The Right to Food: Perspective from South Africa

Editor's Notes

• #3: Over the course of the last five decades, global agricultural production has steadily increased on a nearly annual basis, yet the number of people suffering from chronic hunger has remained relatively unchanged at around 1 billion worldwide (World Hunger Education Service, Hunger Notes: 2012 world hunger facts and statistics). While the figure seems staggering, there is in fact cause for hope if one considers that in 1950, the number of people vulnerable to food insecurity was quite close to today’s figure, but with one notable difference: 63 years ago, 1 billion people represented one third of the world’s population. Today, instead of 30%, 1 billion is down to about 14% (IFPRI: Millions fed: proven success in agricultural development, 2009). On the one hand, a billion human beings without enough to eat can never be seen as a victory; on the other, more people are successfully being fed today than ever before in human history.
• #5: As the map illustrates, people living in Africa have, to a large extent, been excluded from advances made in the global food system. Today, Africans are still at greater risk of being food insecure than those living anywhere else in the world (UNDP Africa Human Development Report 2012). With the exception of Haiti, 4 of the 5 hungriest countries are found on the African continent, i.e. (1) the DRC, with 75% of the population facing food insecurity; (2) Eritrea, with 66%; (3) Burundi, at 63%; (4) Haiti, at 58%; and (5) the Comoros, with 51% (FAO Report 2009: The State of Food Security in the World). Sadly, this situation has endured despite the right to food being recognised in the continent’s Human Rights charters for decades, i.e. the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 1990; African Charter on Human and People Rights, right recognised by the African Commission in 2001; Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women, 2003. In fact, according to the FAO, the situation has worsened in recent years, with food security declining in sub-Saharan Africa, while rising steadily in Asia and South America (FAO: State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012). This is largely due to a decrease in African agricultural productivity, both in real terms and in comparison with the rest of the world. From 1963 to 2010, food production per capita fell by 13% in sub-Saharan Africa, while rising by 44% in Asia and 48% in South America (figures quoted by Mr. Geoff Tooth, Australian High Commissioner to Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda and Australia’s ambassador to Burundi, Somalia and South Sudan, Food Security Conference, Sydney December 2012). The reasons for this are numerous and intricate, yet it is important to keep success stories in mind and to build on the knowledge gleaned over the last half-century. Experience has taught that the pathways to food security are as varied as the causes of hunger. In a 2009 publication entitled “Millions fed: Proven success in agricultural development,” the IFPRI identified 6 such pathways that have led to sustainable food security. These are: (1) intensifying staple food production, (2) integrating people and the environment, (3) expanding the role of markets, (4) diversifying out of major cereals, (5) reforming economy-wide policies and (6) improving food quality and nutrition. Interestingly, the recognition of a right to food in national legislation does not appear to have a significant effect on the food security situation in a given country. Still, while treaty-law and statutes should not be regarded as solutions in themselves, they do represent potentially useful tools for guiding national and regional efforts to accomplish food security goals. At the end of the day, critical determinants for mobilising the right to food are the continuous monitoring and enforcement of legal provisions, rather than legislation by itself (Haug & Rauan, Agricultural University of Norwar: Noragric Report No. 2B, 2001). 
• #8: As shown by the first graph, national food insecurity decreased from almost 24% of the population being affected in 2002 to just under 12% in 2011. Although studies suggest that rural households have historically been able to produce most of their own food, both rural and urban households have increasingly become net consumers, rather than producers of food. Urbanisation and declining agrarian activities in significant parts of the country, including the subsistence sector, have transformed the South African economy into a wage economy in which most households are net consumers of purchased food, rather than producers thereof. Access to food has therefore become a function of disposable income, meaning that cash deficit households are more likely to experience inadequate access to food (Stats SA, 2012 – Food Security & Agriculture Report). While almost two thirds of South African households receive salaries or wages, 44.8% are eligible for social grants, with 22.3% relying on grants as their sole source of income. Although alleviating cash flow burdens in the short-run, escalating national dependence on social welfare may in fact contribute to food insecurity over the long-term as grant-eligible families that would previously have turned to farming as a source of both food and income are found to delay, or even abandon this approach in favour of subsisting on grants.
• #9: Less than a quarter of households in South Africa are actively involved in farming, including as a hobby. This figure contains much variation regarding the extent to which households practise agriculture, with subsistence farming accounting for18.4% of the total. In this regard, the bar graph illustrates an interesting phenomenon: higher involvement in household agricultural activity correlates with higher levels of food insecurity. The prima facie assumption might then be that household agriculture does not contribute to food security in South Africa, however, this would be a somewhat facile conclusion. Unlike their counterparts in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, rural households in South Africa are much more likely to purchase food and much less likely to utilise the environment to generate income or produce food (Stats SA, 2012: Food Security & Agriculture Report). As stated previously, research by Stats SA and D’Haese et al found that coping strategies tend to focus on exploiting non-agricultural sources of income as far as possible before turning to self-production. Farming, then, is seen by many as a strategy of last resort. Possible factors contributing to this aversion to agriculture are a lack of readily available water sources (a correlation exists between limited access to basic services and food insecurity), the high cost of energy needed to prepare raw produce for consumption and difficulties in trading surplus produce for a profit. Revitalising agriculture, and specifically the role of small-scale and subsistence farmers in rural, as well as urban areas presents a significant test for policy makers, particularly when viewed in conjunction with other development challenges, such as volatile energy prices, high inflation, sluggish economic growth, pervasive unemployment, environmental shocks and fluctuating household safety nets to name but a few (Stats SA, 2012: Food Security & Agriculture Report).
• #10: When considering the provincial distribution of food insecurity, households in Northwest and the Northern Cape are most severely affected, with a prevalence of 32.9% and 29.7% respectively. Surprisingly, families in Limpopo, which is itself a relatively poor province, report better access to food than those in any other area – outperforming even the more urbanised and affluent Gauteng and Western Cape. In this regard, it is worth noting that families in Limpopo also report the highest prevalence of household agricultural activity with 52.7% taking part in food production. The Eastern Cape is next with a prevalence of 37% and Mpumalanga is third with 33.9% (Stats SA, 2012: Food Security & Agriculture Report).
• #13: South Africa is a constitutional democracy, with the national constitution, act 108 of 1996, representing the benchmark of validity for all other forms of law making, including statutes, court decisions, the common law and customary law as well as national policy and strategies. The Bill of Rights, contained in chapter 2 of the constitution, recognises the right of all people residing within South African borders to have access to sufficient food, and the right of children in particular to basic nutrition. This is not an absolute guarantee, however. The state’s obligations under the right to food, as with other socio-economic rights, are qualified in terms of “the reasonable allocation of available resources.” The state is therefore bound to the “progressive realisation” of the right to food, i.e. realisation over time, as opposed to instantaneous fulfilment (Burns, Realising the right to food in South Africa: An analysis of available frameworks and strategies, published in 2012). In Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others, a case concerning access to housing, the constitutional court further acknowledged that the scope of the state’s obligations are determined according to whether or not a specific citizen can acquire the means to fulfil basic rights for themselves or not. Thus, it has been argued that the right of access to food can be construed as: The state’s obligation to establish an environment within which everyone is – within the limits of their abilities – able to acquire food for themselves, Supplemented by the obligation to provide support to those who cannot procure sufficient food, including through the mobilisation of private individuals and organisations to act on its behalf (Brand, The Right to Food and Nutrition in the South African Constitution). It is important to note that the constitutional court regards rights of “access” to be distinct from the concept of minimum core obligations. In this formulation, endorsed by the United Nations Committee on Economic and Social Rights, governments must provide a baseline of services while working toward progressive realisation of rights. Thus, while recognising the challenge of limited resources, the constitutional duty imposed on the state is both negative and positive in nature: Negative obligation: On the one hand, government must refrain from unjustifiably interfering with the enjoyment of the right, i.e. by abstaining from any practice that denies or limits access to food, such refusing fishing licences to subsistence fishermen as happened in terms of the Marine Living Resources Act, 18 of 1998. The MRLA was subsequently challenged by a group of about 5000 artisanal fishermen who claimed that the national authorities had failed to provide them with adequate fishing rights as they were not given legal recognition as “artisanal fishers” within the act. The fishermen argued that the implementation of the MLRA violated their right to food as enshrined in section 27 of the constitution by prohibiting access to a crucial source of both food and income. The high court ruled in the fishermen’s favour, awarding them interim relief and the opportunity to negotiate for a new fishing policy in which their rights would be recognised. This has led to the adoption of a new small-scale fisheries policy in May of last year, which upholds the economic and social rights of fishermen with proven historical dependence on, and involvement with the resource in question. Positive obligation: On the other hand, the state’s duty entails that it must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the right to food through “reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources.” In its 2004 paper on the right to food, the South African Human Rights Commission delineated each of these elements as follows: - Respect: The state observes the constitutional obligation to respect the right to food through respecting the resources owned by an individual and respecting their knowledge, skills and actions to satisfy their own needs. - Protect: The obligation to protect the right to food in terms of section 27(1)(b), 28(1)(c) and 35(2)(e) of the constitution includes the state's obligation to protect against fraud, unethical behaviour in trade and contractual relations, and the marketing and dumping of hazardous or dangerous food products. - Promote: The adoption and mobilisation of national policies, strategies and programmes aimed at improving food security are methods of promoting the right to food. Ensuring sufficient inter-sectoral co-operation between different departments and line functions overseeing various components of food security are also regarded as important promotional steps. Good nutrition needs to be promoted in an independent and culturally sensitive manner to all age groups. - Fulfil: Fulfilment is achieved by actively providing food to vulnerable individuals and communities. An example of government-fulfilment of section 28(1)(c) would be the state’s Primary School Nutrition Programme for children between grades R to 7, the Early Childhood Development Centre nutrition programme in Gauteng and nutrition programmes for children under 5 at health facilities across the country.
• #14: The IFSS aligns itself with MDG1, situating its approach within broader development objectives. It identifies several types of entitlement promotion with respect to the food insecure, i.e.: Greater ownership of productive assets; Greater access to income and job opportunities where such access is not feasible; Improved food safety and nutrition; and Improved interim relief for those unable to access any of these improvements. The IFSS also seeks to promote cooperation between government, the private sector and civil society regarding the enhancement of food security interventions and increased capacity to monitor food insecurity trends and the impact interventions are having. The formal institutional arrangements for achieving these outcomes are coordinated in terms of international best practice.
• #15: The strategy consists of an inter-departmental set of programmes that are to be informed by “food security forums” occurring at national provincial, district, and local levels. The inter-departmental Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme Task Team was designed to undertake a host of complementary interventions at the behest of particular departments, depending on the type of expertise needed. In keeping with this methodology, the Department of Agriculture was tasked to oversee a project pertaining to food production and trading; the Department of Public Works a community development programme; the Department of Health an integrated nutrition and food safety programme; the Department of Social Development a comprehensive social security programme; and Statistics South Africa an information and communication programme. All departments were to be involved in a food security capacity-building programme and a food security stakeholder dialogue programme. Food security forums at different levels would fulfil complementary tasks towards the designing and implementation of policy. A national food security forum would coordinate a strategy at the national level, a provincial counterpart would prioritise projects and allocate funds, district food security committees would identify food insecure areas and advise on project design and funding, and local food security action groups, consisting of local government and NGOs, would provide information on local household vulnerability to food insecurity. The departmental programmes and food security forums are linked through coordinating units at each level, with a Food Security Directorate in what was then the Department of Agriculture assuming an overseeing role. What is outlined in theory, however, has not translated into reliable implementation in practice. Thus, the Human Science Research Council concludes that “the institutional structures currently designed to address food insecurity in South Africa are fraught with challenges that are severely constraining their effectiveness, and are having deeply negative impacts on food security in the country” (HSRC, Food Security Definitions, Measures, and Recent Initiatives).
• #17: The court found that the South African constitution does provide for class actions (which, until this judgment, had been virtually unheard of in South African jurisprudence). Several hurdles remain, such as determining who the claimants in the “class” will be and then the scope of the injury suffered for the purposes of compensation. The relevance of this case, however, is that it promotes the right to food, by ensuring that anticompetitive conduct hindering access to staple foods, is actionable by the people directly affected.
• #18: The agreement sets out the key work to be completed by 2014 as well as long-term targets for improving food security. It identifies the specific activities particular departments must undertake to reach the outlined goals. One strength of this document is its multidimensional and interdepartmental approach to food security; it identifies the coordinating governmental department, core departments and key stakeholders for each output, thereby clearly delineating responsibility for the implementation of each activity. However, the outcome 7 delivery agreement has yet to specify and/or confirm all targets. It also focuses predominantly on food security for rural populations, despite recognising the universal rise in food prices and acknowledging that the risks of increased food security may be more pronounced in urban and peri-urban areas where people rely exclusively on purchasing their food. Almost two-thirds of South Africans live in cities and an average of 70% of the poor in Cape Town, Msunduzi and Johannesburg experience food insecurity. In addition, the Government has committed to ensuring the achievement of the outcomes through the establishment of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation within the Office of the Presidency. DPME collaborates with other departments and spheres of government to ensure that progress against the targets is monitored on the basis of measuring the indicators. Where progress is unsatisfactory, the Department identifies improvements to be made. While the DMPE ensures monitoring and evaluation across all spheres of government, it is not independent from the government. Rather it is responsible for assisting government in focusing and performing better in relation to the 12 outcomes; for identifying problems in a timely manner; and for assisting departments to overcome them (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mission to South Africa, 2012).
• #19: The framework for the Zero Hunger Programme was derived from the Brazilian Zero Hunger model, which had proved to be an effective strategy in addressing and combating hunger. Implementation has been in progress since 2009. The programme is aimed at: Improving collaboration among national, provincial and non-governmental organizations as well as coordination of their inputs and resources to increase household food security and rural development; Ensuring the establishment of effective support structures for farmers through capacity-building and the institutional strengthening for their improved participation; and Encouraging the diversification of incomes through the production of vegetables, small stock and small-scale aquaculture. A positive component of the Zero Hunger programme is the proactive posture it has adopted to send public civil servants to communities to identify households vulnerable to food insecurity (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mission to South Africa, 2012).