monde thesissegurança alimentar das famílias nas áreas rurais da central eastern cape o caso da...

8/12/2019 Monde thesisSegurana alimentar das famlias nas reas rurais da Central Eastern Cape o caso da Gutka em Vict

1/11

234

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1. INTRODUCTION

The food security status of households in Guquka and Koloni was analysed by making

use of data collected during two phases of data collection, During these two phases, three

main investigations namely, demography, income, poverty and expenditure; food

consumption and nutrition and in-depth interviews on livelihoods and food security

strategies employed by households to attain food, were undertaken. The conclusions

therefore, are presented according to these main investigations as follows:

8.1.1. Demography, income, poverty and expenditure

Households in Guquka and Koloni were relatively larger in size. On average they

consisted of six people, and this was the case in both villages. Males headed the majority

of households. The majority (57% in Guquka and 55% in Koloni) of heads of households

were pensioners who stayed in the villages most of the time. Large numbers of people

were unemployed. The overall unemployment rate in the study area was 47%. Koloni had

a relatively higher (56%) unemployment rate than Guquka (39%). A large number of

unemployed people belonged to the age group 20 to 39 years, which had an

unemployment rate of 45% in Guquka and 70% in Koloni. In both villages, women

suffered higher rates of unemployment than men. There were also people who were

under-employed. The majority of these were away from the villages looking for work.

Incomes were earned from various sources. External sources of income made significant

(92% in Guquka and 82% in Koloni) contributions to household incomes. Old age

pensions followed by salaries and wages were the most important sources of income for

Guquka while the opposite was true for Koloni households. The local economic activities

contributed only 11% to household income in Guquka and 18% in Koloni. In relative

terms, households in Guquka were poorer than those in Koloni. The mean monthly

household income was R746,69 in Guquka while in Koloni it was R1020,71. Exchange


2/11

235

mappings based on ownlabour were characteristic of the non-poor households in Koloni

while inheritance and transfers characterised non-poor households in Guquka. The poor

and ultra-poor in both villages were characterised by exchange mappings based on

inheritance and transfers.

Ownership of and access to land was found to be inadequate, especially in Guquka. Only

35% of the households that were interviewed owned land, while land ownership

amounted to 82% in Koloni. Only a small proportion of households cultivated their land

during the 1998/99 cropping season. In Guquka only 21% cultivated land and 29% in

Koloni. The majority (90% in Guquka and 87% in Koloni) had access to home gardens.The size of gardens was larger in Guquka than in Koloni, with averages of 768m2 and

211m2respectively. Only a few households did not cultivate their gardens, Lack of means

to acquire fencing material, lack of labour and lack of time, were the main reasons for not

cultivating the gardens.

The sources of livelihoods of households fell into three main categories, namely, grants

or transfers, exchanges, and agriculture. Very few households relied on a single source of

livelihood. The majority relied on combining sources, and the most common source of

livelihood strategy consisted of combining transfers with agriculture. In Guquka, the

majority (53%) constructed their livelihoods in this way, and 45% of households in

Koloni. None of the households in Guquka relied on agriculture alone while only two

households did so in Koloni. The grouping of households according specific livelihood

strategies resulted in six different livelihood strategy groups. These were welfare

dependent households, salary and wage earners, rural entrepreneurs, farmers, migrants

and marginalised households. In both villages the majority (60% in Guquka and 62% in

Koloni) were welfare dependent households. The family size and dependency ratios were

larger in the marginalised, migrants and welfare dependent households. Also, ownership

of assets showed a skewed distribution among livelihood strata within the village and

between villages, especially in terms of land and cattle.


3/11

236

The results showed higher levels of poverty in the study area, with Guquka households

relatively poorer than Koloni households. The analysis of poverty using a poverty line

(PL) showed that more than 90% of households earned incomes lower than the poverty

line (PL) in Guquka and 75% in Koloni. Depth of poverty was also considerable. The

poverty gap was 60 - 79% in both villages. The majority of households in both villages

belonged to the ultra-poor poverty class and relied mainly on state grants for survival.

The analysis of the entitlements, on which the food security of households was based,

showed no major differences in terms of exchange mappings amongst the three poverty

classes in Guquka (all relied mainly on inheritance and transfers), while there were

substantial differences in Koloni. The poor differed from the ultra-poor by adding ownlabour and trade entitlements while exchange mappings based mainly on own labour

characterised the non-poor. The analysis of ownership of assets showed that the majority

of households especially the ultra-poor did not have access to productive resources (cattle

and land) while the non-poor in both villages had complete sets of productive resources.

The average amount of money needed to raise incomes of the households in order to

remove poverty was high, especially amongst the poorest quintiles.

Analysis of the expenditure patterns of households showed expenditure on food to be the

most important category, especially amongst the poor households in both villages.

Amongst the ultra-poor households, 75% of income was devoted to food, whilst the non-

poor spent less than 30% on food. The relationship between household income and the

proportion of income spent on food was curvilinear and negative. As income increased,

the proportion spent on food decreased, and non-food expenditure became more

important.

There was little own production of food by most households. Data shows that most

import their food from elsewhere through purchase in urban centres. Contrary to what

might be expected, both rural settlements failed to supply a substantial part of the food

they consumed. Most farming in the two villages is on a micro-scale and produces small

quantities of food. The majority of rural households remain engaged in agriculture on this

kind of scale.


4/11

237

8.1.2. Food consumption and nutritional status of food

The analysis of food security strategies employed by households in Guquka and Koloni

showed that food was acquired in five different ways. None of the households

interviewed acquired food in a single way, all combined two or more food acquisition

strategies. Amongst these strategies, purchasing food from urban markets was the most

important in both villages, while buying food from village markets was important for

ultra-poor households. The seasonal (summer, autumn, winter and spring) food calendarsof the 16 households investigated showed that food consumed by households formed part

of 12 different food groups. These were cereals and cereal products, tubers, vegetables,

legumes, fruit, seasonings, drinks, milk and milk products, meat and meat products, eggs

and egg products, fats and oils and sugars. In all 16 households, cereals were consumed

in larger quantities than any other food group. The total monthly quantities consumed by

one adult equivalent person in each household exceeded 10 kilograms in all seasons.

However, in respect of the quantities (not only for cereals), there were seasonal

differences. The diet of households also differed from season to season. Certain foods

disappeared completely in some seasons, especially during winter and spring. For

example, households consumed a variety of vegetables in autumn, but in winter and

spring vegetable consumption was limited to cabbages. Generally, the range of food

groups was very narrow in winter and spring.

The main ingredients of the diet included maize meal, samp, flour, potatoes, sugar and

amasi. In some seasons, households added other products to these basic products. For

example, households added meat to their basic diet in December, and green maize,

vegetables, potatoes and legumes in autumn (March). With the exception of amasi, the

main source of food was supermarkets in urban centres. All hous eholds in Guquka

obtained amasi from local producers. In Koloni, 80% of this product was obtained from

own production. The cost of obtaining food from urban markets was high, because

transport and loading costs had to be added to price per unit product. Nevertheless, this


5/11

238

did not discourage households from obtaining their food from these markets, because the

unit prices of products were much cheaper in town than in the village shops. In terms of

the rand value of food consumed showed that households in Guquka relied on

supermarkets during all seasons. The rand value of food obtained from own production in

that village did not reach 50% of total in any one season. The situation was different in

Koloni. Here own production of food measured in rand value was the main source of

food in summer (December) and autumn (March) with 50% and 46% of food consumed

obtained from this source.

The most common cereals consumed by households in the study area were maize mealand samp, but during summer, autumn and winter, no ne of these products were obtained

from own production. Households began to source these products from their own

production only in spring (September). In both villages, 20% of maize meal was obtained

from own production. With regard to samp, households in Guquka obtained 40% from

own production, whilst households in Koloni obtained 47% of the product by growing

their own maize.

Analysis of the food consumed by households indicated nutritional deficiencies in terms

of energy, protein, and fat. The findings showed that not all households satisfied their

daily energy requirement. Energy intake was higher in December and March than in June

and September. Koloni households were better off than households in Guquka. During

the wet seasons (summer and autumn), only one household showed a lack of energy in

Koloni and three in Guquka. During the dry seasons, energy levels were lower and a

larger proportion of households failed to meet the recommended energy requirements.

Cereals made significant contributions to total energy. The result of energy distribution

from different food groups during the four-season period showed that more than 50% of

energy consumed was obtained from cereals, and that was the case in all seasons. The

highest contribution to energy intake by cereals occurred in spring when cereals

contributed 67% to total in Guquka and 66% in Koloni.


6/11

239

Deficiencies in the protein and fat intakes were even worse than energy. As with energy

intake, Koloni households consumed higher levels of these nutrients than those in

Guquka. There were again seasonal differences. The protein intakes peaked in March

(due to consumption of nutrient rich vegetables and legumes) while fat intakes peaked in

December (due to meat consumption). Overall, only three households (one in Guquka

and two in Koloni) households managed to satisfy their protein and fat requirements

during all seasons. This meant that only three out 16 households that were investigated

were considered food secure (had enough energy, protein and fat). The majority of

households had enough energy to perform daily activities during December and March,

but the intake of specific nutrients (protein and fat) was insufficient. Households did notnecessarily go hungry, but their diet seriously lacked specific components. The

relationship between adult equivalent income and energy level was positive and the

relationship between energy consumption and the proportion of income spent on food

was negative. This meant that overall increasing income of households improved their

energy intake, and reducing income resulted in households spending proportionally more

on food, but not enough to maintain energy intake at adequate levels.

Food acquisition in Guquka and Koloni was influenced by factors such as social habits

(social and cultural acceptability of food), seasonal differences and the availability of

water (rain and irrigation). Factors responsible for nutritional differences among

households were found to be adult equivalent income of the household, family size and

education and occupation of the household members.

8.1.3. In-depth interviews on livelihoods and food security strategies

This investigation documented the experiences of households in their quest to be food

secure. The results showed that there were three kinds of households in the study area,

namely, enduring households, resilient households and as fragile households. Two types

of fragile households were found, namely, those who had no reliable source of income,

and those who had access to at least one reliable source of income. Those without a

reliable source of income employed strategies that did not result in enough food at any


7/11

240

time during the four-season period of investigation. Lack of ownership and access to

resources was the main problem in these households. The most limiting resources were

financial, human and natural. Both quality and quantity of these resources was not

adequate in ensuring enough food for household members. With regard to financial

resources, they earned incomes below the poverty line and were categorised as ultra-poor.

The quality and quantity of human resources was also a constraint. The heads of the

households were usually women who were not in good health. Other household members

were often school children.

The livelihood strategies employed by these households were neither resilient norsustainable as they were very susceptible to shocks and stresses. These households

survived by doing piece jobs in the village where they lived with the purpose of earning

money or food for their families. When paid cash, the main food acquisition strategy of

these households was to buy food from village shops. Money earned at any one time was

never enough to consider buying in urban supermarkets. Their coping strategies involved

cultivating the garden, which also enabled them to exchange food for other food

products, claiming against relations and reducing meals from two to one per day. Another

desperate attempt involved transforming school children into adults to earn money for

their families despite school obligations. The only assistance these households had access

to was the School Feeding Scheme, which appeared to have problems of targeting.

Targeting problems are demonstrated in Nombulelos household (7.2.1). Nombulelo had

two children who were both still in primary school at the time of investigation. Legally,

by virtue of being in primary school, they were both eligible to the scheme. However,

data showed that only on child enjoyed the benefits of the scheme even though they were

both affected by the same kind of poverty.

The second type of fragile households were welfare-dependent households. In these

households, at least one member had access to a social welfare grant, which provided

them access with a reliable source of income. But, because the dependency ratio in these

households was usually high, income was inadequate to ensure that the food needs of the

household members were met. Nevertheless, these households managed to obtain three


8/11

241

meals per day for two to three weeks after payment of the grant, but the food consumed

was of poor quality. The members of these households struggled to obtain the required

levels of energy, protein and fat. The same resources (financial, human and land) were

limiting amongst these households. As with the other type of fragile households the head

of household was often a woman, usually old and sick. They differed from the other type

of fragile households in terms of their food acquisition strategy. Instead of purchasing

food from village shops, the monthly grant enabled them to buy food in urban markets.

The coping strategies of both types of fragile households were the same, but fragile

households with a reliable source of income only experienced shortages towards the

month-end, whilst the others were facing food shortages throughout. When short of food,fragile households reduced the number of meals from three to two per day, and from two

to one in desperate cases. Also, the second type of fragile households (welfare assisted)

did not resort to desperate measures like transforming school children into adults.

Another different coping strategy of these households was to buy maize meal in larger

quantities, which would be used when the households ran out of food.

Resilient households were rural entrepreneurs and farmers. An example of an

entrepreneur used in this study was found to own all kinds of assets though access to land

was limited to a home garden only. The main livelihood strategy of this household was

trading various goods and services for the purposes of earning money to meet basic needs

including food. While other households acquired food in five different ways, this

household had an additional way of acquiring food through umgalelo. As already

mentioned, resilient households were households who suffered from shocks, but

recovered quickly because of assets they owned. For example, when drought or any kind

of stress struck, they sold some of the assets they owned.

The most important coping strategy included diversification, because having access to

multiple assets enabled them to employ different options. But apparently, these options

did not lead to food security. Like all resilient households, they were found to be food

insecure. Though they did not go hungry at any time of the year, their diet was found to

be insufficient, especially in terms of protein and fat. Several reasons contributed to this


9/11

242

state. The main reason being less reliable strategies, as they were unable to make good

money at certain times. On the other hand, like all non-poor households, food was not the

only important need. As their income increased, they strove for other household needs

such as childrens education. Lack of knowledge pertaining to human nutrition was

another reason, but most importantly, present food security was as important as future

food security. They chose to preserve their assets and save money for future food

security.

The farmer was one of the most interesting cases amongst these households. Surviving on

one livelihood strategy while others employed different strategies was worthinvestigating. The findings showed that this household was not doing badly at all. In fact,

the household belonged to the non-poor households. But like other non-poor households,

they were food insecure as they failed to consume a nutritionally adequate diet. The main

problem was that the household relied on farming alone, and farming was faced with

many constraints in these rural areas. The most limiting resources for rural farmers were

human capital and water. Nothing could be done about water, especially for field crops,

but fortunately, because this household was in Koloni, the garden crops were

supplemented with water during drought periods. In fact, gardening was the main coping

strategy of this household. In the garden, a variety of vegetables were grown. The garden

produce helped them through difficult times, e.g. when field crops failed. Also, because

they managed to get surplus from the garden, the garden also earned them money as the

surplus was sold.

With regard to labour shortages, farmers in Koloni combined their limited labour

resources, especially during ploughing and planting times. This strategy offset the

difficulties of acquiring labour at these times, and enabled them to stay involved in

farming. Another constraint facing farmers was lack of infrastructure, especially storage

and processing facilities at village level. During a good season, when there is more than

enough produce for home consumption, the produce could not be transferred to another

season. The value adding was rather impossible too, as the processing facilities were in


10/11

243

urban centres. Farmers had to get rid of the produce quickly, and most of the time at

bargain prices.

The enduring households were the only types of households who were food secure in

Guquka and Koloni. These were people who had sufficient resources and in most cases at

least one household member had a reliable source of income e.g., employment in the civil

service. The strategies employed by these households were resilient and sustainable and

were not vulnerable to retrenchments. However, only few (19%) of these were found in

the study area.

In conclusion, there were a number of factors that influenced household food security in

Guquka and Koloni. These were ownership of and access to resources, the historical,

political and social processes or contexts under which food security took place affected

household food security and available opportunities, especially at village levels. All these

contributed in shaping the present livelihoods and food security strategies of rural

households. The results of this study showed that food security was not just an outcome

of what people own, but whether that ownership could be translated into adequate food.

Food security status of household in Eastern Cape is the consequence of the food security

policies in this province.

As shown in Chapter 2, the policies of the Department of Agriculture do little in ensuring

access to food. They emphasize on food availability or increased production. The results

of this study revealed that ownership and access to land is accompanied by labour

problems in the study area. The agricultural policy encourages agricultural production yet

fails to address the land and rural labour problems. With regard to land, small-scale

farmers in the study area operate outside the institutional support structures. The policies

encourage people to form Community Property Associations, which do not necessarily

solve the problem of land ownership. Also, the policies encourage the production of high

value crops by small- scale farmers. The question of cash crops as a route to food security

has to be looked at. This appears to be a long-term solution that is not guaranteed to

eventually improve food security in rural areas. The opportunities available at village


11/11

244

level force the majority of households to survive on non-farming rather than farming

activities.

The Departments Health and Social Welfare seemed to play a major role in ensuring rural

households access to food. However, their intervention programmes appeared to have

problems of targeting. For example, the Department of Health was responsible the School

Feeding Scheme. The scheme targeted children in primary schools, especially those who

were from poor households. In reality, as the study revealed, this was not the case. Some

children from these poor households did not enjoy the benefits of the scheme. On the

other hand, the grants offered by the Department of Social Welfare did not reach alldeserving individuals. Some of these individuals fell outside the structures of these grants

while others were simply victims of re-registrations that took place in 1997. Apart from

targeting, the nutrition education programmes, food aid and primary health care of the

Department of Health did not reach every village. The nutritionally inadequate diets of

the non-poor households in Guquka and Koloni showed lack of education pertaining to

nutrition. Lastly, the objective of improving health care services has not yet been

attained. In Guquka there was neither a clinic nor was it visited by a mobile clinic.

monde thesissegurança alimentar das famílias nas áreas rurais da central eastern cape o caso da...

Documents