Food Security Hearings: finalisation

Meeting report

AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
27 May 2003
FOOD SECURITY HEARINGS: FINALISATION

National African Farmworkers' Union submission
Agriculture Research Council submission
National Agricultural Marketing Council submission
Biowatch submission
Earthlife Africa submission
Red Meat Producers' Organisation submission
Nation Chamber of Milling presentation
COSATU/FAWU submission
Department of Social Development presentation
CSIR Bio/Chemtek presentation
ABALIMI submission (Appendix 1)
SANGOCO submission (Appendix 2)
Contralesa submission (Appendix 3)
Department of Agriculture submission (Appendix 4)
Environmental Monitoring Group submission (Appendix 5)
Maximill submission (Appendix 6)
Pick 'n Pay submission (Appendix 7)
PLAAS submission (Appendix 8)
S A Poultry submission (Appendix 9)
The lessons learned from these public hearings (Appendix 10)

SUMMARY
The Committee discussed the report on food security in South Africa that would be forwarded to Parliament The Chairperson concentrated on the lessons learned from the public hearings and recommendations that were added to the report. The agenda also included the Zimbabwe Report.

MINUTES
The Committee was happy with the report on the content of lessons learned from the public hearing. They however engaged in lengthy intense debates about the recommendations as stipulated in the report. Most of the concerns members raised had already been catered for within the broad recommendations of the report.

However, Members felt some areas needed to be more specific when using terminology such as infrastructure (to include the infrastructure of departmental services, the upgrading of roads, dipping facilities, fencing, irrigation schemes, and the utilisation of land) and in reference to stakeholders, (specific mention of NGOs was requested by Dr A Schoeman (ANC)) This was emphasised particularly because the report was going to be made accessible to various departmental sectors and the public. The chairperson was very worried about the report sounding prescriptive.

Discussion
The Chairperson, Mr N Masithela (ANC),turned down Ms R Kasienyane's (ANC) suggestion that constituencies be used to monitor the proper co-ordination of food parcels as this would open up the ANC -which had the most constituencies- for political criticism.

Dr A Van Niekerk (FA) strongly felt that the problem of food insecurity could not be solved by relying entirely on agriculture, but rather in the creation of jobs.

The Chairperson pointed out that reference to government in the report was there to bind all government clusters.

The Chairperson said the problem lay in the concurrence of power and the priority lists of provincial Government and National Government, hence it involved the constitution.

Mr Botha (DA) warned that if the Committee was pushing for the amendment of the Constitution they ought to be very careful and said he was of the definite opinion that food security could be achieved without tampering with the Constitution and was thus uncomfortable about any suggestions to amend it.

Dr Schoeman (ANC) and Mr P Nefolovhodwe (AZAPO) both felt the Constitution was not cast in stone, and supported suggestions to amend it if the amendment would be an investment in improvement.

Adoption of Recommendations
Recommendations 1-5 adopted without amendments:
1-That government should speedily finalize the research it is conducting around food security legislation and ensure that it is tabled before house in the next term of Parliament.

2-Committee appreciates attempts by the government of ensuring that citizens have access to food, however, government should develop mechanisms that will enable people to access food at reasonable prices. Creation of the strategic food reserves and consider releasing food from the reserves when the country is in the dier need for a particular period e.g. when the price is very high and or during the year of scarcity.

3-Food parcels are a short-term intervention, medium and long-term strategy should be developed coupled with agriculture starter-packs for people who have land and those who deserve and are or wish to be in subsistence farming;

4-The agricultural start-up packs should be allocated money from the R400 million alleviation fund and or from other government sources before the end of term so as to enable those who are able to plough, to do so etc.

5-Government departments in collaboration and or in co-operation with private sector should ensure that where needed, all utilized and under utilized irrigation schemes are fully utilized;

Recommendation 6 was adopted with amendments: to include for example fencing.
6 - Government should ensure that it improves agricultural infrastructure for development at all levels in the country.

Recommendations 7 to 9 were adopted without recommendations
7 - The government should investigate means of ensuring that all perishable foods are marked with expiry dates;

8 - Parliament and or government should convene different stakeholders especially private sector in the country to financially and programmatically discuss and pledge their support to reduce food insecurity.

9 - The government should ensure that whiles ARC is correctly researching for well- established commercial farmers, it should also intensify its research capacity on indigenous crops more especially for subsistence and small scale and the emerging farmers.

Mr A Botha (DP) objected to recommendation 10
10 - Parliament should amend the relevant sections of the Constitution in order to facilitate the implementation of policy directives of the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs in provincial areas of competencies of the Department of Agriculture.

In the course deliberations two more recommendations arose and were adopted:
That the government should work very closely with NGOs and CBOs working on food security programmes.
All forms of farming should be assisted by the research and extension services.

The report was adopted with the "lessons learned" and the developed new recommendations.

Discussion on Zimbabwe Report
The Chairperson reported that the report could not be finalised this week. He expressed his concern about the three different statements released to the media upon their return from their visit to Zimbabwe. He had issued a statement to the media on behalf of the Committee as its chairperson, that an official report would be released after the delegation had reported back to the Committee and Parliament. Subsequently the media reported statements from Advocate P Holomisa (ANC)and Mr A Botha (DA) about the same visit. The main concern was that the public had been given the impression that these statements were issued by members as Portfolio Committee delegates.

Discussion
Both Mr Holomisa and Mr Botha said they had spoken in their personal capacity.

Mr Botha added that it was his constitutional right to give his personal impression. He also indicated that both the public and the media were present with them in Zimbabwe.

Advocate Holomisa said that he found it difficult not to comment on the land issues of Zimbabwe when approached as president of Contralesa because they were dealing with land issues and the land bill. He added that he would welcome guidelines about this as they would promote consistency and highlight the committees good work.

The Chairperson highlighted that both delegates had been sent to Zimbabwe as delegates in their capacity as members of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs.

Mr P Nefolovhodwe advised that apart from advance indication from the chair requesting delegates not to speak to the media, guidelines needed to be put in place - and not for just this committee - but for all committees returning from visits of this nature as to how to respond to the media. He explained that despite that many members may wear different cap, in Parliament they had been forwarded to represent their respective parties on the Portfolio Committee; the guidelines would need to clarify how to accommodate, or not accommodate the different levels of representatively members held.

Ms Ntuli (ANC) felt that the next time this happened Members should be sanctioned.

The chairperson said he was not saying Members could not respond on issues pertaining to committee issues and decision, but members should not deal with them before the committee had resolved them. He added that in this they were trying to promote hegemony.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:
From Survival Gardens to Market Gardens: Organic Micro-Farming as a powerful tool for Food Security and Job Creation: Presentation by R.Small, Director of ABALIMI. Abalimi (The Planters) is an NGO working with organic micro-farmers and environmental action initiatives in the Cape Flats townships.

We are currently working with over 3000 organic micro-farmers in over 100 community gardens and over 2500 home survival gardens throughout the Cape Flats townships. It is costing us approximately R1Million/annum or R333/micro-farmer/annum to provide the support we currently give. This support includes subsidised production inputs, training and on-site follow-up. These micro-farmers are growing vegetables on very small areas of land - from as little as 10m2 up to 5000m2, in backyards, under powerlines, on school grounds and in the bush. The micro-farmers are now discussing the formation of their own association and in future it is our hope that they will no longer require the supporting NGO to represent them on such occasions as these, but that they will ensure their own voices are heard loud and clear. Some representatives from the micro-farmers are in this room and I thank them for taking the time out from their allotments to support me here today. I hope they will stay for tea and be available to answer questions about their projects.Thank you for the opportunity to present these important concepts to the government of this land. Please remember that these concepts have been developed over time with the widest possible civil society representation in a lengthy national process.

Presented by Glenn Ashton.

Appendix 3
Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa

(CONTRALESA)

Overview

The presenter, pointed out that up to 80% of the population lived on 13% of the land. Big companies exploited natural resources and local people did not benefit.

He maintained that the underlying principle of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was biased toward rural development but results from this had yet to be seen. He argued that on the issue of food security and other governmental programmes and policies, CONTRALESA should be consulted as subsistence farming was the livelihood of many rural inhabitants. In addition, the presenter called for arable allotments, livestock and self-help schemes to promote development.

Recommendations

· More advocacy work was needed for the shift from urban bias in favour of rural
development.
· Promoting of self-help schemes, that is, projects to promote rural areas.
The Government through local economic development programmes specifically
designed for these areas can assist these emergent farmers.
· More initiative from government to promote agriculture.

Provision of tractors and other farm implements, with appropriate seed and fertiliser, irrigation systems, support services from institutions such as the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), the National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC). Additional extension officers in rural areas. Funds for these tools can be made available by the conversion of housing subsidies to be used for the promotion of agriculture, as housing is not a priority in communal areas.

Micro-farmers are most often unemployed persons who have families to feed. They have turned to organic micro-farming as a way out of desperation and hopelessness and have found that, with a lot of hard work, it is possible to secure much of their home food supply and also to make money- and even create jobs.

The journey begins with Survival Gardens, where vegetables are planted as a last stand against complete poverty. As skills grow, Subsistence Gardens emerge which produce some excess food and a bit of cash from sales. Then, after some years, it is possible to develop Market Gardens. These Market Gardens - after much experimentation and research - are being launched this year, in which it is possible to produce a baseline sustainable income of between R500-R1500/m - after costs - off as little as 500m2 of land. These figures are based on local sales at normal street prices.

It will of course be possible to improve substantially on these figures in future, as the baseline becomes "common practice" among a number of micro-farmer groups and the possibilities for associative production and marketing are explored.

It should be noted here that the land required at the moment is not prime land - though this would be nice! We are at present and for the most part content to convert land which cannot be used for housing, industry or other essential infrastructure. There is plenty of such land which can be turned to productive use in the hands of hard working organic micro-farmers, and with loyal support from enlightened service providers.

To summarise:

- support and encourage organic Survival Gardens at every home at risk on a massive scale - these gardens can provide Nutritional Security on just a few square meters. While stomachs may still growl, a Survival Garden can make the difference between a healthy or damaged brain in a young child. Organic produce is usually of a higher nutritional and health value than chemically grown produce. Organic vegetable gardens are simple and cheap to establish and maintain. Anyone can start an organic garden! Thus, Less feeds More and a small stream of organic vegetables can keep a whole family healthy, although they may still be hungry. (try eating your tasty organic carrot, produced in Khayelitsha and see how it fills you)

Step Two, is for Survivalists who wish to improve their Food Supply and earn cash. In this stage, organic Subsistence Gardens can be encouraged, which give up to 50% Household Food Security and a small income stream to cover some basic household costs on as little as 100m2 per family.

Step Three is the micro-Market Garden. Here, Subsistence Gardeners can collaborate to take a quantum leap out of poverty, through the sweat of their brows, the skilled application of organic technologies and smart marketing.

Appendix 2:
Submission to Parliamentary Portfolio Committee Hearings on Food Security, Department of Agriculture.
11^th March 2003

Delivered On behalf of SA NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) (National and food security task team) and the EJNF Western Cape (Regional food and land security task team) and SAFeAGE.

Introduction; Due to the late notice of this meeting, the above organisations express their dissatisfaction with the lack of notice and the insufficient time frame that was available to prepare by the above organisations. Given the importance of this matter for society at large it is unacceptable that such a process has unintentionally excluded those who are most in need to submit their views to this committee.

That said, we thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

I am the Western Cape Steering Committee member for SAFeAGE, the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering. SAFeAGE represents around 200, 000 members of public and over 120 organisations in SA.

SAFeAGE is in turn a member of the Environmental Justice Network Forum, a broad national network of NGOs and CBOs committed to environmental and social justice. Both SAFeAGE and the EJNF are in turn members of the SA NGO Coalition, an umbrella organisation representing the voice of civil society. As a representative of both the EJNF provincial and SANGOCO national land and food security task teams I am therefore mandated to make this presentation to you. I include the following points.

• There can be no food security until the historical injustices of Apartheid have been addressed; this means that land must be made available to the majority in order that we can feed ourselves. This nation has already embarked on the mission of land restitution, redistribution and enhancement of security of tenure. There is a strong call to accelerate this programme as a matter of urgency.
• There can be no food security until there is proper gender equality as far as land tenure and rights, earnings and inheritance are meaningfully secured. Women remain the most exploited food providers in the nation. The role of women must be urgently addressed in this regard.
• There can be no food security until there is food sovereignty; people must be in control of their food supply in order that food becomes available even if people lack the means to afford food on the open market. This is a human right and cannot be made reliant on aid or handouts. A flexible but systematic approach is urgently needed.
• Food security cannot exist until people control their own means of production of food and the means to market food amongst themselves. This is not to suggest a dismantling of the so-called free market, but to enhance it. Food production systems, urban and rural market gardens, marketplaces and other infrastructural needs such as exist in most developing nations, must be made available and returned whence they belong. The market is the heartbeat of the community.
• We must reverse rural poverty to the extent that rural livelihoods and farm-household production systems offer a superior option to the dead-end trend of rural/urban migration that presently exists.
• There can be no food security until sufficient water is available to us to enable us to grow our own food. In light of the WTO GATS rulings and other mechanisms that encourage the privatization of water, we suggest that the state review any considerations it may hold as far as privatization of water resources are concerned. Water and food are basic, interrelated and inalienable human rights. We have made progress in this field but need more.
• There can be no food security until OECD subsidies are stopped. One Billion US dollars per day of market distorting subsidies by the developed nations of the world seriously affects our market equilibrium. We must provide for stronger protection of our agricultural sector, both the existing and more importantly, the emerging sector of new farmers. If necessary, protections must also be put in place to avoid dumping and local market distorting effects of this subsidised food. Russia and India have each recently stated that food security is a matter of national security and are protecting national agriculture and food security. This is correct; unless we have food security in this country, we will not have security. We can never compete against this subsidised agricultural produce in either an economically or ecologically sustainable way. It is iniquitous to allow subsidies in the developed world whilst ignoring the realities in South Africa.
• There can be no food security until the privatization and ownership of living organisms of seeds and plants is banned. In light of this, the patenting of food through the mechanism of Genetic Engineering is counter-productive as far as the aims of true food security and sovereignty are concerned. Instead of encouraging self-sufficiency and independence from external inputs to the food production cycle the reverse is true; dependence on expensive and untested external inputs becomes established practice. This issue is too complex to cover here but further detailed summaries are available.
• There can be no food security when nations are reliant on food aid; this destroys local markets. It drives farmers off the land and increases the problems of urbanisation. In turn it decreases the ability of individuals to achieve food security in a well-established poverty cycle.
• Food security can only be achieved when all citizens are able to feed themselves, free of market distortions, subsidy distortions and free of the deprivations of the so called free market - which is of course nothing of the sort - especially given the influence of the Bretton Woods institutions, the WTO and other bilateral and multilateral agreements, that predominantly favor developed nations.
• A farmer is paid about R1000 per ton for maize, after costs; this is 5 percent of the cost of breakfast cereal. One ton of corn flakes retails for R20, 000. Samp runs at R4000 a ton, retail. Can we rely on existing market forces for the food security of our nation? Despite their best efforts and will, and we have outstanding people in this industry, people of integrity, this system has dismally failed to feed the people. Most of the people in this nation are desperately hungry. The state must facilitate the ability for people to feed themselves. The market cannot feed people, the state cannot feed people, because that is not its business, but the state must allow the people to feed the people. Again, this is an inalienable human right.
• Even though this nation produces enough food to properly feed everyone, 60% of us are hungry. There can be no food security until the market distorting effects of industrial agriculture and food production are limited. In this regard, triple bottom line accounting that includes the ecological, social and economic effects of these methods of production must be factored in.
• There can be no food security until environmentally sustainable methods of production become commonplace; it has been proven internationally that such methods of production are both more productive and sustainable. Case studies have shown examples of increases in production ranging from 25 to 300% all around the world in the 1990s, without the use of GE crops. A single hectare of land when farmed intensively can yield over 1000% of the amount of food and produce that intensive industrial farming can in the same area.
• People, especially when immunosuppressed, need more than just umnqushu. They need a healthy variety of foods, herbs and medicines that can be provided by community schemes and other innovative methods.
• Coupling the use of sustainable agricultural methods to existing and emerging restitution and redistribution programmes is one of the main means that present themselves for this great nation to achieve both food security and sovereignty, to have a healthy, well fed, satisfied and dignified population. The alternative is increasing urbanisation, marginalisation, social disruption and overcrowding, disease, crime and a spiral into social chaos. For structural work on such challenges I suggest that this committee, in fact everyone here, familiarise themselves with the work of PLAAS, the UWC Programme of Land and Agrarian Studies, and other groups involved in examining processes of institutional restructuring and reorientation in support of land and agrarian reform in South Africa. I hope they are presenting here as well. There are many successful projects underway - we must learn and learn fast.
• There is no choice; opportunities must be made available for people to feed themselves. The choice lies with you, the members of parliament, and the mantle of responsibility lies heavily on your shoulders. I beseech you, on behalf of an extremely broad national mandate to urgently fulfil your responsibility so that the people may be enabled to provide food for themselves, to eat and live in dignity. The need is dire and urgent. Make-work is fine, but lets make food.