In the press: Chronic state of food insecurity in SA demands dramatic policy change

The environmental author Rob Nixon describes society’s encounter with climate change as “slow violence”, a “different kind of violence, a violence that is neither spectacular nor instantaneous, but rather incremental and accretive, its calamitous repercussions playing out across a range of temporal scales”.

The same can be said for the state of food insecurity in South Africa. A recent report published by the South African Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and commissioned by the National Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform (DARD&LR – now split into different departments) provides stark insights into the extent of food- and nutrition-related slow violence in South Africa.

It is at the sites of food insecurity where policy and targeted strategies are required. Given the complex nature of food insecurity and the intersections with physical and social infrastructure, planning and economic activities, food security responses have to be systemic. Responses cannot be confined to time-bound projects.

The DARD&LR authored introduction to the report notes that “overall, many households across all provinces of South Africa were food insecure”. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), a universally applied food security measurement indicator, revealed that “only 36.5% of households were food secure, with the remaining 63.5% being food insecure”.

The use of percentages is misleading, adding to the accretive nature of the challenge. The most recent General Household Survey (2023) published by Statistics South Africa lists slightly more than 19 million households in South Africa. This means that slightly more than 12 million households (63.5%) in South Africa are food insecure.

According to Stats SA, “a typical South African household had approximately 3.2 members” – indicating that about 38.6 million South Africans are food insecure. Such high levels of food insecurity have serious direct and indirect implications for health, educational achievement and for general well-being. Increasingly household struggles to access adequate food are being linked to inter-household violence. Why are such high levels of food insecurity not a national state of emergency?

It is important to stress that food insecurity is different from hunger. Hunger is the absence of food. Food security is defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as existing when “all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. In South Africa, there is more than enough food in the system.

South Africa’s severe inequality, our high level of unemployment, spatial inefficiencies and infrastructural challenges all combine to restrict access to healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate food.

The high levels of food insecurity result in a restricted diet, with meals being skipped and dietary diversity declining. This means that diets are often high in energy and fat, with increasingly less fruit and vegetables consumed. The persistent rise in food prices is compounding the issue as household budgets are further constrained.

The July Household Affordability Index published by the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group (PMBEJD) shows that a national minimum wage earner, working for 23 days a month, would earn just more than R5,000. The national average of the PMBEJD defined nutritious food basket (for a family of four members) costs R3,669.23 per month.

When combined with other essential household costs, such as energy and transport costs, households face a deficit of just under R 1,500 (or 40.3%). Given that food is the only area of the household budget where cost cutting can take place, diets decline, amplifying the dietary slow violence in our society.

These issues demand drastic policy action and response. The DARD&LR domiciled National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security and subsequently the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy Implementation Plan of 2018-2023 have clearly failed to address food insecurity. There are many reasons for this miscarriage in policy action.

One reason, I argue, is that the South African society that existed when our current policy landscape was established is fundamentally different today and yet, that architecture remains locked in place.

One area that demands a review of this architecture is the demographic of South Africa. According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs urbanisation estimates, in 1950 South Africa was just over 40% urban, transitioning to over 50% urban in the mid-1980s, and is forecast to be over 72% urban by 2030.

This begs a number of questions. Why in a significantly urban country, is food security still seen as a rural endeavour? Why do fiscal and policy mandates provide South African cities with no space to engage food questions? Why, despite the Right to Food and Nutrition forming part of the South African Bill of Rights, do local governments feel they have such limited options?

One answer is driven by the misguided use of proportions. In the HSRC report it is stated that “descriptive analysis of aggregated national data reflected variable levels of the intensity of food insecurity across all nine provinces, with severe food insecurity being more prevalent in North West Province”.

The July Household Affordability Index published by the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group (PMBEJD) shows that a national minimum wage earner, working for 23 days a month, would earn just more than R5,000. The national average of the PMBEJD defined nutritious food basket (for a family of four members) costs R3,669.23 per month.

Why such a misguided statement?

While any figure depicting South Africans suffering food insecurity is cause for concern, robust policy engagement demands that we consider the net population figures, not proportions.

The percentage for mildly and severely food insecure was highest in North West at 55%. However, when calculated according to net population figures, the North West was by no means the most food insecure.

In fact, Gauteng at “only” 34% mildly and severely food insecure, was by far the most food insecure province with more than 5.5 million people being food insecure. The Western Cape, at 39% mildly and severely food insecure, meant slightly over 2.8 million people are mildly and severely food insecure.

As the two most urban provinces, clearly South Africa’s cities need a far greater mandate to engage these issues?

It is acknowledged that many South African cities have severe governance challenges. However, food insecurity is experienced differently in urban areas.

The most critical determinant in urban food security is the state of infrastructure. The food environment of urban areas plays a crucial role in the type and quality of foods consumed. This environment extends to the home and the quality of housing, as well as access to water, energy, and sanitation. It is not just physical infrastructure. Social infrastructures in cities require constant maintenance and nurturing.

South Africa is not alone. Globally, the role played by urban and peri-urban areas in food security has recently been made abundantly clear.

The recent United Nations Committee on World Food Security High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) report on Strengthening Urban And Peri Urban Food Systems points out that “of the 2.2 billion moderately and severely food insecure people in the world, 1.7 billion live in urban and peri‐urban areas”.

Despite claims of an absent mandate, South African cities have multiple policy tools at their disposal to respond to food insecurity. Spatial planning approaches can be made more food sensitive, and acknowledging the key food security role played by the informal sector is essential.

Existing municipal fresh produce markets play an indispensable role in facilitating access to affordable healthy food. The Constitution also affords significant opportunities, and associated obligations, specifically Schedules 4 and 5. The “it is not our mandate” and “speak to provincial government” responses cannot be tolerated given the state of food insecurity. The same applies for arguments that “we have calorific food security at a national level”.

It is at the sites of food insecurity where policy and targeted strategies are required. Given the complex nature of food insecurity and the intersections with physical and social infrastructure, planning and economic activities, food security responses have to be systemic. Responses cannot be confined to time-bound projects.

Avoided at all costs should be calls for local government ministries of food. Food security intersects with multiple municipal competencies. This demands that local government does the hard work of working across silos. This will not be easy. Historical institutional inertia will confound efforts to shift. Accessing dwindling national government fiscal funding will be as challenging. This is however urgent.

The future of any young child conceived today in one of the under-serviced areas of a South African city demands that we act, and act with urgency and initiative seldom seen in our governance structures.

Equally, society can no longer sit back and blame the government. What type of society tolerates such food insecurity, such slow violence? If we don’t act, and act collectively, that child through no fault of their own will see their development prospects significantly curtailed.

Norman Bel Geddes argued in his 1932 book Horizons, “at the moment, we still are thinking too much in grooves. We are too much inclined to believe things have long been done in a certain way, that that is the best way to do them. Following old grooves of thought is one method of playing safe. But it deprives one of initiative” (accents per the original).

In the South African case, staying in the groove not only deprives us of initiative, it deprives us of our ability to collectively thrive as a society. This is slow violence in the extreme, this is unjust. Urgent changes in our approaches to food and food security policy are required.