Analysis of the food security status of Phezukomkhondo Mlimi beneficiaries, Nkomazi Local Municipality, South Africa

Abstract

Background and aim In response to the continuing food insecurity levels observed at household and individual levels, the Mpumalanga Provincial Government introduced the Phezukomkhono Mlimi (PKM) programme in 2005. While the programme has been running for some time now, with massive funds spent each year, evidence to show whether the programme is achieving the intended food security outcomes is scanty. Therefore, this study analysed the food security status of agricultural households that benefitted from the PKM programme in the Nkomazi Local Municipality, South Africa during the 2018/19 production season. “Agricultural household” refers to a household in which at least one member of the household or the household head is practising farming as an economic activity. Methodology The study applied a mixed methods study design to realise the objective of this study. Questionnaires were used to collect quantitative data from agricultural households (N=355) that volunteered and consented to participate in the study. Focus group discussions with members of the cooperative (N=10) and interviews with key informants consisting of District PKM Coordinators (N=2) and agricultural advisors (N=7) overseeing the PKM programme were used to collect qualitative data. The objectives of this study were achieved by analysing the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis, as well as by computing the Food Security Index, Household Food Insecurity Access Scale and Household Dietary Diversity Score. Thematic analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data. Results The results revealed that participants in this study tended to be elderly female farmers, aged 60 years and above. Most had low levels of education, low farm income, large households (i.e. 6-10 members per household) and small plots of farmland. Even though most agricultural households were food-secure, food insecurity among the respondents was very high overall. The majority (49.86%; n=177) of the households had a medium Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) of 4.4, with cereals plus green and yellow vegetables comprising the main foods consumed by the respondents. Factors that were significantly correlated with food security among the households included marital status (coefficient=0.385; p=0.020), education level (coefficient=0.052; p=0.006) and annual farm income (coefficient=0.020; p=0.020). Regarding the factors that were significantly correlated with household dietary diversity, the odds of having a higher dietary diversity score among households headed by respondents with no formal education was 0.20 (Odds Ratio (OR)=0.20; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.06-0.61) times lower than for households whose heads had tertiary education. Similarly, the odds of having a higher dietary diversity score for households with a monthly income of R3 000.00 or less was 0.51 (OR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.85) lower than for households that had a monthly income of more than R3 000.00. On the other hand, the odds of having a higher dietary diversity score for households with 1-5 members was 10.41 (OR=10.41; 95%CI: 1.05-103.20) times higher than for households that had 16-20 members. Moreover, for every unit increase in the age of the household head, the odds of the household’s having a higher dietary diversity score increased by 1.03 (OR=1.03; 95%CI:1.01-1.05). The households adopted various strategies to cope with food shortages, which included eating uncultivated and wild vegetables and fruits (96.9%; n=344), harvesting immature food crops (96.6%; n=343), buying less expensive food (79.4%; n=281) and consumption of unconventional foods (68.7%; n=243). The type of assistance offered by the PKM programme included mechanisation services, production inputs, infrastructure support and extension and advisory services. Challenges encountered by farmers included unavailability of and/or non-operational storage, packing and milling facilities, lack of marketing facilities and access to formal markets, late delivery, insufficient and poor quality of production inputs and a limited number of tractors and implements for mechanisation. The suggested framework for improving the food security status of the programme beneficiaries proposed the establishment of partnerships between public and private organisations and interdepartmental collaboration to promote smooth facilitation of the PKM programme. The framework also identified activities that need to be prioritised to enhance the achievement of the outcomes of the programme. Conclusion Although the level of food insecurity among agricultural households was approximately twice the national South African household food insecurity level, the PKM programme managed to decrease the severity of food insecurity among the respondents. However, the PKM programme in its current format is unable to lower the figures of individuals experiencing food insecurity in the study area significantly. Therefore, the respondents are encouraged to make use of other non-farm activities to boost the food security status of their households. Given that most participants in this study were above 60 years of age, programmes to make agriculture more appealing to the youth are needed to safeguard the future of farming and household food production in the study area. Considering the observed low consumption of fruits and protein-rich food sources, educational programmes on nutrition should be introduced to create awareness of cheaper sources of protein and the health benefits of a diverse diet. Through the rural land reform programme, efforts should be made to increase the farm size, which has been shown to have the potential to increase farm income. For the PKM programme to realise its intended goals more efficiently, there is a need to integrate different skills and knowledge. Based on the proposed framework, key strategic elements of the programme with the potential to improve its impact include timely and adequate provision of production resources and operationalisation of all the available storage and agro-processing facilities. In view of this, the managers of the programme should consider these factors to address bottlenecks that hinder the realisation of the goals of the programme. This can be achieved through developing a holistic approach to address food insecurity by promoting collaboration between different stakeholders, such as nutritionists, agricultural advisors, researchers and land-reform specialists.