Developing network policy institutions for urban and peri-urban agriculture development in South Africa's metros

Abstract

This research set out to explore the feasibility of developing Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture (UPA) collaborative policy networks in South African metros. The study explored related challenges and barriers, and investigated the role of the state (national, provincial and local/metro) and other sectoral development stakeholders (private sector, research institutions, non-governmental-organisations, development partners, donors, and farmers) in the substantive UPA policy management process in South Africa. The research was conducted against the backdrop of institutional/procedural policy and collaborative policy networks’ theory was used as framework. The research goal was to contribute to and generate new information and knowledge to enhance UPA collaborative governance and procedural policy. This was done through the application of collaborative policy networks as a contemporary procedural policy arrangement framework. Collaborative policy networks in this research are patterned relationships between state and society. These networks link a variety of actors (in the public and private sector) in a set of relatively stable relationships, that are non-hierarchical and interdependent, that share similar policy interests and exchange resources. The purpose is to collaboratively pursue specific policy goals as outlined by Börzel (1997:1). This research applies institutional/procedural theory as formal and legal aspects of government structure and particularly focuses on the way governments are arranged, their legal powers, and their rules and procedures in policy management (Kraft and Furlong, 2004). South Africa’s metros have continuously demonstrated an appreciation of the developmental role of UPA through small and concrete initiatives, including the development and implementation of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) development policies. In line with Mougeot (1994:1), this research however notes that the focus on UPA development in South Africa overemphasises agricultural production as the major component of the UPA definition. According to Dr Jane Battersby-Lennard, Head of the Urban Food Security programme of the African Centre for Cities at the University of Cape Town, the overemphasis on agricultural production can mainly be attributed to the peri-urban agriculture vi (UPA) terminology, which accentuates agriculture – even in metros where agricultural production is not feasible. As a result, this research recommends that the UPA terminology in South Africa be rephrased as ‘Urban Food-security Systems’ (UFS). In this context UFS is defined as a systems approach to develop sustainable and equitable urban food value chains while incorporating a strong focus on elements of urban land-use planning, access to production resources (land and water), food production, safe supply of production inputs, value adding and processing, market development and access. Such an approach also develops responsive institutional/procedural and substantive policy management instruments. The emerging trend noted through this research is that South African metros have not made much progress on the ground in terms of UPS substantive policy management. This also applies to UPA institutional policy in South Africa, which in its current form offers limited opportunities to UFS development in South African metros. This type of development still faces a number of barriers and challenges that relate to institutional ad substantive policy issues. Even with the metros’ demonstrated interest in advancing the sector, UPA policy management capacity and resources (human, social, physical, economic and environmental capital) remain limited. UPA suffers overall limited state attention and commitment and consequently restrictive legislation, bureaucratic red tape and limited institutional, technical and financial support. The research argues that UPA development initiatives could benefit from government’s commitment and prioritisation at all spheres (metro, provincial and national). The research gathers that UPA governance could be enhanced through institutional policy improvements that emphasise wider stakeholder participation through collaborative policy networks. The researcher argues that there is a strong need for state sanctioned interventions that initially focus on developing strategic institutional policy networks as a development foundation for comprehensive, accelerated, equitable and sustainable UFS interventions rather than just agricultural production. This calls for the engagement of multiple stakeholders from social, economic and environmental vii development sectors (including agriculture, food security, natural resources management, social development, political management, climate change, environment and health, etc.) as active UFS development partners in South Africa. This research emphasises collaborative policy networks as an appropriate form of UPA institutional/procedural policy arrangements to help ensure trust, transparency, participation, reciprocity and a good balance of vertical and horizontal power/governance structure (as also defined by Deleon and Varda, 2009:67-71). Here the researcher argues that institutional policy networks articulate very well with the desired objectives of achieving collaborative UPA governance, and that these objectives are key to efficient UPA substantive policy management for South Africa. As a justification for policy networks, the study found that UFS development as a multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral public policy issue could benefit not only from the distributed intelligence presented as a benefit of policy networks, but also from the distributed human, social, physical, financial, and political capital/resources that can be accessed and utilised collaboratively to pursue overarching and specific substantive UFS policy goals at national, provincial and local levels. The study recommends the establishment of a national level UFS policy network that could be led by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) in partnership with the metros and other strategic state and non-state actors. The research recommends that a national UFS Secretariat be established at part of DAFF, to deal with national UFS policy issues (substantive and institutional) and to provide strategic programming and technical support to metros. The research also notes that developing efficient UFSs would require engaging numerous specialised skills and capacity sources that thus calls for the establishment of smaller specific substantive policy networks within the national UFS policy network. This could be led and constituted by specialist institutions with the required capacity and skills. Potential smaller specific substantive policy networks could include: agricultural production, trade, food/nutrition security and research; trade and marketing and research; environmental management and research; and spatial development and land-use planning and research. The research recommends that such policy networks be institutionalised at national, provincial and local/metro levels and that viii these policy networks are referred to as the Urban Food-security Systems – Community of Practice (UFS-COP). The research also notes that although there is a strong appreciation of the characteristic benefits of policy networks for managing multi-dimensional policy issues such as UFS, it must be noted however, that policy networks are not a panacea and that they do exhibit a hind-side of major challenges (for collaborative governance) that must be continuously addressed in search of efficient collaborative policy governance structures that emphasis the active engagement of multi-sectorial and multi-level policy management stakeholders for collective action.