State's interdepartmental strategy to tackle hunger hampers South Africans' right to food — report
South Africans cannot hold a specific individual or department to account for the right to food not being realised because most of the national frameworks on food security are interdepartmental, says the author of the report released by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute. The report calls for the drafting of national framework legislation in relation to the right to food in the country.
The government of national unity (GNU) in South Africa has highlighted food security as part of its broader social and economic policies. According to its Statement of Intent, the GNU aims to tackle poverty, spatial inequalities and food security by providing a social safety net and improving access to basic services.
South Africa's National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security outlines strategies to ensure food availability, accessibility, utilisation and stability. The government has committed to promoting the right to adequate food, addressing hunger and improving food security through coordinated efforts across various departments.
Despite South Africa being food secure at a national level, household food security remains a challenge, with increasing food insecurity rates in recent years. The GNU's approach includes social support initiatives such as household grants and school feeding schemes to mitigate these issues.
In a report released by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri) on Tuesday researchers recommended legislative and policy shifts that will help South Africans to have better access to food and potentially eradicate hunger. This is part of multiple recommendations that address other socioeconomic factors that create food poverty.
The report recommends continued advocacy for the South African government to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which serves as a complaints and investigative mechanism for rights violations, including the right to adequate food.
The report recommends 'the drafting of national framework legislation in relation to the right to food in South Africa (e.g. a Food and Nutrition Security Act) in line with the recommendations under General Comment 12, as well as South Africa's National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security. This would set out the roles and responsibilities of the different actors in relation to food security in South Africa, including an interdepartmental body with oversight responsibility.'
It also recommends that the updated National Food and Nutrition Security Plan be amended to address and monitor affordability and food pricing and enable people's economic access to nutritious food (the ability to purchase food as opposed to direct access, which refers to growing one's own food).
The report, titled ' Food for Thought: Reflections on Food (In)Security. Laws, Experiences, Interventions ', aims to better understand how some of Seri's partners and client groups have been affected by, and responded to, food insecurity and hunger issues. Seri's research focused on the experiences of the leadership and of members as conveyed by leaders of the following partners: the Inner City Federation, the South African Informal Traders Forum, the African Reclaimers Organisation, the Commercial, Stevedoring, Agriculture and Allied Workers Union, the Izwi Domestic Workers Alliance and the Slovo Park Community Development Forum.
Other recommendations call for an awareness of vulnerability of certain groups in society when creating, amending and updating policies that foster food security:
'Acknowledge food system workers, for example farm workers and informal traders, and ensure and monitor that they have fair and safe working conditions, and receive living wages. Acknowledge how women might be differently affected throughout the food system, for example as producers, workers and consumers, and incorporate specific interventions to attain greater gender equality. This could take the form of monitoring and increasing the number of women who have access to land for productive purposes, addressing unsafe working conditions due to pesticide use on farms and low wages/seasonal work of female farm workers.'
The report further explains that sufficient funds have to be in place to implement these processes, which often need human and other resources to come to fruition. This is in line with the recommendations by the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation in its evaluation of the National Plan.
The report took two years to compile, according to senior researcher at Seri Yvonne Erasmus. 'What is often missed is the issue of economic access, because food security has different dimensions, so national availability of food, whether food is nutritious, whether people have stable access over time, and a lot of the policy focus at government level is on the availability dimension. We do have more than enough food available nationally, we export a lot of our food and we waste a third of the food we produce.'
Erasmus pointed out that economic access to food seems to be what the government is struggling to create a sound and sustainable plan for. Also, one of the challenges was that South Africans couldn't hold a specific individual or department to account for the right to food not being realised, because most of the national frameworks on food security were interdepartmental.
Erasmus wrote the report and led the research, and legal researcher Michael Clark conducted the interviews and produced an earlier version of the report.
The national organising secretary of the Commercial, Stevedoring, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union, Karel Swart, said he is not sure whether new laws and policy will change anything.
He said the past 30 years were a 'complete failure'. Black economic empowerment had failed dismally under the ANC government. 'Farmworkers believe there was more food under apartheid. The current agriculture system does not work for the majority [only] for a tiny minority. I believe in reforms, but the current system must be replaced by a people-driven system… that caters for farmworkers and farm dwellers as well as for South Africa and the world.'
Swart was a panellist at the launch of the report in Johannesburg on Tuesday and the union was involved in the data collection and providing experiences for the report.
Swart echoed the sentiment that people need money to access food.
'The farms are lobbying the government to change the minimum wage and change the sectorial determination for farm and domestic workers. They want to hire and fire,' he said.
'They don't understand their actions on human behaviour. Children drop out from school in large numbers. Teenage pregnancies and sexual abuse are on the rise… violence and murder are also on the rise. All these things emanate in a country where hunger and starvation is on the order of the day.' DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
SA can fix its borders with a TV show – here's how
If police officers knew they'd be on TV, they would do their best to make sure they're not embarrassed in front of the whole nation. Julius Malema isn't special. Controversial rock star Marilyn Manson is also having trouble getting into the UK. One must be pretty envious of a country where border control actually means something and has the desired effect. Our minister of home affairs has launched the awkwardly named Operation New Broom to deal with illegal immigration, but why do we need all that effort? We have TV, we have an audience starved for good local content, and we have the knowledge that true crime makes for compelling television. If people needed rapper Xzibit to have a TV show to get their rides pimped and we need a depressing end to our Sunday night in order to uncover corruption, why not extend that energy? ALSO READ: Home Affairs committee raises alarm over border authority underfunding Where is our South African border show? Can you imagine? There would be no need for a Bheki Cele 'stomach in – chest out' speech! If they knew they'd be on TV, the cops would make their bodies enviable just not to be embarrassed in front of the whole nation. Imagine if you then made it competitive. Which cop busts the most border crossings this week? Though this is South Africa, so it may get to a point of which cop scores the highest bribe. Whatever. In this economy, we'll have to take any injection to the budget. Gosh, what if we got the army involved too and made it a team sport. We can identify the most common time for immigration illegalities and have a live feed. Our local TV doesn't have to be relegated to dull reruns and R50 giveaways. Best of all, we already pay the cast. The extras will likely be deported so the production cost can be kept down. The newsroom can make use of the footage, so there's a win for the station there and we're pretty sure to win an Emmy. If you look at the Emmy winners from the last couple of years, surely a South African illegal immigration policing show will outdo RuPaul's Drag Race. Call the show 'Operation New Broom' for all I care, but please make it happen. ALSO READ: Home Affairs launches Operation New Broom to tackle illegal immigration I know it's sad to admit that we need a TV show to inspire some dedication to the work we desperately need done in the country, but if this is how it must happen then let it be so. And you absolutely know that there will be a spin-off as well: 'Surviving SA Cops' – teams of illegal immigrants compete to avoid being busted. Not only will it bring in the ratings but what's left of our intelligence services would welcome the insight into the latest tricks of the trade. Oh South Africa, the gold mine we sit on is not just under the ground. Ninety-nine problems and we can't make a TV show out of even one? Australian border patrol? Who cares about some Middle Eastern aunty trying to smuggle a bit of za'atar into the outback? Dog the Bounty Hunter? I don't think anybody can take a dude who introduces himself to a bunch of school kids as Uncle Dog seriously. But South African cops? Boy oh boy, do we love ourselves a good popo story. From the police officer who was delighted to be videoed on the iPhone of the driver who pays her salary to our being treated to exquisite asynchronous marching, there's entertainment value to law enforcement. That kind of stuff shouldn't be limited to TikTok and YouTube. If it's happening and its entertaining, then let the masses see it… and let those who are tasked with enforcing the law have whatever inspiration they require to get the job done. If inspiration comes from being on TV, then let's do it. What have we got to lose? NOW READ: BMA intercepts and detains over 6 000 people trying to enter or leave SA illegally
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
The Constitutional Court at 30: Time for a critical reflection
Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The Constitutional Court is an apex court in the land. Its responsibility is to uphold the country's constitution and to protect human rights. Over the years, significant changes have occurred within this institution. The court has been led by different judges, passed different judgements, and interacted with various high-ranking individuals and political parties. This has earned the court accolades and criticisms from different people. Having existed since the dawn of democracy, it is the opportune moment to reflect on how the court has performed. In so doing, it is fair to consider both its highs and lows. In 1993 as the country drew closer to turning a new page by moving from a racial era to the current political dispensation, an interim constitution was passed. It was this interim constitution which guided the first democratic election in 1994. The motivating factor was that at the time the judiciary was predominantly white male. As such, it lacked legitimacy since it did not represent the multiracial South African community. It was necessary, therefore, to establish a court that would protect the Constitution against anyone. The Constitutional Court formerly opened its doors on 15 February 1995. It then facilitated the adoption of the 1996 constitution which is currently in place. As was expected, the new constitution confirmed the existence of the Constitutional Court which has 11 judges. These include the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and 9 other judges. It used interim offices before moving to the Constitution Hill in Braamfontein where it currently sits. The signature case for the court was the case between the state and Makwanyane in 1995 on the death penalty. At the centre of this case was whether it was constitutional or not to use the death penalty under the new political dispensation. Delivering its judgement on 6 June 1995, the court unanimously agreed that indeed the death penalty was against the country's constitution, especially Sections 10 on human dignity, 11 on the right to life, and 12 on freedom and security of the person. This was a landmark case which saw South Africa ending the death penalty which led to the loss of life of many liberation fighters at the hands of the apartheid operatives and their racist government. Since then, the court has passed judgements on various cases including equality, violence, socio-economic rights, and political cases. There have also been cases on privacy and religion. But while it is true that the court has tried its level best to uphold the constitution, and to interpret the constitution as part of its contribution to democratic consolidation, there have been instances where the court has been on the receiving end of the South African public. The question is why has the public been critical of this court? Importantly, what should the court do to redeem its public image? The first concern about this court is that it spends more time dealing with political cases. Even parliament runs to this court about issues which should be resolved by parliament. In this regard, the concern is that the court is too accessible to politicians. Political parties like the DA have frequented the court about issues which should have been addressed by parliament. This has tarnished the image of the court. Another accusation against the Constitutional Court is its weaponisation by the political elite. Some judges are accused of being too sympathetic to certain politicians while being excessively harsh against others. The removal of Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane from her position as Public Protector and the impeachment of Judge Hlophe were interpreted by the public as evidence of the politicisation of the court. The argument was that the court was used to fight political battles. Whether these accusations are true or not is not the main issue. What is concerning is that the court has lost credibility in the public eye. The Zondo Commission had many instances which painted the court in a bad light. Firstly, the public was concerned about the appointment of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to head the Commission. Part of the reason was that Zondo was not the best candidate that was recommended by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to President Ramaphosa. Justice Mandisa Maya received the nod. However, Ramaphosa used his constitutional prerogative and appointed Zondo to be the Chief Justice. As the Commission carried out its work, the Constitutional Court was drawn in. Firstly, Zondo was seen to be lacking objectivity. He was accused of being too harsh against Former President Zuma but too soft on President Ramaphosa. This resulted in Zuma refusing to return to the Commission. Zondo approached the Constitutional Court directly. Not only did he lay a charge against Zuma, but he also prescribed a sentence of two years. This raised eyebrows because the litigant also assumed the position of a judge. In its judgement, the court forced Zuma to return to the Commission. It also removed his right to remain silent – the same right which had been given to other witnesses like the late Dudu Myeni. Once again, the court was accused of being biased. When Justice Sisi Khampepe was appointed Acting Chief Justice, she read her judgement against Zuma in an angry tone. She sentenced Zuma in absentia to 15 months in prison. This resulted in the loss of many lives, loss of jobs, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Many businesses which closed in 2021 never recovered. This tainted the image of the court. Given these instances, the second question about the future of this court becomes relevant. Going forward, the court should take these criticisms seriously, identify those that are factual and act on them, but also consider the rest that have not been substantiated and investigate them to confirm their authenticity. The two main issues that the court should take seriously include too much accessibility to it by politicians and the weaponization of the court by politicians. Failure to address these would further tarnish the court's public image. * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
The National Dialogue must be revolutionary and people-driven
Protesters take part in the defiance campaign, in June 1952, in Johannesburg, by occupying places for white people. The campaign against the apartheid regime's of racial segregation was launched on 26 June 1952 by the ANC and led to the Congress of the People where the Freedom Charter was adopted on 26 June 1955 in Kliptown. Zamikhaya Maseti The much-talked-about National Dialogue is indeed a national conversation we didn't know we needed until former President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki called for it. President Cyril Ramaphosa must be saluted for heeding that call. This gesture affirms that our leaders still speak and listen to one another. It is a tradition of leadership that the younger generation must urgently emulate: speak truthfully and listen earnestly. Accordingly, President Ramaphosa has announced that the National Dialogue will take place on August 15, 2025, at a venue yet to be disclosed. I will not pretend to be a seasoned logistician, but I would like to propose that Kliptown, Johannesburg, be considered as the location. I make this suggestion because Kliptown was the site where our great-grandparents gathered under difficult, illegal conditions on 25–26 June 1955, to craft a vision for a democratic South Africa. Their gathering produced the Freedom Charter, a document that became a lodestar for the liberation struggle. Today, we face an equally historic task: rebuilding the South Africa that was born of their sacrifices. A nation now fractured and drifting, in desperate need of repair. More significantly, 25–26 June 2025 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Freedom Charter. Holding the Dialogue in Kliptown would root it in the moral soil of people's struggles and remove the sting of elitism that so often surrounds state-led initiatives. It would strip the dialogue of unnecessary extravagance. The original Congress of the People saw delegates arrive by bus, taxi, train some even on horseback. In that spirit, we must question the reportedly proposed R700 million budget for this dialogue. Such an amount is not only absurd; it is morally indefensible. I am relieved that the Presidency has rejected that outrageous and outlandish budget proposal. As South Africans of all colours, classes, and convictions, we must ask the most strategic and politically relevant questions: What should be on the table? That is to say, what must be the agenda, and who defines it? Who should be at the table? Who sits where, and who speaks for whom? Are the working class, the agrarian working class, the landless masses of the people, and the unemployed adequately represented? These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the very heart of the dialogue's legitimacy. We cannot assume that 'broad representation' will occur naturally or that it should be left solely to the Preparatory Committee. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do insist that all South Africans must grapple with these questions. A particularly troubling issue is the class composition of the Eminent Persons appointed to guide the process. By and large, they are drawn from the polished ranks of South Africa's middle class if not the elite. The rural poor and the agrarian working class are conspicuously absent. The assumption that the inclusion of traditional leaders covers their interests is false. Many of these institutions remain untransformed, misogynistic, patriarchal, and disconnected from the democratic impulses of the poor. In short, the selection of Eminent Persons leaves much to be desired. Perhaps their exclusion reflects the disorganisation of rural voices, but that is no excuse. The National Dialogue must reflect the totality of South African life. It is ostensibly aimed at navigating South Africa through deep and interconnected crises: a crisis of governance, a crisis of political legitimacy, social fragmentation, and economic despair. The critical question is whether this initiative is a bold act of national renewal or just another elite performance, obsessed with appearances while the nation quietly disintegrates. For the dialogue to have any integrity, it must begin with representative legitimacy. The poor, the unemployed, farmworkers, shack dwellers, and students still fighting financial exclusion cannot be passive spectators. The tragedy of South African democracy is that the people are so often spoken about, rarely spoken to, and rarely allowed to speak for themselves. Will this Dialogue include the real South Africa, or will it be another exercise in managerialism, dominated by technocrats and polite middle-class professionals? The timing of this dialogue is not neutral. It must be seen in light of the failure of the political class to resolve the legitimacy crisis that followed the 2024 general elections. The resulting Government of National Unity (GNU), a patchwork of ideological contradictions, has failed to inspire public trust. This dialogue, then, risks becoming a substitute theatre, a democratic therapy session designed to manage anxiety rather than resolve it. If so, this is not dialogue it is deflection. We must insist that the dialogue confronts structural questions: economic power, historical redress, and the unresolved land question. These matters cannot be handled delicately or deferred indefinitely. We must also address the scourge of bureaucratic unaccountability. Any serious conversation about building a capable and ethical State must begin with real consequence management for public servants who loot, obstruct, or undermine public trust. This national dialogue must not be pacifying; it must be revolutionary. It must be uncomfortable, radical, and people-driven. It must speak to power, not for it. It must demand a reckoning with the nation's unfinished business. We cannot afford a dialogue that dances around the contradictions of our society. We cannot whisper reform in a house already burning. The President may have opened the floor, but it is up to the people to seize the space not as polite guests but as the rightful architects of South Africa's democratic future. If this Dialogue becomes another elite jamboree, it will bury us deeper in disillusionment. But if it becomes a genuine space for democratic reimagination, a re-founding moment, then perhaps, just perhaps, the Republic may begin to heal. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
