One home One Garden Programme

The provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal woke up to the fact that rural communities had the resources they needed to mitigate food security threats emanating from increasing food prices during the economic downturn. The departments of social welfare, health, agriculture and environmental affairs, as well as the municipalities, were urged to support the growing of food crops, especially vegetables to ensure that poor people did not starve. The manner in which this programme was initiated meant that there was no scope for community consultation or the opportunity to understanding the challenges communities faced in food production. As a result, the communities’ responses to the programme’s bad planning only came after the fact, when most of the funds allocated to the programme had been exhausted.

The timing of the food price hikes also had political implications because South Africa held elections in 2009. Politicians and government officials were sent throughout the province with seed packs, fertilisers and chemicals to support food production. In other areas the food security packages included fencing for rural groups that had access to land and facilities to harness irrigation water. This programme proceeded on an adhoc basis with very limited consultation with beneficiary communities. In Jozini, the farming community of Makhathini spoke of some of the waste associated with this programme: government officials would simply dish out packages to people who had identity documents and whom they encountered in shopping centres. This meant that some people who had no use for agricultural assistance received this input and were found to be selling the materials to the highest bidding farmer.

The municipality’s integrated development plan (IDP) was also seen as a potential vehicle for the engagement of the community in rolling out the one home one garden project. The municipality’s projects had to be re-aligned with those of the department of agriculture, which was mandated to drive agriculture projects. The DSD also had social workers and development practitioners who laid claim to community projects. The department of health, on the other hand, promoted home gardens so that families with Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVCs), child-headed households and those with members taking HIV and TB treatment would have access to nutritious food. The result of this was that different government departments came into the communities rolling out the one home one garden programme. This caused confusion and lack of co-ordinated effort in some communities, a situation that some community based organisations and NGOs took advantage of to maximise their production capacity.