The Role of Urban Agriculture in Enhancing Household Livelihoods in Terms of Food Security

THE ROLE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE IN ENHANCING HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOODS IN TERMS OF FOOD SECURITY

THE CASE OF SOWETO, JOHANNESBURG

ELENI TROUMPOUKI

Cover Photo: Farmers posing for a picture in front of their spinach produce in an open space garden, Soweto, Johannesburg, South Africa (Photo taken by E. Troumpouki, April 2015).

Graduate School of Social Sciences, MSc International Development Studies

Master Thesis

The role of urban agriculture in enhancing household livelihoods in terms of food security: The case of Soweto, Johannesburg, South Africa

Name: Eleni Troumpouki Student number: 10701168 E-Mail: [email protected] Year of Studies: 2014-2015 Date of thesis submission: 19 October 2015

Supervisor

Dr. Nicky R.M. Pouw Assistant Professor, International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)20-5254105 E-mail: [email protected] http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/n.r.m.pouw/

Second Reader

Dr. Courtney Lake Vegelin Assistant Professor, International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0) 20-5255033 E-mail: [email protected] http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/c.l.vegelin/

Local Supervisor

Dr Naudé Malan Senior Lecturer, Development Studies Faculty of Humanities, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies University of Johannesburg Kingsway Campus: D Ring 507 Auckland Park 2006, PO Box 524 Johannesburg South Africa Phone: +27 (0) 11 559 2878 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Faculties/humanities/departments/anthrodev/Development- Studies/Development-Studies-Staff/Pages/DrNaud%C3%A9Malan.aspx

To my dad who is a farmer himself,

And to all farmers of Soweto who seek better livelihoods.

Acknowledgments

This thesis signifies the completion of my master’s in International Development studies at the University of Amsterdam and it gives me great pleasure to thank all the people who have contributed in their own ways for that. First and foremost, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Nicky Pouw for her valuable academic guidance from the beginning of this research project. Thank you for your insightful and constructive comments, and for your patience throughout the writing process. It was a privilege and honor for me to have you as a supervisor. This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of my local supervisor, Dr. Naude Malan, who as an expert made this fieldwork possible in the first place and introduced me to the reality of agriculture in Soweto. I am humbled by your passion and dedication to helping farmers. You are an inspiration. I am grateful to Catherine Hunter who warmly welcomed me in her beloved country and provided incredible amount of support during my stay in Johannesburg. Thank you for opening your heart and doors to me. I cherish what I learnt from you. I would like to thank Prince Cedza Dlamini and his assistant Zulu for their practical support, Shakile, Bongane and Vincent for driving me around Soweto and Richard Devey for helping with the data entry on SPSS. I thank Dr. Courtney Vegelin, for agreeing to act as a second reader and for encouraging me to keep trying during my struggles in the first semester. Also, I acknowledge and thank Dr. Jacobin Olthoff who helped me in successfully completing my degree with an internship variant and was generous enough to give me the opportunity for an extension. I express appreciation to my friends who are scattered around the world, my dear family in NY and all those who believe in me. Special thanks to Foteini, Despoina, Julie, Angela, Athena, Marion, Leticia, Tiffany, Monica and Dimitri who have been my support system during this journey. Lastly, I am indebted to all participants related to this study who gave me their time and input. This research is for the farmers of Soweto and I thank them for sharing their stories and welcoming me in small moments of their lives. They taught me a lot and as I said, I hope that one day I will come back. My deepest gratitude goes to my parents; Panteli and Spiridoula, to my siblings and to my grandparents. I love you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi List of Photos ...... vii List of Abbreviations ...... viii Abstract ...... ix

1.Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research problem ...... 1 1.2 Research aims and objectives ...... 2 1.3 Thesis outline ...... 3 2.Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ...... 4 2.1 The concept of food security ...... 4 2.2 Definition of Urban Agriculture...... 6 2.3 Views expressed on Urban Agriculture ...... 8 2.4 Motivation for engagement in UA ...... 9 2.5 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ...... 10 2.5.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework...... 11 2.5.2 The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon ...... 12 2.6 Transforming Structures and Processes ...... 15 2.7 Concluding Remarks ...... 16 3.Context ...... 17 3.1 Overview of South Africa ...... 17 3.2 City’s profile: Johannesburg ...... 20 3.3 Township’s profile: Soweto ...... 21 3.4 Food price crisis and food insecurity ...... 23

3.4.1 Reasons that led to food price increase ...... 23 3.4.2 Impact of high food prices on the developing world ...... 24 3.5 National Policy Context ...... 26 3.6 Concluding Remarks ...... 28 4.Research Methodology ...... 29 4.1 Research questions ...... 29 4.2 Conceptual scheme and operationalization ...... 30 4.3 Units of analysis and sampling method ...... 30 4.4 Research methodology ...... 31 4.5 Research methods ...... 32 4.5.1 Participant Observation ...... 32 4.5.2 Surveys ...... 33 4.5.3 Semi- structured Interviews ...... 34 4.5.4 Field diary ...... 34 4.6 Ethical considerations and limitations ...... 35 4.7 Concluding Remarks ...... 36 5.Overview of the Livelihood Assets of Urban cultivators and their perceptions ...... 37 5.1 Profile of farmers ...... 37 5.2 Access to natural resources and inputs ...... 43 5.3 Financial Resources of Urban Agriculture Producers ...... 48 5.4 Access to social capital ...... 51 5.5 Concluding Remarks ...... 54 6.Overview of the Urban Agriculture practices and Food Security ...... 55 6.1 Motivations for engagement with Urban Agriculture ...... 55 6.2 Farming systems and crops produced ...... 57 6.3 Risks and Shocks ...... 62 6.4 Barriers on expanding agriculture and recommendations by farmers ...... 64 6.5 Food (in)security ...... 65 6.6 Concluding Remarks ...... 69 7.Overview of policies and initiatives ...... 71 7.1 Policies and Initiatives on UA (at a provincial, city and township level ) ...... 71 7.2 Key informant’s standpoints on food security and UA ...... 73

7.3 Concluding Remarks ...... 8 8.Conclusion ...... 76 8.1 Main findings: answering the main research question ...... 76 8.2 Reflections ...... 78 8.2.1 Theoretical reflection ...... 78 8.2.2 Methodological reflection ...... 78 8.3 Recommendations and follow-up studies ...... 79 8.3.1 Policy recommendations ...... 79 8.3.2 Recommendation for further research ...... 81 References ...... 82

Appendix 1 ...... 97 1.1 Operationalization of Livelihood Assets ...... 97 1.2 Operationalization of Livelihood Outcome ...... 98 1.3 Urban Policies ...... 99 Appendix 2 ...... 100 2.1 Surveys ...... 100 2.2 Semi-structured interviews ...... 101 Appendix 3 ...... 102 3.1 Questionnaire ...... 102 3.2 Semi-structured interviews ...... 113 Appendix 4 ...... 114 4.1 Food Security score ...... 114

List of Tables

Table 1: Age categories of farmers (N=70)……………………………………………………………………………………….……39

Table 2: Households monthly income (including social welfare grants), (N=70)…………………………………...50

Table 3: Agricultural shocks (N=27, 38% of the sampling population)…………………………………………………...62

Table 4: Challenges in Urban Agriculture, (N=70)…………………………………………………………………………….…….63

Table 5: Reasons for farming interruption (N=19, 27% of the research sample)…………………………………...64

Table 6: Food Security, Backyards (own garden), N=14………………………………………………………………………….65

Table 7: Food Security, NGO gardens, (N=14)………………………………………………………………………………………..66

Table 8: Food Security, School gardens, (N=14)………………………………………………………………………………..……66

Table 9: Food Security, Open space gardens, (N=14)……………………………………………………………………………..67

Table 10: Food Security, Larger scale gardens, (N=14)…………………………………………………………………………..67

Table 11: State of food insecurity, (N=70)……………………………………………………………………………………………..68

List of figures

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework…………………………………………………………………………………..11

Figure 2: Livelihood Assets Pentagon………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

Figure 3: Regional Map of Johannesburg…………………………………………………………………………………….……20

Figure 4: Regional Map of Soweto………………………………………………………………………………………………..….22

Figure 5: Higher food prices in relation to food expenditure across South-African households……….26

Figure 6: Conceptual scheme…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...30

Figure 7: Activities of household members (N=186) ………………………………………………………………………..38

Figure 8: Farmer’s completed education per garden type, N= (70)…………………………………………………..42

List of Photographs

Photograph 1: Female elder farmer in a school garden, Soweto……………………………………………………………40

Photograph 2: Female farmer watering her crop by using public standpipe in a school garden, Soweto………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44

Photograph 3: Farmer showing his organic produce in an NGO garden, Soweto………………………………....46

Photograph 4: Wood waste used for soil fertility in an open space garden, Soweto…………………………….46

Photograph 5: Anti-Wrinkle oil and mouth rinse produced organically at a medicinal garden in school properties, Soweto…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..47

Photograph 6: Farmers taking a break by the food storage, provided by the “Joburg Market” larger scale garden, Soweto……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49

Photograph 7: Region D Farmer’s Forum (RDFF) meeting, Soweto ………………………………………………………52

Photograph 8: Farmers socializing at an open space garden, Soweto……………………………………………………54

Photograph 9: Food market with unhealthy food products (candies, chips etc.) by the road, Soweto…..57

Photograph 10: Farmer in a greenhouse, open space garden, Soweto………………………………………………….58

Photographs 11, 12, 13: Shade net tunnels in an NGO garden, Soweto…………………………………………………59

Photographs 14, 15: Farmers collecting spinach from tire containers, open space garden, Soweto………60

vii

List of Abbreviations

ANC African National Congress

CoJ City of Johannesburg

CPR Common Pool Resources

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DoA Department of Agriculture

DSD Design Society Development

FADA Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture

FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GBC Global Business Coalition

GIS Geographic Information System

IFSS Integrated Food Security Strategy

NDP National Development Plan

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NP National Party

RDFF Region D Farmers Forum

SA South Africa

SIM Soweto Imvelo Market

UA Urban Agriculture

UJ University of Johannesburg

WHC Wits Health Consortium

WITS University of the Witwatersrand

ZAR South-African Rands

viii

Abstract1

Discourses on the rapid growth of cities in the developing world stress the dire need for more sustainable urban food systems. Urban agriculture is featured as an emerging topic of development as it can provide a significant source of fresh produce for poor urban populations. Yet, existing literature shows that is ambivalent whether it can be addressed as a major contributor to household food security or not. Considering the critical condition of food insecurity in South Africa, this thesis sets to find out, if urban agriculture constitutes an important source of livelihoods by substantially improving household food security in Soweto, Johannesburg.

In order to study that, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology was employed. Initially, observations were undertaken and five different types of gardens were identified in the region. People farm in backyards, NGO gardens, school gardens, open space gardens and larger scale gardens. By drawing on the sustainable livelihoods framework and using survey methodology, the study examines the farmer’s livelihood assets, the risks and challenges related to the activity and the patterns of food security. Interviews, along with document examination were carried out with the intention to collect data on the policy context.

The findings show that there are not significant differences between the five groups and that urban agriculture does not substantially improve the household livelihoods in terms of food security. Research participants repeatedly reported that they do not have access to basic infrastructure (land, good irrigation systems, fencing) and tools. Their main challenges are that they lack the resources they need to carry out agricultural activities and they do not have enough support from the government and institutions.

These obstacles substantiate that urban agriculture is not a mean to tackle food insecurity in the township as the food produce does not meet the household’s needs. The majority of farmers call for financial support, access to training courses and viable actions from authorities. The study finds that although policy implications indicate that urban agriculture is perceived as a development vehicle, there is a complication in regard to effective implementation on the ground.

1 Any errors of omission or interpretation of this thesis are mine alone.

This research may possibly offer added value in societal terms as the information gathered gives insight into the nature of food insecurity in Soweto. Subsequently, it can provide scientific contribution which could further facilitate initiatives by policy makers and development practitioners who operate in the area.

Key Words: Urban Agriculture Household Livelihoods Food Security Soweto

Chapter 1 Introduction

“In a world of plenty, no-one - not a single person - should go hungry”

-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon2

1.1 Research Problem

“… Urban poverty tends to be fueled by people migrating towards the cities in an attempt to escape the deprivations associated with rural livelihoods. Partly due to the rural decline, the world is urbanizing at a fast pace and it will not be long before a greater part of developing country populations is living in large cities”, Jacques Diouf (FAO, 2006:5). According to the UN Population Division (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2009), the world’s population is estimated to reach 9 billion people by 2050, while the United Nations Population Fund (2007) predicts that the population living in urban areas is projected to increase from 3.3 billion that was in 2007 to 6.4 billion in 2050. The same study (UNFPA, 2007) reveals that approximately 45 per cent of poor populations in rural Africa will move to cities by 2020.

Big cities face several challenges in meeting the needs of their people as rapid population growth increases poverty and food demand. Crush and Frayne (2010a) confirm that in the case of South Africa, urbanization has caused an “invisible crisis” of urban food security. Given that projections show that people will be leaving rural areas in order to pursue better living conditions in cities and that poverty and food insecurity are intrinsically associated, this research will take place in a fast growing city, Johannesburg, South Africa. According to a Poverty and Livelihood survey in Johannesburg, 41% of the households in the poorest wards of all seven administrative regions, are severely food insecure (De Wet et al., 2008.21).

Moreover, food and nutrition security is associated to the world economy and any threat to the food supply is essential. The global food crisis in 2008 (see section 3.4), adversely affected the South African population as it “raised the cost of foods, making it increasingly difficult for low-income households to afford their pre-crisis food baskets” (Jacobs, 2012:1).

2 Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, 2012, http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sgsm14359.doc.htm

In this context, urban agriculture (UA) appears to be a pro-poor strategy. There is an extensive body of literature which supports this statement; however empirical studies on its potential scenario as an urban development tactic in the research area are under–researched. Furthermore, recent study from Frayne et al (2014) on the contribution of UA in household food security in South African cities revealed that there is limited evidence that agricultural strategies are effective.

1.2 Research Aims and Objectives

According to FAO’s first status report on Urban and Peri-urban Horticulture (UPH), cultivating in hortus (garden), provided food to over 22 million people in Africa’s cities, and therefore constitutes a principal factor in increasing food supply and income (FAO 2012). Based on this statement, the FAO (2012) claims that UPH has the potential to spread out and assist the continent to accomplish “zero hunger”, providing that an enabling and supportive environment will be created by institutions. Additionally, urban farming is beneficial not only on a personal level (consuming goods directly from the garden which can be healthier than conventional food and pesticides-free), but also on community level, as the residents use homegrown food and therefore decrease their carbon footprint.

This research project examines urban agriculture as a livelihood strategy for urban dwellers who cultivate in backyards, school gardens, NGO gardens, open space gardens or larger scale gardens. The study is conducted in Soweto, (one of the most disadvantaged areas in Johannesburg, see section 3.2), where poverty is tenacious and most of the residents live in informal settlements, facing several problems as unemployment, no-access to education etc. (CoJ)3.

The primary purpose of the study is to explore the role of agriculture in an urban environment as a strategy to tackle food insecurity practiced by agriculture practitioners in Soweto. Therefore I evaluate the way that the latter use and sustain existing livelihood capitals in order to achieve better livelihoods and particularly food security. The odds are that when a person is capable of combining the range of livelihood assets, ensures better livelihood outcomes. The scope of the study is exploratory and explanatory thus my hope is that it will provide a better understanding of the needs of farmers in Soweto and the factors that encourage or hinder their participation in UA. The dissemination of these findings can potentially contribute on future development and planning of strategies in the township.

3 http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&id=174%3Aregion-d&Itemid=119&limitstart=1

1.3 Thesis Outline

This thesis is composed of eight chapters. The first chapter is exploratory and introduces the subject of the study by giving a general perspective of the research problem and by mentioning the research objective. In the second chapter, the main theoretical aspects that concern urban agriculture and food security are discussed by making use of a broad literature review and drawing on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, which is the theory used for analyzing the research findings. The third chapter describes the context of the study, by referring to political and socio-economic characteristics of South Africa and the research location. Chapter four outlines the methodological considerations of the study and subsequently discusses the research methods and instruments used for data collection and analysis. Chapter five, six and seven discuss the empirical findings and answer the first, second and third research sub-questions respectively. The thesis ends with chapter eight, which amalgamates the key discussions, forms the conclusion and gives recommendations for further policymaking and research.

Chapter 2

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This chapter first explains the concept of food security and secondly outlines the definition of urban agriculture and presents opinions conferring its potential contribution to development. Subsequently, it refers to the reasons that motivate farmers to engage with agriculture. The chapter gives special attention to the main theory that designates the research, the Sustainable Livelihood Approach. Particularly, it focuses on the Livelihoods Assets Pentagon and the structures and processes related to food security which are main components of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework and profoundly associated with the exploratory nature of the thesis.

2.1 The concept of food security

Food is an immediate requirement for people’s survival hence, the existence of healthy and sustainable food systems is imperative. The United Nations (UN) recognized the “Right to food” in the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and has since noted that it is vital for the enjoyment of all other rights (Eide, 1999)4. In 2000, the UN introduced in its Millennium Summit, a global action plan consisted of eight anti-poverty goals, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were set to be achieved by year 2015. The first goal5 is focused on the “eradication of extreme hunger and poverty”, and has as one of its targets to “halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger”. The MDG report6 discloses that “the proportion of undernourished people in the developing regions has fallen by almost half since 1990, from 23.3 per cent in 1990–1992 to 12.9 per cent in 2014–2016”.

Food security stands on top of international development agendas. It is a much debated concept which has about 200 definitions in published writings (Maxwell and Smith, 1992). The definition of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for food security highlights that it "exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary

4 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1999). The right to adequate food. Geneva: United Nations. 5 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml 6 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201%29.pdf

4 needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life"(FAO, 1996) 7.This concept is based on the following “pillars:

1) Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.

2) Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.

3) Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation” (World Health Organization, n.d.)8.

In addition, a more updated definition has emerged over the past decade. In 2012, the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition Secretariat together with the Committee on World Food Security Secretariat guided the process of the latest’s Task Team on Terminology through a consultative process. The Task Team elaborated a draft document9 “Coming to terms with terminology” where they suggest to move towards a more all-encompassing terminology for food and nutrition security so the conceptual links between food security and nutrition security could be replicated. More particularly, the Committee recognized as appropriate, the following definition of “food and nutrition security”:

“Food and nutrition security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to food, which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences, and is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care, allowing for a healthy and active life” (FAO,2012:2).Moreover, food and nutrition security involves the availability of “culturally adapted food”, meaning that not only western food is accessible but socially desirable food as well (Noack and Pouw, 2014:6).

“Food security cannot be understood in isolation from other developmental questions such as social protection, sources of income, rural and urban development, changing household structures, health, access to land, water and inputs, retail markets, or education and nutritional knowledge”(HSRC, 2009:8).

7 Food and Agriculture Organization (November 1996) “Rome Declaration on Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, Rome FAO”. 8 http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/ 9http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/file/Terminology/MD776(CFS___Coming_to_terms_with_Termi nology).pdf

In this research, the extent that the study sample is food secure is examined by the use of a survey which is adopted by the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide constructed by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA10). Farmers were supposed to indicate if they can relate to the questions with a recall period of 30 days. The questions posed are nine and they are divided in three categories. They express, “anxiety and uncertainty about the household food supply, insufficient quality which includes variety and preferences of the type of food, insufficient food intake and its physical consequences” (Coates et al., 2007:5). If farmers have responded positively in a question, meaning that the situation described applies to them, then they were asked to specify if that event “has happened rarely (once or twice), sometimes (three to ten times) or often (more than ten times) during their recall period (30 days)” (Coates et al., 2007:4) Food security is further explored in section 6.5.

Besides that, the reliance of food and nutrition security on healthy, sustainable and socially accepted food systems has encouraged people to grow their own (preferred) crops and to improve their food sources. Urban agriculture (UA) which is a central concept of this research is “the practice of cultivating, processing and distributing food in, or around (peri-urban), a town or city” (Bailkey and Nasr, 2000:6) and is introduced in the following section.

2.2 Definition of Urban Agriculture

This section makes use of literature review with the intention to give a definition of urban agriculture (UA), a principal focus of the research, and to describe its relevant aspects. However, there is no prevailing agreement regarding the precise definition, due to the broad variety of strategies and factors which influence it. The wide spectrum of opinions and the dearth of consensus reveal the complexity of the topic.

“Urban agricultural systems include horticulture, floriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and livestock production” (Mougeot, 2000:1). It is “any activity associated with growing of crops and some form of livestock rearing in or very near cities for local consumption, either by producers themselves or by others where the food is marketed” (Rees, 1997:1).

10 http://www.fantaproject.org/

Urban agriculture has been an essential component that contributes to local urban economies from ancient times. “Throughout most of mankind's history and in different civilizations, urban populations have engaged to variable extents in producing at least some of the food they require, close to or at their own residence, within or just outside the city”( Mougeout, 1994:5). For instance, “the Neolithic Egyptian settlement of Knossos developed mixed farming (wheat, barley, lentils, sheep, goats, pigs and some cattle); the Minoan town spread over 75' hectares, Knossos had isolated farms on its edge” (Rodenbeck, 1991: 124, 129 in Mougeot 1994:2).

Mbiba (1998) states that urban farming involves urban cultivation and livestock rearing on specific urban areas that are formally prearranged for that purpose by authorities, it may take place in zones between the residential areas and municipal frontiers. More particularly, Mougeot (in Kadenyeka et al 2013:1) gives the following definition: “Urban agriculture is an industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, city, or metropolis, which grows and raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, (re-) using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area.” Premat (2005:157) extends Mougeot’s explanation by adding to it that the activities can be also “in a settlement and are independently or collectively developed by people for self-consumption or commercialization purposes”.

Occasionally, urban food systems do not solely generate benefits related to food consumption, income generation and poverty alleviation. They may encompass green space creation, environmental awareness, community participation, leisure and joy (Reuther and Dewar 2006:99). Likewise, Bakker et al. (2000) view UA as a medium to create productive urban spaces and to manage urban waste and water resources more efficiently.

This research defines urban agriculture as the practice of farming which takes place in built-up and peri- urban areas in the township of Soweto, it is either “on-plot or off-plot agriculture” (Rogerson,1996). According to van der Ploeg (2003:111), “a farming style is a coherent set of strategic notions about the way in which farming is practiced”. Five farming styles are distinguished and include gardens in houses, school or NGOs premises, public land (open space gardens), or larger scale projects (located at the outskirts). The backyards are usually small in scale whereas the other types cover a larger productive site that is utilized by many gardeners. The use of modern technologies is limited and farmers make ingenious usage of accessible assets. Crop production was observed in tire containers, shade net tunnels, greenhouses, and hydroponics tunnels (see section 6.2).

2.3 Views expressed on Urban Agriculture

The literature review designates several theoretical stances; scholars condemn, recognize or have more nuanced views regarding the benefits that have emerged from UA. The stance that rejects its merits is related to the idea that the activity is associated with rural environments and it does not fit in an urban context, it seems to be an “oxymoron” (UNDP, 1996). Bentick (2000) claims that rural migration is the cause that agriculture is witnessed in an urban context and it implies relocation of rural poverty to the urban setting (Devereux, 1993). In addition, this approach perceives that agriculture “is too dirty for the wealth and glory of the city as it is associated with the theory of peasant cities painting a picture of permanent poverty in the Third World Countries cities” (Jonga, 2013:1). Foeken (2008:226) argues that, it is not legally regulated in most African cities due to the fact that it is rejected by the “western approach” which implies that UA detracts from the picture of a modern city as it is not properly incorporated in what is connoted as progressive and “urban”. Similarly, Mbiba (1995:2) claims that it is prohibited in many countries as is unsuitable in an urban environment and it infringes urban planning laws. In Addis Ababa for example it “is administratively unwanted” and “has racist and colonial connotation” (Jonga, 2013:7, 11). Given these positions, it is contradictory to the advanced transition from traditional to modern societies and it is not associated with the stages of growth where there is a requirement for shift from agrarian to industrial societies (Rostow, 1960).

In another set of debate, scholars point out more supportive arguments in favor of UA’s efficiency. Urban farming has manifold advantages, “for the poorest of the poor, it provides good access to food. For the stable poor, it provides a source of income and good quality food at low cost. For middle-income families, it offers the possibility of savings and a return on their investment in urban property. For small and large entrepreneurs, it is a profitable business” (UNDP, 1996:4). Redwood (2009: 230) stresses that it can meet food consumption needs when practiced at a small scale without including a broad variety of goods and it can serve as “a mean to supplement the diet with safe food”. However, it “is unlikely to turn any city or most households fully self-sufficient in all of the food which they may require” (Mougeot, 2000: 32).

Additionally, it improves access to nutritious food, particularly for children and those who belong to vulnerable groups with low or no-income (Ruel et al., 1999, Nugent, 2000). It is an emerging strategy that boosts local economic growth, for instance, in Dar es Salaam and Lusaka it operates as a tactic for poverty reduction since the past two decades (Smit and Nasr, 1992). Another essential feature is that UA

8 encourages social integration of marginalized groups, particularly women (Dubbeling et al., 2010) as it is an “avenue for social and economic empowerment” (Hovorka, 2006:51). Maxwell (1998), on a study in Kampala finds that UA that takes place in a home garden favors maternal care as mothers have more time to devote to their children in comparison to what they would have if doing other kinds of jobs.

Armar-Klemesu (2000) argues that marginalized groups that practice UA stop depending on others for food provision and eat more vegetables than non-urban farmers and better-off groups. Likewise, Van Veenhuizen and Danso (2009) claim, the households which grow and consume some of their own food attain food security and better nutrition to a greater extent than those which have analogous socioeconomic status but are not engaged with urban farming.

Starr (2000) suggests that UA is an immense strategy that supports local food production and disapproves compliance to corporate global food systems. It provides a substantial amount of earnings (Zezza et al., 2010) and creates an “opportunity cost” as gardeners save income by consuming home produced food which is expensive to afford in the shop and generate income by selling their produce (Stewart et al., 2013). Moreover, it enhances the urban environment as it has ecological functions (Godfray, et al., 2010) and mitigates city pollution through the photosynthetic process, which absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen (Howorth, 2001). However, if not managed in a sustainable way and makes use of hazardous chemicals and genetic modifications it can cause risks like soil and groundwater contamination (Deelstra et al., 2000).

2.4 Motivation for engagement in UA

Thornton (2008) claims that, UA is beneficial given that its practitioners are fully motivated to be productive and take constant care of their garden. Foeken et al (2004:2) claim that the two most important reasons that urban people in Sub-Saharan Africa cultivate, are because it is a “survival strategy” and it “subsidizes the income”.

There is an extensive literature which asserts that UA is a dynamic concept for development and acknowledges its virtue as a poverty relief method. Young people engage with agriculture because they see it as a way to uplift themselves (see section 5.1). On the contrary, in rural areas where the job opportunities are even scarcer, young people often turn away from agriculture due to lack of access to

9 land and interest in urban migration (Berckmoes and White, 2014;, Bezu and Holden, 2014; White, 2012).

“For women who are not sufficiently empowered to prevent or act against rape or violent crimes, gardening appears to be a response to the pressure and powerlessness they feel. They are motivated to go to their gardens to reassure and reassert themselves, and re-establish their identity as women and their sense of self-worth”( Slater 2001: 642). In addition, studies demonstrate that women comprise the majority of farmers in an urban setting which is justified from their need to feed their families, empower themselves and earn better livelihoods (Devereux et al, 2001; Hovorka et al, 2009). As Jacobi states, female farmers “render more benefits for the household because the produce is either directly consumed in the family or the income obtained is spent on the basic needs of the family” (Jacobi et al, 1999:272). Bruinsma and Hertog (2003), highlight that opportunities for food production encourage women especially when they sell their food and are the ones in charge of the earnings of the sales.

The motivations and generally the positive outcomes that vulnerable households attain from urban agriculture are numerous and essential and are further being explored in the empirical discussion. Nevertheless the completion of the practice is subject to the extent that UA is supported by capital endowments and effective policy structures. Next section will elaborate on this crucial part.

2.5 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

This section describes the main theoretical framework that guides the research. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach is a suitable theory for it because it is people-centered and focuses on how people combine the capital assets that enable them to sustain or enhance their livelihoods. It puts emphasis on the way that people operate in vulnerable contexts in order to escape their poverty condition.

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.” Adapted from Chamber and Conway 1992 (cited in Scoones, 2009:175)

Accordingly, the purpose of the study is to look at the contribution of urban agriculture to household livelihoods enhancement in terms of food security, through an assessment of the available assets that

10 farmers possess (see section 2.4.2) and the existing urban policy context (national, provincial, local policies which aim to promote UA).

2.5.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The framework below (see Figure1) outlines that, within a vulnerability context, individuals have access to certain assets of different nature: human, natural, financial, social and physical. These assets can be combined to produce livelihood strategies, which are “open to people in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes that meet their own livelihood objectives” (DFID, 1999, Section 1.1, para.3). Accordingly, a livelihood comprises the activities needed for a means of living and is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets and provide sustainable opportunities for next generations.

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: Practicalaction.org

Subsequently, vulnerability refers to exterior hazards and for that reason, the capability of the individual, household or community to overcome them and stay resilient is of a paramount importance.

Poverty is a historically based condition in Soweto which simultaneously implies vulnerability, as after the apartheid regime, high populations moved to informal settlements without having the opportunity to access services and to improve their livelihoods. Furthermore, agriculture itself is a practice which is susceptible to shocks (droughts, floods) and seasonality and trends, hence climatic conditions are critically relevant to vulnerability context. Walker et al (2004:2) define resilience as “the buffer capacity or the ability of a system to absorb perturbations, or the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behavior”. Next section refers to the Livelihood Assets Pentagon, which comprises capital endowments that endorse farmer’s capacity to attain better livelihoods by undertaking agricultural activities.

2.5.2 The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon

The Livelihoods Assets Pentagon is fundamental part of the livelihoods framework, within the vulnerability context. The asset pentagon embodies the weaknesses and the strengths in terms of assets that households or communities possess and combine in order to create viable strategies and further accomplish livelihood objectives. The strength of all assets is very crucial when it comes to strategies that people have to take and any weak part of one or more capitals impedes the accomplishment of the livelihood outcomes.

The Livelihood Framework Guidance Sheets states that: “the general principle is that those who are amply endowed with assets are more likely to be able to make positive livelihood choices. That is, they will be choosing from a range of options in order to maximize their achievement of positive livelihood outcomes, rather than being forced into any given strategy because it is their only option” (DfID, 1999, Section 2.5, para.7).For instance, a farmer who has adequate access to land (natural capital), may not only use it as a productive space for himself/herself but lease a part of it or raise cattle. In that way the farmer accomplishes better livelihood outcomes by improving his/her financial capital. Given that the farmer is sufficiently endowed with these capitals, he/she might want to generate the social capital and assist the community by creating stronger relationships with its members (trust, cooperation, assistance, exchange).

In the case of Soweto, I examine whether the livelihood assets and the capability of dwellers to undertake farming strategies are vital factors for the improvement of their wellbeing. Thus, it is important to describe the main characteristics of the five capitals that form the livelihood assets pentagon within the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework.

Figure 2: Livelihood Assets Pentagon

Source: DFID guidance sheets (1999)

Human Capital

Human capital is associated with the labor (amount and quality of work), which is highly dependent on training, education, skills and health status (DfID, 1999). Human capital is one of the most essential assets as it enables people to make use of the other assets. It is ‘necessary, though not on its own sufficient, for the achievement of positive livelihood outcomes’ (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.1,para.3). Respectively, during the study, respondents provided information about their health condition, their education level and their involvement with urban agriculture activities.

Social Capital

This capital is mainly referred to the social resources and networks that the individual and the community use for developing livelihood strategies. Networks are more formalized groups and are described by the relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges (DfID, 1999). Likewise, “cooperatives are essential in mobilizing farmers, providing assistance, securing resources, providing inputs and local knowledge, and even participating in urban agriculture campaigns” (Schmidt, 2011:6 ). The social capital is important in the sense that it enables cooperation as well as the management of common resources and shared infrastructure (DfID, 1999). In an argument about common pool resources (CPR), Ostrom et al (1999:279 ), claim that users fall into four categories, “those who always behave in a narrow, self- interested way and never cooperate, those who are unwilling to cooperate with others unless assured

13 that they will not be exploited by free riders, those who are willing to initiate reciprocal cooperation in the hopes that others will return their trust; and perhaps a few genuine altruists who always try to achieve higher returns for a group”.

In the same way as the previous capital, it is very likely to be vital for the attainment of food security as a livelihood outcome. This stands because I assume that relations of trust and mutual support, cooperatives, exchange, networking etc. are immediately related to livelihoods dependency.

Natural Capital

Natural capital refers to the natural resources “stocks from which resource flows and services (e.g. nutrient cycling, erosion protection) useful for livelihoods are derived” (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.3, para.1). These include ‘from intangible public goods such as the atmosphere and biodiversity to divisible assets used directly for production (trees, land, etc.)’ (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.3, para.1). Considering that, information regarding the availability of land, the productivity of the plot, the type of soil that the cultivators have access to, along with water access and quality were reported.

Physical capital

Physical capital involves the availability of basic infrastructure and producer goods. Infrastructure ‘consist of changes to the physical environment that help people to meet their basic needs and to be more productive’, (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.4, para.1). As far as the producer goods are concerned, they represent ‘the tools and equipment that people use to function more productively’, which are commonly privately owned (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.4, para.1). This capital is closely related with the financial capital among others. Being in a good financial condition in order to have access to the infrastructure and producer goods is vital as ‘richer groups use their strength and influence to control or monopolize access’ (DfID,1999, Section 2.3.4, para.12). Correspondingly, the access of farmers to good infrastructure, inputs, technology and innovations was reviewed as well.

Financial Capital

Financial capital includes the monetary resources with which people are enabled to undertake livelihood strategies to achieve positive outcomes. Monetary resources often depend on the quality of employment, savings, pensions, endowments, loans and generally money flow, thus evidence about farmer’s financial condition is underlined.

In a similar approach, Sen (2001) envisages that development is human rather than national economic development as people experience poverty because they lack the basic capabilities and freedom to attain the “functionings” (achievements) they value. Thus, I examine if, and in what way the use of livelihood capitals enables urban agriculture practitioners to accomplish their “functionings” and ensure their survival. A thorough deliberation regarding the human, social, natural, physical and financial capitals that are available to the research sample is presented in chapter 5.

Last but not least, the access to capitals is determined through interventions which are carried out by transforming structures and processes. The following section elaborates on that.

2.6 Transforming Structures and Processes

This part of the framework represents the policy-making bodies and the institutions which influence livelihood assets and livelihood outcomes. “Responsive political structures that implement pro-poor policies, including extending social services into the areas in which the poor live, can significantly increase people’s sense of well-being. They can promote awareness of rights and a sense of self-control and they can also help reduce vulnerability through the provision of social safety nets” (DfID 1999, Section 2.4, para 10).

Considering that several factors influence people's ability to pursue a sustainable choice of livelihood, food security strategies have to be promoted and fully integrated on urban planning. Procedures of organizations and regulatory bodies that operate on different levels and scopes from local to global have the ability to either uplift or impede people’s wellbeing. The degree of vulnerability of an individual or community depends profoundly on the existing structure of governance and the assistance that they get from different institutions.

In the same way, according to Sen (2001), a key challenge for development involves addressing the gap between “unprecedented opulence” and “remarkable deprivation”. Given that people are deprived, managing food insecurity is a key challenge for the policies and development practices employed by municipalities, national governments and prominent organizations. Stewart et al (2013), refers that big development institutions show positivity for the impending promises of UA through the schemes that they undertake. Likewise, Crush and Frayne (2010) note that, multilateral institutions, donors and governments support that the way out of food insecurity in Africa depends on essential assistance and enormous contributions to small-scale food production.

In general, “the broad method of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has been applied to a wide range of fields, e.g. fisheries, health, forestry, agriculture and urban development, among others “(Scoones, 2009:179). Given the above mentioned matters, major concepts of this framework are suitably used to guide the study of urban food production and food security in Soweto. UA in gardens and private plots is assessed as strategy of livelihood where dwellers shape the urban environment by using assets. The availability of these assets and the livelihood strategies that they enforce, regulate to what extent food security is attained as the major and optimum outcome. At the same time, the current sustainable or unsustainable executions of policies and initiatives have a profound effect on farmers’ access to assets.

2.7 Concluding Remarks

The chapter explained the role of urban agriculture as a noteworthy trend which contributes to household food security by drawing on literature review. Considering that farmers who practice the activity are likely to be less vulnerable to poverty strains, this study delineates UA’s execution. The thesis is grounded in the Sustainable Livelihood Approach and builds on urban agriculture as a stimulant for food security enhancement. The theoretical departure points aim to examine this by giving a comprehensive perspective on farmer’s capacity, how the farmers manage to make use of what is needed for accomplishing sustainable livelihoods. The theory directs the research in a way which includes the crucial points that necessitate to be evaluated, the capital endowments that are at farmers’ disposal and the underlying livelihood structures that allow the access to these assets. UA as a strategy for food security attainment is thoroughly discussed on the data analysis chapters (5, 6, and 7).

Chapter 3

Context

After drawing on the theoretical foundations that are applied on the thesis, this chapter aims to present the context in which UA is undertaken in Soweto, South Africa. The information is collected by secondary data. First, the chapter discusses the demographic characteristics of the country, city, and township and at the same time gives attention to historical features (principally during the apartheid epoch) and to poverty facts. Secondly, it refers to the global food price crisis which has affected the country’s food security. Third, it focuses in the national policy agenda related to UA and is followed by the concluding remarks.

3.1 Overview of South Africa

South Africa, (or the Republic of South Africa, RSA), is a country located in Southern Africa and it is the 25th largest country in the world. Its population reaches nearly 52 million, of which the 79, 2% represents black South Africans. White South Africans, descendants of European colonizers (mostly from the Netherlands, Britain, France and Germany, only represent a small portion of the population, making up 8.9%, while the rest 11, 9% are colored and Indian or Asian populations (Census 2011).

As previously mentioned, the global population grows rapidly and the majority of the demographic increase is in cities. In SA more than 60% of the total population lives in an urban environment (Frayne et al, 2010:10). Urbanization does not imply better incomes and improved quality of life in the Southern African countries, something that happens in some other developing regions (Ravillon et al, 2007). Similarly, Pauw (2007) refers that it is categorized as an upper-middle income state, but it is also positioned among the countries with high levels of income inequality and poverty.

Nevertheless, Waugh (2000) refers that South Africa can be described as a newly industrialized country. The country has important regional influence and generally it is recognized as middle power in the global proscenium.

As for its chronological features, SA is a country which has been affected directly by the European domination upon African societies, trade slavery, wars and racial violence that led to new political formations. The historical struggles of the country give mounting evidences to the intractable problems that South Africans face today. Several problems originate from the period of apartheid (1948-1994)

17 when the National Party (NP), which was the ruling government, represented by white South Africans imposed a social and political policy of segregation and discrimination where citizens were categorized in four groups according to race, "black", "white", "colored", and "Indian". Predominantly, black South Africans suffered from oppression and injustice however South Africa’s development was influenced significantly from it.

The rapid growth that the country experienced in the 20th century steered to the transformation of an agrarian society to one which enters commodity markets, advances its industries, extends its mining and develops larger scale food production (Department of Agriculture, 2002:18). Black South Africans were providing cheap labor, and white industrialists were getting richer, resulting to enormously squalid living conditions for the black population. This “separate development”, marked among others the exit from the paternalist food aid relief system of the colonization and the transition to a system of white supremacy where food provision becomes limited for marginalized populations (Koch, 2011:2). This deprivation led to large-scale hunger even though the National Party was often disapproving the presence of famine (Wylie, 2001).

The “separate development” changed over the course of years. The extensive violation of human rights, included police brutality, the implementation of land acts which enforced removals of black South Africans to informal settlements, their limited access to services and work unions, the prohibition of their political rights, the establishment of separate public facilities, the prohibited marriage between black and white citizens and other discriminatory practices. The lack of access to health, education and social services, the creation of homelands (bantustan11) which enforces the black population to abide by the new land acts and not to move out of their boundaries to seek work opportunities and the overall system resulted to severe deprivations.

The situation caused a major international distress. Hundreds of protests in South Africa along with the struggle of anti-apartheid revolutionary politician, Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years by the ruling party, drew attention to the international community and the movement against subjugation went global. Countries showed their support by imposing political, diplomatic, technological and scientific sanctions (Brewer, 1989:38). The UN Security Council contributed to the fight against apartheid

11 Also known as black homeland or Bantu homeland. The term Bantu means “people” and refers to black South Africans. It has racial connotation as it was a derogatory term imposed to by the white minority party. Although in other countries in central, east and southern Africa the term refers to ethnic groups without any pejorative allegation.

18 by creating awareness and calling all state members to impose among others, an embargo on the sale and shipment of arms to South Africa (Reddy, n.d).

The trade embargo led to national economic recession and subsequently the government could not uphold its regime of legalized racial segregation. The end of apartheid era is marked by the victory of the African National Congress (ANC), under Nelson Mandela (who was released in 1990 after international campaigns), in democratic elections in 1994.

After the abolition of apartheid, “a history marked by brutally enforced inequalities appeared to have been ruptured, enabling the black majority to pass through portals beyond which lay equality, dignity and freedom” (Marais, 2001:2). The hopes of South-Africans for democracy “would respond to their legitimate aspirations of a better life, that it would be synonymous with freedom from hunger, want, disease…for the poor, democracy will substantially reduce inequalities along racial and gender lines, decrease poverty, increase access to basic social services and physical infrastructure (Centre for Policy Studies, 2007:11)

The new democratic government has contributed significantly on the political and economic reconstruction of the country but despite the considerable implementation of development plans the nation has high unemployment rates. The situation is unfavorable for large populations, which are still stricken by poverty and are unable to meet their household needs. (Labadarios, 2009). The penetrating violations and the social and economic exclusion increased poverty rates and food insecurity (Labadarios et al., 2009: 11). The Department of Agriculture (2002) refers that food insecurity was not a major challenge before apartheid.

Altman (2009) highlights that attaining better food security is one of the main elements of poverty alleviation. In addition, Bryant (1998:11) notes that: “The government emphasis on increasing production as a response to hunger is limited, since a substantial part of the problem is that poor people cannot afford to purchase the food they need.” This concern was stressed more during the global food crisis in 2008 (see section 3.4), as the soaring food prices affected South Africa’s poor and called for more adequate food production on a local level.

Household food insecurity is prevailing reaching high percentages. In line with the DoA (2002), it was found to be 50%, according to Labadarios et al. (2009) it was 52%, while according to Jacobs (2009), it was 80%. According to a study of the Human Sciences Research Council (in Ndhleve et al., 2013:1) “about 14 per cent of the population in S.A is estimated to be vulnerable to food insecurity, and 25 per

19 cent of children under the age of six are reckoned to have had their development stunted by malnutrition”. Moreover, Crush et al. (2010) emphasize that the consumption of an assortment of healthy food is exclusively essential in view of the high number of the AIDs cases in South Africa.

Essa et al. (2003) assert that, the effects of political, economic, social and historical dynamics influenced critically the agricultural sector. In this context, urban agriculture is being promoted as a way to mitigate the persistent and growing urban poverty and food insecurity in SA. Almost 20% of South Africans practice agriculture in order to supplement household food items (Crush and Frayne, 2010). Country studies show that there is a linkage between urban farming and access to healthier food and income increase (Richards and Taylor, 2012, Centre for Development Support, 2009).

3.2 City’s profile: Johannesburg Johannesburg (also known as Jozi or Joburg among others and abbreviated as JHB) is the economic hub of South Africa and the Southern African region generally. In a list of principal agglomerations in the world it ranks as the 40th and it has been described as one of only two “Global Cities” in the continent (Beaverstock et al, 1999).

Figure 3: Regional Map of Johannesburg

Source: http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Johannesburg

The city is the provincial capital of Gauteng, which is considered the wealthiest province and the industrial and commercial center of South Africa. More particularly, Gauteng is the source of 33% of South Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 50% of all employee remuneration in the country (Gauteng Provincial government, 2005).

According to De Wet et al. (2008), the population in the Gauteng Province is predicted to reach 14 million citizens by this year, putting it in the top 15 urban regions in the world by population. Rapid urbanization leads to spatial and economic disparities which weaken the peoples’ capacity to take part in the urban economy and therefore on their ability to access food. Beall et al (2011) state that, the major challenges emanate from the segregated ideas that the apartheid regime rose, urban poverty and the inability to provide adequate services to the rising population.

Greenberg (2006) confirms that inequalities between the rich and poor are reflected in widespread food insecurity throughout Johannesburg. Half of Johannesburg’s households had income below the national minimum of R1, 60012 per month (Human Development Strategy, 2009). The 2008 Johannesburg Poverty and Livelihoods Study underlined that “the urban poor, residing in certain pockets of the city such as informal settlements and inner city areas, are particularly vulnerable and struggle to gain access to services and opportunities to improve their livelihoods”, De Wet et al. (2008:4).

3.3 Township’s profile: Soweto

Soweto is in the southwest of the greater metropolitan area of Johannesburg and its name stands for South-Western Townships. The reason that this region is selected for the study is because many neighborhoods have a long history in poverty.

More particularly, during the apartheid era, the region became home to black Africans who were expelled from the city’s freehold areas. Till today, most of the dwellers in Soweto live in “matchboxes” houses which were built during the apartheid period in order to provide cheap accommodation. Many residents live in informal settlements where poverty, food insecurity and unemployment are critical problems. According to the City of Johannesburg (2004), regions on the periphery of the city have high

12 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately $118

21 rates of vulnerable populations which do not have access to basic services. However, as Klaaste (2004:123 cited in Freire-Medeiros, 2013) describes, Soweto is also a “metaphor for black life in South Africa” meaning that the region appeals tourist who are interested to learn more about the culture of those who struggled for the rise of the “rainbow nation”13.

The main criterion for the areas that were selected is that there is accessibility to land. Probably, there are other criteria which can comply like high unemployment rates, vulnerability, food insecurity but an overall image which indicates or disapproves these conditions, comes up from the data analysis (chapter 5, 6, 7). Last but not least, Soweto was selected because of the presence of the experienced research team of the Izindaba Zokudla project and because the region is considered potentially supportive for urban agriculture.

Gardens from all of the areas you see on the map (Figure 4) were visited besides Senadane, Molapo, Zondi, Pimville, Klipriviersood, Orlando East and Naturena. Most of the gardens were located in the southwest part of the region. For confidential reasons the location is not shared next to the respondent list (see Appendix 2.1).

Figure 4: Regional Map of Soweto

Source: https://prezi.com/zztqzlwb_wl8/untitled-prezi/

13Rainbow nation is a term invented by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a South African social rights activist), to describe post-apartheid South Africa, after the first fully democratic election in 1994.

3.4 Food price crisis and food insecurity

During 1972-74 the world experienced severe food crisis due to the rising oil prices and market instability. The latter was linked particularly to the U.S grain production, which was the main exported and influenced global food prices and subsequently international food security (Headey and Fan, 2010: 82).

This led to the establishment of several organizations which had as their mandate to enhance global food security through their actions. The global food prices have decreased and the global food system seemed to be in a steady course. Many African countries were depended on food imports as that seemed sustainable, thus there was no urgent need for governments to promote agriculture (Headey and Fan, 2010:92). However, this changed in 2008 when related factors, (increased oil prices, decline of the U.S dollar, volatility in demands of commodities) resulted in a second global food crisis (Headey and Fan, 2010:88). The roots of this crisis along with other causes such as rapid urbanization and weather shocks are further discussed below. Subsequently, the attention is concentrated on the consequences that the crisis had on underprivileged populations, including South Africans.

3.4.1 Reasons that led to food price increase

One of the major issues that brought the food price crisis in 2008 is associated with the rapid urbanization in the developing world (Satterthwaite et al., 2010). The global population is estimated to reach 9.1 billion between 2009 and 2050 with nearly all the growth taking place in urban areas in low- and middle-income countries (UNDESA, 2010). Ravallion et al. (2007) claim that poverty prevails in urban areas, about one-quarter of the poor in the global South live there and they move to cities more rapidly than the population as a whole.

Given that “the cities of the developing world are spectacularly ill-prepared for the explosion in urban living” (Ginkel in Nature, 2008), growing populations had to adjust to such changes. For instance, China and India, countries with emerging economies and fast population growth improved their purchasing power and thus increased their demand for some specific foods such as livestock products which require large portions of feed grains (Charlebois et al., 2010).

Transportation and energy demand were other main causes of food price hikes as agriculture is greatly depended on fuel and transports. High demand on crude oil led to higher prices and consequently to costly transportations for commodities. The increase of price of crude oil did not only influence the cost

23 of shipping food supplies but the access to fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural equipment as well (Charlebois et al., 2010). Additionally, this raised demand for alternative fuels such as biofuels, which can serve as a substitute but are made from plants and other agricultural products (such as maize and rapeseed oil). This does not function as an efficient solution given that the price of these crops rises resulting to increasing food prices.

During the crisis in 2008, the depreciation of the U.S. dollar affected the food prices as it is the primary trade currency and its value decreased against euro, pound and Japanese yen. Subsequently the price of food for countries using these currencies was lower meaning that they were buying more. On the contrary, those in the developing world were adversely affected for two reasons, first the dollar depreciated much less against their currencies and secondly, the availability of affordable food was little due to the high demand and import capacity of privileged countries (Headey and Fan 2010; Mitchell, 2008).

Furthermore, during that year the global food production was affected by weather shocks. Australia (which is one of the world’s higher wheat producers), Romania, Lesotho, Somalia, Ghana were hit by draughts while Ecuador, Bolivia, Sri Lanka by floods (Charlebois et al., 2010:4). The world prices on cereals increased particularly by the loss of crop production in Australia, U.S., EU, Canada and Russia (OECD-FAO, 2007).

Soaring food prices triggered global distress and those living in developing nations particularly, went through enormous hardships. The following section delves into that matter.

3.4.2 Impact of high food prices on the developing world

People residing in poor countries are the ones affected the most since they spend almost three-quarters of their income on purchasing staple foods (Cranfield et al., 2007). Headey et al. (2010) state that African countries had to make efforts to meet the demands on cereals which are considerably incorporated in their diet, although consumers were facing difficulty in finding the money for purchasing them. The food that those living in extreme poverty (having up to $1.25 per day) could obtain given the dramatic rise on prices, left large populations with significantly lower food intake.

In general, countries in West Africa, the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, northeastern Kenya and Djibouti), and other states affected by conflicts, droughts, floods or cyclones were more exposed to the risks of higher global food prices as their local food supplies decreased, deteriorating the food

24 availability for the poorest (Townsend, world bank.org,n.d). In Horn of Africa, nomadic farmers lost their livestock due to the most catastrophic drought in the past 60 years (IFRC, 2011). People in Madagascar in order to fight famine, came up with “survival strategies, such as eating seeds to be sown for the following harvests and therefore reducing the likelihood of any meaningful crops” (Sasson, 2012:2). In the same way, farmers in Nairobi opted for cultivating cassava instead of maize because it needs fewer inputs and harvests faster (Sasson, 2012:3). Olivier de Schutter, special rapporteur of the United Nations on the right to food, specified, “If most poor countries are still very vulnerable, it is because their food security depends too much on food imports whose prices are increasingly high and volatile” (Sasson, 2012:2).

The rocketing prices led to many civil unrests and riots that took place all over the world, especially in more vulnerable countries. In Burkina Faso, people burnt government institutions due to the spike in prices of basic food commodities, while in Cameroon taxi driver’s protested about the fuel prices and 20 people were killed during the uprising (Sasson, 2012:5). Likewise in Senegal, policemen exerted force and brutality by using tear gas and beating riots protesting for the same reason (Lacey, 2008). Massive demonstrations took place in Mozambique, Cairo, Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Cameroon, Somalia, South Africa, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, causing major civil turbulences and leaving dead civilians behind (Lacey, 2008; Trostle, 2008).

These populations shift to a less balanced diet because unhealthy food is more affordable. Vulnerable groups such as women, children, elderly and disabled people are more likely to suffer from inadequate access to food (Armar-Klemesu, 2000; Beall, 2002).A study indicating that the percentage of hungry people in South Africa increased within 2008, confirms that female-headed households experienced hunger to a greater extent in comparison to male-headed households (Jacobs and Shirin, 2012). In addition, children with poor nutrition encounter complications on their physical and mental development on the long run (Brinkman et al 2010:153). This implies that there is no adequate institutional support and aid for groups that lack meeting their dietary needs and are exposed to health risks.

The impact of the increased food price undoubtedly led to a rise of the number of undernourished people. The graph below shows that the increase on food prices in 2008 in South Africa led to steeper food spending across all households, including serious hungry.

Figure 5: Higher food prices in relation to food expenditure across South-African households (Jacobs, 2012:3)

Therefore, poor people start cultivating and attaining positive outcome besides food security. UA results to income increase for local farmers who take advantage by selling their produce on better prices than the current commodity prices (Hertel et al., 2004).

3.5 National Policy Context

The potential positive impact of urban agriculture on poverty alleviation and food security is positioned in the sphere of urban development policy and scheme. The launch of the food security policy agenda is based on the bill of rights14, protected in the constitution of South Africa. The bill of rights is a cornerstone that enshrines that “every citizen has a right to access to sufficient food and water” (section 27, 1 (b), 1996), and “the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to achieve the realization of this right “(section 27, 2, 1996). Additionally, it refers that “every child has a right to basic nutrition” (section 28, 1(c), 1996).

14 https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/CityHealth/Documents/Legislation/Act%20- %20Constitution%20of%20the%20RSA%20Act%20-%20108%20of%201996.pdf

In 1997, the South African government appointed the Food Security Working Group15 in order to generate improved policies in agriculture and food security. Its commitments ranged from land reform to food trade, welfare services, sustainable food systems and healthy nutrition. Subsequently, a sequence of policies and reforms which address the issue were promoted.

The stipulations led to the development of the Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS) by the Department of Agriculture in 2002. One of its orders was to encourage institutional transformation by “enhancing intergovernmental relations and improving co-ordination among Regional, National, Provincial and Local governments in support of food security goals” (DoA, 2002:33). The strategy had as a mandate to promote food safety for food insecure South Africans by sponsoring trainings, job openings, food emergency systems and direct interventions when the target population was in need. It seeks to achieve multi stakeholder engagement, partnerships and monitoring and evaluation strategies which would guarantee the operation of the strategy (DoA, 2002:13,14).

Likewise, in 2009 election Manifesto, the ANC includes food security under its priorities and declares “food plentiful and no one shall go hungry” (ANC manifesto, 2009:9). Its commitments focus on hunger eradication, food relief programs which provide basic foods at affordable prices to underprivileged groups, land utilization for food production, capacity development, alternative institutional methods and partnerships which entrench these obligations (ANC manifesto, 2009:9).

In 2011 the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) suggested the Zero Hunger Strategy16 which aims to achieve food security in national and household level. The IFSS from the DoA served as an impetus for this strategy and its commitments intend to reinforce national and provincial institutions and NGOs to cooperate in order to meet the needs of marginalized communities by strengthening their capacities, and to encourage farmer’s engagement. Besides that, DAFF suggested another initiative, which aimed among others, to promote agricultural production by encouraging smallholder farmers to venture commercial endeavors and to fight food insecurity by using information systems which monitor the food safety conditions at all government levels.

15 http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Foodsecurity/foodsecurity.htm 16 https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/14379/

Additionally, the DAFF launches the NDP Fetsa Tlala project17 which aspires to distribute one million hectares of land by 2019 and along with another provincial project by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD), (see section 7.1), aim to support farmers.

Last but not least, it is worth mentioning that South Africans have now better health due to the improved nutrition and to the increased access to healthcare services (according to a report by President Jacob Zuma: 2014 18).

3.6 Concluding Remarks

This chapter has given a contextual description of past conditions that have increased the vulnerability of South Africans and exemplifies the need for improvement in their livelihoods. There are various challenges related to food insecurity in South Africa, such as poverty, urbanization and the food price crisis. These facts undoubtedly call for alternative development strategies and urban agriculture seems to be one of them. The need for economic development is imperative and the overarching problems that the region faces is definitely in SA’s policy agenda. However, whether the national policies related to urban farming are efficient and reach the poor in local level is open to debate and is further being discussed in chapter 7.

17 fetsa tlala project https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/17469/

18 http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/great-improvements-access-healthcare-services-0

Chapter 4

Research Methodology

This chapter aims to describe the research design that directed the conduction of the study in Soweto, Johannesburg for approximately 11 weeks (January 27th to April 12th 2015). Its purpose is to explain how the research was carried out with the aim of meeting its objective, to elucidate the role of urban agriculture in enhancing food security in the area. Initially, the main research question is addressed, along with the sub-questions which were formulated so as to support it (4.1). The subsequent section (4.2) outlines the conceptual scheme that brings together the main concepts followed by the operationalization. Section 4.3 is referred to the unit of analysis and sampling techniques and section 4.4 presents the research methodology followed by the different modes of data collection (section 4.5). Finally, this chapter covers the ethical considerations and the limitations of the study (4.6) and the concluding remarks on the research design.

4.1 Research questions

This research specifically aims to express the objectives of the study by answering the following research question and sub questions:

Main Question: How do urban agricultural activities enhance household livelihoods in Soweto, Johannesburg in terms of food and nutrition security and what urban policies create an enabling environment

for that?

Sub-question 1: What are the assets that farmers have access to in order to practice urban agriculture?

Sub-question 2: To what extent urban dwellers in Soweto depend on urban food production strategies in order to meet their food security needs?

Sub-question 3: What do those findings imply to policy initiatives taken in urban agriculture in Soweto? 29

4.2 Conceptual scheme and operationalization

The conceptual scheme (Figure 6) intends to visually draw attention to the main concepts of the research, urban agriculture, household livelihoods and food security by pointing out the relationships between them. In view of the sustainable livelihoods approach and by focusing on the livelihoods assets pentagon, the researcher first looks at the livelihood capitals that farmers combine in order to carry out agricultural practices. The scheme represents urban agriculture as a strategy, which can sustain or enhance their livelihoods. Risks, like climatic phenomena were taken into account as agriculture is an activity, which is often prone to shocks. Considering that vulnerability influences the access that farmers have in their livelihood assets, their view on challenges in undertaking urban farming activities are being examined. The purpose is initially to understand to what extent the capitals are at the disposal of urban farming practitioners and subsequently, if they enable them to attain food security, the main livelihood outcome. Additionally, the scheme indicates how urban agriculture is subject to the influence of existing urban governance policies by various stakeholders that operate in the area.

Figure 6: Conceptual scheme

Livelihood Assets which Structures & urban farmers possess Processes (social, human, natural, (policies, financial, physical) initiatives)

Livelihood Outcome

farmers possess Livelihood FOOD SECURITY Strategies

Urban Agricultural Activities -Risks &Shocks -Farmer’s Perceptions

Source: E.Troumpouki, 2015

The operationalization (see Appendix 1) is based on the theoretical framework and the concepts discussed and it reveals what data needed to be gathered in order to answer the research questions in an accurate manner. Each concept is divided into dimensions, for which a number of variables and subsequently indicators were examined. The indicators demonstrate what kind of information was used for the variable in order to answer the main question and sub-questions. In this way, the researcher scrutinized, the livelihood assets, which are available to the farmers, the livelihood strategies that they follow (urban farming activities), the nature of food insecurity in several parts of Soweto, and the policies that create favorable conditions or constrain the strategies. This outline facilitated the process of organizing a suitable research design, which enabled the researcher to obtain as valid results as possible.

4.3 Units of analysis and sampling method

Considering the research questions, the units of analysis are: (1) the urban agriculture practitioners and (2) the structures, processes and policies which enable urban agriculture.

Prior starting the research, I spent time on walking and driving around Soweto in order to identify the spaces where people farm. This happened because I realized that it was not realistic to talk with the farmers in their households. A household is consisted of more than one person and it is defined as a unit where members usually live together and contribute for the common good. Members of the household are not necessarily associated by bloodline. For example, occasionally, I talked with female farmers who are not able to raise their children who live in friend’s house. In Soweto and generally in developing regions this is quite a usual phenomenon. Although the study focuses on household food security its nature required the data collection to take place in the garden.

There are five types of gardens where farmers in Soweto grow their crops. These are: backyards, open space, NGO gardens, school gardens and larger scale gardens. The most frequently contacted unit is consisted of farmers who cultivate in each of these categories. Considering the difficulty of classifying the sampling population from the beginning, in most of the cases I used availability sampling where I would talk to the first urban agriculture practitioner who seemed to be available. Moreover, I used snowball sampling approach where for instance a farmer who works in an NGO garden would inform me about the location of another garden. In general NGO gardens, school gardens and open space gardens were easier to distinguish as they are located by the road and you can see the people farming. The head of the farmer’s forum in the region facilitated this process by providing information about the areas and

31 occasionally driving me around. However, the activity is not noticeable in the case of backyards. As far as the larger scale gardens are concerned, there are only two, one in the west and one in the south and I learnt for them from word of mouth. With the aim of ensuring that farmers who grow food in all types of gardens were represented I visited several gardens and talked with 70 farmers in total. More particularly, 14 farmers from each category took part in the research. The even number is justified by the significance in coming across with the similarities and the differences between these groups. Gender was not a condition for the selection as all participants were approached randomly and their input was equally important.

In order to comprehend the policy context, I interviewed six key informants who work in the government, academia or NGOs. This unit is complemented by policy documents which were provided by a couple of key contacts. Thus the second sampling was referred mainly to stakeholders as it is important for the research to acknowledge to what extent the existing policies shape the environment of urban agriculture.

4.4 Research methodology

The study employed a mixed methodology approach that combines the richness of qualitative and quantitative research. The reason that this design was selected is that the approach on the research problem is understood in a more thorough way by incorporating both approaches. The purpose of the selection of mixed methodology is that the combination of qualitative and quantitative technique is connected to the theoretical departure points of the thesis. Reflecting back to the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and considering that my goal was to examine participant’s access to assets by investigating how they combine them in order to meet their food security needs, the mixed methodology involved survey data collection. Likewise, drawing on the structures and processes of the framework, qualitative research gave a better understanding, as the semi-structured interviews employed to capture stakeholder’s perceptions and actions. The observations and the field diary served in a complementary manner as well. As Greene (2012) states, mixed methodology delivers more concise results than using only one, as the findings are expanded from one method to the other. Therefore the motivation of this form of research methodology is drawn on the focal points of the theory and in that way corresponds more meticulously to the research problem.

4.5 Research methods

In order for the information to be obtained, the data collection process included participant observation, surveys, semi-structured interviews and field diary.

4.5.1 Participant Observation

I used participant observation as a data collection method which is prominent in international development studies. That helped me to accelerate the gathering of valuable information and get a first- hand impression of the concepts that would be further investigated. As Schensul et al (1999:91) describe, participant observation is "the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the researcher setting". The observations were systematic and the first three weeks were solely dedicated to this method. I walked with farmers along their gardens, I ate with them, I attended a meeting where they debated about concerns and ideas etc. This helped me to understand better the dynamics and to get an overall idea of the topics I should discuss. Additionally, through observations, I noticed several important remarks, like for instance, that the majority of the farmers do not have the capacity to grow a variety of goods (they grow vegetables but not fruits).

4.5.2 Surveys

This method was used in order for me to acquire primary data collection. The choice of this research method is principally because it can give a broad and substantive image by covering attributes of the sample population.

The questionnaire was consisted of four parts. The first part was a livelihood survey which had initially a section about household demographic data and then five sections regarding the livelihood assets – capitals (human, natural, social, physical and financial). The farmers who farm in any of the five types of garden mentioned previously, have different access to these capitals and their livelihoods are affected by the balance or non-balance between these capitals. The second part of the questionnaire was on the risks and the shocks that farmers might have been through regarding their crops. The third part was about the main challenges they have faced since they started agriculture (also factors which prevent them from expanding their farming activities) and their perceptions on farming, how has doing urban agriculture improved theirs and their household’s livelihoods (also how their farming practices could be improved). The forth part entailed questions on their food security, with questions asked with a recall period of four weeks (30 days). The farmer was first asked an occurrence question, whether a specific condition in the question has happened at all in the past four weeks (yes or no). Subsequently, if it was

33 yes, there was a question on the frequency of this condition which specifies whether it has happened rarely (once or twice), sometimes (three to ten times) or often (more than ten times) in the past four weeks. The forth part of the questionnaire is adopted by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA) funded by the USAID and its partners and is called Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide. It had been implemented in various areas, proving that it can be adjusted to different cultural contexts and I trust that it worked efficiently in my research as well. Pilots took place before the official start of the quantitative research in order to pretest that there is no part in the questionnaire which implies any ambiguity. The data were analyzed using SPSS software.

4.5.3 Semi- structured Interviews

The semi structured interviews attempted to collect information about the third research question and aimed to make space for a wider range of new ideas to be brought up and further explored. As Bryman (2008) highlights, semi-structured interviews permit for unanticipated data that has not arisen before in the process of reviewing related studies. Also, they allow seeing how the respondents experience a certain social phenomenon (Bryman, 2008). Considering that the study is based on the Sustainable Livelihood Approach framework which is quite extensive and can be adapted in various occasions, the semi-structured interviews performed as a useful method to put emphasis on the transforming processes.

The sub-question necessitated looking into the current urban policy on farming in Soweto and how it responds to farmer’s needs. More particularly, I wanted to see how different stakeholders encourage urban farming in Soweto through their initiatives and policies. I therefore talked with key informants from government, academia and NGOs. These interviews intended to address the degree of awareness and responsiveness on the issue. As far as the number of the interviews is concerned, I was planning to do as more as possible, considering the limited time frame. As Small (2009) stresses, it is advisable that the procedure will continue until saturation is achieved, meaning after noticing that the last interviews do not provide any new substantial information. On this part, I faced difficulties in terms of getting in contact with many stakeholders because they would always cancel. I did six interviews but I believe that the information that is gathered contributes extensively to my goal.

4.5.4 Field diary

Using field diary proved a very beneficial method. More particularly, reading my notes helped me trig my memory on the events I experienced during my visits in Soweto. Throughout the period that I stayed in the field, I took notes which assisted me to get a better insight of the situation and the local culture. In the diary, I wrote my intuitions and views about different experiences with the respondents. I made these notes on a regular basis which helped me reflect on my involvement and make further assumptions. Additionally, I took notes when I was having informal discussions with farmers and when I was noticing something crucial that I had to write down. Similar objective was met through taking pictures from my phone and camera.

4.6 Ethical considerations and limitations

There are several ethical considerations that need to be taken into account. Miles and Huberman (1994, cited in Tracy, 2013:246) state that, studies usually have to select “between two goals, such as validity versus avoiding harm, scientific understanding versus individual rights, detached inquiry versus help, help-giving versus confidentiality, and freedom of inquiry versus political advantage”. During my field study, I tried by all means to be transparent and make sure that the participants of my study (70 farmers) have clearly understood its purpose.

More specifically, the first thing that I explained to them was that I conduct this research as a part of my master’s studies in Holland and that I am not affiliated with any government body or NGO etc. I clarified that their participation is voluntary and that they can stop providing their input in case they would feel uncomfortable for any reason. Additionally, the respondents were informed that they could skip a question if they would feel like. In a particular section of my questionnaire, I ask the farmers what their household’s approximate monthly income was last month. Unlikely to what I was expecting asking such a sensitive question, only three respondents said that they prefer not to share this information. Moreover, I also informed them that there is non-payment policy; however, in most of the cases I bought goods from them as a kind gesture to thank them for their valuable contribution. Considering the fact that each farmer spent 40’ to an hour from their time in order to respond to my questions, I tried to be as cautious as possible and not disrupt them from their work. Often I would wait for them to finish the scheduled farm chores (watering the field, digging the garden etc.) because for instance they would have water only for specific hours.

Generally, I tried to create nice atmosphere where farmers would feel comfortable and in case there was a group of farmers around, I would kindly ask to interview those who are interested, separately in

35 another location of the garden. In that way, the respondent wouldn’t be biased for the responses they give due to the presence of others. Something else that I would like to notice is that many farmers were asking me if I know Dr. Malan (my local supervisor) who is very active on helping the farmers in Soweto. In this case, I was explaining to them his role on my research and I would always make clear that my connection to him does not have any implication. I highlighted thus, that the study has little capacity to influence any project or policy. All in all, I intended to build healthy and reciprocal relationships with the farmers, to stay transparent and to encourage them to talk freely.

As for the limitations, the immediate principal challenge of the study was the short span of time over which it was carried out. Time is very important factor for the feasibility of the research but I deem I took strategic decisions in terms of time management.

Another critical limitation was the language barrier since English is not the only spoken language in the country and I do not have a command in Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho or any of the rest seven official languages in South Africa. However, a translator assisted in interpreting when I was gathering the data for the survey. The contribution of a translator is vital; nevertheless, there is a risk that some details will be unintentionally lost. As Ehrenreich (2002:19) suggests, the different ‘language and modes of expression of thoughts and feelings’ can influence the deduction of the obtained information directly and thus its elucidation.

4.7 Concluding Remarks

The mixed research methodology aimed at elaborating on the concepts being examined and specifically at exploring the linkage between urban agriculture and food security in Soweto and at the role of key stakeholders. With the intention of answering the main question and sub-questions, the study employed triangulation which increases validity. As Lewis-Beck et al (2004:1142) highlight “Triangulation refers to the use of more than one approach to the investigation of a research question in order to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings”.

Chapter 5

Overview of the Livelihood Assets of Urban cultivators and their perceptions

Turning to the data analysis, this chapter aims to answer the first research sub-question: “What are the assets that farmers have access to, in order to practice urban agriculture”? The purpose is to map the livelihood assets, human, social, natural, physical and financial that the urban agriculture practitioners use in order to carry out agricultural activities. Given the fact that there are no critical disparities in the accessibility to assets that farmers from all five types of gardens have, in this chapter I analyze characteristics that define the agriculture producers from all categories. The information presented in the chapter is based on the survey, observations, informal discussions and systematic transect walks with farmers.

5.1 Profile of farmers

This section serves the purpose of giving an overview of the research population and referring to the features of the farming groups. Initially, it describes the characteristics of the members who live in the house and determine the household composition. This information was to point out the overall picture of those residing in a household compound as that influences the food demand and the income generation. Subsequently, it refers to the farmer’s gender, age, marital status, health and education.

Household members It is demonstrated that, the average number of members who reside in every house is six; however 186 household members were reported in total. Farmers live with their partners, children, siblings, parents, grandparents other relatives, with a friend or someone who works in the garden. Large households have to manage their coping strategies more considerably as the food demand is higher. That is crucial especially when 37% of the members noted living in all households (70 in total), are children. Although the number of the kids who experience hunger in South Africa is declining in terms of frequency of occurrence, children malnutrition was persistent in 2006-2007 (Aliber 2009 in Altman et al., 2009:12). Considering that a nutritious diet is vital for children’s development, farmers might have a stronger drive for engagement with urban agriculture, a medium for bringing food in the table.

Activities of household members Regarding the activities of those living in the house, they are engaged both in the formal and informal sector, yet the data demonstrate that there is low employment rate (see below the figure 7).

Figure 7: Activities of household members (N=186)

70 60 50 40 30 61 20 39 10 27 11 1 15 2 1 1 7 11 7 3 0

Number of household members

Activities of household members

Source: Field survey (Soweto, 2015)

Income of household members The income of their activities (including agriculture) ranges between R320 to R10.000. This information gives an insight into the economic situation of the household members. Their income often influences the financial condition of households (further analyzed in section 5.3). Generally, household members undertake agricultural activities regularly or casually meaning that their contribution of labor has the potential to yield higher revenues for the household.

Disability of household members Furthermore, six farmers reported that there is a disabled person living in their household. However, two farmers mentioned that the disabled members help with the maintenance of the productive space (backyard). As Landon-Lane (2004) stresses, often those with disability depend highly on assistance from

38 others but they can also provide limited care to the home gardens, which donates to household livelihoods. Below I present farmer’s features like gender, age, education, marital and health status.

Gender In regard to gender, although the sampling of the study did not intend to include equal number of both sexes (as it was based on availability and snowball technique), it turned out that both genders were evenly represented. However, the gender representation was not the same in each type of farming. For instance, the respondents I talked with from NGO gardens are mostly women, on the contrary to other types. This is explained by the fact that one NGO garden recruits mainly women who are vulnerable and are in urgent need of support which would help them to help themselves. This situation confirms what was mentioned earlier in the theory where Slater 2001, states that women who have been victims of violence, receive benefits from their activity as it helps them to build their self-confidence. In general, most of the women I talked to were highly motivated to engage with the activity and they stressed the need to provide food for their families or obtain income from purchases which they would spend to make ends meet. This is evidence that Devereux et al., (2001), Hovorka et al., (2009), Jacobi et al., (1999) have also witnessed in relation to women’s enthusiasm.

Age The participants of the study are aged from 21 to 83 years old. In order for the study to allow better analysis and comparisons (when appropriate), I created four categories of ages (see table 1 below).

Table 1: Age categories of farmers (N=70)

Age Categories Number of farmers in %

1. 20-35 27%

2. 35-50 29%

3. 50-65 26%

4. 65-80< 18%

Source: Field survey (Soweto, 2015)

Young people (20-35 years old) work in school gardens, open space gardens, larger scale gardens, in a backyard while only one from the sample was reported to work in an NGO garden. Youth seems to be interested in urban agriculture, acknowledging the benefits of growing one’s own food and they feel that they are doing something beneficial, “It helps me, it refrains me from crime, I grow my own food and I don't have to steal” (respondent x, age 27). This is contrary to a study conducted in a small town in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, where youth is apathetic to agriculture and praises a westernized, materialistic and modern way of living (see also: Moller,2005, Foeken, 2008).

The most dominant category (29%) is the second one where people are aged from 35-50 years old. Most of them work in NGO gardens, open space gardens or larger scale projects. As for the third category (50- 65 years old), four farmers work in each of NGO, school, larger scale category and respectively three work in backyards and open space. The fourth category (65-80< years old) is prevalent in backyards (5 out of 14) whereas the oldest person works in a school garden. Elder people seemed to be passionate about what they do, as three of them have been farmers for a very long time (30, 45 or 52 years).

Photograph 1: Female elder farmer in a school garden, “My garden is my home. 7 in the morning? You will find me here. 7 at night? I am still here”.

However 75% of the sampling population has been farming for 1-4 years, which is not very long compared to other cities were urban agriculture is practiced for decades. Half of the farmers devote five days per week in the activity while 23% 6 or 7 days and 26%, 2 or 4 days. Only 1 farmer works once in a week and that is due to regular employment.

Marital status Regarding their marital status, 45 % of the farmers are single, 35 % are married, 7 % are divorced, 7 % live together with their partners and 6 % are widows/widowers.

Health Farmers are in a good health as 37 % said that they did not need to visit the doctor/clinic or hospital during the last year while 29 % of the respondents said that they visited once or twice due to illness. 11 % of the farmers said that they have been each month (12 times) for checkup and 12 % have been sometimes (3-6 times within a year). Farmers have also used an alternative medicine method which is called traditional healing. Traditional healers are practitioners who use medicines made by plants, animals or minerals with the aim of curing the patient. It is considered that the sickness or disease has been caused by witchcraft, a notion that has been embedded in the South African culture for many years. Although most of the farmers implied that this practice is outdated, 11 % have visited a traditional healer in the past year. Last but not least, two farmers reported that they have partial disability meaning that they have difficulty in walking well.

Education With regard to education, before referring to the present findings, it is worth recalling that the schooling system has been marked by principles of segregation during the apartheid era. “On June 16, 1976, fifteen thousand schoolchildren gathered in Soweto to protest the government’s ruling that half of all classes in secondary schools must be taught in Afrikaans. Students did not want to learn and teachers did not want to teach in the language of the oppressor” (Mandela, 1995). There have been major historical disparities where children were imposed on learning in a language other than theirs and adjusting on a discriminating study curriculum. Maurice (1983 in Jansen, 1990:2) says: “They decide what we are taught. Our history is written according to their ideas... We are taught biology, but not in the terms of the biology of liberation, where we can tackle the concept of "race" to prove that there is

41 no such thing as "race." We are taught geography, but not the geography of liberation. We are not taught that 80% of South Africans are dumped on 13% of the land. . . We are taught accountancy merely to calculate the profits of the capitalist.” This systematic disapproval is of a paramount importance considering that all of the respondents were already born during the apartheid period and that all of them are black South Africans.

Particularly, 62 % of the farmers, have completed secondary education (women represent 34 %), 16 % have pursued tertiary (male respondents dominate as for 12%), 11% have completed primary education, while the rest 11 % have not been to school. In relation to the types of gardens, those who work in NGO and open space gardens are better educated whereas those who work in their home gardens show lower educational attainment (see figure 8). On the contrary to this evidence, in a similar study in Accra, Ghana urban agriculture practitioners who farm at their backyard have accomplished higher level of education than those farming in open space gardens (Asomani-Boateng 2002).

Figure 8: Farmer’s completed education per garden type, N= (70)

Source: Field survey (Soweto, 2015)

This section was interested in exploring the profile of urban agriculture cultivators and the features of those living in their household, in an attempt to delineate an overall image of the household. The data exemplify that every household has its own particularities and likewise the sampled population is diversified in terms of age, gender, health and marital status and educational completion. However, they are all interested in employing agricultural activities meaning that farming appeals urban dwellers with varied backgrounds.

5.2 Access to natural resources and inputs

Food production depends crucially on the quantity and quality of accessible natural resources such as land, water and inputs such as equipment, fertilizers and seeds. Regarding the land accessibility, gardens are usually easily reached. Similarly to the case of Lusaka, Zambia, gardens in Soweto are found “to a wider variety of urban locations: along roadsides, in the middle of roundabouts, under power lines, along rivers, on land occupied by educational and administrative institutions” (Simatele et al., 2008:9).

Overwhelmingly, 79% of the cultivators reported that their land is either inside the stands they reside in or 1 to 7 km away. However, the distance is longer for 7 farmers who farm at larger scale gardens, located more than 24 km from their houses. The latter commute by South African taxi wars which are mini buses that serve commuters mostly from lower economic classes. As for the ownership of the gardens, only 15% of farmers own the land and from those 10% feel insecurity about their land rights. This can be explained by the fact that most of them are not entitled to the land for a life time. Devereux et al, (2001) assert that farmers who are not secure about the productive space do not devote entirely on investing and subsequently do not obtain high yields. This does not necessarily reflect the situation on the ground as from what I experienced farmers in Soweto strive to supplement their meagre production despite the fact that they do not own the land.

Concerning the dimension of the gardens, 67% of the total population cultivates in less than 1.000 sq. meters, while the size of the garden for 21 % of urban cultivators is 7.000 sq. meters to 1 hectare (14 farmers from larger scale projects and 1 from an open space garden). Moreover, 46% of the farmers stated that they also have access to other land where they can grow crops. Having access to more than one plot of land does not only mean that they have backyards but that they farm to other garden types

43 as well. For instance, respondent 11 referred that he works both in an NGO garden but also in a school garden where he provides some training to fellow farmers.

Agriculture relies heavily on existing water resources but they are not easily accessible for farmers in Soweto. More particularly, those who farm at their yard, have access to piped water in or outside the house which almost in all cases is delivered by a private supply. Cultivators from NGO gardens get water from communal, shared tap or public standpipe while those who grow crops in larger scale gardens, get water from borehole or a dug well. Lastly, the farmers who work in an open space or a school garden get water from a public standpipe or borehole or rainwater.

Concerning the quality of the water, 90 % of the farmers rated it good or excellent while the rest 10% (6 % of whom were from open space gardens) rated it average or poor. Although, the explanation that they gave for their choice, is related to accessibility and not quality as they said that the borehole does not work properly and that there is access only in the morning. Water is vital for food production, and producers from all categories, besides those who farm at their backyards, complained about the availability. For instance respondent 20 who works at an open space garden mentioned that the problems that she face are related to lack of land and water access, “ I would like to start growing vegetables but I have a small piece of land and not much water so I grow only mealies (corn), (challenges on farming further discussed in section 6.3).

Photograph 2: Female farmer watering her crop by using public standpipe in a school garden, Soweto.

In relation to the quality of soil, 79% of the famers rated it good or excellent and those of whom who rated it average, fair or poor were from open space, larger scale, or NGO gardens. The reasons that they gave are that the soil has a lot of stones and insects, it is dry and that it is combined by two different kinds of soils (sandy and clay) which makes it unproductive. Also, respondent 19 said that the problem is that the land has not been cultivated before and some crops are not growing fast. Farmers have expressed serious concerns about it and as respondent 3 said, “We need the knowledge of experts and the soil needs to be tested.” I, myself, witnessed this as several farmers wanted to share their distress about a farm unit which has been infertile resulting to crop destruction. Furthermore, 4 people out of 14 who cultivate in open space garden mentioned that the soil they farm is contaminated with sewerage. They emphasized that they remove the rubbish and then put a lot of compost in order to bring it into production.

In regard to the equipment, farmers use traditional tools such as hand tools. Most of them have access to a spade, fork, rake, hosepipe, wheel barrow and palisade fence. Nevertheless, a very few have access to food storage, twine cultivator and sacks. Almost half of the people having a backyard own the basic tools (spade, fork), inferring that they have better access to the physical capital than others. Nonetheless, in other categories the amount of people owning them is very small. For example, some people who work in an NGO did not possess any tools because someone stole it but a woman farmer who has her own garden lends them a spade and a fork sometimes.

When farmers were asked if they grow organic “imvelo19” crops, 82% stated that they do, including all respondents from open space and larger scale gardens. Agriculture producers often grow organic due to obstacles to apply alternative farming techniques (Parrott, 2004; Pretty et al., 2002). Additionally, they would use chemical inputs if they had access to them, but they do not as they cannot afford to buy them (Parrot, 2004).

19 Imvelo means nature in Zulu language. Growing imvelo crops means growing crops in a natural way, without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Photograph 3: Farmer showing his organic produce in an NGO garden, Soweto.

Intensification of locally available resources is a vital alternative and farmers in Soweto usually apply manure, crop residues and wood waste which increase the nutrients in the soil. As Rosen et al (2005) assert, wood waste is a sustainable method which improves the biological course within the soil and makes it more fertile.

Photograph 4: Wood waste used for soil fertility in an open space garden, Soweto.

A farmer (informant 33) who works in a medicinal garden in a school property explained the importance of producing organic products which are “beneficial for our health” as he said, and he even knows how to make organic cosmetics.

Photograph 5: Anti- Wrinkle oil and mouth rinse produced organically at a medicinal garden in school properties, Soweto.

He emphasized that he prefers to apply environmentally friendly inputs and he said that using a paste made by chili pepper and garlic has been an efficient natural pesticide for his crops. Nevertheless, 56 % of farmers said that they sometimes apply pests or weeds control products which questions the validity of their previous statement. In addition, 10% of the producers stated that they always use cultivation inputs which are chemical fertilizers and pesticides before or after planting their crops. In fact, farmers seemed to have misunderstood the question and the distinction between growing organic and not organic crops. That might reveal their unawareness regarding the overuse or misuse of pesticides. Farmers need a certain expertise in distinguishing what kind of products they need to relate to crop

47 productivity. Similarly, in a study about the pest-control system in the market gardens of Lomé, Togo the author emphasized the significance of logistical assistance as the farmers have difficulty in becoming aware of what products to apply and in what dosage (Tallaki, 2005).

As for the seeds, they are usually provided by the government for free. I was told several times though, that the seeds were not available and that farmers have to wait for a long time to receive them, resulting to delay of food production. Those from open space gardens complained more for this constrain. In general, 78% of the farmers confirmed that they are satisfied with the quality, 55% are pleased with the price whereas 52% are dissatisfied with the availability.

The analysis reveals that urban farming is greatly hindered by insufficient access to land, a fundamental resource for the activity. The same stands for water regarding its availability; however farmers seem to manage to employ their activities by using and exchanging a few hand tools and implements. It is disputed whether they understand the difference in undertaking sustainable and conventional practices and their implications, which might be due to lack of knowledge and lack of access to training programs which could educate them on these issues.

5.3 Financial Resources of Urban Agriculture Producers

This section aims to look at the economic resources of the farmers in order to examine if they depend on agriculture for income generation. As mentioned in the theory, urban farming is related to profitability and growth.

Given the earning potential, 40% of the farmers said that their household gets income from urban gardening, although that is little (up to R30020 per month), meaning that its contribution in revenues is not very significant. Farmers usually sell their produce to locals in an informal context, although an additional 16% of the cultivators, all coming from larger scale projects said that they earn more (up to R100021 per month.) This category of farmers delivers their produce to the “Joburg Market” 22 which gets goods from 5.000 South African farmers.

20 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately $21.60 21 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately $72.03 22 http://www.joburgmarket.co.za/aboutus_intoduction.php

Photograph 6: Farmers taking a break by the food storage, provided by the “Joburg Market” larger scale garden, Soweto.

Considering that not all earn a reasonable income out of agriculture for sustaining themselves and their households, farmers and household members have several resources for making the ends meet. As showed, 27% of the households have a member who earns money from regular employment and 26% reported that they collect remittances from family or friends. Moreover, 82% of the households subsist on social grants, sponsored by the government with the aim of alleviating poverty and increasing the household income. Particularly, 42% get child support grant (CSG), a welfare grant (R32023) which since its starting in 1998, “has reached 10.7 million children which makes up approximately 55 percent of the total number of children in South Africa” (Patel et al.,2012:2). In addition, 32% receive old age grant (R135024), an endowment which reaches three million recipients in the country25, 5% are given disability grant (R1350) whereas one household obtains grant in aid (R320) for a caregiver of a disabled elder and one care-dependency grant (R1350) for a caregiver of a disabled kid.

23 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately$23.05 24 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately $97.24 25 Fact sheet: Issue no 8 of 2014 – 31 August 2014 A statistical summary of social grants in South Africa file:///C:/Users/Elena/Downloads/fact%20sheet%20issue%20no%208%20of%202014.pdf

Additionally, all farmers reported that they do piece jobs in order to increase their monetary income. During the last year, 16% of the farmers did small trading and 17% did cleaning or housekeeping. The list demonstrating the jobs of the rest (67%) includes waste picking, security, construction, dressmaking, teaching and working in a bank, business, petrol station or factory shop. Despite the fact that farmers and those residing in their household earn monetary income in various ways, it is important to underline that members of the household do not necessarily share the money. According to respondent 6, she never asks money from her sons, “they might give me sometimes but it’s their money not mine”.

As it is useful for the explorative nature of this thesis, farmers were asked to provide the amount of their household income last month. Although, asking that question might be indiscreet, only three people did not want to share this information. The table below indicates the income categories that were formed by farmer’s responses and the percentage of cultivators belonging in each.

Table 2: Households monthly income (including social welfare grants), (N=70)

Income in ZAR Percentage of sampled population

<1000 16%

1001-3000 42%

3001-5000 16%

5001-7000 11%

7001-9000 9%

9001-11000 3%

>11.000 3%

Source: Field Research (Soweto, 2015)

As shown, most of the farmers earn between R1000-R500026. There are no noteworthy differences between the five types of gardens in terms of level of income.

All in all, urban gardening provides cash income in households through the sales especially for those farming at larger scale projects. Moreover, farmers save money as they consume self-produced

26 Exchange value to US dollar is approximately between $72.01 and $360.16

50 products, “I cut the expenditure for buying food” (respondent 66). Although it seems that the majority of the respondents (84%), cannot secure a livelihood through urban farming which does not apply in the cases of Bamako, Dar-es-Salaam where “the economic return from urban agriculture compares favorably with that of unskilled construction workers” (Simatele et al, 2008:3).

5.4 Access to social capital

An important asset which facilitates urban dwellers to practice agriculture is the social one. During the research I paid attention to the networks that the farmers have created, the trust and reciprocity that they have built between each other, their participation in cooperatives and the exchanges that encourage collaboration.

Farmers who work together have built stronger bonds than those who grow their food in their backyards and do not practice the activity simultaneously with others. For instance, 87% of the cultivators stated that they strongly agree or agree on a statement about trusting fellow farmers and only 17% said that they had a tension or conflict. However, it is worth mentioning that despite the fact that 13 farmers from the open space garden stated that they trust each other, the one who did not, highlighted that: “If they told you they trust each other they are lying” said respondent 23. This is an interesting testimonial as it hints that farmers might prefer to give socially desirable answers. Nevertheless, I saw farmers helping each other (watering the productive space of a fellow when he/she was absent) and in general the atmosphere was positive in all gardens I visited. Moreover, 66% of the producers said that they exchange food, as respondent 12 said, “We eat all together and it is nice, if I won’t have food at home one day, I will certainly find here”.

The producers stressed the importance of cooperatives and 56% of the research sample reported that they are members of an organized farmer’s group. Additionally, 55% of the farmers stated that they would like to have a leadership position in a group in order for their opinion to have higher influence when they need to discuss concerns and challenges. “I want my voice to be heard, women are leaders, I want to bring here other women from my neighborhood, there are opportunities here”, said a female farmer (respondent 3) who works in an NGO garden. However, none of the people who farm at their home garden expressed such a desire which is reasonable considering that they do not cooperate with others, unless they also work at another type of garden.

Farmer’s groups have collective purposes which promote agricultural activities; they might for instance aim to push institutional arrangements in their favor. Additionally, they might intend to ameliorate finances and reduce economic stress. For example, a farmer’s group from a specific open space garden collects the money from purchases and gathers at the end of the month to discuss on what they need to buy (they said there are a lot of tools missing but they hope that eventually one day they will start sharing the money and use them for themselves). As mentioned in the theory, this endorses Scmidt’s (2011) stance which suggests that cooperatives help farmers to better organize their activities and reach their goals. Likewise, when respondent 68 was asked to give a suggestion for improvement of urban agriculture practices, he said, “The creation of a cooperative is the solution”, meaning that members meet their interests and needs by negotiating all together over services, access to market, trainings, inputs etc. This attests that farmers acknowledge that mutual support leads to better outcomes collectively, which subsequently contribute to food security and poverty alleviation.

Photograph 7: Region D Farmer’s Forum (RDFF) meets up to discuss the opportunity of creating a farmer’s market by the assistance of Dr. Malan (Department of Anthropology and Development studies, UJ).

Producers were eager to transfer their knowledge to other farmers or dwellers of the community. Female respondent 3 working in an NGO garden finds her action socially valuable, “I help my friends in the neighborhood, I go at their backyards and I teach them. They all know me and they thank me because they grow food to eat. I want to help them, especially the women”. Agriculture reinforces reciprocity between the producers and their community as 72% of the farmers stated that they trust their neighbors while 65% said that they give them products or services. Farmers highlighted the importance of this moral incentive in poverty alleviation and community empowerment, “I would like to grow a big garden so I can help the community” respondent 39. Urban farming offers positive externalities for disadvantaged or marginalized groups who are in greater need of support, “I fight poverty and I give food to children at school, and to those who have HIV and stay at home” respondent 46.

However, respondent 25 highlighted “I don’t trust them, our open space garden is new and we don’t have a fence yet, they come and steal our produce and tools at night, the wheel barrow is gone”. A farmer who cultivates at the backyard (respondent 44) said, “I think that if I give surpluses for free they will stop stealing my crops, maybe I will start giving them”. In a similar context, “in Bissau and Port-au- Prince the frequent gifting of food by home producers, strengthens reciprocity within assistance networks and reduces incidence of theft” (Mougeot, 2000:22).

Gardens play a vital role in generating green spaces as they improve the atmosphere and are associated with community wellbeing. Maas J et al. (2006:587) link the limited access to livable spaces that poor urban dwellers usually have with environmental injustice. As I observed, farmers recognize the determining factor that natural and agricultural spaces have in the living environment. Gardens serve as a hub for socializing, farmers enjoy sitting all together at the end of the working day and neighbors join them too.

Photograph 8: Female farmers socializing at an open space garden, Soweto.

In this context, sharing interests, knowledge and needs is an attitude which benefits the farmers who work collectively in order to improve their livelihoods. Their testimonies reveal that they recognize the values which are encompassed in the social capital as through agriculture they reassure unity, solidarity, compassion and community building and endorse initiatives (market creation).

5.5 Concluding Remarks

In the perspective of my theoretical framework, the data analysis identifies the key opportunities and constraints faced by urban farmers. All capitals are valuable for determining the potential of urban agriculture as a development tool which incorporates livelihood outcomes. Nevertheless, the capital which plays the most considerable role is the natural and unfortunately, as shown, farmers have less access to it due to inadequate availability and lack of ownership titles, which adversely affect the activity. Produces would produce more if they had better access to this capital, as well as the physical but the latter is uplifted by the improved access to the social, where farmers show an inclination for cooperation and solidarity. With respect to the financial capital, food producers use several sources of income in order to sustain themselves as agriculture does not considerably progress from subsistence to commercial profits.

Chapter 6

Overview of the Urban Agriculture practices and Food Security

In this chapter I analyze the way farmers employ urban agriculture and the extent that it operates as a livelihood strategy in terms of food security. First, I point out the reasons that gardeners engage with agriculture and subsequently I demonstrate the different techniques of food production and the crops cultivated. Then the emphasis shifts to the perceptions of the farmers on shocks and risks in agriculture and on the challenges they face. Farmers referred to the factors that prevent them from expanding their activities and to their recommendations for improvement in their practices.

Building on the concept that urban farming emerges strongly as a livelihood source which boosts food security; I subsequently present and analyze the food security patterns which denote farmers from all types. The chapter hence aims to investigate whether that assumption lies in the case of Soweto by answering the second research sub-question, ”To what extent farmers depend on urban food production strategies in order to meet their food security needs”? The analysis makes use of the field diary, conversations; transect walks on farmer’s premises and a survey (based on the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, HFIAS questionnaire).

6.1 Motivations for engagement with Urban Agriculture

Farmers were asked to give their opinion on what are the motives that drive them to practice urban agriculture. Most cultivators (82%) stressed the role of agriculture in supplementing food availability for home consumption. They gave answers such as: “I get some food home and I eat it with my family” (respondent 6), “I can put food in the table and support myself and my nephew” (respondent 9), “our food security has improved” (respondent 55), “farming prevents hunger” (respondent 30). As mentioned in section 5.3, urban agriculture has economic significance by means of providing a little money to 40% of the farmers or a primary supplementary income to 16% as they sell big shares of their produce. For instance, respondents referred, “I sale our products often at funerals” (respondent 29), “I have created my small business and I sell the food that I grow, so I make money” (respondent 50).

Almost 14% of the producers said that they started planting some vegetables because the markets are quite expensive and that by growing their own food they save their money for other purposes. Urban households count on urban gardening because it assists them to reduce their expenses (see also De Zeeuw et al, 2011). As three farmers mentioned, “Everything I want for my salad I have it in my garden,

55 the store is expensive, my garden is not” (respondent 48), “I don't have to buy from the markets, I have my organic food” (respondent 7), “I cut the expenditure for buying food” (respondent 63).

About 20% of the sample reported that their goods provide them necessary nutrition and improve their health. Indicatively they mentioned, “we seldom get ill” (respondent 30), “we live longer, me and my family we love it” (respondent 67), “it protects for diseases” (respondent 65), “I have changed my lifestyle in a good way, I eat healthier” (respondent 56). Reflecting on the definition of food security, being food secure, means among others to have adequate access in nutritious food. However, it is worth highlighting that urban dwellers in poor communities consume high portions of food with sugar, salt and saturated fats because they are very accessible and relatively cheap. This leads to an unhealthy diet, which is a problem observed around all urban Africa. Garret “South African women from low or middle income class have obesity levels counterpart those of the United States and exceed those of most European countries” (Garret, 2000:7).

I remember I was interviewing a female farmer who was not speaking english and my assistant- translator told me afterwards “Don’t you see how fat she is? Of course she is not food insecure” (the woman indeed gave “No” answers in the questions regarding food security (thoroughly discussed in section 6.5). One noteworthy observation is that I saw more food markets with unhealthy food products than with healthy ones. One day I was at a market where there were both healthy and unhealthy foods and I approached the vender from the unhealthy shop to see her foodstuff. In our discussion she mentioned that she has more customers than the vender at the veggie store because her products are cheap. In addition, I saw many people who were selling unhealthy products (mainly sweeties and fruit water ice) to drivers stuck in traffic or waiting for the traffic light. This verifies the previous statement about the easy access to unhealthy foods and their high consumption. Likewise, according to a household survey in Cape Town, Crush et al (2011:537) find that “47% of the sample never ate fruit and 34% rarely ate vegetables “.

Photograph 9: Food market with unhealthy food products (candies, chips etc.) by the road, Soweto.

Additionally, 11% of the farmers highlighted that food production, especially when it is commonly cultivated, reduces poverty in the community and empowers it through sharing, “I encourage the community to grow their own food in their household” (respondent 62), and “we teach the neighbors that want to learn” (respondent 52). Practicing agriculture has recreational value as it makes them feel more creative and useful, “Instead of wasting time I have something productive to do” (respondent 31), “I maintain myself, and I do whatever I want in my life”(respondent 42).

Although the merits of the urban gardening are many, four farmers mentioned that it has not contributed at all in their livelihoods and from what I presumed through their answers overall, that is because they lack access to capitals and the activity does not function as a viable strategy.

6.2 Farming systems and crops produced

Urban agriculture in Soweto is carried out depending on the resources that farmers have at their disposal and horticultural crops are the most common option of farming. Cultivators use simple crop production processes with low-cost and without use of advanced technologies. About 19% of farmers have established greenhouses which enable temperature control and heat maintenance and farmers

57 can cultivate a variety of crops throughout the year. Moreover, in two gardens farmers grow vegetables, mostly lettuce, by the use of simplified hydroponics. The growing system is irrigated by water which entails mineral nutrients and no amount of soil is needed. This method is more sustainable as it requires fewer resources and the utilized water is approximately 80%-90% less than in traditional farming.

Photograph 10: Farmer in a greenhouse, open space garden, Soweto.

In one NGO garden, growers cultivate in shade net tunnels funded from an agricultural company, (AFGRI), which has focus on grain commodities and aspires to ensure food security in South Africa. The purpose of the nets is to keep the temperature stable and warm with allowing air to flow through the net while preventing frost and it also provides shade for shady crops (kale, celery, arugula, carrots, cabbage, leek, horseradish, lettuce and herbs like parsley, mint, rosemary etc.).

Photographs 11, 12, 13: Shade net tunnels in an NGO garden, Soweto

One open space garden uses tires as containers for growing spinach. The tires contain improve soil because the soil in the garden is not fertile as it has not been cultivated before.

Photographs 14, 15: Farmers collecting spinach from tire containers, open space garden, Soweto.

Concerning the crop choices, I found spinach in all cultivated areas I visited. All times that I asked the reason that they prefer to plant it, growers highlighted its nutritional facts. “Spinach for us is like meat” said respondent 11. When I asked a farmer (respondent 49) about her perceptions for agriculture, she talked with zeal about the benefits of the healthy food that she grows. In a question about the products that she plants she said “just spinach” and she talked in details about tasty recipes even if she just uses one basic ingredient, spinach. This evidence confirms again the lack of access to basic resources.

All in all, besides spinach, crops which are also cultivated are: mealies, kale, lettuce, garlic, onions, spring onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, chili peppers, green peppers, sweet potatoes, morogo beans, radish, cabbage, butternut, string beans, okra, eggplants, beet roots, and pumpkins. Farmers grow also herbs like coriander, oregano, parsley, chives (small spring onions), dill, basil, endive, fennel and thyme. According to farmers, most of the crops are planted in spring (September 1st- November 30th) and are harvested in summer (December 1st-February 28th). However, garlic, onion and herbs are mostly cultivated during the autumn (March 1st- May 31st) and are harvested in winter (June 1st- August 31st). Some crops like lettuce, spring onions, beets, radish, spinach, grow all year round and as respondent 33 mentioned, “I prefer to grow those during the winter, as there are not many options then”. Another farmer said, “I grow kale anytime but if it is winter it’s sweeter, cold has a good effect on it” (respondent 38).

Adding to that, respondent 66 relies upon minimal external inputs and applies the alternative of “companion planting27”. He said, “I plant smart, for instance I grow mealies, squash and beans together, the mealies grow tall, the squash is used as a ground cover and the beans use the mealies as leverage, as support”. He emphasized that this method increases his yield, “veggies benefit each other enabling you to put less input in the soil because the method you choose to plant, allows nature to balance itself”. Also he said that he applies “crop rotation”28 techniques to give more nutrients to the soil, “I grow my crops according to the family they belong to, the legumes (beans, peas) together, squash and pumpkin is another category, the lettuce goes with spinach, cauliflower goes with broccoli, then radish and

27 It is the combination of different crops planted close to each other for maximization of space and higher crop productivity.

28 It is the practice of planting crops which belong in the same family category and after the harvesting; the planting of other crop family is followed in the same productive space, sequence that makes the soil more fertile.

61 beetroot together, and I grow tomatoes with eggplants”. He adds that in this way, “the soil becomes richer and the plants become stronger and can combat diseases, pests, fungus, nematodes, if soil is poor, plants won’t last and will be susceptible to bugs but I can prevent this”. Additionally, he said that he applies “trap cropping”29, “I use radish as a good trap crop, when a disease or bug attacks, they attack radish first and it doesn’t go to another crop”.

These cropping patterns could serve as coping strategies for other farmers but not all of them have access to this kind of information, the farmer said “someone from Cape Town taught me about this and now I tell my friends the same”. Farmers can increase their crop production by making use of simple tips that have been communicated to them and by utilizing locally available resources.

6.3 Risks and Shocks

This section aims to demonstrate the main risks that the sampling population has faced. Agriculture is prone to stresses and its sustainability as a livelihood strategy is tested by its capacity to cope within a vulnerability context. Vulnerability among others can be addressed as “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of that system” (IPCC, 2007:6). The table 3 presents the percentage of farmers who have experienced big shocks within the last year.

Table 3: Agricultural shocks (N=27, 38% of the sampling population)

Severity of shocks Percentage (%) of farmers

Complete crop failure occurred once within a year 21%

Complete crop failure more than once (2 or 3 times within a year) 17%

Source: Field Research (Soweto, 2015)

Around 24% of the farmers said that the cause of the complete crop failure was the weather, particularly flooding, and 14% said that it was droughts during a short rain period which are both external and unpredictable factors.

29 The practice of planting a crop that “attracts” pests, in order to prevent their attack to other crops which are cultivated in its proximity.

Adding to that, farmers referred to their perceptions on risks by stating key challenges (one to three) they have faced since they started farming (besides climate shocks). This happened in order for me to distinguish all their concerns and shape my opinion on their problems. The table 4 illustrates the challenges addressed and the percentage of farmers who indicated each of them respectively.

Table 4: Challenges in Urban Agriculture, (N=70)

Challenges farmers have faced Percentage (%) of farmers

Crop destruction by insects, worms and birds 46%

Security issues, stealing of equipment 32%

Lack of adequate access to water 29%

Lack of tools and equipment 28%

Lack of financial support (grants, sponsorship) 24%

Lack of money 17%

Lack of land 16%

Weeds 12%

Soil not Fertile 11%

Lack of seeds 10%

Lack of skills 8%

Stoney soil 7%

Lack of access to markets 5%

Working while hungry 2%

Lack of access to compost for use 2%

Source: Field Research (Soweto, 2015)

Last but not least, 27% of the farmers reported that they have interrupted farming for various reasons within the last year. The table 5 sums up the explanations they gave.

Table 5: Reasons for farming interruption (N=19, 27% of the research sample)

Reasons for farming interruption Percentage (%) of Farmers

Crop production not useful for the family 7%

Household member found a profitable job 6%

Illness in household 5%

Lack of cash for inputs 5%

Lack of access to water 4%

Source: Field Research (Soweto, 2015)

In a specific NGO garden, farmers stopped cultivating because there was renovation in the garden and their farming was interrupted for a few weeks. This entails that producers cannot control such changes which hinder their household food security and adversely influence their livelihoods. In sum, problems occur throughout the year and despite the fact that they do not cause complete crop destruction, they result to yield reduction or even farm interruption.

6.4 Barriers on expanding agriculture and recommendations by farmers

Agriculture practitioners provided reasons which prevent them from expanding their farming activities. Remarkably, they mentioned almost the same factors as earlier when asked regarding their challenges however the responses were on different volume of responsiveness this time.

Lack of money, grants and funding was mentioned 52 times as the major reason. Respondent 23 said bluntly, “Poverty" while respondent 10 stated, “I don't have the capital to grow my business, that's it”. Although, lack of land access was mentioned 11 times as a challenge, it was cited 42 times when it came to agricultural expansion. Lack of equipment and tools was brought up 19 times while lack of skills development, training and education 15. Other obstacles that they stressed are, shortage of seeds and fertilizers, access to water, security and access to markets.

Respectively, they gave suggestions on how urban agriculture practices could be improved by principally emphasizing the need for solution to their problems. They said that farming would be more sustainable

64 if, “we could get some stipend from the government” (respondent 33), “they would help as to be united” (respondent 65), or “if we do team work” (respondent 65). Better access to inputs and to water and security were repeated as recommendations. Farmers also expressed some wishes like, “if I had more land, I would extend it to livestock, poultry and I would plant trees to protect the environment” (respondent 30), “if I could have electricity I would stay in the small container and look after my business so I can prevent stealing” (respondent 18). Another farmer stressed, “our practices can improve if we have access to workshops so we can learn new things, for example, how to maintain the crops” (respondent 34).

6.5 Food (in)security

This part presents information on farmer’s food (in)security. As mentioned in the theory and research methodology chapters, I used a survey adopted by the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide constructed by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) in order to measure farmer’s food (in)security. The tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 below indicate the number of farmers that have responded each occurrence and frequency-of-occurrence question from each farming category respectively, with a recall period of 30 days. Subsequently, I present the interpretation of these responses.

Table 6: Food Security, Backyards (own garden), N=14

Table 7: Food Security, NGO gardens, (N=14)

Table 8: Food Security, School gardens, (N=14)

Table 9: Food Security, Open space gardens, (N=14)

Table 10: Food Security, Larger scale gardens, (N=14)

Source: Field Survey (Soweto, 2015)

The measurement of food insecurity for each household is calculated by the score that it amounts from the answers in the frequency-of-occurrence questions, meaning that each can get from 0-27 points. The higher the score, the less food secure it means that it is. According to the results, the households hence are classified in one of the following four categories, severely food insecure, moderately food insecure, mildly food insecure, and food secure.

A household is severely food insecure when its members “have experienced any of the last three extreme conditions, running out of food, going to bed hungry, or going a whole day and night without eating, even as rarely”. A farmer that has given affirmative responses on questions about “eating undesirable foods, reducing the size of meals, or skipping meals” in their household, is moderately food insecure. Mildly food insecure is when the respondent “worries about not having enough food sometimes or often, and/or is unable to eat preferred foods, and/or eats a more monotonous diet than desired and/or some foods considered undesirable, but only rarely” while food secure is when it “experiences none of the food insecurity (access) conditions, or just experiences worry, but rarely” (Coates et al., 2007:18). For precise steps on calculation please refer to appendix 4.1.

Although urban agriculture fulfills the role of enhancing access to food, this does not apply for the research participants. The following table illustrates the food insecurity state of all garden types according to the data collection.

Table 11: State of food insecurity, (N=70)

Type of garden Severely food Moderately food Mildly food Food secure insecure insecure insecure

Backyards 65% 28% - 7%

NGO gardens 72% 21% - 7%

School gardens 43% 36% 7% 14%

Open space 50% 7% - 43%

Larger scale 43% 43% 14% -

Source: Field Survey (Soweto, 2015)

To sum up, in the case of Soweto, the outcome reveals that 55% of all participants are severely food insecure, 27% are moderately food insecure, 4% are mildly food insecure, while just 14% are food secure. In a similar study on food security in 12 Southern African cities (including Johannesburg), Crush and Frayne (2011:296) find that 70% of households which engage in agriculture are food insecure but Johannesburg is one of the two cities which are not and particularly it is more food secure than all.

6.6 Concluding Remarks

The findings indicate that growers struggle to have access to all capitals due to several constrains and unfavorable conditions. Urban farming indeed has the potential to endorse food security but that does not happen at a satisfactory level in the township of Soweto. As the analysis indicates, the majority of farmers are still food insecure. That leads to the conclusion that urban agriculture in the area might slightly improve the situation but certainly has not reach a level yet to satisfy the consumption needs of the sampling population and therefore the latter needs improved access to resources.

Chapter 7

Overview of policies and initiatives

Recalling the theoretical setting, this chapter puts emphasis on the transforming structures and processes that mediate or impede the farmer’s access to capitals. Particularly its objective is to examine how and if city policies respond to the challenges that farmer’s face, in view of the findings from the previous data analysis chapters (5, 6). This occurs by answering the third research sub-question, “What do those findings imply to policy initiatives taken in urban agriculture in Soweto”? First, it presents the policies and initiatives that have been implemented or introduced in regard to the topic in the Gauteng area and predominantly Johannesburg and deliberates to what extent they are responsive to farmer’s needs. There are no specific policies solely for Soweto, besides an initiative from the University of Johannesburg (Izindaba Zokudla, further discussed below). The next section refers to the opinion of key stakeholders on projects related to urban agriculture, followed by the concluding remarks. The analysis draws on documents and archives examination, semi-structured interview with stakeholders, informal conversations with farmers and field diary.

7.1 Policies and Initiatives on UA (at a provincial, city and township level)

In 2006, the University of Witwatersrand (Wits) and the Wits Health Consortium (WHC) introduced the Siyakhana initiative30 which created a two hectares food garden in east Johannesburg. The project is still ongoing and its goal is “to establish a model urban agriculture initiative that showcases a food garden system for food production, education, research, and empowerment of the community, through training, employment and income-generating opportunities” (The Siyakhana initiative, n.d.).

In 2012, the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) together with the Global Business Coalition Health (GBCHealth) launched the flagship caucus project to combat food insecurity and undernutrition (presentation document provided by a government official, 2015). The program indicated that, “in three years Joburg would not be a city where some go hungry” (flagship project 2012:slide3). It states that the goal is to reach “50% of all those households identified as experiencing severely inadequate access to food and those moderately food insecure within the first year, 75% in the second year and 100% by the end of 2015” (flagship project 2012:8). The project calls for provision for gardens, stakeholder participation,

30 http://www.siyakhana.org/

70 private sector initiatives for healthy living (“green gyms”31 in all regions) and active citizenship where ward councilors examine whether there are severely food insecure households. The aims are to empower the target populations by distributing food coupons, to assist those affected by severe illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and to intensify local food production.

Furthermore, the food resilience policy “A City Where None Go Hungry” (CoJ 2014, document provided by an expert, 2015) is a recent policy that currently deals with the issue (according to informant’s 72 view). One of its core objectives is the creation of agricultural support centers which support those who are beginners in the activity by providing mentorship and instructions on how to have access to land and inputs. The centers support growers from all five types of gardens and provide further assistance to those who have bigger produce on how to access the market by creating “Hub and Spoke” rooms where the latter can seek advice and help with the paperwork. Moreover, the policy promotes collaboration between NGOs and funding institutions which implement “Food for all” projects. One program is called “people’s restaurants”, (initiative adopted from Brazil’s zero hunger strategy32) where food on discount is served to those who are listed for social assistance from the CoJ (siyasizana package33).

Additionally, the program includes the establishment of linear markets in vulnerable communities where locals won’t have to use public transportations and travel long distances in order to reach aid markets which have similar purpose but are located in the center. These linear markets get produce directly from gardens in the surrounding area, without including other supply chain actors, and they strengthen the farmer’s livelihoods at the same time. Another element of the project is that it endorses food exchange with recyclable materials. Waste pickers use self-made trolleys and collect, recycle or sell materials from household or commercial waste. The activity is common in developing countries and people basically make a living on what others throw away. Their job plays a vital role on waste management systems and in that case they obtain food commodities in return. One more focal area of the program is multimedia campaigns for community awareness on the benefits of healthy living.

In the same year, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) highlights in its budget vote34 that will allocate R122 million for “Farmer Support and Development” in Gauteng

31 http://www.jhbcityparks.com/index.php/outdoor-gyms 32 http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf/Note_FaimZe_ro_Sept2012_EN_vp.pdf 33 http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3432&Itemid=168, http://www.joburg.org.za/images/stories/2014/June/expanded%20social%20package%20flyer.pdf 34http://www.gautengonline.gov.za/Speeches/Documents/GDARD%20Budget%20Vote2014%200125am.pdf

(including urban areas). The allocation concerns a five year program which concentrates on uplifting 400 beginners in farming, providing inputs and tools to 730 and endorsing with new skills 36 commercial cultivators. In addition, it will create 60 000 homestead gardens, 325 school gardens, 325 community gardens and 10 food security awareness campaigns, all over Gauteng.

The aforementioned initiative and policies have been introduced on a city level or provincial and none of them is focused on the township of Soweto exclusively. This does not imply that Soweto farmers cannot benefit from them. On the contrary, I assume that they may work in other city gardens and rely on outside projects for their livelihood. For instance, Wills et al., (2009), in a study that assesses among others the potential of the Siyakhana project (east Joburg) to encourage participation, finds that “exporting labor from other areas”, was often the case (Wills et al., 2009:37). Furthermore, the food resilience policy (CoJ), is supplemented by an initiative which solely focus on the township of Soweto, the Izindaba Zokudla35 (Conversations about Food)-Innovation in the Soweto Food System. The project was developed during 2013, its implementation started in 2014, and it is introduced as a part of the Design Society Development (DSD) at the Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture (FADA), UJ.

Its goal is to achieve multi stakeholder engagement and institutional change through four core actions. These are, the creation of the Soweto Imvelo Market (SIM) and the Region D Farmers’ Forum (RDFF), the development of technologies with local farmer’s participation, the provision of teaching manuals to school principals and school garden’s farmers which further improve school gardening activities and the creation of a Farmer’s school where growers will be attending monthly training workshops at the UJ Soweto campus by the end of 2016.

Indeed these policies bring attention to the major problems that farmers of Soweto have mentioned, such as lack of adequate access to land, water, electricity, inputs, financial support, trainings and skills development, etc. Emphasis is given to the support of vulnerable groups such as people with AIDS/HIV (by distributing food coupons), and kids (by creating school gardens). However, they don’t seem to be completely inclusive, as women (which often belong to vulnerable groups) are not referred as a target population of these policies. Reflecting on the findings though, women from the research sample were quite empowered, self-confident and interested in taking on leadership positions (organizing farmer’s meetings etc.). They also stressed that other women have to be encouraged to engage with the activity. In addition, the policies state that they intend to raise awareness for healthy lifestyle and to support

35 http://www.designsocietydevelopment.org/project/izindaba-zokudla/

72 beginners in farming. Recalling that young people (from my research sample) expressed their enthusiasm for agricultural activities, these might prove as profound and favorable actions for the youth.

Especially the Izindaba Zokudla initiative realizes its objectives and seems to be responsive to the needs of farmers in Soweto. From what I have noticed, a lot of efforts have been done for the market creation, UJ students volunteered for the coordination, and they also worked together with farmers on new technologies. The RDFF organizes frequent meetings and the attendance grows gradually, which verifies the finding on the importance of a strong bonding between farmers, collaboration and collective actions. Last but not least, I’ve read the schedule of the workshops and have seen online photographic material where farmers get training at the UJ Soweto campus. Whether these activities help the farmers to improve their livelihoods has to be explored in due course.

From all policies and initiatives mentioned, it is explicit that institutions seriously consider the merits of urban agriculture as a tool towards attaining food security, community empowerment, income generation and growth. They seem promising; however it is not clear to what extent all the guidelines are followed in each case (for instance, very little is known for the flagship caucus project). It is quite ambiguous whether the policies are implemented to an efficient extent or not and whether they indeed complement each other, although it is difficult to judge as most of them are quite recent. Next section refers to the opinions of key informants on the topic with the intention to shed more light on the situation.

7.2 Key informant’s standpoints on food security and UA

Given the aforementioned information, this section discusses the opinions of six stakeholders, a government official, an expert from academia, three NGO representatives and the chairman of the farmer’s forum in Soweto. During the interviews, the informants provided their input on selected topics related to the role of urban agriculture in enhancing food security.

The informants highlighted that urban farming creates job opportunities, encourages access to markets, empowers the community to feed themselves, supports poor people through communal gardens, decreases the expenditure on food in a household and most importantly supplements the food consumption in the household. Despite its merits, informant 75 referred that urban agriculture is not looked at as a necessity to be undertaken by urban dwellers, compared to people who reside in rural areas.

On the perception about urban farming in Soweto particularly, respondent 74 referred that despite the fact that there’s a challenge in changing the beliefs and the perceptions of growing one’s own food given that it is considered desperate and a low form of work, there is a big swift on the mindset of the community. Soweto is welcoming the idea of UA fairly well, based on the number of cooperatives and businesses (informant 73) and it is poised for growth as many people who are not poor and old are getting involved (informant 72).

Informant 75 said that farmers are still trapped in poverty and there is a structural barrier to more production. The realization and the sustainability of farming projects depend on the factors that make them successful. All interviewees mentioned that the most important thing is mobilizing and upscaling the community members and supplying them with infrastructure that helps them get started. The training programs have to be followed by mentorship, a coaching component and to be in vernaculars, Sotho, Zulu or whatever applies in each case in order for the project to be proper and functional in the long run (informant 74). She mentioned that the mentorship should last preferably more than six months so that it helps the people to deal with the different environmental shocks they might experience. She said that “projects are prosperous when people are passionate about growing food and especially when those who were unable to get fruitful results in maintaining their gardens at the beginning are still persistent”. Lack of patience often leads to failure as agriculture, does not give instant results, but long term, particularly when it comes on the selling front. Informant 72 underlines that there is a need for improved expertise in urban food production and increase in budgets for more extensive programs. In the same way, informant 76 suggests that the biggest challenge is the lack of resources especially when farmers want to undertake commercial ventures.

It is worth mentioning that there are projects which enable farmers to grow food without having access to big productive spaces, but by using vertically inclined surfaces (vertical farming). Likewise, hydroponics as mentioned earlier in section 6.2 is a method that appeals many farmers. Informant 71 stated that they work with professors in Rhodes University and Hydroponics Africa to start a new farming technique, called aquaponics. It is a combination of hydroponics and aquaculture and basically includes fish farming together with vegetable farming. Related to this, respondent 72 expressed that there is interest in agro processing and the township could see unprecedented growth in the next few years.

All informants mentioned that there are several weaknesses and obstacles which hinder the coherent implementation of policies and initiatives. Informant 76 said that government officials “lack the skills” meaning that they do not monitor the programs, whereas informant 73 mentioned that the government has acted effectively and through its support, urban agriculture improves household food security in Soweto. Nevertheless, occasionally, during the fieldwork, farmers complained that it takes very long time for the projects to be executed while someone said “government officials are corrupted and they steal money which is destined for the projects”.

As far as the policy context is concerned, the information that came out is that the city and provincial government implement several projects, there is a multi-stakeholder engagement, initiatives for market creation, cooperatives and forums are formed, and UA is decentralized enabling the poor to engage in the activity. A key issue is that four out of six respondents did not know what the main policy which is currently being implemented is. This hints that there is confusion in terms of what works and what does not and confirms that there is a knowledge gap concerning the institutional support. As Bryld (2003) claims, we need to address UA as an activity which is characterized by several particularities that need to be incorporated and we have to endorse the “governance vacuum” with sound approaches.

7.3 Concluding Remarks

Undoubtedly, the information relating to the policy context indicates institutions are aware of farmer’s needs and challenges. Nevertheless, it is vague what is efficient and what is not. As shown in the empirical chapters 5, 6, urban agriculture does not improve household livelihoods in terms of food security, meaning that there is a need for stronger policy frameworks and sustainable initiatives. Projects have to be monitored and evaluated and follow-up studies have to be conducted.

Chapter 8

Conclusion

The purpose of this concluding chapter is to bring together the key lessons learnt in regards to the main research question. Next, it presents a reflection on the study’s broader theoretical foundation and methodology. As a final point, it outlines recommendations for further research on policy and practice, which can elucidate points that were not covered earlier in this thesis.

8.1 Main findings: answering the main research question

The objective of this study was to explain and understand the role that urban agriculture plays in enhancing household livelihoods in terms of food security in Soweto, Johannesburg.

In order to understand how urban agriculture is taking shape in the area, this study was grounded in the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach with a focus on the livelihood assets that farmers have access to and the processes (institutional policies) that enable or constrain the practice of the activity. This thesis also incorporated various individual elements which donated to a better understanding of the local setting.

Therefore, the main research question was:

How do urban agricultural activities enhance household livelihoods in Soweto, Johannesburg in terms of food and nutrition security and what urban policies create an enabling environment for that?

Below are discussed the key points that came out throughout this work.

The investigation of the role of urban agriculture is an essential subject given that similar studies have shown that the opportunities arose from it, are linked to food security on household level. After having identified five types of gardens and their basic features, this research focused on the different livelihoods assets that reproduce promising conditions to undertake farming activities. In Soweto, people from different age ranges and genders show propensity for agricultural occupations and believe that the activity can provide better livelihoods and food security. Given that many farmers of the research sample have children in their household, food security is a more crucial matter, as their nutritional needs require a broader assortment of food that are necessary for their good health and development. Farmers choose UA because it supplements food consumption needs, occasionally

76 provides income, while at the same time it is attractive to women, elder people and unemployed youth because it gives them a strong sense of purpose.

With regards to the livelihood assets that farmers have access to, the research shows that the capital that is of more importance to them, is the natural one, which is reasonable, as natural resources are vital for the practice of the activity. Research participants have limited access to land and basic infrastructure, such as good irrigation systems, electricity, food storage, fences and tools. Furthermore, the farmers are faced with problems pertaining to a lack of skill development programs and guidance on how to move from subsistence to commercialization.

Additionally, the study reveals that the social capital is the one which is mostly available to the farmers as they seemed to value their relationships to a great extent, (they trust each other, they exchange resources, they create groups and think collectively about their challenges). This is not very common for those who cultivate in backyards as they don’t have frequent interactions with other farmers, but still they expressed interest about community development. In regard to the financial capital, farmers have other sources of income. For instance, relatives send remittances or other household members bring money at home gained through regular employment. It is important to underline that the farmers are benefited from the tremendous positive assistance that government social grants offer. I hardly ever found a farmer who lives in a household where none gets a grant (most of them are old age grants or child grants) and these grants (although too little) enable the families to purchase some of the basic foods they need.

Significant evidence is that although I expected that I would find differences in terms of the access that the five categories would have to resources, I did not identify striking particularities between them. Farmers from all types of gardens complained for the same problems, although those who work on larger scale, NGO, open space, and school projects seemed to be in a more fortunate position than those who work in their backyards. This certifies again that group work is more constructive and reaps more benefits.

Despite the fact that farmers repeatedly praised the advantages of growing one’s own food , the lack of access to resources manifests itself in the high rates of food insecurity as only 14% of the research sample is food secure. Apparently, the results on food (in)security illustrated more prominent variances between the five groups, viewing the farmers of NGO gardens as more food insecure than all other groups, including backyard farmers who appeared to have less resources than all. I have to repeat at

77 this point that the purpose of the study was not to be representative (given that the short span of time did not facilitate that), but to be explorative.

Within the remark of high food insecurity levels, institutions seem to be aware of the situation and they bring together several projects but as chapter 7 presented, it is not clear whether they are capable to implement efficient development plans.

Therefore, findings indicate that urban agriculture does not enhance substantially household livelihoods, in terms of food and nutrition security and that the urban policies should create more robust frameworks that encourage the practice of the activity.

8.2 Reflections

8.2.1 Theoretical reflection

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has been attested as a suitable theoretical framework in this research as it has helped to bring together appropriate theoretical concepts in a coherent way by virtue of the terms that it provides, i.e. Livelihood Assets, Livelihood Strategies, Structures and Processes and Livelihood Outcomes. First, the framework has enabled me to present a narrative on the South-African setting and particularly in relation to historical and socioeconomic events which influence its vulnerability. In order to cope with vulnerability and abject poverty which is linked to the township’s background, the research participants strive to improve their livelihoods by undertaking farming activities. Hence, the concept of livelihood assets pentagon was handy in guiding the research and gave a clear picture of the dynamics of UA and the assets of the persons carrying it out. Additionally, this approach has assisted in examining the current policy framework and in reporting possible weaknesses. However, the framework does not directly encourage any procedure related to the investigation of the researched population’s perceptions, making it hard to capture important points. This information is essential for a thorough analysis and for that reason I made a subjective decision (irrespective to the framework’s guidelines) and focused on this part as well. All in all, the livelihood framework together with some relevant literature review, have assisted in better grasping UA’s underlying forces and contribution to livelihoods.

8.2.2 Methodological reflection

This research employed a mixed-methods approach which attested very useful. In the beginning qualitative data in the form of observations and field diary served as suitable methods to accelerate the

78 collection of valuable information and give a first-hand impression of the concepts that will be deliberated. Quantitative data through the use of survey, delivered information over the household facts and farmer’s profile, the livelihood assets, the motivations for engagement with urban agriculture, the variety of farming systems and crops produced, the risks, shocks and the challengers farmers face and the state of their food (in)security. Semi-structured interviews provided information on the policy framework. The methods complemented each other and they served their purpose. Other researchers can utilize it to a similar urban agriculture project. However, there were a few limitations that influenced the overall conduction of the study.

For instance, the fact that Johannesburg is one of the largest cities in Africa and I had a limited knowledge about the local context and other particularities it was quite a concern. Considering the insecurity that I was feeling as an outsider and the high rates of criminality in the area, I was restricted to continue gathering the information later than the afternoon. Commuting was also a major issue since I do not drive and getting to Soweto by public transportation was impossible as the bus transfer system was on strike the period I was there. This was a restraint as in most of the cases I had to spend great amounts of money to reliable services and get a taxi. All in all, it was quite unpredictable as having a driver and an assistant at the same time made the planning harder and there would often be cancellations. This might affected the research in terms of the frequency of my visits.

Another post-experience related to the methodology is interconnected with ethical issues. Despite the fact I clearly demonstrated the aims I carry out this research, farmers would hope that coming from a university in a developed country, I could influence their lives. For instance, they would always encourage me to go back, to not forget them and they would always say that they wish I can do something for them at least in the long run. This was the most difficult part to deal with because their reactions were heart-breaking. I believe that maybe if I would have organized participatory exercises to better introduce the topic, this would have been avoided, but again the time was limited and I did not foresee that I would face this difficulty. However, I said to the farmers that I will try to share the findings to them after completing my thesis (through my local supervisor, if not directly from me) so they can be informed regarding the patterns of food security and urban agriculture in the respective categories.

8.3 Recommendations and follow-up studies

8.3.1 Policy recommendations

In order to strengthen the potential impacts of UA, we need more holistic strategic approaches that focus on infrastructure and development. Stakeholders are accountable for hunger eradication and UA needs to be supported by more robust institutional mechanisms and to be amalgamated in policy arrangements and plans. This section provides recommendations that could encourage government authorities, non-governmental organizations, research institutes or the private sector, to critically reflect upon their policies and programs. They could positively contribute to the improved performance of urban agriculture by:

 Recognizing UA as a land-use activity and incorporating it in appropriate urban planning governance.  Improving access to land and tenure and supplying inputs free of charge.  Subsidizing better infrastructure, irrigation systems and garden security plans.  Delivering better provision of skill development projects and extension services that farmers can have access to. For instance referring to food security, all the methods mentioned in section 6.2, crop rotation, companion planting etc., have to be introduced to all farmers.  Investing in innovative and ecological agricultural technologies. Aquaponics, vertical farming etc., bear correct methods of farming that can enhance food security.  Ensuring upgraded facilities when it comes to paper work and financial support.  Encouraging farmers to start a profitable business and create markets.  Familiarizing school students with the activity by teaching UA at schools.  Including the needs of those who farm individually in their backyards and are not member of any group or work in a shared garden.  Encouraging the youth and women to get involved. Given that many are trapped in poverty, their participation has the potential to ensure sustainability of projects.  Including a strong awareness of the local context otherwise projects may be poorly targeted and the funding gets wasted.  Raising awareness in the communities and actually changing their perceptions of agriculture by focusing on how it gives options for better lifestyle choices and how they can indeed benefit from it. Advocacy for farmers is also very important.  Providing the mentorship that is required on projects and ensuring that there is a long-term engagement. Projects that left alone after the implementation do not have a holistic and

multidisciplinary outlook and the beneficiaries lose the motivation to uphold the new skills learnt and implement them again.  Including participatory methods by involving in the planning the beneficiaries. In this way they have voice and agency and the development project is closer to their needs. Otherwise, a local leader who can represent them and communicate their wishes has to be involved. This applies to the monitoring and evaluation of the project as well.  Clarifying the role of each institution and promoting partnerships and participatory approaches by clearly communicating how all the actors should be coordinated for a viable practice of UA.  Ensuring transparency of their actions.  Conducting quantitative assessments on the contribution of gardens to public health.  Ensuring more proper records that will eventually guide future projects and developing measures to identify any negative environmental impact of UA.

8.3.2 Recommendation for further research

Taking into account the limited scope of this thesis and some of the findings, I present below a number of foci that require in-depth academic examination and would be interesting to be studied:

 The role of UA in enhancing household livelihoods in terms of income generation (this is an important topic to consider for measuring UA’s impact).  The role of UA, including livestock production (this type of farming requires different resources and that might implies different outcomes).  A comparison with the role of UA in other townships (which might be linked to the overall state of food security in Johannesburg).  People’s limitation of knowledge on what crop products to apply (given that organic food products have higher nutritional value and they could substantially contribute to farmer’s food security, it is important to examine this knowledge gap).  The nutritional impact of garden projects in Soweto, (to examine to what extent the results are tangible).  The policy framework, (due to the fact that this research didn’t shed enough light to it; it is worth revisiting what is actually implemented and what not. Also, the effectiveness of the food

resilience policy “A City Where None Go Hungry” ,(if that is the main policy) or evaluation of the Izindaba Zokudla project).  A broader research with a bigger sample which would provide more representative and accurate results. This could be achieved by the use of the geographic information system (GIS) where the extent of the activity could be mapped and provide more information.

These are important themes that this thesis could only make a small contribution and require further attention.

Thesis Word Count: 25.598

References

Allen, P. and Wilson, A.(2008). Agrifood Inequalities: Globalization and localization. Development, 51(4), pp.534-540.

Altman, M., Hart, T. G. B. & Jacobs, P. T. (2009) Household Food Security Status in South Africa, Agrekon, pp.48(4), 345– 361.

Anc.org.za, (2015). The African National Congress website - Manifesto. [online] Available at: http://www.anc.org.za/list.php?t=Manifesto [Accessed 15 Jul. 2015]

Armar-Klemesu M. (2000). Urban Agriculture and Food Security, Nutrition, and Health. In: Bakker et al. (eds), Growing Cities, Growing Food (Feldafing: DSE), pp 99- 117

Asomani-Boateng, R. (2002) “Urban Cultivation in Accra: An Examination of the Nature, Practices, Problems, Potentials and Urban Planning Implications”, Habitat International, vol. 26, no. 4, December, pp. 591-607.

Bailkey, M. & J. Nasr. (2000) From Brownfields to Greenfields: Producing Food in North American Cities. Community Food Security News. Fall 1999/Winter 2000

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H.(2000). Growing Cities, Growing Food – Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DSE, Eurasburg, Germany

Beall, J., Crankshaw O. and Parnell S., (2000): “Local Government, Poverty Reduction and Inequality in Johannesburg”, Environment and Urbanization 12(1): 107-22

Beall, J., (2002), Living in the present, investing in the future- Household Security among the poor, in C. Rakodi and J Lloyd-Jones (eds.), Urban livelihoods, a people-centred approach to reducing poverty, Earthscan Publications Ltd, 71-87.

Beaverstock, J., Smith R., and Taylor P., (1999): “A Roster of World Cities” Cities 16(6), 445-58

Bentinck J. (2000) Delhi's Urban Growth and the Stray-Cattle Controversy, Urban Agriculture Magazine, no 2, urban livestock, October 2000, RUAF, Leusden The Netherlands.

Berckmoes, L. and White, B. (2014). Youth, Farming and Precarity in Rural Burundi. Eur J Dev Res, 26(2), pp.190-203.

Bezu, S. and Holden, S. (2014). Are Rural Youth in Ethiopia Abandoning Agriculture? World Development, 64, pp.259-272.

Brinkman, H.-J.; de Pee, S.; Sanogo, I.; Subran, L. and Bloem, M.W. (2010) ‘’High Food Prices and the Global Financial Crisis have Reduced Access to Nutritious Food and Worsened Nutritional Status and Health’’, Journal of Nutrition 140.1: 153S–61S

Bruinsma, W. & Hertog W., (2003), Annotated Bibliography on Urban Agriculture, prepared for Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

Bryant, C., (1988), Poverty, Policy and Food Security in Southern Africa, London: Mansell Publishing, p. 11

Bryld, E., (2003). Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries.” Agriculture and Human Values, 20(1), pp. 79-86

Bryman, A., (2008), Social Research Methods, Chapter 16 & Chapter 18, pp.365‐395 & pp. 438‐450, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Census (2011) Census in brief Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. 2012. p. 21.ISBN 9780621413885

Centre for Development Support (2009). The Role of Urban Agriculture in Addressing Household Poverty and Food Security: The Case of South Africa. Research Report, CDS Research Report, LED and SMME Development, Bloemfontein

Centre for Policy Studies (2007), “Rethinking South Africa’s Development Path: Reflections on the ANC’s Policy Conference Discussion Documents, Policy: issues & actors Vol 20 no 10

Charlebois , P.,and Hamann N., (2010) “The consequences of a strong depreciation of the U.S dollar on Agricultural markets”, Research and Analysis Directorate Strategic Policy Branch Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada, Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/94750/2/depreciation%20of%20US%20dollar.pdf [Accessed 7 Jul. 2015]

City of Johannesburg and GBCHealth Annual (2012), ‘Flagship project to combat food insecurity’, 14 & 15 May 2012, GBCHealth Annual Conference

City of Johannesburg, (2014). A City Where None go Hungry: Operational Strategy Document. Johannesburg: Johannesburg Metropolitan Council

Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change: contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2008). Choice Reviews Online, 45(09), pp.45-5006-45-5006.

Coates, Jennifer, Anne Swindale and Paula Bilinsky. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3). Washington, D.C.: FHI 360/FANTA

Cranfield, J., Preckel, P., & Hertel, T. (2007). Poverty analysis using an international cross-country demand system (Policy Research Working Paper 4285). Washington, DC: The World Bank, Development Research Group

Crush, J. and Frayne, B., (2010): Pathways to insecurity: Urban food supply and access in Southern African cities, AFSUN Series No. 3

Crush, J. and Frayne, B., (2010a): The invisible crisis: Urban food insecurity in Southern Africa, AFSUN Series No 1, Cape Town

Crush, J. and Frayne, B., (2011). Urban food insecurity and the new international food security agenda. Development Southern Africa 28(4): 527-544.

Deelstra, T. & Girardet, H., (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. International Institute for the Urban Environment, Delft, The Netherlands

Department of Agriculture (2002), The Integrated Food Security Strategy for South Africa, Pretoria: Department of Agriculture

Designsocietydevelopment.org, (2015). Izindaba Zokudla (Conversations about Food) | Design Society Development. [online] Available at: http://www.designsocietydevelopment.org/project/izindaba- zokudla/ [Accessed 4 May. 2015].

Devereux, S. (1993) Theories of Famine, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York

Devereux, S. and Maxwell, S. (eds.) (2001) Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa, Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.

De Wet, T. Patel, L. Korth M. and Forrester C.(2008), Johannesburg Poverty and Livelihoods Study Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in Africa

De Zeeuw, H., Van Veenhuizen, R., Dubbeling, M.,(2011). The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries. J. Agric. Sci., 149(S1), pp.153-163.

DfID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, Department for International Development Available at: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf [Accessed 4 Jan. 2015]

Dubbeling, M. de Zeeuw, H. and van Veenhuizen R. (2010). Cities Poverty and Food: Multi-Stakeholder Policy and Planning in Urban Agriculture. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing

Egal, F., Valstar, A., Meershoek, S., (2001). Urban Agriculture, Household Food Security and Nutrition in Southern Africa. Mimeo, FAO, Rome

Ehrenreich, J.H. (2002), ‘Caring for Others, Caring for Yourself. A Guide for Humanitarian Aid Workers, Health Care Worker, Human Rights Workers, and Journalists Working with Traumatized Populations’, Center for Psychology and Society, State University of New York College At Old Westbury, pp.1-33

Eide, A. (1999). The right to adequate food and to be free from hunger. Geneva: UN.

Essa, J. & Nieuwoudt, L., (2003), Socio-economic Dimensions of Small-scale Agriculture: A Principle Component Analysis, Development South Africa, pp.20 (1), 67-73

Fantaproject.org, (2015). Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA). [online] Available at: http://www.fantaproject.org/ [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].

Fao.org, (1996). Rome Declaration and Plan of Action. [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.HTM [Accessed 4 Jan. 2015].

Fao.org, (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htm [Accessed 16 Apr. 2015]

Fao.org (2012): Coming to Terms with Terminology, Available at: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/file/Terminology/MD776(CFS___Coming_to_terms_wi th_Terminology).pdf [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]

Fao. (2012), Growing greener cities in Africa: first status report on urban and peri-urban horticulture in Africa, Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

Foeken,D.W.J.; Sofer,M.; Mlozi,M. (2004) Urban agriculture in Tanzania: issues of sustainability, African studies Center,Leiden

Foeken D.W.J.. (2008). Urban Agriculture and the Urban Poor in East Africa: Does Policy matter? In M Rutten, A Leliveld, D Foeken. 2008. Inside Poverty and Development in Africa: Critical reflections on pro-poor policies. Leiden: Brill

Frayne, B., et al. (2010). “The State of Urban Food Insecurity in Southern Africa.” Urban Food Security Series No. 2. Queen’s University and AFSUN: Kingston and Cape Town.

Frayne B, McCordie C & Shilomboleni H (2014). ‘Growing out of poverty: Does urban agriculture contribute to household food security in Southern African cities? ‘Urban Forum. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12132-014-9219-3 [Accessed 23 Jan. 2015]

Freire-Medeiros B., (2013) “Touring Poverty”. New York: Routledge,. ISBN: 978-0-415-59654-1. 224

Garret, J., (2000), “Achieving urban food and nutrition security in the developing world” International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI )2020 Vision Focus 3

Gauteng Provincial government (2005) A Growth & Development Strategy (GDS) For the Gauteng Province Available at: http://www.gautengonline.gov.za/Business/Documents/Growth%20and%20Development%20Strategy. pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015]

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, (2014), The GDARD Budget Vote speech, Available at:

87 http://www.gautengonline.gov.za/Speeches/Documents/GDARD%20Budget%20Vote2014%200125am.p df [Accessed 4 Aug. 2015]

Ginkel, H., (2008), Urban Future, Nature, Published online doi:10.1038/twas08.32a electronic sources, Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n1s/full/twas08.32a.html [Accessed 5 Jul. 2015]

Godfray, H.C.J. et al. (2010). The future of the global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365: 2769-2777.

Gov.za, (2015). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - Chapter 2: Bill of Rights | South African Government. [online] Available at: http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill- rights [Accessed 11 Jul. 2015]

Greenberg, S., (2006), “Urban Food Politics, Welfare and Resistance: A Case Study of the Southern Johannesburg Metro”, Grant Report, Centre for Civil Society, University of Kwazulu Natal

Greene, J. C. (2012). Engaging critical issues in social inquiry by mixing methods. American Behavioral Scientist 56:755–773

Headey, D. & Fan, S., 2010, Reflections on the global food crisis, International Food Policy Research Institute

Hertel,T., Ivanic,M., Preckel,P., Cranfield,J., (2004). The earnings effects of multilateral trade liberalization: Implications for poverty. World Bank Econ. Rev. 18(2), 205–236.

Hovorka, A.J. (2006) Urban agriculture: addressing practical and strategic gender needs. Development in Practice, 16(1): 51-61.

Hovorka, A., Zeeuw, H. de and Njenga, M. (ed.) (2009) Women Feeding Cities: Mainstreaming Gender in Urban Agriculture and Food Security, Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Publishing.

Howorth, C, I. Convery and P. O’Keefe, 2001. Gardening to Reduce Hazard: Urban Agriculture and Tanzania. Land Degradation and Development, 12 (3), p. 285-291. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/85005788/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[January 7 2015]

Human Development Strategy (2009), Joburg's Commitment to the Poor Available at: http://www.joburg-archive.co.za/city_vision/hr_strategy-05.pdf [Accessed 17 Jul.2015]

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2011) “Drought in the Horn of Africa, Preventing the next disaster” Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/90410/1203800- Drought%20in%20the%20Horn%20of%20Africa-Preventing%20the%20next%20disaster-EN-LR.pdf [Accessed 5 Aug. 2015]

Inter-réseau Développement Rural briefing (2012), Brazil’s ‘Zero Hunger’ Strategy Available at: http://www.interreseaux.org/IMG/pdf/Note_FaimZe_ro_Sept2012_EN_vp.pdf [Accessed 6 Jul. 2015].

Jacobi, P, J Amend and S Kiango (1999), “Urban agriculture in Dar-es-Salaam: providing an indispensable part of the diet”, in N Bakker, M Dubbeling, S Gundel, U Sabel-Koschela and H de Zeeuw (editors) (2000), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture, Deutsche Stiftung fur internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Germany, pages 257–283.

Jacobs, P., (2012) “Protecting food insecure households against rapid food price inflation”, Human Sciences Research Council, Available at: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/uploads/pageContent/5304/Food%20Prices.pdf [Accessed 21 Aug 2015]

Jacobs, P., and Shirin, M., (2012) “Food insecurity among female-headed households, rapid food price inflation and the economic downturn in South Africa” IESE 3RD CONFERENCE “Mozambique: Accumulation and Transformation in a context of International Crisis, Available at: http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/III_Conf2012/IESE_IIIConf_Paper28.pdf [Accessed 1 Aug 2015]

Jansen, J. (1990) In Search of Liberation Pedagogy in South Africa, Boston University School of Education.

Jhbcityparks.com, (2015). Outdoor gyms. [online] Available at: http://www.jhbcityparks.com/index.php/outdoor-gyms [Accessed 26 Jul. 2015].

Joburg.org.za, (2015). city of Johannesburg - Joburg GDS 2040 Strategy, Siyasizana package. [online] Available at: http://www.joburg.org.za/images/stories/2014/June/expanded%20social%20package%20flyer.pdf14 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2015].

Joburg.org.za,(2015). City of Johannesburg - Region D. [online] Available at: http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&id=174%3Aregiond&Itemid=119&limitstart =1 [Accessed 8 Jan. 2015].

Joburgmarket.co.za, (2015). Introduction | About US | Joburg Market. [online] Available at: http://www.joburgmarket.co.za/aboutus_intoduction.php [Accessed 10 Jul. 2015].

Jonga, W., (2013), Dilemmas of Urban Development: A Survey of Addis Ababa City Residents’ Opinion on Urban Agriculture, Available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233445 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2233445 [Accessed 10 Jun. 2015]

Kadenyeka M.V, Omutimba, D., Harriet, N., (2013), Urban Agriculture Livelihoods and Household Food Security: A case of Eldoret, Kenya”. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological science, Vol.8, No.1, p. 90

Lacey, M., (2008): “High food prices incite rising anger” Le Monde/New York Times 2008, April 26:1–4

Landon-Lane, C. (2004) Diversifying Rural Incomes through Home Gardens, Rome: FAO.

Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. and Liao, T. (2004). Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods.

Longworth, M. (2015). Practical Action Policy and Practice - Vulnerability to Resilience. [online] Policy.practicalaction.org. Available at: http://policy.practicalaction.org/policy-themes/disaster-risk- reduction/vulnerability-to-resilience [Accessed 03 Sep. 2015].

Maas J. Verheij, R., Groenewegen,P., de Vries, J., and Spreeuwenberg ,P., (2006), “Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?”, J Epidemiol Community Health, vol.60, pp.587–92. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.043125

Mandela, N. (1995) Long walk to freedom: The autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Boston: Back Bay Books.

Maxwell, S. & Smith, M. (1992). Household food security. A Technical Review. New York and Rome: UNICEF and IFAD.

Maxwell DG, (1998) Does urban agriculture helps prevent malnutrition? Evidence from Kampala. Food Policy, 23 (5):411 – 424

Mbiba B. (1995). Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for Urban management and Poverty. Aldershot: Averbury

Mbiba, B., (1998). Urban Agriculture policy in Southern Africa: From Theory to Practice; Town and Recreational Planning University of Sheffield: Paper presented at the international conference on productive Open Space Management. Technikon Pretoria.

Mitchell, D., (2008) “A Note on Rising Food Prices” Policy Research Working Paper 4682 The World Bank Development Prospects Group, Available at: http://www.bio-based.eu/foodcrops/media/08- 07ANoteonRisingFoodPrices.pdf [Accessed Jul. 7 2015]

Moller, V. (2005) “Attitudes to Food Gardening from a Generational Perspective: A South African Case Study”, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol. 3, no. 2, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa: Rhodes University.

Mougeot, L. J. A (1994) Urban Food Production: Evolution, Official Support and Significance, Cities Feeding People Series, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa

Mougeot, L. J. A., (2000) “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges”, Cities Feeding People Series, Report 31, Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Mougeot ,L. J.A. (2000) Achieving Urban Food and Nutrition Security in the Developing World - A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment The hidden significance of urban agriculture- Focus 3 - IFPRI, [online], Available at: http://puka.cs.waikato.ac.nz/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0fnl2.2--00-0----

0-10-0---0---0direct-10---4------0-1l--11-ro-50---20-help---10-0-1-00---4-4---0-0-11-11-0windowsZz-1253- 00-00&cl=CL1.1&d=HASH76cf1a3ef38471720d0c90.7>=1 [Accessed 9 Jun. 2015]

Noack, A.L. and Pouw, N.R.M. (2014), A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate, Agriculture and Human Values

Nda.agric.za, (2015). Untitled1. [online] Available at: http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Foodsecurity/foodsecurity.htm [Accessed 10 Jul. 2015].

Ndhleve S., Musemwa L., Zhou L.(2013) “ How severe hunger is amongst rural households of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa”. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, Vol 4, No 3, 2013, p220:227

Ngonewsafrica.org, (2014). South Africa: Working hand in hand for food security in Soweto. [online] Available at: http://ngonewsafrica.org/archives/14251 [Accessed 10 Jul. 2015].

OECD-FAO,(2007) “Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016,” Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/10/38893266.pdf [Accessed Jul. 7 2015]

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999), “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges”, Science, pp.284(5412), 278-282.

Parrott, N. (2004) Sound Depths: the Seen and Unseen Dimensions of Organic Farming in the South — and their implications for Organic Research. Paper to DARCOF Workshop on Organic Farming in a Global Perspective: Globalization, Sustainable Development and Ecological Justice, Copenhagen 22nd-23rd April 2004

Patel, L., Hochfeld, T., Moodley, J. and Mutwali, R. (2012) The Gender Dynamics and Impact of the Child Support Grant in Doornkop, Soweto, CSDA Research Report, Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg.

Pauw, K., (2007), Agriculture and Poverty: Farming for Food of Farming for Money?, Agrekon, pp.846 (2), 195-218

Ploeg, J. D. van der (2003) The Virtual Farmer: Past, Present and Future of the Dutch Peasantry, Assen, The Netherlands: Royal van Gorcum.

Pmg.org.za, (2015). Food security and Fetsa Tlala initiative: Committee section introduction, Department & NAMC briefings, Departmental entities' collaboration, in presence of Minister | PMG. [online] Available at: https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/17469/ [Accessed 15 Aug. 2015].

Pmg.org.za, (2015). Zero Hunger Programme provincial implementation: Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries briefing | PMG. [online] Available at: https://pmg.org.za/committee- meeting/14379/ [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015]

Premat A. ,(2005) ‘Moving between the Plant and the Ground: Shifting Perspectives on urban Agriculture in Havana, Cuba.’ in Mougeot , AGROPOLIS: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. London: Earthscan.

Pretty, J., Morison, J. and Hine, R. (2003). Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 95(1), pp.217-234.

Ravallion, M., Chen, S. and Sangraula, P. (2007). New Evidence on the Urbanization of Global Poverty. Population and Development Review, 33(4), pp.667-701.

Redwood, M. (2009). Agriculture in urban planning. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre

Rees W., (1997) Why urban agriculture? Notes for the IDRC Development Forum on Cities Feeding People: A Growth Industry. Vancouver, B.C

Reuther S, Dewar N. (2006) Competition for the use of public open spaces in low income areas: The economic potential of urban gardening in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Development Southern Africa. Vol 23 No. 1 97-122.

Rodenbeck, M. (1991) ‘Egypt from the Air’ in Mougeot, Urban Food Production: Evolution, Official Support and Significance, Cities Feeding People Series, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa

Rogerson (1996), Urban poverty and the informal economy in South Africa's economic heartland doi: 10.1177/095624789600800115 Environment and Urbanization vol. 8 no. 1 167-179

Rosen, C. J. and Bierman, P. M. (2005) Nutrient Management for Fruit & Vegetable Crop Production Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota.

Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Five Stages of Growth-A Summary. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non- Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 4–16.

Ruel M, Haddad L and Garrett J. (1999). Some Urban Facts of Life: Implications for Research and Policy. World Development 27 (11)

Sanews.gov.za, (2015). Great improvements in access to healthcare services | SA News. [online] Available at: http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/great-improvements-access-healthcare-services-0 [Accessed 13 Jun. 2015].

Sasson, A., (2012) “Food security for Africa: an urgent global challenge” Agriculture & Food Security, Available at: http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/1/1/2 [Accessed 13 Aug. 2015]

Satterthwaite, D., McGranahan, G. and Tacoli, C. (2010). Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), pp.2809-2820.

Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J. and LeCompte, M. D. (1999) Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires(Book 2 in Ethnographer’s Toolkit). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Schmidt, S. (2011) "Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Case Study #7-12 of the Program.” In Food Policy for Developing Countries: The Role of Government in the Global Food System, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), pp.171-196.

Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simatele, D. M. and Binns, T. (2008) “Motivation and Marginalization in African Urban Agriculture: Case of Lusaka, Zambia”, Urban Forum March 2008, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-21 Siyakhana.org, (2015). Food Security in South Africa - Food and Security - Household Food Insecurity. [online] Available at: http://www.siyakhana.org/ [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].

Slater, R. (2001) “Urban Agriculture, Gender and Empowerment: An Alternative View”, Development Southern Africa, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 635-650.DOI: 10.1080/03768350120097478.

Small, M. L. (2009) How many cases do I need? : on science and the logic of case selection in field‐based research Ethnography (2009), 10, pp. 5‐38

Smit, J. and Nasr, J. (1992) “Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources”, Environment and Urbanization, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.141–152.

South African Social Security Agency (2014), A Statistical Summary of Social Grants in South Africa, Fact sheet: Issue no 8 of 2014 – 31 August 2014, Pretoria: Government of South Africa. Available at: https://africacheck.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/You-and-Your-Grants1.pdf [Accessed at 7 Jun.2015]

Starr, A., (2000). Naming the Enemy: Anti-corporate movements confront globalization. London: Zed Books

Stewart, R., Korth, M., Langer, L., Rafferty, S., Da Silva, N., & Van Rooyen, C. (2013), What are the impacts of urban agriculture programs on food security in low and middle-income countries? Environmental Evidence, 2(7), pp.1–13

Tallaki K. (2005) “The Pest-Control System in the Market Gardens of Lomé, Togo”, in Mougeot L. J. A. (ed.) Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environment Dimensions of Urban Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, pp. 51–88.

The Millennium Development Goals Report (2015). [online] Available at:

95 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201% 29.pdf [Accessed 17 Apr. 2015].

Thornton A (2008). Beyond the metropolis: Small town case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa. Urban Forum 19:243-262

Townsend,R., (n.d.)The Effects of High Food Prices in Africa – Q&A, Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21753440~menu PK:258657~pagePK:2865106~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:258644,00.html [Accessed 7 Jul. 2015]

Tracy, S.J. (2013) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact, Wiley-Blackwell

Trostle, R,( 2008)Global agricultural supply and demand: factors contributing to the recent increase in food commodity prices, A report from the Economic Research Service, USDA

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2010), World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision, Executive Summary, United Nations, New York Available at: http://esa. un.org/unpd/wup/Documents/ WUP2009_Highlights_Final.pdf [Accessed 11 Jul. 2015]

UNDP (1996) Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities. United Nations Development Program, Publication Series for Habitat II, UNDP, New York.

UNDP in South Africa, (2015). Small Scale Farmers eradicating poverty and extreme hunger through Agriculture in Soweto, South Africa. [online] Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/south_africa/en/home/ourwork/povertyreduction/successstories/small -scale-farmers-eradicating-poverty-and-extreme-hunger-throu/ [Accessed 10 Jul. 2015].

UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009), World population to exceed 9 billion by 2050: Developing Countries to Add 2.3 Billion Inhabitants with 1.1 Billion Aged over 60 and 1.2 Billion of Working Age, press release, Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf [Accessed 6 Aug. 2015]

United Nations Population Fund (2007), State of World Population 2007, Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, UNFPA

Un.org, (2012). ‘In a World of Plenty, No One - Not a Single Person - Should Go Hungry' Says Secretary- General, Announcing the 'Zero Hunger Challange' in Rio | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sgsm14359.doc.htm [Accessed 16 Jul. 2015].

Un.org, (2015). United Nations Millennium Development Goals. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml [Accessed 4 Jan. 2015].

Van Veenhuizen R., & Danso, G., (2009), “Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and PeriUrban Agriculture” p. 43

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kinzig, A. (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9 (2)

Waugh, D., (2000), 9 Geography: An Integrated Approach, Nelson Thornes, pp. 563, 576–579, 633, 640, ISBN 978-0-17-444706-1, Retrieved 24 August 2013

White, B. (2012). Agriculture and the Generation Problem: Rural Youth, Employment and the Future of Farming. IDS Bulletin, 43(6), pp.9-19.

Wills, J., Chinemana, F. and Rudolph, M. (2009). Growing or connecting? An urban food garden in Johannesburg. Health Promotion International, 25(1), pp.33-41.

World Health Organization (n.d.), Food Security definition Available at: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/ [Accessed 11 January 2015]

Zezza, A. and Tasciotti, L. (2010). Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy, 35(4), pp.265-273.

Appendix 1

Table 1.1: Operationalization of Livelihood Assets, based on ‘Sustainable Livelihoods guidance sheets’ (DfID, 1999).

Concept Dimensions Variables Indicators Livelihood Assets Human Capital Capacity to work -Health status -Access to health care - Years of farming -Days of the week devoted to urban agriculture -Types of jobs done in the last year

Skills -Completed education Relevant knowledge -Participation to training programs

Social Capital Networks -Exchange of Mutual support products/services Participation -Exchange of food/ seeds -Relationships of trust, cooperation, conflicts -Membership in a farmer’s group - Leadership

Natural Capital Land -Distance between land Water and household -Ownership of land -Dimensions of productive space -Access to other land -Primary source of water (access to public/private water supply) -Quality of water /soil

Livelihood Assets Physical Capital Infrastructure -Access to basic tools Tools & Technology -Cultivation of ‘Imvelo’ (organic) crops -Use of pest and weeds control -Use of chemical products -Access /Quality/ availability/ price of seeds

Financial Capital Money matters - Monetary income from crops, livestock, regular employment, remittances, pensions etc. -Household’s monthly income last month - Money to meet the basic needs - Farming interruption in the past year - Social grants - Use of services

Table 1.2: Operationalization of Livelihood Outcome, based on ‘Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3)’,2007. Concept Dimensions Variables Indicators Livelihood Outcome Food security Adequate food In the past four weeks… Sub- nutrition, hunger does not apply/ apply rarely, sometimes or often: -Worried because your household did not have enough food -Did not eat preferred kinds of foods due to a lack of resources - Ate a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources - Ate some foods that

you did not want to eat due to a lack of resources - Ate a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was not enough food -Ate fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food -No food at all in the household due to lack of resources to obtain -Went to bed hungry because there was not enough food -Went a whole day and night without eating because there was no food

Table 1.3: Urban Policies

Concept Dimensions Variables Indicators Transforming City of Johannesburg Policies and their -Opinion on the structures and Municipality implementation policies processes -Discussions about development projects, factors for success/ failure

NGOs Civil society -Discussion about engagement initiatives, training programs -Capacity to raise awareness

Academia Research, Produce of -Availability of knowledge research projects -Innovation

100

Appendix 2

Table 2.1: Surveys

# Date Name of respondent Type of garden Location 1 19.02.2015 Pinky NGO GARDEN Soweto 2 16.02.2015 Silvia NGO GARDEN Soweto 3 24.02.2015 Grace NGO GARDEN Soweto 4 09.03.2015 Thembi NGO GARDEN Soweto 5 27.02.2015 Sizakele NGO GARDEN Soweto 6 19.03.2015 Elizabeth NGO GARDEN Soweto 7 16.02.2015 Itumeleng NGO GARDEN Soweto 8 26.02.2015 Mandla NGO GARDEN Soweto 9 19.02.2015 Patrick NGO GARDEN Soweto 10 23.02.2015 Greg NGO GARDEN Soweto 11 19.03.2015 Bongane NGO GARDEN Soweto 12 19.03.2015 Melusi NGO GARDEN Soweto 13 19.03.2015 Agnes NGO GARDEN Soweto 14 19.03.2015 Tongo NGO GARDEN Soweto 15 17.02.2015 Phakamani OPEN SPACE Soweto 16 17.02.2015 Thabo OPEN SPACE Soweto 17 17.02.2015 Siphiwe OPEN SPACE Soweto 18 17.02.2015 Zukile OPEN SPACE Soweto 19 09.03.2015 Joseph OPEN SPACE Soweto 20 26.02.2015 Thembi OPEN SPACE Soweto 21 26.02.2015 Thabo OPEN SPACE Soweto 22 27.02.2015 Lihle OPEN SPACE Soweto 23 27.02.2015 Douglas OPEN SPACE Soweto 24 27.02.2015 Clement OPEN SPACE Soweto 25 09.03.2015 Dudu OPEN SPACE Soweto 26 23.02.2015 Thebe OPEN SPACE Soweto 27 23.02.2015 Makalo OPEN SPACE Soweto 28 09.03.2015 Mlungisi OPEN SPACE Soweto 29 11.03.2015 Elina SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 30 11.03.2015 Sello SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 31 20.02.2015 Siphiwe SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 32 18.02.2015 Themba SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 33 16.03.2015 Cyprian SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 34 16.03.2015 Oupa SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 35 16.03.2015 Emely SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 36 18.02.2015 Gift SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 37 18.02.2015 Phumlani SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 38 18.02.2015 David SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 39 02.03.2015 Daisy SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 40 11.03.2015 Bonginkosi SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 41 02.03.2015 Monwabisi SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto

101

42 02.03.2015 Nkele SCHOOL GARDEN Soweto 43 23.03.2015 Betrice BACKYARD Soweto 44 01.04.2015 Nontombi BACKYARD Soweto 45 23.03.2015 Joyce BACKYARD Soweto 46 25.03.2015 Meisei BACKYARD Soweto 47 19.02.2015 Mavis BACKYARD Soweto 48 25.03.2015 David BACKYARD Soweto 49 20.02.2015 Francina BACKYARD Soweto 50 24.02.2015 Rich BACKYARD Soweto 51 17.02.2015 Lebohange BACKYARD Soweto 52 19.02.2015 Elias BACKYARD Soweto 53 19.02.2015 Winile BACKYARD Soweto 54 09.03.2015 Eunice BACKYARD Soweto 55 09.03.2015 Khunjulwa BACKYARD Soweto 56 23.03.2015 Allina BACKYARD Soweto 57 25.03.2015 Simangele LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 58 25.03.2015 Gloria LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 59 25.03.2015 Sibongile LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 60 01.04.2015 Sindisiwe LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 61 01.04.2015 Nontokozo LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 62 26.03.2015 Bongiwe LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 63 01.04.2015 Suzanne LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 64 26.03.2015 Sakhile LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 65 26.03.2015 Zakhele LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 66 01.04.2015 Yandile LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 67 01.04.2015 Pantzie LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 68 26.03.2015 Thembinkosi LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 69 25.03.2015 Guhlokwakhe LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto 70 25.03.2015 Mlamlankuzi LARGER SCALE GARDEN Soweto

Table 2.2: Semi-structured interviews

71 Khule Sandile Emdeni skills Development Center, Manager of the NGO 72 Malan Naude Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, UJ, Senior Lecturer 73 Ndlovu Lerato City of Johannesburg, Operations Manager: Food Resilience Programme 74 Rossi Lisa36 Ekukhanyeni Relief Project, Executive Director of the NGO 75 Sihlangu Zola Food Gardens Foundation, Administration of the NGO 76 Skhosana Sakhile Farmer’s Forum Region D, Chairman

36 Lisa Rossi is a Founder and Executive director, from the Ekukhanyeni Relief Project. The NGO has not implemented projects in Soweto, but her contribution as an expert on the issue provided significant evidence.

102

Appendix 3

3.1:Questionnaire

Part 1: Livelihoods Survey

Section A: Household Demographic Data

Q1.Respondent’s name: ______

Q2. Gender: Male/Female

Q3.Date of birth______

Q4.Marital status of respondent (farmer): Married 1 Divorced 2 Widow(er) 3 Never married 4 Living together 5 Household Roster

Q5. Name of Q6. Q7. Date Q8. What is Q9. What is Q10. Q11. Q12. Is all household Gender of birth? (…)’s the highest What is Salary […] members. relationship level of (…)’s of the disabled? to you (the education main activity. farmer)? completed by activity? M F (…)? Yes No

Q8. Relationship- Code Wife, husband, partner 1 grandparent 5 Brother/sister in law 9 Son or daughter 2 Sister/brother 6 Other family 10

103

Father or mother 3 Mother/father in law 7 Other non-family/friend 11 grandchild 4 Son/daughter in law 8 Farm worker who stays in the hh 12

Q9. Completed education of the member- Code No schooling 1 Primary 2 Secondary 3 Tertiary 4

Q10. Main activity of the member-Code Regular employment in agriculture 1 Housewife/Child rearing 8 Regular employment NOT in agriculture 2 Unemployed 9

Casual employment in agriculture 3 Fulltime education (Student / 10 scholar) Casual employment NOT in agriculture 4 Retired/Pensioner 11 Self-employed farmer 5 Children NOT at school 12

Self-employed NOT in farming 6 Other 13 Migrant worker 7 (Specify)……………………………..

Q13. Type of farming: Own garden (backyard) 1 NGO garden 2 School garden 3 Open space 4 Larger scale garden 5

Section B: Human Capital

Q14. Completed education of farmer:

No schooling 1 Primary 2 Secondary 3 Tertiary 4

Q15. Types of jobs done in the last year:

Implement Yes No Farming Housekeeping Small trading

104

Family business Waste picking Other (specify)______

Q16. How many years have you been farming? ______(if less than 1 year write -1).

Q17. How many days of the seven day week do you devote to urban agriculture? ______days.

Q18. How many times did you visit the doctor or clinic/hospital last year?______

Q19. How many times did you visit a traditional healer last year?_____

Q20. Do you have a disability? Yes/no

If yes, what is the disability? ______

Q21. Have you been able to carry out your normal activities during the period of the illness?

Yes/No/Does not apply

Section C: Social Capital

Q22. Does your household receive any products or services from relatives or neighbors? Yes No Q23. Does your household give products or services to other households? Yes No Q24. Do you exchange seeds with other farmers? Yes No Q25.Do you exchange food with other farmers? Yes No Q26.Are you a member of an organized farmer’s group? Yes No Q27. Have you ever had any conflict with a member of your farmer’s group? Yes No

Q28. I want to take on a leadership position in my farming group:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

Q29. I trust my fellow farmers:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

Q30. I trust my community:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

Section D: Natural Capital

Q31. How far is the land located from the homestead?

It is located at the backyard 1 1km to 7km away 2

105

8km to 15km away 3 16km to 23 km away 4 More than 24km away 5

Q32. Do you own the land you are farming on in Soweto?

Yes/ No

Q33. If yes, do you feel that the land rights are insecure?

Yes/No/Does not apply

Q34. What are the dimensions of the productive space? less than 1000 sq. meters 1 1.000-4.000 sq. meters 2 4.000- 7.000 sq. meters 3 7.000 sq. meters to 1 hectare 4 other (specify:______5

Q35. Do you have access to any other land where you can grow crops? (e.g. other land in Soweto or land in tribal area).

Yes/No

Q36. What is your primary source of water for farming use? :

Piped water inside house 1 Piped water on privately-owned land 2 Piped water outside the house, 3 Communal/shared tap/public standpipe 4 illegal connection 5 hand pump 6 storm drain 7 rainwater 8 river/lake/pond 9 borehole/dug well 10 Water truck 11 Other(specify):______12

Q37. How often do you have access to the public water supply?

1= always, 2=regularly, 3= rarely, 4=I do not have access to public supply, 5=other (specify)____

Q38. How often you have access to private water supplies only?

106

1= always, 2=regularly, 3= rarely, 4=I do not have access to private supply, 5=other (specify)____

Q39. Describe the quality of water you use to water your crops:

Poor, fair, average, good, excellent (quality)

Q40. If quality of water is rated poor, fair or average why the quality is not good or excellent? (Write does not apply if that is the case).

______

Q41. Describe the quality of soil you farm on:

Poor, fair, average, good, excellent (quality)

Q42. If quality of soil is rated poor, fair or average why is the quality not good or excellent? (Write does not apply if that is the case).

______

Q43. The soil I farm is contaminated with sewerage and I replace this with compost:

Yes/no

Section E : Physical Capital

Q44. Do you have access to, or/and own the following farming tools/facilities?

Access to Own Implement Yes No Yes No Spade Spade Fork Rakes Hoes Sacks Cart Wheel barrow Food storage Twine tiller/cultivator 3 Share frame plough Water tanks Palisade fence Two row planter Potatoes planter Hosepipe

107

Q45. Do you grow ‘Imvelo’ (organic) crops?

Yes/No

Q46. How often do you perform pest and weeds control?

Never, rarely, sometimes, often, always

Q47. How often do you use pesticides or chemical products?

Never, rarely, sometimes, often, always

Q48. Do you have access to available inputs (seeds etc.?)

Yes/No

Q49.I am satisfied with the quality of the seeds I use:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

Q50. I am satisfied with the availability of the seeds I use:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

Q51. I am satisfied with the price I pay for the seeds I use:

Strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, strongly agree

SECTION F: FINANCIAL CAPITAL

Q52. Please tell me if your HH gets monetary income from the following sources:

Implement Yes No Agriculture (crops): Agriculture (livestock): Regular, paid employment: Informal business (mainly family labor): Relatives/friends outside HH (remittances): Loans Private pensions Formal businesses Other (specify):______

Q53. Do you know your household’s approximate monthly income last month?

Yes/No

108

If amount known, enter here: ______, if not enter approximate estimation______(in local currency)

Q54. Do you have the money to meet the following needs? Choose options.

Implement Yes No Does not apply Housing Loan repayment Food Education Health care Transport Water Electricity Fuel Telephone Entertainment, (Alcohol consumption, smoking etc.)

Q55. Did your household interrupt farming in the past year for any of the below mentioned reasons.

Implement Yes No Crop production not profitable/useful for family Household members took other work Illness in household Land no longer available Lack of cash for inputs Other(specify):______

Q56. Does the hh receive social grants?

Implement Yes No Child support grant Old age grant Disability grant Military veteran’s grant Grant-in-aid Care-dependency grant Other (specify): ______

Q57. Which services from the following have you used during the past year? Please check.

Implement Yes No Department of Agriculture Local government services

109

Money lending NGO/CBO support services Banking services Other:______

Part 2: Risks and Shocks

Q58. Did you experience any small problems regarding your crop?

Yes/ No

Q59. Did you experience any complete crop failure the last 12months?

Yes/No

Q60. If yes, how many times did you experience crop failure the last year? Number of times: ______(Write does not apply, if that is the case).

Q61. When? long rain and short rain period 1 long rain period 2 short rain period 3 Never (I didn’t experience crop failure) 4

Q62. What was the cause?

Floods 1 Drought 2 Erratic rainfall 3 Other (specify)______4

Write does not apply if that is the case: ______

Part 3: Perceptions/Challenges

Q63. What are the three main challenges you have faced since you started farming? ______

______

Q64. What are the three most important factors which prevent you from expanding your farming activities? ______

110

______

Q65. How has doing urban agriculture improved your and your household’s livelihoods?

______

Q66. How can your urban agriculture practices be improved?

______

Part 4: Food Security Survey

Q1. In the past four weeks, did you worry that your household would not have enough food?

No (skip to Q2) 0 Yes 1

1. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q2. In the past four weeks, were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

2. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3 Q3. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources?

111

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

3. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q4. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

4. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q5. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was not enough food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

5. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q6. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1 6. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1

112

Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q7. In the past four weeks, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

7. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q8. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

8. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

Q9. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating because there was not enough food?

No (skip to the next question) 0 Yes 1

9. a. How often did this happen?

Rarely (once or twice in the past four weeks) 1 Sometimes (three to ten times in the past four weeks) 2 Often (more than ten times in the past four weeks) 3

113

3. 2: Semi-structured interviews

-How urban agriculture reliefs food security?

-What is your opinion on current policies- what the government is doing?

-What is your opinion and perceptions about urban farming and food security in Soweto?

-Comments on development projects, what factors make them successful, what not? What is missing?

-Have you seen a systemic change and if so, to what extent?

-How do you see the future of urban agriculture in view of changes that cannot be controlled (real estate development, commercial, industrial development etc.)? Do you think that growth would influence adversely urban agriculture in Soweto?

114

Appendix 4

4.1: Food Security score

A HFIA category variable is calculated for each household by assigning a code for the food insecurity (access) category in which it falls. The frequency-of occurrence is coded as 0 for all cases where the answer to the corresponding occurrence question was “no” (i.e., if Q1=0 then Q1a=0, if Q2=0 then Q2a =0, etc.). The four food security categories are created sequentially, as shown below, to ensure that households are classified according to their most severe response.

Household Food Insecurity Access category for each household:

1 = Food Secure, 2=Mildly Food Insecure Access, 3=Moderately Food Insecure Access, 4=Severely Food Insecure.

Subsequently: Access HFIA category = 1 if [(Q1a=0 or Q1a=1) and Q2=0 and Q3=0 and Q4=0 and Q5=0 and Q6=0 and Q7=0 and Q8=0 and Q9=0] HFIA category = 2 if [(Q1a=2 or Q1a=3 or Q2a=1 or Q2a=2 or Q2a=3 or Q3a=1 or Q4a=1) and Q5=0 and Q6=0 and Q7=0 and Q8=0 and Q9=0] HFIA category = 3 if [(Q3a=2 or Q3a=3 or Q4a=2 or Q4a=3 or Q5a=1 or Q5a=2 or Q6a=1 or Q6a=2) and Q7=0 and Q8=0 and Q9=0] HFIA category = 4 if [Q5a=3 or Q6a=3 or Q7a=1 or Q7a=2 or Q7a=3 or Q8a=1 or Q8a=2 or Q8a=3 or Q9a=1 or Q9a=2 or Q9a=3

115