Chairperson, I would like to start by responding to what hon Johnson has just said. I want to remind this House that the topic for today is "the effectiveness of food production schemes in rural and peri-urban areas". Hon Johnson, I know that you said that there was no space for political debate in this portfolio, but unfortunately you had nothing to say about this department. My speech will give you insight into that.
Chairperson, all reports indicate that chronic food insecurity exists at significantly high levels in South Africa today. Composites of the best data suggest that approximately 11 million people in 2,8 million households are vulnerable to food insecurity, that is, at least one in every five South Africans. Moreover, 72% of these reside in the rural areas. In a world of plenty this is unacceptable.
To make things worse, almost 9 million tons of food are wasted every year in South Africa, the large majority of which doesn't even make it to the market!
The biggest single challenge for poor South Africans is access to food and/or the means to produce it. Over time, rural and peri-urban citizens have had increasingly less opportunity to produce their own food and have therefore become increasingly reliant on government grants.
Estimates suggest that only four million people are engaged in smallholder agriculture as a main source of food or subsistence production. But government does not collect data with which to credibly establish the contribution of the subsistence or smallholder agricultural sector to food security. It is therefore difficult to understand how they can expect us to believe in their purported successes in this area.
The Global Food Security Index released by the Economist Intelligence Unit, EIU, this year scored South Africa 40th out of 105 surveyed countries. The index also showed a significant correlation with the EIU Women's Economic Opportunity Index, which measures female economic participation.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN estimates that if women had access to the same reproductive resources as men - better seeds, fertilisers and fungicides - they could increase their yield by 20% to 30%. As women make up 43% of the world's farmers, this would increase total agricultural output in developing countries by 2% to 4%, and reduce hunger globally by 12% to 17%.
These findings alone provide the irrefutable impetus for government to dismantle the archaic and counterproductive forms of communal land tenure in the former homelands under the political power of the chiefs. Sir, 1,5 million ha of South Africa's 5 million ha high-potential agricultural land lies in these former homelands under communal tenure - a fruitless economic institution and a far cry from the individual title deeds necessary to incentivise economic productivity. The upshot of this arrangement is a contradiction that keeps citizens in bondage and undermines efforts to attain food security, a strong prerequisite for economic growth. Economic property rights should therefore clearly be extended to all South Africans, especially in the former homelands.
A government that continues to wilfully keep people in bondage through archaic institutional structures, the very thing that South Africans in all walks of life fought against during the apartheid era, is guilty of denying its citizens access to economic opportunities. And it is this access to opportunity, especially for women, that would harness food security and serve as a catalyst for dynamic economic growth. If government does not listen to the evidence, then it clearly cares more about hanging onto power than it does about economic growth.
The Institute for Security Studies, in a report prepared for Parliament earlier this year, conveys that, and I quote:
Experience from other countries indicates that a comprehensive approach to the provision of support services to achieve growth in the smallholder agricultural sector is essential. In the absence of appropriate farmer support programmes, smallholder farmers will have little chance of escaping poverty and agriculture's role of creating livelihood opportunities will remain limited. Subsistence production not only contributes directly to these households' food security as a supply of food, but also enables households to divert income to meet other requirements.
Food security is linked to livelihood assets, strong institutional support and a favourable external environment. Policies and strategies to increase agricultural productivity can make a significant contribution towards reducing households' food insecurity status.
Government's current initiatives, including the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, or Casp as everyone knows it, are to provide post- settlement support to land reform and previously disadvantaged farmers. There are at least three other initiatives which are meant to form part of the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme, IFSNP, but these have yet to be implemented as a co-ordinated and consolidated strategy.
Research evidence strongly indicates that Casp, along with the other programmes of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Daff, have failed to be realised or make a positive impact on the lives of beneficiaries. The name of the Zero Hunger Programme is self-explanatory. This is Daff's homegrown food security policy, but very confusing in the way it is to be implemented. Its goals consist of improving the food production capacity of households and poorly resourced farmers, and developing market channels through bulk government procurement of food linked to the emerging agricultural sector. The tenderpreneurs are already licking their lips!
Adding to the general confusion is a project called the Masibambisane Rural Development Initiative, led by the President. It appears to form part of, or to have replaced the Zero Hunger Programme, but replies to my parliamentary questions have shown that there is no business plan for this initiative! The concept document provides little of substance in regard to how to achieve South Africa's Millennium Development Goals. If anything, the initiative appears to be diverting funds from government departments in order to aid President Zuma's Mangaung re-election efforts. How else can one explain this R800 million project which has no clear business plan?
If the Cabinet want South Africa to take government seriously and believe that they really are committed to alleviating food insecurity, they have no choice but to dismiss Minister Joemat-Pettersson. Less than 20% of the department's planned targets were fully achieved, even though the department managed to spend 99% of its appropriated budget! The ultimate responsibility for the performance of any department rests with the Minister. Clearly, Minister Joemat-Pettersson is unfit to hold public office!
Minister, it is also a pity that you could not attend our meeting with the Red Meat Industry Forum this morning, where we discussed serious implications for food security in South Africa. Mr S K Makinana, who attended this meeting, asked, and in his words his question was: "If the government does not give assistance to black farmers, how will the youth ever get into farming and get interested in farming?" Thank you. [Applause.]