Urban Forum (2008) 19:243–262 DOI 10.1007/s12132-008-9036-7

Beyond the Metropolis: Small Town Case Studies of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in South Africa Alexander Thornton

Published online: 14 May 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract It is widely accepted that urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is an important livelihood or coping strategy amongst the poorest urban households for food security and income generation in developing countries. In South Africa, UPA has been promoted in the post-apartheid era as a strategy for poverty alleviation in several key policy documents. However, despite high unemployment, some academics have raised the issue that UPA might be less robust amongst South Africa’s urban poor households, when compared to other developing countries. This paper presents results from case studies exploring the nature and geographical extent of UPA in one of South Africa’s poorest provinces, the Eastern Cape. Key results include that the social welfare scheme has, effectively, emerged as the primary contributor to household income and food security. Consequently, UPA does not play a major role in food security for most UPA households. This paper will discuss these results and reflect on the bearing of UPA as a tool for poverty alleviation in South Africa. Keywords Geographical information systems . Informal sector . Livelihood . Urban agriculture . Small town . South Africa . Squatters

Introduction There are several useful definitions of urban agriculture (UA) or urban and periurban agriculture (UPA; Freeman 1991; Lee-Smith and Ali Memon 1994; Mbiba 1995, 2000; Binns and Lynch 1998; Mougeot 2000; Hovorka 2005). In the broadest of terms, UPA can be understood as any agricultural activity occurring in built-up ‘intra-urban’ areas and the ‘peri-urban’ fringes (often ‘green-belts’) of cities and towns. The concept of ‘peri-urban’ is generally understood as the physical interface A. Thornton (*) Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]

244

A. Thornton

where complex rural–urban interactions take place (Lynch 2005; McGregor et al. 2006). A peri-urban area is typically not spatially zoned, can be near a city centre and occupied by poor households and the socially excluded (Mbiba and Huchzermeyer 2002). Peri-urban agriculture is also described as the location of urban farming activities on the periphery of populated urban zones (Obosu-Mensah 1999: 11). Adding another dimension, Foeken and Owuor (2000) claimed that farming by urban dwellers is not synonymous with UA, stressing also the difficulties in making a spatial distinction between ‘urban’ and ‘peri-urban’ areas. Foeken and Mwangi (2000) found that urban dwellers may also practice farming in the rural areas in the region where they grew up. Regardless of UPA’s ‘ancient’ origins, its role in modern cities and urbanised areas as a livelihood and food security strategy remains unclear (Armar-Klemesu and Maxwell 2000; Frayne 2005: 34–35). Tinker (1994) and Nugent (2000) argue that a common working definition of UPA does not exist nor do similar methods for measuring productivity. As a result, comparisons of different UPA studies are difficult, and the standardisation of definitions and design is the next logical stage for urban studies of food production (Tinker 1994). Despite the relatively recent interest in UPA as a potential development tool, much of the data in the UPA literature since the early 1990s have been more qualitative than quantitative, which tend to focus on crop production systems and less on livestock systems. Additionally, the potential of a global positioning system (GPS) and a geographical information system (GIS) for identifying and monitoring the extent of UPA activity, growth patterns, natural resource use and environmental impacts is rarely discussed in the literature. The use of this technology has been the subject of emerging interest for use in participatory research (Rambaldi 2005). This paper will discuss the use of a GPS and GIS and its value to policy makers and town planners, who seek UPA as a strategy for sustainable urban development and poverty alleviation. Crucial for this article is that the existing case study literature has a large city focus, with limited attention given, thus far, to UPA in the small town context, where, due to more limited employment opportunities than large cities, poverty rates are often highest (Mlozi et al. 1992; Nel 1997; Smit 1998; Foeken et al. 2002).

Aims and Objectives In focusing on small towns and combining quantitative and qualitative methods, the key aims and objectives of this paper include: to collect baseline socio-economic data using household questionnaire surveys and to identify formal and informal sources of income and expenditure of households engaged in UPA activity. The data generated from the household surveys will contribute in-depth empirical data to the emerging body of UPA case study literature, in the context of small towns. Specifically, the nature and geographical extent of UPA in the small yet regionally significant South African towns of Grahamstown and Peddie, in the Eastern Cape (EC) Province, are discussed, thus making a useful contribution to UPA in the South African context. The key research questions include: “Who are the UPA practitioners and how important is UPA as a livelihood or survival strategy in households that practice it?”

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

245

The paper also examines the role of public and private partnerships and attitudes and perceptions of UPA amongst governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

The Significance of UPA UPA is commonly described as an activity practised by all income groups worldwide and is an essential household survival strategy for the urban poor in developing countries (Drakakis-Smith 1992; Rogerson 1992, 1996, 2003; Maxwell 1994; Mougeot 1994, 1999; Smit et al. 1996; Deelstra and Girardet 2000; De Zeeuw et al. 2000; Jacobi et al. 2000; Hovorka 2005). Some academics refer to many UPA claims found in the literature as deterministic ‘universalisms,’ meaning that general sweeping statements of UPA’s importance and potential to benefit the environment and household food security have been based on ‘fragmentary research,’ as opposed to its actual impact ‘on the ground’ (Webb 1998a,b, 2000; Hovorka 2005; Lynch 2005). Rather than engaging in a debate on the merits of ‘universalisms’ in the literature, this article will focus on the central issue of an acknowledged lack of localised, in-depth empirical UPA research ‘on the ground,’ which may refute or substantiate claims regarding the potential of UPA as a survival or livelihood strategy and its impact in urban poor households who practice it (Rosset and Benjamin 1994; Sawio 1994; Lynch 1995; Mtani 1997; Smith and Tevera 1997; Ellis and Sumberg 1998; Webb 1998a,b; Mbaye and Moustier 2000, Lynch et al. 2001; Companioni et al. 2002). Many argue that the growing literature on UPA suffers from a lack of scientific inquiry, which does not sustain the claims made of how UPA benefits urban poor households and the urban eco-system (Iaquinta and Drescher 2000; Lynch et al. 2001; Rogerson 2003; Thornton and Nel 2007). Much of the UPA literature reflects a ‘metro-bias,’ meaning that previous research, economic development strategies and policy focus have typically centred on metropolitan urban areas and much less on small towns (Nel 1997; Smit 1998; Webb 1998b, 2000; Rogerson 2003).

The South African Context Although UPA literature covers a wide range of issues, such as producing and managing resources for household fuel (Mazambani 1982; Mazingira Institute 1987) and social empowerment for women (Slater 2001; Hovorka 2005), this article is concerned with the practice of UPA by low-income households in black townships and squatter settlements in South Africa. Although the principal practitioners and beneficiaries of UPA are widely claimed to be the poorest urban households, the incidence and impact of UPA in poor urban households in South Africa appear to be limited, especially in the light of prevailing levels of poverty (Webb 1998b, 2000; May 2000; Lynch et al. 2001; Rogerson 2003). Thus, given the South African Communications Service’s claim that nonmetropolitan urban areas have the highest poverty burden in the country, this study focussed on the nature and extent of current UPA activity in small, non-metropolitan areas of the EC province, which consistently ranks high in poverty rates and child risk poverty (Nel 1997: 11). An estimated 72% of the population in the EC lives

246

A. Thornton

below the poverty line (South African Regional Poverty Network 2004), which is more than the national average of 60%. Moreover, the EC provincial administration inherited the largely impoverished (former) Ciskei and Transkei homelands, an enduring legacy of the apartheid era, which poses difficult challenges for the postapartheid African National Congress (ANC)-led government. These homelands have been described as ‘functionally urbanised,’ meaning that although consisting of primarily rural areas, black South Africans living in the homelands depend on urbanbased livelihoods and live in densely populated settlements (Nel 1997). Given the challenges of poverty and inequality that face EC officials, one would expect to find a diverse array of survival strategies in low-income settlements. Moreover, the ANC-led government has promoted UPA for poverty alleviation in a number of key policy documents (Rogerson 2003), such as: – – –

White Paper on Agriculture (Republic of South Africa 1995) White Paper on a National Water Policy for South Africa (Republic of South Africa 1998) White Paper on Spatial Policy and Land Use Management (Republic of South Africa 2001)

Location and Relevance of the Study Area A detailed accounting of every occurrence of UPA at the household level for food security and income generation was carried out in the small EC towns of Grahamstown, a former racially zoned ‘white town,’ and in Peddie, a ‘black town’ in the former ‘Ciskei’ homeland. Grahamstown and Peddie are similar, in that they serve as the administrative seats for their respective municipalities of Makana and Ngqushwa, providing services to their respective rural ‘hinterlands’ and facing similar challenges regarding their agricultural potential, in terms of evidence of soil erosion, largely from overgrazing of livestock in a region characterised as having fragile soils and a semi-arid climate. Furthermore, these urban centres are also historically linked, meaning that during the colonial era, they were both military outposts in what was once the eastern frontier of the British Cape Colony in the early nineteenth century. Apartheid-era policies, such as the Group Areas Act, created black group areas where black Africans were subjected to enforced migration from ‘white’ urban areas to either black townships or rural ‘homeland’ areas. This process freed white municipalities from the responsibility of dealing with the economic, environmental and social challenges experienced by black communities (Lester et al. 2000). As is the case throughout South Africa’s small towns and large cities, the large black townships and fluctuating squatter settlements render population estimates difficult to quantify. Regarding the population of Grahamstown, Möller (2001: 13) provided a ‘popular guesstimate’ of Grahamstown’s total population at around 100,000, which includes a total black population of 85,000, which is located in the low-income black township of Rhini and is the focus of the Grahamstown study. In the latest census report (Statistics South Africa 2001), Grahamstown’s total population was an estimated 76,540. In the town of Peddie, the Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001) reported a population of 5,086 in 2001, divided among 1,347 households, indicating less than four people per household (Thornton 2006).

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

247

Small Town Focus Rogerson (2003: 131) argued, “Urban poverty is greatest in South Africa’s small towns, followed by the secondary centres,” thus indicating a need for more UPA research in small urban centres. Moreover, academics within South Africa have criticised South African policy makers for favouring large urban centres, “leaving the smaller ones in a somewhat precarious position” (Nel and Rogerson 2007: 2). Typical of South African urbanising small towns and cities, Grahamstown and Peddie are experiencing escalating unemployment in the face of limited opportunities, housing shortages, service provision and poverty. In facing these challenges, determining the role and importance of UPA for urban poor households is a key theme in this article. In reviewing the broader literature, several conditions exist that can lead to UPA, such as economic crises, associated with structural adjustment policies, food crises in periods of war, political and social upheaval and violent conflict. Largely, as a result of its smooth transition from apartheid to independence in 1994, these crises never materialised in South Africa. However, in addition to natural population growth, South Africa’s urban areas are absorbing migrants from the rural homelands. These migrants seek employment and a better quality of life in the city (Lynch 1995; Rogerson 2003). Faced with limited opportunities for employment, particularly in small towns, migrants often live in informal dwellings in squatter settlements. Despite increasing squatter settlements and high unemployment in the EC, Webb (1998b) concluded, in a seemingly contradictory manner to his stance against ‘deterministic universalisms’ in the literature, that UPA is an insignificant activity amongst South Africa’s ‘poorest of the poor.’ Webb did not provide any insight into the possible reasons behind UPA’s ‘insignificance’ or limitations in his work. Findings from the case studies will demonstrate that UPA’s limitations are linked to identifying what sustains poor households, the role of UPA in low-income households and behavioural, social and institutional attitudes towards UPA. In the process of conducting this investigation, the relevance of ecological issues and land deficiencies, as explanations for UPA limitations, will be addressed.

Methodology A holistic and combined methodological approach was applied to this case study of UPA. With roots in the science of ecology, holism insists on the priority of the ‘whole’ without deterministic or vitalistic overtones (Sachs 2001: 30–32). It seeks to interpret the meaning of the ‘wholeness’ and the relationship between the parts and the whole. A holistic or ‘unified’ approach to social policy involves careful consideration of the interrelationship of various elements (cross-sectoral investigation), which may contribute to a phenomenon within which sectoral concerns are rooted (Moser 1997; Nell et al. 2000; Van Veenhuizen et al. 2001; Martin et al. 2001). Holistic approaches, such as eco-systems and the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), although not all-encompassing, directed this research in a purposeful and cross-sectoral (economic, social and ecological) empirical investiga-

248

A. Thornton

tion into the nature and extent of UPA, identify causes for its limitations and bring clarity to UPA theoretically. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach At the grassroots or community level, the SLA guided this research in exploring the types of ‘capital’ (natural, social, human, financial and physical) that exist for the urban poor to earn a livelihood. Notably, UPA-practicing households participated in the creation of GIS maps of their environment. Critically, these respondents had control over the amount of household information that the GIS maps would ultimately contain. As an ethical concern, this was important as many respondents wanted to maintain a degree of anonymity from the municipality. An opportunity for community-based intervention evolved from the ground truthing and informal interview process. The community-based intervention (discussed in a later section), carried out in both research areas, included analyses of soil and water samples in the black township, Rhini, and the creation of formal market links with an informal community garden in Peddie. Eco-systems Approach From an urban planning perspective, the eco-systems approach (Kline 1997; Newman 1997; Hopkins 2000; Thorns 2002) assisted this research in assessing the degree to which cross-sectoral concerns and UPA are linked. This approach informed stakeholders on UPA’s range and impact in the urban environment. The integration of a GIS to the eco-systems approach revealed the location and spatial pattern of UPA in the research areas. The use of a GIS for UPA research can be an efficient method for monitoring increases and decreases of UPA activity, particularly whereas changes in UPA activity can be the result of improvements or degradation in the urban environment, as well as a reflection of changes in the needs and the lifecycle of households. Research Design The research design was divided into three phases. The first phase involved analyses of aerial photography, ground truthing, informal interviews and transect walks and community-based intervention. The aerial images and ground truthing led to the identification of UPA activities in the built-up and residential areas. Once identified, the location of UPA activities was recorded on town-planning maps (if available) and a GPS. Informal interviews and transect walks were undertaken at this time, which were instrumental to identify UPA production systems and understanding attitudes and perceptions of UPA at the grassroots level. This information was used to develop categories and questions for household questionnaires. The second phase involved the creation and implementation of a semi-structured household questionnaire survey, as well as organising the data collected for analysis. The third phase of the research involved the transfer of the ground truthing and GPS

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

249

data, regarding the location and spatial patterns of UPA occurrences, onto satellite and cadastral imagery using a GIS. The use of a GIS was instrumental to: 1. Create a sample frame of UPA practitioners where none existed 2. Compare UPA patterns and occurrences with the impact of local nongovernment organizations (NGOs) concerned with food gardens and have a direct presence in the research zones 3. Provide a form of reference to future researchers, planners and policy makers in the region concerned with UPA, land use and livelihood activities Sample Methods The geographical extent and location of current UPA activity was identified and recorded through ground-truthing exercises that involved physical observation of activities ‘on the ground’ or ‘fact finding’ at each research site. Initially, UPA households were plotted on cadastral or town plans. The municipality’s town plans conveniently divide the township areas into distinct blocks of housing or neighbourhoods, locally referred to as ‘locations,’ where each UPA household was accounted for, and identified numerically and would have an equal chance of being selected in the sample using a random number table. This information was then transferred to a digitised version of the town plan for use on a GIS, which effectively served as the sample frame for the study. Overall, the ground-truthing process resulted in 1,080 occurrences of UPA being identified in all of Grahamstown (population 76,000–100,000) and 283 occurrences in Peddie (population 5,086). A 20% sample of UPA households, identified from each ‘location’ at the research sites, was randomly selected for the questionnaire survey. The study’s research design, with some modification, could be replicated in other urban centres where governmental, non-governmental and other local stakeholders have determined a need to investigate the extent and nature of existing UPA activity, as well as the practicality of implementing UPA systems in their particular region.

Results: UPA in Grahamstown and Peddie The impacts of apartheid are still presently visible in Grahamstown, as it remains divided socially and economically. As such, a first- and third-world dichotomy is easily observed, in that Grahamstown west, historically, is the ‘white’ part of town and Grahamstown east (to be referred to as Rhini for the remainder of this article), the ‘black’ or racially mixed part of town. Results from the ground-truthing process revealed 1,080 occurrences of UPA-related activities in all of Grahamstown. Of this number, Rhini alone accounted for 947 occurrences, including 42 cases identified in an area referred to by the municipality as a ‘Transit Camp’ (at the time of the study [2005], this was an area inhabited by squatters and not yet surveyed by the town). The remaining 33 UPA households in Grahamstown west (or 15% of the total sample) did not factor directly or indirectly as a survival or livelihood activity. Accordingly, as this study is concerned with the practice of UPA by the ‘poorest of

250

A. Thornton

the poor,’ the focus of the Grahamstown research was fixed on Rhini, and results from Grahamstown west did not merit further attention. Rhini is where the majority of the poorest and unemployed households are located and where, theoretically, one would expect to find households benefiting economically (directly or indirectly) from UPA. Unlike Grahamstown west, Rhini respondents tend to practice UPA to ensure a measure of household food security. Of the 224 households that participated in the survey, 191 households (approximately 88%) were located in Rhini, thus representing the bulk of data collected. With an estimated 7,564.25 households and an average household size of five people per household, less than 12% of Rhini households engage in some form of UPA. Being a smaller and less socio-economically and racially stratified town, conducting a questionnaire survey in Peddie was, more or less, straight forward. The Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001) reports that Peddie has an estimated population of 5,086 divided amongst 1,347 households, indicating less than four people per household. Separate population data or household data are not available for Peddie’s residential areas of: German Village (a collection of former colonial farm houses on Peddie’s peri-urban fringe), Peddie Extension (township), Peddie ‘town’ (near the downtown area), Durban Village (township) and Feni (township). Consequently, no analysis of data by residential area was possible. There are 283 occurrences of UPA in Peddie; given an estimated total of 1,347 households in Peddie, 21% of households in Peddie would appear to practice UPA. Providing Food Security: Income Sources or UPA? The overwhelming majority of households (71% in Rhini and 68% in Peddie) were found to subsist on social welfare grants. These households cultivate small (1–10 m), onplot (home) intra-urban gardens for home consumption. To this extent, case study respondents cultivating gardens and rearing livestock practice intra-urban agriculture (IUA), as opposed to UPA. Although some livestock graze in peri-urban commonage areas outside of the built-up or residential areas, they are mostly kept at the household for security purposes and as a source of milk and eggs. The case study revealed no periurban cultivation in the research sites and limited household knowledge of agricultural systems, such as permaculture, intercropping, rain harvesting and the use of compost. Home Gardens The small size of the garden plots does not yield enough food to provide subsistence benefits for a family of four (the average household size in the research sites was five). In this regard, the social security grants are providing a more vital service than UPA, to ensure the food security for the majority of urban poor households. However, the IUA, identified in the case study, is providing some subsistence-level relief for the ‘poorest of the poor,’ who are not receiving social welfare grants. In this study, the ‘poorest of the poor’ were categorised as subsisting on less than R500 per month (as of March 2005, 1 USD=6.5 SAR). Hence, people have shown that they are capable of producing food at a subsistence level. Moreover, the communitybased intervention process in Peddie revealed the potential of UA to develop as a commercial or income-generating activity, creating a formal and informal sector link.

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

251

Households could expand into peri-urban commonage areas. Such expansion may attract non-UPA ‘would-be gardeners,’ identified during the questionnaire survey, who would want to cultivate for either subsistence or commercial reasons. Although the intervention process facilitated market access in the Peddie case, the study has shown that local people, including the ‘poorest of the poor,’ are attempting to cultivate food and rear livestock on their own initiative, with some success. Livestock in Peddie Concerning other urban agricultural-related activities, most livestock (chickens, cattle, goats and sheep) are reared at home and are released for uncontrolled grazing within the urban (intra-urban, residential) and peri-urban (largely commonage) areas. Of the 1,080 heads of various livestock identified, the most common include: chickens (578), cattle (208), goats (137), sheep (72) and pigs (71). Some variation exists in the purpose for keeping livestock between the two research zones. In Peddie, a smaller and more rural town in terms of its population, infrastructure, economy and the more agrarianbased lifestyle of its residents, 37% of stockowners tended to rear livestock for commercial purposes, 49% consumption and 14% for traditional or cultural reasons. When asked if the municipality approves of livestock in residential areas, 94% of respondents ‘do not know.’ As with Rhini, there is little interaction between the municipality and Peddie UPA practitioners. Similar to Rhini, of those who combine UPA activities, most respondents (77%) claimed that both gardening and livestock have equal value of importance for the household. This indicates the small-scale nature of household agricultural activities. However, results from the intervention process in Peddie will reveal the potential for commercial UPA (or UA) to develop. Role of the Department of Agriculture Ground truthing and informal interviews revealed that the Department of Agriculture (DOA) in Peddie appears to be more involved with urban agriculturalists in comparison to the DOA in Grahamstown. The questionnaire survey results show that 21% of respondents had approached the DOA for assistance in the past. However, 92% do not know what an extension officer (EO) is, despite evidence of attempts (such as informational circulars) by the EO to organise community UPA meetings. Livestock in Rhini In Rhini, the larger, denser and more characteristically urban area, 44% stockowners rear livestock for non-economic reasons, such as tradition and culture, 32% for consumption, 16% sell their animals, 3% keep animals for status in the community and 5% keep animals for ‘other’ reasons, such as a hobby. The question survey data revealed a total of 488 heads of various livestock in Rhini. The most common include: chickens (250), goats (98), cattle (78), ducks (18) and pigs (14). The consumption of livestock did not always translate into the slaughter of the animal, as in many cases household milk is provided by cows. Additionally, an animal might be killed and consumed for special occasions, such as a wedding, funeral or a male circumcision ceremony (a transition from boyhood to manhood). The majority of

252

A. Thornton

respondents (97%) keep their livestock at home, and 84% are not aware of the disapproving position of the municipality towards the keeping of livestock in residential areas. This finding indicates a general lack of dialogue between the municipality and township residents, regarding the attitudes held by town planners of livestock rearing in residential areas. Further, this finding also indicates that livestock rearing is principally an intra-urban activity. For respondents who practice gardening and own livestock, most find that both activities are of equal importance (83%). This can be attributed to the noncommercial purpose of both practices and its extremely small-scale nature. Table 2 reveals the types of livestock owned by responding households in Rhini. Role of the Department of Agriculture The municipality has purchased local farms for the purposes of relocating urban livestock from residential areas and as potential land for the government’s ‘Emerging Farmer’ programme, overseen by the DOA and Department of Land Affairs. Overall, gardeners and livestock owners (86%) are not fully aware of governmentprovided opportunities available to resource poor South African citizens who are interested in farming. Further, most respondents have never asked the DOA for assistance (98%) and do not know what an EO does (96%).

Synthesis of Characteristics of Eastern Cape Urban Agriculturalists Respondent Variables: Household Income and Social Grants In reflecting on the socio-economic data from the two case study sites, Rhini households spend an estimated average of R201–300 per month on food, and Peddie households average R301–400 per month. A combination of reasons for this difference in the amounts spent on food relates to sources of income and household size. The most active income group practicing UPA in both study areas are households earning R740 per month in social grants (at the time of this research, the value of an old-age pension and a disability grant [DG] was R740 p/m). The second largest income group practicing UPA are households earning R1,401–2,000 p/m. Households in this income category generally receive dual social grants, with a combined value of at least R1,480 per month. The types of social welfare grants include: a state old-age pension (SOAP, R740p/m), DG (R740 p/m) or a child support grant (R170 per child p/m). In Rhini, households in the R740 category are spending approximately 40% of their income on food (with five members). Households (of a similar size) receiving R1,480 per month are spending nearly one quarter (24%) of their income on food. The smallest income group practicing UPA is comprised of households earning less than R500 per month. Rhini households in this category (14% in total) are spending 50% of their total income on food. Peddie households, in the R740-per-month category, are spending nearly 68% of their total income on food. Households receiving R1,480 in social grant income are spending 34% per month on food. Two extreme cases emerged in the study, where Peddie households of five members each and receiving no grants are earning less

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

253

than R500 per month. These households are spending the equivalent of their entire income on food each month after other expenses, such as paraffin (the most commonly used fuel for cooking and heating). This claim was cross-checked by calculating the typical monthly food cost per person (R60, based on R2 per day for one meal during a 30-day period), after subtracting the monthly cost of paraffin (R50). These households are spending up to R350 per month for one meal per day and to heat their homes. Of note, where it was difficult for these households to recall their monthly income, they were asked how much they had to spend the previous month, to which they replied R300. Value of Home Gardening On average, Rhini households claimed that their gardening activities save them less than R100 p/m in food costs. Further analysis (by income categories) of claims in UPA savings revealed that Rhini households earning between R740 and 1,480 p/m would experience a monthly increase of less than R100 to 150 in food expenditures without their garden. Rhini households, from every income group, often repeated this claim (80%). This included the poorest households, where 30% of households earning less than R500 p/m made estimated savings up to R150 per month. The apparent limited savings attributed to UPA activities indicates both a lack of UPA production and a clear dependence on social grants to secure a livelihood. Further, the income earned from social grants appears adequate enough to ensure household survival and subsequently hinders UPA from reaching its potential. Peddie households practicing UPA, on average, saved an estimated R151–200 per month. However, in three of the most common modal income categories, the majority of households (42%) had savings of less than R101–150 p/m, followed by households that claimed savings of over an estimated R300 (30%). An average savings of R101–150 p/m was estimated by nearly 50% of Peddie households earning less than R500 per month (16% in total) from gardening activities. A few of the households earning less than R500 p/m claimed that their garden was saving them more than R300 per month in food costs. These findings indicate that, in some extreme examples, households are receiving a measure of subsistence from their UPA activities. The general findings indicate that social grants are providing the majority of poor households with the means to purchase food, while some destitute households depend on their UPA activities to provide food. However, it was very difficult for respondents to estimate their food expenditure and how much savings from produce their garden can generate. This is partly due to households not being in the habit of monitoring expenditures. As stated earlier, most garden plots are small (from 1 to 2 m2) and do not use all of the space available to a household for growing food, and intercropping techniques (combining crops) are not widely practised. Hence, it is very unlikely that such small garden plots can generate enough produce for a household to save R300 or even R150 p/m. This implies that despite unemployment and poverty, urban poor households are reluctant to use the resources available to them, in terms of land, household labour and social grant income, to generate more food from their gardening activities. Overall, households receiving social grants still remain well below the poverty income line, maintaining high monthly food expenditures. Furthermore, despite

254

A. Thornton

practicing UPA, the majority of households realise only limited savings from UPA activities, the implication being that should the national social welfare grant scheme terminate, households would be left without the means to generate enough food. Thus, an important question would be “In the event that the social welfare grant system is terminated or scaled down, how would this impact on households accustomed to receiving social benefits?” Before speculating on this (albeit, unlikely but plausible) scenario, it is useful to determine the impact of social welfare grants on poverty income levels in the research zones.

Poverty Income and Household Size: Comparing Nationwide Estimates to the EC Case Studies According to the HSRC’s national figures on poverty income, a household of five members will have an estimated poverty income of R1,541 (GBP 123; US $237) per month (Table 1). The majority of large households in the study areas had an income of R740 per month (GBP 59; US $114), which statistically places these households far below the poverty line. The majority of respondent households reported incomes equivalent to the amount of social grants received. This finding made it possible to place households into predictable modal income brackets, as defined by the value of a particular social grant. There was some variation in the study areas between wealth and household size. Results from Rhini indicated that the ‘wealthier’ households in the survey (46% or 88 households) are often receiving multiple social grants, valued from R910 to more than 2,000 per month. However, the largest of these households consisted of 6–16 members (47%), thus still placing them below the poverty line. Comparable to Rhini, an estimated 50% of Peddie households in the survey (31 out of 62) receive an income from multiple social grants (46% in Rhini). However, in contrast to Rhini, the majority of these are small households (62%, or 19 households), which consist mostly of three to five members. Implications of Social Grants The Republic of South Africa’s social welfare grants scheme appears to provide the means for poor households to participate as consumers in the formal and informal economy. In addition, old age pensioners are found to carry the burden of providing for the needs of human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immune Table 1 Poverty income by household size (in South African Rands per month)

Source: South African Regional Poverty Network (2004)

Household size

2001

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

587 773 1,028 1,290 1,541 1,806 2,054 2,503

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

255

deficiency syndrome-affected family members (Legido-Quigley 2003). Concerns over the social grant policy creating a ‘culture of dependence’ are reflected in the Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy, which states: “People must learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” In the final analysis of household income from UPA activities, the impact of social grants on the significance of UPA in practising households is, nonetheless, quite substantial. Despite the assistance of social grants, the majority of incomes of households in the study areas are either statistically below or only slightly above the national poverty line. This indicates that household poverty rates would further decline without social welfare grant intervention, particularly where employment opportunities are scarce. An overwhelming number of respondents strongly indicated that they cannot survive without the social grants and do not feel that they could survive on UPA alone. Furthermore, the questionnaire data revealed that contemplating a life without a social welfare grant caused much distress amongst the respondents. Follow-up interviews to the questionnaire responses added to this bleak picture. Although slightly more promising in Peddie, it appears the youth have clearly rejected the idea of UPA as a means to earn a livelihood or as an alternative to unemployment. The youth argue that agricultural activities do not belong in the urban areas. When probed further on this issue, they stated that agriculture is something that their grandparents did in the homelands during the apartheid era because they could not work. Furthermore, questionnaire responses, as well as follow-up interviews, revealed that agriculture in the urban areas is not what the youth consider to be part of an ‘urban lifestyle.’ Hence, should the social welfare system in South Africa collapse, the paucity of alternative means to secure a livelihood (particularly in small towns) could lead to a dramatic decline in the quality of life of urban poor households, to levels resembling households in low-income African countries. Although this is unlikely, should such a collapse occur, results from the community-based intervention revealed that the region has the necessary physical characteristics to support more low-intensive agriculture (gardens and livestock). Further, the majority of households have adequate plot size (in particular, if using permaculture and inter-cropping methods) to accommodate home gardens, and substantial peri-urban land is available, as is legislation to allow people to use it (though awareness of this is lacking). UPA by Gender When making distinctions between gender roles and types of UPA activity, the percentage of Rhini female and male practitioners who only cultivate a garden (no livestock) were evenly distributed (41%). However, more men (12%) tended to be involved in rearing livestock (either with or without a garden) compared to women (6%). Respondents claim that this is due to the traditional importance of status, which men attach to keeping livestock, in particular grazing livestock (cattle, goats and sheep). In Peddie, female practitioners are generally well represented in each type of UPA activity. Of note, the percentage of women (54%) engaging in the rearing of livestock (either with or without a garden) is nearly double that of the men (28%), a fact likely explained by the tendency of Peddie respondents to rear livestock for subsistence and commercial reasons. Despite Peddie’s rural nature, keeping livestock for traditional or cultural reasons was minimal. Comparatively,

256

A. Thornton

Peddie respondents are more active than Rhini respondents in both community gardens and rearing livestock for commercial purposes.

Community-based Intervention During the ground truthing, transect walks and informal interview stages of the research, opportunities for a community-based intervention emerged. In Peddie, intervention facilitated formal market access at a ‘Fruit and Veg City,’ national greengrocer, for an informal and female-led community garden called ‘The Masizame Community Garden Project.’ The success of this community garden indicated that some potential exists for urban agriculturalists to produce in bulk for the informal–formal market. Community gardens exist in the intra-urban areas in both research sites but are limited and vary in terms of their production capacity, size, ‘membership’ and purpose. In Rhini, an intervention process involving the analysis of soil and water samples for agricultural suitability was carried out in the mixed-race area of Grahamstown West and in the largely black ‘locations’ in Rhini. This process revealed that the urban environment has the physical carrying capacity to support UA (and UPA) activities. The results were translated (from English to Xhosa, the dominant indigenous language spoken in the EC) for the community and disseminated through focus groups and face-to-face-meetings. During this process, UA practitioners felt that they could try to achieve larger yields, while non-UA practitioners indicated that they would re-consider home gardening as a livelihood option. Previous analyses of the physical environment in Peddie revealed the capacity of the region to support low-intensive forms of agriculture (Higginbottom 1995; Manona et al. 1996; Deshingkar and Cinderby 1998).

Summary of Findings The small-scale, on-plot and intra-urban nature of ‘UPA’ in Grahamstown renders limited visible signs of its existence. Hence, UPA is generally not viewed by governmental, institutional, NGO and other local actors to be a reality. However, in Peddie, being a more historically agrarian community, with a small, nearly entirely black population, as a result of the apartheid era homeland system, local municipal and non-governmental actors are aware of UPA occurrences but not of its impact on practicing households. Although UPA was not directly prohibited, apartheid-era policies that confined small-scale black farmers to subsistence-orientated, rural agriculture (Lester et al. 2000) and the effect of ‘functional urbanisation’ (Nel 1997) are viewed as key factors in explaining a negative stigma in contemporary South Africa towards subsistence agriculture amongst the urban poor. At a minimum, the legacies of the colonial and apartheid eras have, arguably, negatively shaped the attitudes of contemporary black South Africans towards agriculture. As former homeland rural dwellers migrate into urban areas, they may carry a negative stigma towards subsistence food production with them. This negative stigma towards ‘urban

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

257

farming’ is most noticeable amongst the youth in the case study areas, where they were vocal in dismissing the idea of UPA arguing that they were ‘not interested’ and the notion of UPA is ‘not modern’ (Table 2). Other rationales for limited UPA activity include that densely settled urban areas in parts of South Africa offer little open space for the poor to grow food (Potts 1997). However, despite ‘densely settled urban areas,’ IUA exists in the case study sites, though vast amounts of commonage land are not used for peri-urban agriculture. The importance of social grants in providing a livelihood for the poor appears to support the contention that “poor people want livelihoods more than employment, where livelihoods mean adequate assets, food and cash for physical and social wellbeing and security against impoverishment” (Chambers 1993: 10). Although not emerging as the most dominant UPA-practicing group, those households not receiving a social grant (30%, overall) were the most destitute (earning less than R500 p/m) and actually depended on home gardens for survival, despite Webb’s assertion that the ‘poorest of the poor’ do not. The majority of households in both research areas (83% in Peddie, 85% in Rhini) claimed to have the resources to purchase food and could afford to buy enough food without the contribution from their gardens. Consequently, UPA in those households where members have formal sector employment is negligible. Thus, unemployed, grant-receiving households are the dominant UPA-practicing group in both research zones. This is important in terms of the UPA literature, which claims that all income groups practice UPA, including employed households in wealthy suburbs (Mougeot 1999; Mbiba 2000). However, households in Grahamstown’s wealthy and largely white suburbs simply maintain recreational, ornamental and herb gardens. Although landownership, whether allocated by the government, through purchase or inheritance was high, UPA was more prevalent in the government subsidised housing ‘locations’ (as part of the Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP, Republic of South Africa Information 2001), in comparison with the more established parts of Rhini, such as Fingo Village, where the housing plots are comparably much larger than those currently available in the RDP areas. When comparing the intra-urban nature of UPA in the case studies with views of UPA from within the African continent, three contrasts were drawn, which emphasised unique qualities of UPA in the case study and the apparent limits to UPA in the literature concerning other African countries. First, these unique qualities include limited (or negligible) occurrences of peri-urban agriculture amongst all of the households surveyed in the study. Rather, in terms of households meeting their food needs, the importance of the cash economy emerged in households receiving a single (R740 p/m) or multiple (R1,480 p/m) social grants, despite occurrences of Table 2 Why are the youth perceived to be too ‘lazy’ to grow food? They want to earn money/find a job Not interested Belongs to the past/not modern Don’t want to get dirty

Rhini, n=191 (%)

Peddie, n=61 (%)

29

12

40 23 8

30 53 5

258

A. Thornton

home or on-plot IUA. Secondly, although still living below the poverty line according to official household size compared to income ratios, households in the R700–900 and R1,100–1,400 p/m income brackets represented the majority of UApracticing households. These households do not depend on UA as a livelihood or survival strategy. Finally, the provision of government-allocated housing (RDP) and social grants has combined to effectively provide the majority of households with the means to avoid complete destitution. However, this situation has fuelled the Republic of South Africa’s concern that the social welfare system has had the negative effect (Republic of South Africa 2006), creating a ‘culture of dependency,’ where a degree of self-sufficiency might be desirable. The study also investigated the role or impact of partnerships and institutions in supporting UPA activities and where UPA can develop informal–formal market links. First, UPA appears to be of limited significance in the informal and formal economy of the EC and does not receive adequate support from institutional and non-governmental actors, individually or in partnership. In place of cooperation are prevailing negative attitudes, where suspicion and distrust persist amongst local residents, municipal officials, academia and NGOs. Secondly, despite high unemployment, the social grant system appears to encourage spending as opposed to saving or investing in developing employable skills. This is further aggravated where the minimum amount of income required for opening a store-credit account is equivalent to the amount received for a monthly SOAP and DG. Thirdly, a negative stigma persists amongst the youth, which links subsistence agriculture to the apartheid legacy of the homeland system. Together with the social welfare grants, there is little incentive for the urban poor, particularly young unemployed people, to strive for subsistence or commercial benefits from UPA and to supplement household incomes. Finally, households do not appear to have a diverse range of informal income sources. The most common form of informal employment or activities includes casual labour and ‘street hawkers,’ who purchase produce from chain stores or surplus from large commercial farmers and sell them on the street. Thus, in both cases, improving stakeholder awareness of the possibilities of agriculture, realities of urban poor livelihoods and the national government’s encouragement of the use of unused municipal or commonage land by the poor for agricultural purposes may help to promote the idea of UA and UPA as an alternative or supplemental to social grant income.

Conclusion Despite recent developments in the case study areas, such as garden competitions, basic production systems and intra-urban location of EC UA does not reflect general views of UPA found in the thematic and case study literature. In considering UPA to combat urban poverty and unemployment, local policy makers and NGOs must be clear on the following key issues. First, social grants are the primary and, often, only source of household income. Secondly, the youth deems urban (as well as rural) agriculture as ‘not modern’ and, thus, not an alternative to social grant dependency and unemployment.

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

259

Thirdly, policy makers and institutional stakeholders may want to seriously consider developing the capabilities of the urban poor to pursue subsistence or commercial agricultural activities to, at least, supplement income received through the social grant scheme. Finally, there are large amounts of vacant or under-used peri-urban and intra-urban land in the research zones, which can physically carry low-intensity forms of UPA activity. Concerning livestock, a secure area for residents to keep their urban livestock could help to bridge the differences of view between informal urban stockowners and the municipality regarding livestock in residential areas. The integration of agriculture in urban development planning is not without precedent in South Africa and may indicate an emerging trend in ecosystems approaches to urban renewal. Finally, despite the Republic of South Africa’s claims of the success of the social welfare grant scheme, the case studies have provided evidence that the social grants have not led to improvements in the productivity of workers, nor has it correlated with job growth, decreased spending on tobacco and debt and increased spending on basic needs – with the exception of food expenditures (Dekker 2003; Economic Policy Research Institute 2004). As the case study findings revealed, household employment, expenditures and grant statistics from UPA and non-UPA households do not support these claims. Overall, with UPA and social welfare grants providing some relief to urban poor households, this paper suggests the following policy recommendations. First, the Republic of South Africa could re-evaluate its social welfare policy to address, what they have determined to be, an emerging dependency on social welfare. Moreover, improvements to social welfare grant policies could facilitate greater acceptance and participation of grant recipients in the informal and formal economy, in which UPA could begin to assume a more significant role. Secondly, government and nongovernmental stakeholders could make an effort to identify and register, with the Department of Social Welfare, those households not receiving a social welfare grant. Despite their UPA activities, these households are at the extreme end of poverty and are the most vulnerable to illness and malnutrition. Thirdly, the potential to expand DOA extension services to urban township and squatter settlement areas could be investigated, in an effort to improve the quality and increase quantities of household urban food production. Finally, institutions and NGOs could collaborate in future campaigns to better inform and educate grant recipients to the purpose of the grant system and how to efficiently use the grants as a ‘stepping stone’ to a sustainable livelihood.

References Armar-Klemesu, M., & Maxwell, D. (2000). Accra: Urban agriculture as an asset strategy, supplementing income and diets. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, G. Sabina, U. Sabel-Koschella, & H. De Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Binns, T., & Lynch, K. (1998). Feeding Africa’s growing cities into the 21st century: The potential of urban agriculture. Journal of International Development, 10(7), 777–793. Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the professions: Frontiers for rural development. London: Intermediate Technology.

260

A. Thornton

Companioni, N., Hernandez, Y., Paez, E., & Murphy, C. (2002). The growth of urban Agriculture. In F. Funes, L. Garcia, M. Bourque, & P. Rosset (Eds.), Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in Cuba. Oakland, CA: Food First. De Zeeuw, H., Gundel, S., & Waibel, H. (2000). The integration of agriculture in urban policies. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung fuer internationale Entwicklung, DSE. Dekker, A. (2003). The role of informal social security in an inter-generational society. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Research Conference on Social Security. http://www.issa.int/pdf/anvers03/ topic2/2dekker.pdfAccessed 10 August 2005. Deshingkar, P. & Cinderby, S. (1998). Renewable natural resource use in post-apartheid South Africa. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/sei/pubs/booklet.pdf Accessed 01 April 2006. Drakakis-Smith, D. (1992). And the cupboard was bare: food security and food policy for the urban poor. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 23, 38–58. Economic Policy Research Institute, (2004). Final report: The social and economic impact of South Africa’s social security system. http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/view/00010352.pdf Accessed 04 May 2005. Ellis, F., & Sumberg, J. (1998). Food production, urban areas and policy responses. World Development, 26(2), 213–225. Foeken, D., & Mwangi, A. (2000). Increasing food security through urban agriculture in Nairobi. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Foeken, D., & Owuor, S. (2000). Urban farmers in Nakuru, Kenya. ASC Working Paper 45/2000, Centre for Urban Research, University of Nairobi, Kenya http://www.cityfarmer.org/nakuru.html [01/11/2004] Foeken, D., Owuor, S., & Klaver, W. (2002). Crop cultivation in Nakuru town, Kenya: Practice and potential. Leiden: African Studies Center. Frayne, B. (2005). Survival of the poorest: Migration and food security in Namibia. In L. Mougeot (Ed.), Agropolis: Social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture. London: EARTHSCAN. Freeman, D. (1991). A city of farmers: Informal urban agriculture in the open spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. Montreal and Kingston, McGill: Queens University Press. Higginbottom, K. (1995). The Fate of the commons: Urban land reform, squatting and environmental management in the Eastern Cape province. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Development Studies Working Paper No. 65. Grahamstown: Rhodes University. Hopkins, R. (2000). The Food Producing Neighbourhood. In H. Barton (Ed.), Sustainable communities: The potential for eco-neighbourhoods (pp. 199–216). London: EARTHSCAN. Hovorka, A. (2005). The (re) production of gendered positionality in Botswana’s commercial urban agriculture sector. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 294–313. Iaquinta, D., & Drescher, A. (2000). Defining peri-urban: Understanding rural–urban linkages and their connection to institutional contexts. Food and Agricultural Organization, 2, 9–26. Jacobi, P., Amend, J., & Kiango, S. (2000). Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam: Providing for an indispensable part of the diet. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Kline, E. (1997). Sustainable community indicators: How to measure progress. In M. Roseland (Ed.), EcoCity dimensions: Healthy communities healthy planet. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society. Lee-Smith, D., & Ali Memon, P. (1994). Urban agriculture in Kenya. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC. Legido-Quigley, H. (2003). The South African old age pension: Exploring the role of poverty alleviation in households affected by HIV/AIDS. Available via: International Social Security Association (ISSA), http://www.issa.int/pdf/anvers03/topic2/2legido-Quigley.pdf. Cited 11 Jan 2005 Lester, A., Nel, E., & Binns, T. (2000). South Africa: Past, present and future. London: Prentice Hall. Lynch, K. (1995). Sustainability and urban food supply in Africa. Sustainable Development, 3, 79–88. Lynch, K. (2005). Rural–urban interaction in a developing world. London: Routledge. Lynch, K., Binns, T., & Olofin, E. (2001). Urban agriculture under threat: The land security question in Kano, Nigeria. Cities, 18(3), 159–171. Manona, C., Bank, L., & Higginbottom, K. (1996). Informal settlements in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Institute of Southern Africa Studies, Working Paper No. 10. Lesotho: National University of Lesotho.

Case studies of urban and peri-urban agriculture in South Africa

261

Martin, A., Oudwater, N., & Sabine, G. (2001). Methodologies for situation analysis in urban agriculture. Greenwich, UK: Livelihoods and Institutions Group, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich http://www.ruaf.org/conference/methods/papers/upa_methods_topic1_situation_ana lysis_en.doc [13/10/2004]. Maxwell, D. (1994). The household logic of urban farming in Kampala. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa (pp. 45–62). Ottawa: IDRC. May, J. (2000). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: Meeting the challenge. London: Zed. Mazambani, D. (1982). Peri-urban cultivation in Greater Harare. The Zimbabwe Science News. Mazingira Institute (1987). Urban food production and the cooking fuel situation in urban Kenya. Nairobi: Mazingira Institute. Mbaye, A., & Moustier, P. (2000). Market-oriented urban agriculture production in Dakar. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 235–256). Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Mbiba, B. (1995). Urban agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for urban management and poverty. Avebury: Aldershot. Mbiba, B. (2000). Urban agriculture in Harare: Between suspicion and repression. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 285–302). Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Mbiba, B., & Huchzermeyer, M. (2002). Contentious development: Peri-urban studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 113–131. McGregor, D., Simon, D., & Thompson, D. (2006). The peri-urban interface: Approaches to sustainable, natural and human resource use. London: Earthscan. Mlozi, M., Lupanga, I. J., & Mvena, Z. K. S. (1992). Urban agriculture as a survival strategy. In J. Baker, & P. O. Pedersen (Eds.), The rural urban interface in Africa: Expansion and adaptation. Copenhagen: Nordiska Africainstitutet. Möller, V. (2001). Living in Grahamstown East/Rini: A social indicators report. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Research Report Series, 6. Grahamstown: Rhodes University. Moser, C. (1997). Urban social policy and poverty reduction. In R. Burgess, M. Carmona, & T. Kolstee, (Eds.), The challenge of sustainable cities: Neoliberalism and urban strategies in developing countries (pp. 44–61). London & New Jersey: Zed Books. Mougeot, L. (1994). African city farming from a world perspective. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities Feeding People: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC. Mougeot, L. (1999). For self-reliant cities: Urban food production in a globalizing south. In M. Koc, et al. (Ed.), For Hunger-proof cities: Sustainable urban food systems. Ottawa: IDRC. Mougeot, L. (2000). Urban agriculture: Definition, presence, potentials and risks. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: German Foundation for International Development. Mtani, A. (1997). Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 28, 49–58. Nel, E. (1997). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: The small town dimension. Input report prepared for the Poverty and Inequality Report. Grahamstown: Rhodes University. Nel, E., & Rogerson, C. M. (2007). Evolving local economic development policy and practice in South Africa with special reference to smaller urban centres. Urban Forum, 18, 1–11. Nell, W., Wessels, B., Mokoka, J., & Sophy, M. (2000). A creative multidisciplinary approach towards the development of food gardening. Development Southern Africa, 17(5), 807–819. Newman, P. (1997). Greening the city: The ecological and human dimensions of the city can be part of town planning. In M. Roseland (Ed.), Eco-city dimensions: Healthy communities, healthy planet (pp. 14–26). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society. Ngqushwa Municipality IDP (2001). First draft of the integrated development plan. Peddie, Ngqushwa Municipality: Office of the Municipal Manager. Nugent, R. (2000). The impact of urban agriculture on the household and local economies. In N. Bakker, et al. (Ed.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung fuer internationale Entwicklung. Obosu-Mensah, K. (1999). Food production in urban areas: A study of urban agriculture in Accra, Ghana. Ashgate: Aldershot. Potts, D. (1997). Urban lives: Adopting new strategies and adapting rural links. In C. Rakodi (Ed.), The urban challenge in Africa: Growth and management of its large cities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Rambaldi, G. (2005). Barefoot mapmakers and participatory GIS. ICT Update, 27, 1–8 (also available at: www.ictupdate.cta.int).

262

A. Thornton

Republic of South Africa, (1995). White paper on agriculture. http://www.gov.za/whitepaper/1995/ agriculture.html Accessed 10 February 2003. Republic of South Africa, (1998). White paper on a national water policy for South Africa. http://www. gov.za/reports/1998/pirsum/htm. Cited 20 April 2003. Republic of South Africa, (2001). White paper on spatial policy and land use management. http://www. land.pwv.gov.za/White%20Paper/whitetab.htm. Cited 05 May 2003. Republic of South Africa, (2006). Linking social grant beneficiaries to poverty alleviation and economic activity. Available via: Department of Social Development. http://www.welfare.gov.za/documents/ 2006/link.pdf. Cited 23 March 2007 Republic of South Africa Information, (2001). Keynote address by Housing Minister, Sankie MthembiMahanyele. In: Proceedings of the IHSA Conference, Pietersburg, 11 October 2001. http://www.info. gov.za/speeches/index.htm. Cited 16 Aug 2005 Rogerson, C. (1992). Feeding Africa’s cities: The role and potential for urban agriculture. Africa Insight, 22(4), 229–234. Rogerson, C. (1996). Urban cultivation and urban reconstruction in South Africa. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 27, 11–20. Rogerson, C. (2003). Towards ‘pro-poor’ urban development in South Africa: The case of urban agriculture. Acta Academica Supplementum, 1, 130–158. Rosset, P., & Benjamin, M. (1994). The greening of the revolution. Melbourne: Ocean. Sachs, W. (2001). Environment. In W. Sachs, (Ed.), The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 26–37). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Sawio, C. J. (1994). Who are the farmers of Dar es Salaam? In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC. Slater, R. (2001). Urban agriculture, gender and empowerment: An alternative view. Development Southern Africa, 18(5), 635–650. Smit, W. (1998). The rural linkages of rural households in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 10(1), 77–87. Smit, J., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture: Food, jobs and sustainable cities. Habitat II Series. New York: The Urban Agriculture Network, UNDP. Smith, D., & Tevera, D. (1997). Socio-economic context for the householder of urban agriculture in Harare, Zimbabwe. Geographical Journal of Zimbabwe, 28, 25–38. South African Regional Poverty Network, SARPN, (2004). Fact sheet: Poverty in South Africa. Available via: Human Sciences Research Council. http://sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000990/p1096-Fact_Sheet_ No_1_Poverty.pdf. Cited 18 January 2005 Statistics South Africa, (2001). Census 2001. http://www.statssa.gov.za.html. Cited 26 August 2003 Thorns, D. (2002). The transformation of cities: Urban theory and urban life. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Thornton, A. C. (2006). Urban land use policy in Peddie: A former homeland town in Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 16, 58–59. Thornton, A. C., & Nel, E. (2007). The significance of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Peddie, in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Africanus: Journal of Development Studies, 37(1), 13–20. Tinker, I. (1994). Foreword: Urban agriculture is already feeding cities. In A. Egziabher, et al. (Ed.), Cities feeding people: An examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa: IDRC. Van Veenhuizen, R., Prain, G., & De Zeeuw, H. (2001). Appropriate methods for urban agriculture research, planning implementation and evaluation. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 5, 1–5. Webb, N. (1998a). Urban agriculture: Environment, ecology and the urban poor. Urban Forum, 9(1), 95– 107. Webb, N. (1998b). Urban cultivation: Food crops and their importance. Development Southern Africa, 15 (2), 201–213. Webb, N. (2000). Food gardens and nutrition: Three Southern African case studies. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 66–67.

About the Author Alexander Thornton is Research Fellow in the Department of Geography at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.