Most households in South Africa rely on purchased foods, only 33 per cent of households engage in crop production and only 25 per cent of households engage in animal production (Labadarios, 2000). Accurate estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity in South Africa are not known. Using 1999 national figures, Hendriks (2005) reported that available information suggests between 35 and 73 per cent of South African households may experience food insecurity, 15.9 per cent consume insufficient energy requirements whereas stunting rates could be between 22 and 25 per cent and wasting may occur in 3.7 per cent of the population.
De Klerk et al. (2004) report that more than 14 million people (35 per cent) are vulnerable to food insecurity in South Africa of whom women, children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Rose and Charlton (2002) estimated from the 1995 National Income and Expenditure Survey that 43 per cent of households experienced food poverty as they spent less money on food than necessary for a basic diet. Using validated questionnaires (24-hour recall; quantitative food frequency; food procurement and household inventory) and the Hunger Scale, Labodorios (2000) reported that 52 per cent of households experienced hunger in 1999, 23 per cent were at risk of experiencing hunger; but only 25 per cent were identified as food secure.
According to the Income and Expenditure Survey (2000), 57 per cent of South African households attained most of their income from wages/salaries, 14 per cent from social grants and 10 per cent from remittances (Statistics South Africa, 2002; de Klerk et al., 2004). Comparatively, Fraser et al. (2003: 173-74), (table 2.10), found that in Guquka and Koloni, in the Eastern Cape Province, inheritance, transfers (pensions and disability grants) and remittances were key income strategies that contributed the most to household income (66 per cent of income in Guquka and 42.5 per cent of income in Koloni). Wage income and salaries were the second most important contributors to household income (25 per cent of income in Guquka and 40.2 per cent of income in Koloni). Informal activities (trading, hawking, running a spaza shop or selling crops and
income in Guquka and 12.3 per cent of income in Koloni), followed by own production of crops and animals (4.3 per cent of income in Guquka and 4.9 per cent of income in Koloni).
Bob (2002), like Fraser et al. (2003), found that 45 per cent of sampled respondents depended on social grants as their main income strategy, followed by non-agricultural wage labour (30 per cent of income). Further 25 per cent of respondents engaged in informal work and household cultivation, whereas agricultural wage labour was undertaken by only 20 per cent of respondents. Mokgope (2001) reported that for the Eastern Cape as a whole, pensions are the most important livelihood strategy, contributing 40.3 per cent to household income. Mokgope (2001) states that pensions and public sector employment are the main sources of livelihood, but fails to state the percentage contribution of formal employment to household income, but reports that for the Eastern Cape Province, remittances constituted 23.4 per cent of household income.
The findings from Mokgope (2001); Bob (2002) and Fraser et al. (2003: 173; 74) lead to the conclusion that many South Africans living in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal depended on state welfare as an income strategy. The second most important livelihood strategy for South Africans is wages earned through formal sector employment, own labour or „non-agricultural labour‟ (Bob, 2002; Fraser et al., 2003: 173). This finding corresponds to de Klerk et al‟s. (2004) findings that wages and salaries contribute on average 56.5 per cent of total household income in South Africa.
Income from informal activities is marginal, but can contribute more towards household income than agricultural activities (Bob, 2002; Fraser et al., 2003: 174). Aliber and Modiselle (2002) found that agricultural activities benefited households that were vulnerable to food insecurity the most and that food produced contributed to feeding the household. However, even though food production increases cash and food, it is often undertaken in the absence of formal employment opportunities (Bob, 2002).
Table 2.10 Livelihood strategies in South Africa
Studies Mokgope (2001) (Wild Coast District Council, Eastern Cape)
Bob (2000)
(Ekuthuleni, KwaZulu Natal)
Fraser et al. (2003, 174) (Guquka and Koloni, Eastern Cape)
Livelihood strategies engaged in by respondents, in order of priority
Pensions and grants;
Public sector employment;
Remittances;
Agricultural activities.
Pensions/grants;
Non-agricultural wage labour;
Household cultivation;
Informal activities.
Livestock production;
Agricultural wage labour;
Organised small business;
Qualified profession.
Sources of employment in the community:
Tuck shops;
Road/construction;
Roofing/repairing huts;
Sewing clubs.
Employment within district level:
Factory shops in Colenso and Ladysmith;
Gardening;
Domestic work;
Telkom/post
office/teaching/clinic;
Construction;
Work for commercial farmers.
Inheritance and transfers:
Pensions;
Disability grants;
Cash remittances;
In-kind payments.
Own labour:
Salaries and wages;
Transporting.
Trade:
Hawking food;
Hawking other;
Shop/spaza;
Crops cash;
Animals cash;
Making and selling items.
Own production:
Crops;
Animals.
Livelihood diversification is an important element of South African livelihoods (May et al., 1995; Bob, 2002). Income is derived from activities ranging from remittances (cash and goods); selling livestock and crops; relying on pensions and grants; and engaging in wage labour (Bob, 2002; Fraser et al., 2003: 178; de Klerk et al., 2004). Livelihood diversification is a strategy to increase resilience to shocks and stresses caused by multiple factors including livelihood failure or deagrarianisation (Bryceson, 1996; Swift
& Hamilton, 2001: 88; Khosa, 2002; Meikle et al., 2002; Drinkwater, 2003; Rugalema,
deagrarianisation, a process in which farm households increasingly rely on off-farm income for food and resources (Bryceson, 1996).
Steady decline in farm income caused by rising input prices; farm fragmentation;
migration of labour to towns in search of lucrative job opportunities; and loss of human capital required for ploughing and harvesting to HIV/AIDS are factors that force farmers and youth to look for alternate livelihood strategies (Ellis, 1998a: 54; Gillespie &
Loevinsohn, 2003).
Continuing economic and social stresses such as civil war and drought; shocks such as eviction from farming land and ill health prompt households to search for ways of reducing risk; overcome income volatility caused by seasonality and generate cash for food and education of children (Ellis, 1998a: 54). The deagrarianisation of South African society is evidenced by the fact that only one in four households derive income in kind from agriculture (Drinkwater, 2003; de Klerk et al., 2004). The contribution of agricultural income to total household income was also very low, averaging between three and four per cent in 2000 (de Klerk et al., 2004). May (1998) argues that less than 70 per cent of households engage in agricultural activities while 30 per cent of household income is derived from agriculture.
Livelihood diversification can have positive or negative impacts on households (Ellis, 1998a: 58). Positive diversification diminishes vulnerability to shocks and stresses by, for example, providing additional income to smooth consumption due to seasonality (Ellis, 1998a: 58). On the contrary, diversification can lead to decreased farm output (deagrarianisation) and growing gender inequality as men leave the farm in search better income opportunities and women are forced to rely on subsistence farming for survival (Ellis, 1998a: 60). The positive effects of diversification such as income smoothing outweigh negative impacts and should be given priority in development interventions to improve livelihood security (Ellis, 1998b).
Poverty, inequality and unemployment share a close relationship shown by the fact that 55 per cent of people from poor households are unemployed compared to 14 per cent of those from non-poor households (May, 1998). The contribution of wages and salaries to total household income means that employment and other non-agricultural income earning opportunities are the primary determinants of household food security for urban and rural households (Ruel et al., 1999; Maxwell et al., 2000; Garrett, 2004).
This is consistent with the findings of May (1998) who ascribed poverty to a lack of wage income caused either by low paying jobs or high levels of unemployment resulting in a greater reliance of South African households on multiple sources of income. Mitlin (2000) argues that lack of income means that the urban poor cannot meet basic needs for food, transport to and from work, water, shelter and health care. In addition, lack of income means an insufficient diet for good health and lack of investment in education, lack of savings and difficulty in securing assets that makes households vulnerable to shocks (Mitlin, 2000).
Several studies confirm that South African households are becoming increasingly reliant on income to access food. The National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) concluded that income was the main determinant of household food security in South Africa (NAMC, 2002). Fraser et al. (2003: 179) found that households that had access to grants, salaries and wages experienced transitory food insecurity towards the month end.
Fraser et al. (2003: 179) also reported that households that had no access to regular income relied on piecework and food aid. After investigating urban and rural food insecurity, de Swart (2003) concluded that food insecurity and the experience of hunger was on the rise due to a reliance on cash to purchase food.