor who would generally not own land, or, to practice urban farming on state or council land. If such an arrangement could be found, it could both increase cultivation and not detract from ownership status.
In addition to the issue of practicing urban agriculture on vacant and state land, it is probable and desirable that cultivation be encouraged on household stands. Besides the need for a focussed extension strategy in this regard, it is also necessary to accommodate such practices at home, so to speak. This would not be a pressing issue if cultivation is restricted to vegetable and fruit crops, but issues could emerge once livestock is kept in township or suburban areas.
The by-laws on agriculture within the city limits would have to be re-examined to accommodate these issues in an urban agricultural strategy. The implications of such an approach to the zoning of land, use of land, and ownership status need to be examined. As mentioned above, informal or temporary arrangements could give some security to land users, whilst also keeping intact the ownership status of land.
Regulations on health and land use
A pressing issue in the literature on urban cultivation is the use of wastewater for cultivation. In Lusaka and other cities, many are cultivating by using overflows of sewerage works. These overflows are full of both nutrients and pathogens, and will have implications for the safety of foodstuffs produced. A recommendation in this regard needs to be made, with preference given to the proper treatment of sewerage and the discouragement of cultivation with sewerage. It is common practice to sell the dry remains of sewerage after treatment to farmers, and this approach is to be preferred
A related issue concern contamination of food produced at home, and on vacant land. In this regard provision needs to be made to test both vacant land and homesteads for toxic contamination that could affect food production. As an extension strategy has to be developed, this could be accommodated therein.
Regulations on foodstuffs, health and consumer protection
Regulation should not discourage food production, and it could in fact enhance certain aspects of urban food production. For instance, it is possible to develop organic production on a small scale (which is difficult with input and fertiliser intensive farming) and the regulation of this could enhance the certification of urban food production and the marketing as organic produce. It could make organically grown food cheaper at the farmgate. The organic produce market is a premium market that is accessible to the poor, and in this regard an important income generation approach could be established that gives cultivators from poor areas or who are historically disadvantaged, access to this lucrative market. As partnerships with civil society organisations are part of this urban agricultural strategy, the latent capacity and potential of these organisations could be used in the training, marketing and capacity building of cultivators for this market. Many of these civil society organisations have access to certification procedures and have experience of dealing with these, and these could be transferred to emerging cultivators from the poorer areas of Johannesburg.
The customary and established processes of consumer protection will also apply to urban cultivators and this would form part of the same regulatory framework that all players in this sector have to conform to. In order to overcome difficulties with compliance in this regard, these issues could also be accommodated in the extension programme.
Access to resources and assets
In order to develop a system of urban agriculture, farmers would need access to capital, technology and expertise. Expertise could be transferred through civil society organisations, educational intervention in schools and through an extension programme. However, the state is not always in a position to supply credit or to guarantee loans. In this regard, the programme would have a competitive approach that does not clash with the private sector, as farmers will sell on the open market. Even in council gardens it is not always a good idea to make access to capital too easy as it could open the door to unsustainable practices like fertiliser intensive cultivation. To create a sustainable system of food production, the local advantages of urban production need to be enhanced, and strategy to gain access to markets and the enhancement of markets for the poor needs to take place. In this regard innovative approaches to micro-credit and micro-insurance need to be considered. An approach that is in competition with financial markets would not be sustainable in the long term, and just as partnerships need to be sought with civil society organisations, similar arrangements could be made with firms in the financial sector. These could lessen the fiscal burden on the state for the capital requirements of urban agriculture, empower the cultivators to become economically self-reliant and develop a financial market around urban agriculture that emerging farmers could tap into. These could be supplemented by the creation of an enabling framework for small businesses in this sector, and coupled with strategic alliances and preferential procurement strategies by buyers (like schools) a class of urban cultivators could be established and sustained.
An extension programme should also allow access to farming implements, particularly capital intensive ones. It could also include support in the development of business plans and the promotion of enterprises. It is also necessary to investigate the development of an appropriate school curriculum for urban agriculture.
International aid and cooperation
Urban agriculture is an emerging issue in international development and in this regard the CoJ is very well placed to take advantage of this opportunity. Not only can international partners in this regard be sought, funding for aspects of this programme could be gained, and expertise and cooperation with other cities and initiatives is also possible. This could enhance the stature of the CoJ internationally and benefit the people of the city. In this regard it is important to note that certain cities, notably Amsterdam in the Netherlands, has been an innovator in not only the regulation of food systems but also in developing entrepreneurial models and technology that could enhance income for urban farmers. It is possible to tap into this pool of experience in implementing and developing a food strategy for the city.
Monitoring, indicators and benchmarks
In this regard a number of issues are apparent. These concern the economic success of food production, and the other, concern social objectives like realising the right to have access to sufficient food, and the improvement of nutrition and general well-being of the people, as well as sustainability considerations, including certification and thus access to markets. The economic success of this programme needs to be evaluated not in inputs and outputs or returns, but in conjunction with amounts of food produced and the social considerations mentioned, particularly benefits to household food security. Much of the produce of urban agriculture will not be sold and therefore it is important to look at the impact on nutrition of this strategy.
There is also a need to bring this approach into line with the right to food as set out in the Constitution, as this would give legitimacy to the state’s efforts in this regard. The discussion above on the meaning of the right to food in the SA Constitution indicates that the food supply system should allow for adequate access to food and in this regard the state’s responsibility is focussed not on delivering food to the poor (although this is the minimum responsibility of the state) but on creating a kind of market and food supply system that guarantees ‘access to sufficient food’. This necessitates a strategy that increases availability in addition to guaranteeing a minimum. A partnership, even on a collegial and consultative basis with human rights institutions like the Commission for Human Rights, and academic departments in this regard would be beneficial.
A monitoring programme could be incorporated in the food security strategy that would build on the initial research that is necessary to do in order to launch this approach. The benchmarks could incorporate all the above as well as international standard on sustainable land use, health, nutrition consumer protection etc.
Conclusion
An urban agricultural strategy for Johannesburg will thus comprise the following:
A food safety net
A food gardens programme to enable to poor to gain access to land, extention and support and to enhance food availability
An urban agriculture extension strategy
An urban agriculture educational strategy
A research, policy development, monitoring and evaluation component
Cooperation with civil society and business organisations, state institutions and farmers’ organisations
International cooperation
References cited
AFSUN African Food Security Urban Network (n.d.) Policy Briefs (Various and ongoing) Cape Town:
www.afsun.org
Centre for Social Development in Africa 2008 The Johannesburg Poverty and Livelihoods study Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in Africa, UJ & City of Johannesburg.
Crush J & Frayne B 2009 The Invisible Crisis: Urban Food Security in Southern Africa Afsun series no1 Cape town: African Food Security Urban Network
Devereux S & Maxwell S 2001 Food security in Sub-Saharan Africa London: Intermediate Technology Development Group.
FAO 2007 Methods to monitor the human right to adequate food VOLUMES I-IV Rome: FAO.
IFPRI International food Policy Research Institute 2009 Improving Diet Quality and Micronutrient Nutrition
Homestead Food Production in Bangladesh Discussion Paper 00928
Malan 2008 “Rights, the public and the South African Constitution: civil society and the performance of rights” Anthropology Southern Africa, 2008, 31(1&2): 58-69.
RSA 1996 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.
SAIRR South African Institute of Race Relations 2009 South Africa Survey 2008/2009 Johannesburg: SAIRR
Richards, P 1985 Indigenous Agricultural Revolution London: Intermediate Technology Group.
Webb NL 2000 “Food-gardens and nutrition: Three Southern African case studies” in Tydskrif vir Gesinsekologie en Verbruikerswetenskappe 28:62-67.
11 February 2010