The context of urban agriculture in Johannesburg : exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African context

(1)

The Context of Urban Agriculture in

Johannesburg

Exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African

context

MSc. International Development Studies

Master Thesis

Rebecca Tenbusch June 2018

(2)

University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc. International Development Studies

The Context of Urban Agriculture in

Johannesburg

Exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African

context

Rebecca Tenbusch Student Number: 11780789 Year of Studies: 2017-2018 Thesis Submission: 21 June 2018 Supervisor: Dr. Yves van Leynseele Second Reader: Dr. Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen

(3)

Acknowledgements

There are several people that I would like to express my gratitude to. First off, I would like to thank Dr. Yves van Leynseele who bared with me through this process and provided me with constant guidance. I would also like to thank my mother and grandparents for making my studies possible and being a constant source of motivation and inspiration. I would furthermore to like to thank all those that helped me make this research possible and those who have supported me along the way.

(4)

Abstract

While food insecurity has been at the top of the development agendas there has been a neglect regarding issues of urban food insecurity. Proponents herald urban agriculture as a means to address both urban food insecurity and poverty. However, voices from the South have raised criticism, pointing out the specific context of the urban in the South, which limits the potential of urban agriculture. The research recognizes this criticism and therefore critically examines the context of urban agriculture, including its potential impact and challenges, within Johannesburg. Based on a qualitative research design, including semi-structured interviews and participatory observation, the research confirmed that the Johannesburg context provides severe challenges to urban agriculture, limiting its potential as a development strategy. Recognizing its limitations in regard to food security this research instead utilizes food sovereignty as an analytical framework to generate insight into urban agriculture. The research found that, first, urban agriculture has the potential to contribute to elements of food sovereignty such as access to sustainably produced foods and autonomy over food production and, second, that taking a food sovereign approach can be helpful in contextualizing urban agriculture. However, the research also recognized that the food sovereignty framework is limited in its conceptualization regarding the urban south especially in regard to sub-Saharan Africa, due to its conceptually rural origin as well as a research focus on the North. The research therefore concludes that an expansion of the framework is necessary in order to better contextualize the urban. In this respect, Bernstein’s critique of the peasant discourse and Van der Ploeg’s discussion of ‘nested markets’ may provide expanded insight into the relation between urban agriculture and food sovereignty.

Keywords: Johannesburg, South Africa, Urban Agriculture, Food Sovereignty Framework,

(5)

List of Abbreviations

AFSUN African Food Security Urban Network CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations NDA National Development Agency (South Africa)

NGO Non-governmental Organization PGS Participatory Guarantee System

SAFSC South African Food Sovereignty Campaign SEDA Small Enterprise Development Agency

UA Urban Agriculture

UJ University of Johannesburg

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program’s

WB World Bank

(8)

List of Figures, Pictures and Maps

Figures

Figure 1 The Peasant as characterized by the food sovereignty framework. Source: Van der Ploeg (2010) ...12 Figure 2 Conceptual Framework ...15

Pictures

Picture 1 Circular herb field by Madame Violet at the Lenin Street Drive Market Urban GardenFarm, Alexandra...43 Picture 2 The Lenin Street Drive Urban Farm, in Alexandra and in the right corner the 30 000sqm Alexandra Mall opened in 2017 ...49 Picture 3 Farmers exhibiting their produce, and exchanging information and seeds after an Izindaba Zokudla meeting...54

Maps

Map 1 City of Johannesburg. Source: Municipalities of South Africa (2015) ...32 Map 2 Project Location. Map produced using Google Maps ...32

(9)

1 Introduction

Food insecurity is considered one of the most critical contemporary struggles (FAO, 2017). However, the assumptions underlying food insecurity and the approaches to address it, contain an inherent rural bias which fails in its comprehension of today’s reality. As highlighted by the 2008 food crises, food insecurity is an increasingly urban issue as the poor are increasingly situated in the urban, especially within developing countries. Lack of economic opportunity in rural regions and the rising difficulty of practicing subsistence farming, are driving factors for rural-urban migration and the subsequent urbanization of poverty (Shisanya & Hendriks, 2011; Davis, 2004). Access, especially to nutritious food, presents a struggle for the urban poor, as in the urban context food access is predominantly dependent on the ability to buy food (Faber, 2007). The dominant food security discourse has focused on the increase of food production to address food insecurity, but as described, the problem is not a lack of food but of the means to access it.

Proponents of urban agriculture, see it as an answer to the lack of access to nutritious food (Smit et al., 2001; Cofie & Drechsel 2007; Kwambisi et al., 2011; FAO, 2012 as cited in Bowness & Wittman, 2017). Critical voices emerging from the South however, argue that there is an imbalance in the research on urban agriculture, the focus having centered on developed northern countries, and therefore failing to recognize the context of cities in the developing South1_{, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Critics argue that in the context of cities in developing}

countries, with severe food insecurity and levels of poverty, urban agriculture which may address food security and poverty alleviation in developed countries, has limited potential (Badami & Ramankutty, 2015; Crush et al., 2011; Frayne et al., 2014). Therefor this research takes an extensive critical look at the constraints and opportunities of the urban context of Johannesburg. Moreover, instead of the food security approach this research applies the food sovereignty framework to generate insight on urban agriculture.

While food security has been the dominant approach to food insecurity, food sovereignty provides a more comprehensive understanding of the causes of food insecurity by looking not just at food availability but the food system as a whole. However, due to its rural origin the framework it still exhibits shortcomings in its considerations of the urban. Questions regarding the relation between urban agriculture and food sovereignty remain to be explored further. Given both the limited consideration of urban agriculture in the South2_{, especially}

1_{The literature looking at the South has focused on Latin America and Cuba,}

2_{The literature that does look at the link between urban agriculture in the South and food sovereignty focuses on} Cuba or Latin America, but even here more research is necessary

(10)

Saharan Africa, as well as of urban agriculture in relation to food sovereignty, the research addresses the question: Through the lens of food sovereignty, how can urban agriculture, generate a positive impact in the context of Johannesburg?

The research takes a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders, participatory observation and secondary data analysis.

The contribution of the thesis is threefold. (1) More generally, the research contributes to the literature addressing the imbalance of food insecurity considerations in regard to the urban. (2) It adds to considerations of urban agriculture in the South. (3) It contributes to the emerging literature on food sovereignty in relation to the urban context.

This thesis concludes that food sovereignty not only provides a useful lens in regard to urban food insecurity and the role of urban agriculture but furthermore that the food sovereignty approach can benefit from taking the urban into account, as the urban has its own particular dynamic which not only poses obstacles but furthermore provides opportunities for generating awareness and support for the food sovereignty movement. The thesis further concludes that in order to recognize the urban context, an expansion of the food sovereignty framework is required. The current food sovereignty framework in its rigid aversion to the market fails to recognize the agency of ‘peasants’ and markets which seek partial integration into the commercial market system. Mafeje (1978), highlights that a new hybridized form has emerged, the urban peasant, which combines both aspects of the rural farmer and the urban proletariat. This research aims to understand this hybridized nature of the urban peasant and its relation to food sovereignty. The research therefore utilizes the peasant discussion lens and the alternative markets framework as an expansion to allow the considerations of urban agriculture and the urban peasant.

The thesis is outlined in nine chapters. Following the introduction on the research context in chapter 1, the theoretical framework elaborates on the concepts guiding the empirical analysis in chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology that guided the data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 provides the relevant background of food insecurity within Johannesburg based on empirical findings and secondary data. Chapter 5 contains a brief summary of the selected projects. Chapter 6 analyses the impact of urban agriculture in Johannesburg, while chapter 7 looks at the contextual challenges and responding coping mechanisms. Chapter 8 contains a discussion of how the findings relate to food sovereignty. Finally, chapter 9 concludes by recapitulating the key discussions and findings and giving recommendations for further research.

(11)

2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This chapter discusses the relevant theory and literature. Following a review on the discussions surrounding urban agriculture, the chapter looks at the framework of food security and food sovereignty as a response to food insecurity. Next the urban context is explored. This allows for the following section to explore the discussion around the potential and constraints of urban agriculture in relation to food security and food sovereignty. Lastly, the food sovereignty framework is expanded by the concept of alternative markets and the peasantry discourse to improve the conceptual integration and comprehension of urban agriculture.

2.1 Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture has been supported as a means of enhancing food security and aiding in the fight against poverty by organizations such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP’s) and the United Nations Habitat’s Sustainable Cities Program (Frayne et al., 2014).

Urban Agriculture is of course not a new phenomenon, in pre-industrial civilizations agricultural production from the surrounding regions was the norm and not the exception (García-Sempere et al., 2018). The food system was thereby organized following the needs of the cities citizens.

Those farming in the urban are small-scale by default due to the limited available space in the urban context. Farms are usually situated in ‘open spaces’ left vacant or are seen as unfit by commercial or other developers (Pimbert, 2009). Its proponents point out that urban agriculture, through closer proximity between the food source and peoples living space, reduces the distance food has to travel, thereby reducing food cost (DeKay, 1997 as cited in Holland, 2004). Furthermore, it is seen as a means of enhancing nutrition and thereby the health of the urban poor as it enables access to healthy food otherwise difficult to obtain for the poorer segments of society (Holland, 2004). Lastly, it is considered as a means of enhancing employment, especially for rural migrants moving to the urban because subsistence farming is no longer possible. It provides employment opportunities that do not require a high educational degree and are closer related to the skill sets rural migrants are more like to possess (Verrest, 2007).

Urban agriculture after being heralded as the key approach of urban food security and a means to aid the urban poor, now faces high skepticism as sceptics point out the limited evidence in regard to poverty alleviation and food security for the urban poor in low-income countries. Badami & Ramankutty (2015), argue that while urban agriculture in developed countries can contribute to food security, in developing countries the potential is low due to

(12)

severe contextual challenges. They point out the extreme density of the urban poor in cities of low-income countries and the severity of food insecurity in these spaces in relation to the small amount of space available for production. This highlights that there may be a premise behind the approach of international organizations3_{, which is based on considerations of high-income}

countries and does not reflect the reality of the context for urban agriculture in low-income countries. The “economic, political, and historical circumstances and conditions of a city are key factors that either promote or hinder UA4_{activity and scale” (Frayne et al., 2014, p.1).}

Therefore, a nuanced view, which looks at the specific conditions and refrains from making sweeping claims is necessary. This highlights the importance of continued research on urban agriculture in the Southern hemisphere, particularly research that looks at the specific conditions in different cities to avoid generalizing claims.

The definition of urban agriculture used here is that by Crush et al. (2010), “urban agriculture involves the production of plant and tree crops and animal husbandry on-plot and in open public spaces or private rented land within the city and in the peri-urban zone” (p. 7). The research itself focuses on vegetable farming. The research looks at urban farming cooperatives, both bottom-up cooperatives in townships as well as different urban agricultural projects with external support. The analysis of these projects and the farmers is utilized to gain an understanding of urban agriculture in Johannesburg. Homestead and subsistence farming are less relevant for this research.

The focus is on the potential of generating ‘positive impacts’ rather than poverty-alleviation and at exploring urban agriculture through a food sovereignty lens. The term positive impacts is chosen in order to allow for considerations of benefits such as skills, employment and access to healthy food, without invoking substantive claims such as poverty-alleviation or food security. As has been pointed out and is discussed further in chapter 7, urban agriculture is severely limited in alleviating poverty and creating food security in low-income contexts.

The following section begins with an introduction to food insecurity in the South African context before exploring the frameworks of food security and food sovereignty. While urban agriculture has been discussed in relation to food security considerations in regard to food

3_{UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)}_{, the}_{United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP’s) and the} UN Habitat’s Sustainable Cities Program as referred to on page 8

(13)

sovereignty in the urban South require further investigation5_{. Therefore, this research explores}

the possible linkages between urban agriculture and food sovereignty in Johannesburg.

2.2 Food Insecurity

The aggregated consequence of the global food price crisis of 2008 has led to an increase in food insecurity world-wide. As a consequence of the continually increasing food prices, poor households are finding it more and more difficult to gain access to food through the market (FAO, 2017). The ‘2008 Food Crisis’ not only led to a renewed look at agriculture but furthermore highlighted the state of food insecurity vulnerability of the urban poor (Shisanya & Hendriks, 2011; Matuschke, 2009). As food security stands as a prerequisite for both individual and community development and resilience, food insecurity is one of the most pressing global concerns today (Matuschke, 2009).

2.2.1 Food Insecurity in South Africa

While access to sufficient food is a right for all South Africans, food insecurity within South Africa is a large-scale problem (Siyakhana, 2015). The 2017 IPCC Global Report on the Food Crises saw 26%, of the analyzed population in South Africa, as food insecure (IPCC, 2017 p. 21). According to the NDA (2002), factors contributing to food insecurity in South Africa are the lack of adequate safety nets, inadequate support networks, lack of stable household food production and weak or absent purchasing power. The legacy of the Apartheid regime still plays a significant factor in both poverty and food insecurity in South Africa as through large scale dispossession and an adverse manipulation of the social and economic infrastructure the social, physical, financial, and human assets were taken from individuals, households, and communities (Rudolph et al., 2012). With the global increase in food prices, high unemployment rates and jobs that do not pay livable wages, food insecurity is a severe issue and is only set to rise overtime (FAO, 2017; World Bank, 2017).

Next to widespread hunger South Africa has the second highest obesity rate in the world. Previously considered an epidemic of the developed countries, it is increasingly a problem of lower income countries6_{(Crush et al., 2011). Obesity emerged as a result of rapid urbanization}

5_{As pointed out in the introduction the considerations of urban agriculture in relation to food security is criticized} for not taking the context of the developing urban South into account

6_{South Africa can be considered a developing country. It is important to note that South Africa has a very specific} case in containing elements of both developed countries in part and developing countries. This is possible as South Africa is the country with the greatest inequality in the world according to a 2018 World Bank report (Sula & Zikhali, 2018)

(14)

and a change in diets as both the choice in food and the diversity in diet differs in the urban (Battersby, 2011). As with undernourishment, obesity is a consequence of food insecurity and therefore impacts the most vulnerable of society, leaving the urban poor with a ‘double burden’ (Crush et al., 2011). Urban food insecurity is impacted by specific urban characteristics as is elaborated in chapter 5. Even though evidence substantiates that especially South African cities face significant food insecurity, the bias of food insecurity concerns towards the rural also applies in South Africa.

2.3 Food Security

The dominant approach to addressing food insecurity has been the food security framework. The FAO defines food security as “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2001as cited in FAO, 2003). As the definition highlights, access is key to food security the solutions to which are quantitative in nature, such as an increase in production and management of supply and demand. The concept which originated “from international institutional development and policy discourses of the 1970s” and is tied to the commercial agricultural food system, sees poverty as the main factor in regard to food insecurity (Jarosz, 2014, p.17). It is part of the mainstream neoliberal discourse within development, and sees aid, interventions, trade and the increase of food production as the solution. However, as pointed out by Jarosz (2014), while being means of providing temporary assistance and relieve, they fail to address the causes of food insecurity

The understanding of food insecurity changed in the 1980’s, with Sen explaining food insecurity not in relation to a decreasing availability of food but as a distributional issue. Nonetheless, the dominant food security discourse still continues to push for an increase in food production despite the distributional nature of the problem (Corrigan, 2011). The discourse not only fails to address the causes of food insecurity but is furthermore limited in addressing the urban due to an inherent rural-bias.

Food sovereignty emerged as a challenge to the dominant food security discourse and its perceived limitations. It has been brought forth by Via Campesina in criticism of and as an answer to the limited understanding of the dominant food security approach.

2.4 Food Sovereignty

Via Campesina defines food sovereignty as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and

(15)

their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” (Via Campesina 2007; in Patel, 2009, p.666). Food sovereignty, in taking a structural perspective, argues that food insecurity is in part generated by the corporate food system. The current corporate food system creates an environment which impairs the ability of small-scale farmers to strive, thereby driving out traditional knowledge and plant diversity. Large-scale commercial agriculture relies on monocropping, and heavy chemical input which is damaging the environment and the food people eat. It has alienated the producers7_{from decisions concerning food and its production}

and instead centralized the power in the hands of the large scale commercial enterprises, which set the standards and regulations (Patel, 2009).

The framework sees food sovereignty as a precondition for food security, making a transformation of the current food system elemental to its project. While the elements within the adapted food security definition of the FAO are food availability, food access and food utilization, the definition of food sovereignty additionally looks at the production of food; how it is produced, by whom and where (Barkin, 2016). Instead of relying on the commercial agricultural sector, food sovereignty places its emphasis on the small-scale producers. The food justice alternative food sovereignty promotes is based on localization and democratization. Democratization implies giving the control over the food system into the hands of the consumers and the producers. Localization both enables democratization in shortening the ties between producers and consumers and furthermore, incorporates the production of culturally/locally appropriate food. In highlighting the local specificity of insecurity, it pushes an agroecological farming approach that takes into account the local crop species and traditional farming practices which have emerged to deal with the local climate. The agroecological process is part of the socio-political goal of food sovereignty itself. “Through Agroecology it advocates for the right of peoples to determine their own food system, within ecological limits and recognizing social justice” (García-Sempere et al., 2018, p.2). Agroecology being the natural process of agricultural production, sans the input of external elements such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Altieri & Toledo, 2011).

Furthermore, the collaboration and exchange of skills and knowledge among small-scale farmers in so called peasant-to-peasant schools is a vital component. This not only leads to knowledge dissemination on agroecological production but furthermore the building of solidarity among farmers (Barkin, 2016).

The food sovereignty literature and framework of course extends far beyond the scope of this theoretical framework. Here the focus is on the relation of food sovereignty to urban

(16)

agriculture. This thesis, while advocating for an expansion of the food sovereignty framework, is based on its premise that the commercial agricultural system/food system plays a role in food insecurity.

2.5 The Urban Vulnerability Context

There are many specific issues that cities in developing countries8_{struggle with. These}

include the burden of an insufficient infrastructure, which is furthermore unable to keep pace with the quickly growing urban population and its growing demands. Johannesburg, has been facing a backlog in jobs and state facilities which is only exacerbated by the growing influx of migrants. Of those newly arriving, many struggle with poverty and resulting malnutrition due to a lack of resources to access to nutritious food (Crush et. Al, 2010).

There is a specific precarity of food insecurity in the urban, especially in urban areas of low-income developing countries (Matuschke, 2009). A study9_{conducted in 2007 concluded}

that in developing countries, urban food insecurity equaled or even superseded that of its rural counterparts (Ahmed et al., 2007 in Battersby, 2011). This severe vulnerability of food security among the urban poor is in consequence of the majority of the urban population being ‘net food buyers’, meaning they predominantly rely on income to purchase food as a means to gain access. As people rely on their income to access food, they are vulnerable to food price increases. The poorest sector of the urban population is even more vulnerable as they source both their food and employment from the informal sector, where they face precarious working conditions and low salaries (Heltberg et al., 2012 as cited in South African Cities Network, 2015). An increase in food production, as envisioned by the food security framework fails to address the problem, as the challenge is an inability by the urban poor to acces affordable healthy food and not food scarcity. An approach is necessary, which looks at the urban food system and why it fails to provide adequate access to the urban. This incorporates consideration of providers of food and what influences the set up of the system. As highlighted in chapter 4. commercial supermarkets sell at a price point and in sizes that are unfavorable to the urban poor, while simultaneously pushing out those that are better suited at catering to their requirements. Communting distances and time constraints for food purchases and preperation play another role that chapter 4 will discuss further.

8_{The term global south, developing countries and low income countries are used interchangeably}

9_{The research had a sample of 18 low income developing countries out of which 12 exhibit equal or higher food} insecurity in the urban (Ahmed et al, 2007 in Battersby 2011)

(17)

The urban context however does not only produce challenges but also provides opportunities such as high-end customers interested in purchasing locally grown organic produce, for which they are willing to pay a higher price as well as a capacity of political mobilization as will be elaborated in the followin sub-sections.

2.5.1 The Rural-Urban Bias

Despite the severity of food insecurity in the urban, the focus regarding food insecurity has been on the rural (Battersby, 2009). Battersby (2009), accredits this bias the urban bias theory by Lipton (1977 in Battersby, 2009), which argued that the urban segments of society have economic, political and social power that allows urban actors to stir public policies to their own advantage, leaving the rural population at a disadvantage. This assumption has led to a bias within the development field, towards the rural poor and to the detriment of issues affecting the urban poor (Battersby, 2009). Now, with the majority of the global population urbanizing and especially the urbanization of the poor, a shift in focus is necessary. However, as pointed out by Mohamed et al. (2016), efforts to tackle the urban food crises are limited by a lack of information regarding the urban poor, their means of accessing food and the set-up of the urban food system. A lack which can be accredited to the predominant focus on rural food insecurity. Furthermore, because research focused on food insecurity in the rural context, it therefore focused on the “causes and consequences of undernutrition” based on the premise or assumption that they are a consequence of a shortage in food instead of a lack of access to food based on a lack of resources required for this access (Crush et al., 2011, p.32). The consequence is a bias towards solutions that are production-based in the sense of an increase in food production by the commercial sector (Battersby, 2011). However, shortage of food in absolute terms is not the challenge in the urban. Instead it is a lack of resources to access it. Nonetheless urban food insecurity is predominantly understood in these terms of the dominant food security discourse.

2.5.2 Food Sovereignty and the Urban Context

Although food sovereignty is usually discussed and initially originated in relation to the rural context, it has strong relevance for the urban context as well as the urban having a strong relevance for the food sovereignty movement.

As the food sovereignty framework points out, urbanization is fueled by de-peasantization, as a consequence of the global food market which is pushing out rural small-scale farmers. Thereby contributing to issues of unemployment in the urban, as rural migrants often only find informal, precarious employment, if at all, due to limited educational

(18)

qualifications (South African Cities Network, 2015). This shows how the food sovereignty framework can be applied to gain insight on processes and challenges of the urban context. However, in regard to the urban, the food sovereignty discourse still has room for expansion, beyond highlighting the negative impacts that the process of urbanization has had on rural areas and which has been characterized by the growing of the rural-urban divide elaborated on in the next section (Bernstein, 2014; García-Sempere et al., 2018). The following sub-sections explore the rural-urban divide and how urban agriculture can aid food sovereignty in bridging this divide.

2.5.3 The Rural-Urban Divide

The food sovereignty framework points out how the current food system creates distance between the consumer and the food producer in the form of the rural-urban divide (Wittman et al., 2010). This divide prevents people from accessing healthy food and from having the knowledge of where this food originated and its conditions of production and distribution. The food system has thereby created conditions in the urban, which pose obstacles to the development of a food system that aligns with the food sovereignty framework (García-Sempere et al., 2018). The divide in terms of the spatial separation of food production and consumption has not only a detrimental environmental impact because of the large distances created to transport from the rural space of production to the urban space of consumption, but furthermore has resulted in “territorial and cultural uprooting” in both the rural and the urban (García-Sempere et al., 2018). There is therefore both a physical separation but also a social separation between the consumers and producers and the urban population and agriculture. The “more industrialized, processed and distant food is, the less connected to and knowledgeable about it the consumer becomes. This paucity of knowledge changes our relationship to our meals (..) but it also undermines our capacity for making decisions about this key determinant of our lives and our economies” (Wittman et al., 2010, p. 5). In order to develop an overall sustainable food system in line with the food sovereignty framework, the urban population requires awareness of the processes in the rural (García-Sempere et al., 2018). Awareness can be created through the facilitation of agroecological networks and alternative markets (Bowness & Wittman, 2017).

2.5.4 Mobilization through networks and alternative markets

Holt-Giménez & Shattuck (2011), argue that continued pressure must be exerted by a unified movement if the food system is to change. The urban has been theorized as a space for political mobilization, “where decision-making and social movement power primarily resides”

(19)

(Bowness & Wittman, 2017, p.16). The urban context allows access to external actors such as government officials, NGO’s, researchers, academics, activists and the general public which can play vital roles in generating a political impact (García-Sempere et al., 2018). The urban thereby seems a vital ally in order to be able to exert this pressure. Authors aiming to address the neglect of the urban by the food sovereignty discourse, recognize the urban as a space for positive action and the political impact that urban based social movements can and have had in advocating for food sovereignty (García-Sempere et al., 2018; Bowness & Wittman, 2017; Wittman et al., 2010). As a side-note, this premise of the urban as a space of political power was also invoked by Lipton and led to the rural bias within the development sector, as mentioned in sub-section 2.5.1. However, its political nature makes the engagement of the urban vital for the food sovereignty movement. As discussed in section 8.2 the explored urban agricultural sites can carry strong ties to such external actors and serve as experimentation sites for learning and awareness generation in the urban space. Awareness generation, as discussed in the following section, is a central element for mobilizing the urban.

2.5.5 The Urban Peasant

In order to generate mobilization towards the changing of the food system, the urban population requires an understanding of food itself, so called ‘food literacy’, and the operations of the current food system, referred to as ‘food system literacy’. Agroecological networks play a vital role in advancing food sovereignty by bringing so called ‘symbols of rurality’10_{in the}

urban (Bowness & Wittman, 2017). These symbols are the challenges of the rural concerning “land, environmental conditions, state regulations and market constrictions” (Bowness & Wittman, 2017, p.10).

Urban agriculture is a means of bringing these ‘symbols of rurality’ into the urban through the urban ‘peasant’. Being a small-scale farmer, the urban ‘peasant’ faces the same pressure of the corporate food system and struggle of institutional access as her/his rural counterpart, thereby bringing the struggle, which is usually spatially removed from the urban, into its perimeters. This presents an opportunity of encouraging ‘food system literacy’ in the urban. Furthermore, as will be explored in section 6.6 the urban peasant in the southern context often has close ties or rural origins through which farming knowledge of the rural small-scale farming process is brought into the urban. The urban ‘peasant’ produces by default in an organic manner given her/his small-scale nature and by being influenced by the knowledge brought in

10_{Term generated by Bowness & Wittman (2017, p.3), referring to the struggle that small-scale producers in the} rural face in line with food literacy as described above

(20)

from the rural small-scale farmer. While being small-scale and farming organically, unlike traditional rural small-scale farms, urban small-scale farms aren’t family based but usually made up of different individuals engaging in collaborative farming in the form of cooperatives. Moreover, while the urban ‘peasant’ faces similar struggles in regard to land and institutional access, the urban peasant has a larger degree of market integration, partial or full market integration being the goals of such farmers as income generation and employment takes prevalence. This is the most significant difference between the urban farmer and the food sovereign conceptualization of the peasant, where active aversion from the commercial market is seen as central.

The rigid understanding of the peasant in the food sovereignty conceptualization, therefor fails to account for the urban ‘peasant’. The food sovereign conceptualization of the peasant requires active distancing from the market, accrediting the peasant farmer with having agency while seeing the farmer engaging the market as being compelled into doing so (Li, 2014). This compulsion is regarded as being an inherent part of the neoliberal agricultural system, which erodes farmers resistance to the extent that market integration is the only path left (Li, 2014). However, it has been questioned whether this peasant discourse does justice to the choices and goals of small-scale farmers. Bernstein (2014), raises the question of what actually constitutes ‘the peasant’. There is a simultaneous conflation and abstraction of different kinds of farmers and farming practices into one concept ‘the peasant’, which fails to take account of the different kinds of farmer, farming practices and motivations that exist. Following Bernstein’s argumentation, the peasant as one unitary concept as such, does not exist. Instead, being a social construct, the concept of the peasant is an ongoing process, which changes over time (Van de Ploeg, 2018).

This calls for a re-visitation of the theoretical conceptualization of the peasant. A framework is need that allows a comprehensive understanding of the diversity which constitutes

The peasant as envisioned in the food sovereignty discourse:

• Ecological capital (agroecology)

• Self-provisioning (agroecological process/ independence from the market) • Actively constructed distantiation (active aversion from the commercial market) • Dynamic co-production (cooperation between farmers)

• Multiple resistance (resisting the commercial market on multiple front)

• Extended networks and new marketplace (finding new markets away from the commercial market and establishing networks)

(21)

the ‘peasant’. Bernstein therefore advocates for a model of peasant differentiation as also brought forth by Van der Ploeg (2018), that recognizes the diverse levels of market integration among peasants as well as their active interest in engaging the market. This is not to negate the arguments brought forth by those that argue that the current neoliberal food system has adverse effects on the small-scale farmer as pointed out by Li (2014), but rather to allow for the consideration that some farmers do wish to engage the market and can profit from it.

Furthermore, this expansion is required so as to recognize the urban ‘peasant’ and allow for the recognition of the his/her potential value to the food sovereignty movement. The urban farmer as stated above is vital for bringing the struggle of the small-scale farmers into the urban and allowing for the establishment of an agroecological network that bridges the rural-urban divide.

Authors such as Wittman et al. (2010), stress the importance of a dialogue between the rural and the urban. They point out that food sovereignty not only addresses farmers but the people in general, this includes the consumers. The framework sets out not only an alternative system for the small-scale farmer but also for the consumer with a low income, which as has been pointed out, is increasingly situated in the urban. The following section explores the role of alternative markets in relation to food sovereignty. These markets while exhibiting semi-commercialization are both a response and challenge to the dominant commercial market system and according to Van der Ploeg, should be regarded as an expansion of food sovereignty.

2.5.6 Alternative Markets

Considerations above explored the conceptual integration of the urban into the food security and food sovereignty discourse. After contrasting the urban peasant in relation to that of the food sovereign concept of the peasant, this sub-section assesses the urban peasant in regard to an expanded food sovereignty framework which allows the taking into account of the urban peasants’ integration into the commercial market. Food sovereignty, so far struggles to answer the so called ‘downstream question’, as in how to actually implement a more ‘equitable’ and ‘socially’ owned market which ensures “peoples right to control their own markets” (Bernstein, 2014, p. 1052). The aim of food sovereignty is to “strengthen the autonomy and resilience of more localized food systems” in order to address the lack of access (Pimbert, 2008, p.3). As will be argued urban agriculture in this sense, can promote Food Sovereignty.

As a potential answer to the downstream question Van der Ploeg and his discussion on nested markets should be taken into consideration. Van der Ploeg (2014), shows how in response to the exclusion from market infrastructure, ‘nested markets’ form. These are markets situated within the overall market, but which differ greatly “in terms of their dynamics, their

(22)

interrelations, forms of governance, price differentials, distributional mechanisms and overall impact” (Van der Ploeg, 2014, p.17). These nested markets address the infrastructural obstacles constructed by the commercial agricultural and food market and are a direct response to the pressure it exerts. They therefore pose a response to the challenges of the food system as critiqued by the food sovereignty approach. The products they market are ‘distinctive’ and putting them into the general market would not only eliminate the potential benefit that could be derived, but furthermore would be extremely difficult if not impossible. A new ‘socio-material infrastructure is generated which can market them and which can not only compete with the commercial agricultural sector but moreover has the potential to grow and expand into new fields. While the commercial market is rigid and is based on quantity, quality and consistency, these markets are characterized by flexibility (regarding quantity and consistency of the production) and stability (guaranteed through trust in the producers). They emerge out of the need created by consumers and producers which the commercial market fails to address. As such they create a reciprocal relationship between the producers and the consumers (Van der Ploeg et al., 2012).

Van der Ploeg points out that the commercial market results in the “subordination of local and regional processes of production, circulation and consumption of food to the needs, rules and interests of global players” (p.12). Being locally grounded nested markets allow the sidestepping of these external regulations and instead relink the “production, processing, distribution and consumption in ways that are (at least relatively) independent from globally controlled networks” and instead based on local conditions (p.12). In this sense these markets exemplify both democratization and localization and consequently speak to the food justice discourse of food sovereignty. They exemplify the traditional marketplace, addressing the gap that the commercial market has created which manifests itself in the form of the urban rural divide. Nested markets can bridge this divide by bringing the consumers back into a direct relationship with the consumers. This allows the consumer to gain knowledge over the produce and its means of production. In creating awareness, they can therefore also aid in the creation of a food sovereign agroecology network. If ‘nested markets’ allow for access to food and a greater degree of control over the food system for the people, then the food sovereignty discourse must adopt models to understand them and not immediately oppose them because of their partial commoditization.

As will be discussed in section 6.4, urban agriculture can, under the right circumstances, create elements of such alternative markets. They produce a distinct product for which a new and independent from the commercial market, market infrastructure is necessary so as to ensure its distinct benefits. As will be elaborated in section 7.3 the urban farmers struggle to gain

(23)

access to the formal market due to its specific standards and therefore new market structures are build based on a direct relationship between the producers and consumers.

An expanded understanding is needed so that the food sovereignty framework allows for the reality of such markets to be taken into account and for reform considerations to be made which take into account and benefit not just the producer but also the consumer (Bernstein, 2014). This is vital in order to address urban food insecurity.

2.5.7 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework below has been developed to show how the concepts elaborated above come together.

The vulnerability context is made up of both the hostile environment of the corporate food system, as stressed in the food sovereignty framework, as well as the specific urban vulnerability context. The urban vulnerability context contains both specific challenges and opportunities. The vulnerability context impacts the capability of transforming structures, in this case urban agriculture. The potential outcomes of urban agriculture are impacted by the vulnerability context. There is overlap in the potential outcomes, between the urban peasant and the peasant as conceptualized by the food sovereignty framework. While income and employment relate to the motivations of the urban peasant, there is overlap concerning organic food access, skills training, autonomy, alternative markets and alliances. Through these potential outcomes, urban agriculture in turn can affect the vulnerability context, both the general environment as well as the urban.

(24)

2.6 Conclusions

While urban agriculture as a means of poverty alleviation and food security is highly disputed, it is valuable to consider its relation to food sovereignty. It can aid the struggle of food sovereignty in the urban by providing people with organic food and restructuring the social relations between producer and consumer, thereby promoting both localization and democratization. Moreover, it can aid the food sovereignty movement by creating awareness in the urban and establishing agroecological networks which further ‘food and food system literacy’. In turn food sovereignty can provide an analytical framework to gain insights on urban agriculture. Lastly, urban agriculture allows for theoretical considerations in relation to food sovereignty by advocating for a more progressive and open understanding which incorporates the diverse nature of the urban peasant and ‘alternative’ markets. While the differentiation debate has been integrated into the food sovereignty discourse, it is again associated with rural considerations and neglects considerations of the urban. As has been aimed to demonstrate however, there is a relevant relationship between the urban and issues of food sovereignty which should be explored further.

(25)

3 Research Methodologies

The aim of this chapter is to provide an outline of the research and analysis methods. The chapter explains how the research was conducted in order to explore the context of urban agriculture in Johannesburg and its relation to food sovereignty. The research period itself lasted 8 weeks, from the end of March till the beginning of April. First off, the main research and sub-questions are presented. Section 3.2 contains the unit of analysis and section 3.3 describes the sampling methods. Section 3.4 contains an overview of the data collection methods used. Followed, by section 3.5 which outlines the methods for the data analysis including its limitations and ethical considerations of the research.

The research is an exploratory case study. Three urban agriculture project sites were chosen, as well as a project that hosts regular farmers meetings. At these farmer meetings project independent township farmers and other stakeholders were interviewed as well as the meetings observed. The aim was not to do an in-depth case study of the projects themselves but rather to employ their analysis to gain an understanding of the context of urban agriculture in Johannesburg.

3.1 Research Questions

Main Question:

Through the lens of food sovereignty, how can urban agriculture, generate a positive impact in the context of Johannesburg?

3.1.1 Sub-questions

Sub-question 1: What is the context of urban agriculture in Johannesburg and the coping mechanisms that emerge to deal with the vulnerability context?

Sub-question 2: How can the urban context contribute to the food sovereignty movement?

Sub- question 3: How can considerations of the urban peasant be integrated with the food sovereignty framework?

(26)

3.2 Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis is the context urban farmers face in Johannesburg. This includes both independent farmers, independent farmer cooperatives and those supported by organizations. The different projects and kind of farmers are discussed in more detail in chapter 5.

3.3 Sampling Criteria and Strategies

As the research was of a qualitative nature, non-probability sampling was employed. The sampling was criterion-based, whereby the participants were selected based on the characteristic of being urban farmers or stakeholders otherwise engaged in relation to urban agriculture (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). The first step was to identify relevant initiatives which could be observed and from which participants could be drawn. The sampling was of course impacted by whom could be gained access too in the given time. As sampling is a continuous process of an open and unstructured nature, snowball sampling was employed once relevant initiatives were identified. The approach of snowball sampling is to first engage with a relevant subject who may then hopefully be able to indicate other individuals that fulfil the criteria (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004) (Ritchie et al., 2013). As snowball sampling entails that identified individuals identify new individuals that are included in the research sample there is the danger that the sample does not provide enough diversity and only those most visible or accessible are included (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). To mitigate this potential lack of diversity and bias, the research not only relied on snowball-sampling but was supplemented with the sampling method of flow population. Here a setting is selected where relevant research participants can be identified (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). Regularly held urban farmers meetings in Soweto provided the setting to engage individual farmers and relevant stakeholders and enabled participant observation. Therefore, the sample not only included three different farming initiatives but also included a diverse group of individual farmers as well as relevant stakeholders such as representatives from the land bank, retailers looking to work together with urban farmers, and young entrepreneurs engaged in permaculture, among others who attended the farmers meetings. Volunteering with the South African Food Sovereignty Campaign (SAFSC) enabled contact with other relevant individuals and access to relevant meetings, conferences and talks as well as relevant information and constant feedback.

3.4 Data Collection Methods

The research was based on qualitative research methods. The first step after the initial sampling phase was to get to know the different projects and to gain an overview of the context. This step helped in fine tuning the further data collection. Throughout the research the data was subjected

(27)

to preliminary data analyses and compiled in weekly fieldwork reports which guided the continuous research process. This allowed improvement in the formulation of the questions, better understanding of the overall context and the identification of questions that still remained unanswered and routes that still needed to be explored. Data-source triangulation was ensured through the interviewing of numerous different sources and different kinds of sources. This enabled access to different perspectives and the validation of the findings (Carter et al., 2014). The data collection methods included semi-structured interviews, participatory observations and field notes, supplemented through secondary data analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with those that had first-hand experience in the field. This included urban farmers themselves as well as experts in the field such as project leaders and academics working on urban agriculture in Johannesburg. In total, 35 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The semi-structured interviews were supplemented by field notes generated during field visits and farmers meetings. Lastly, the analysis of secondary sources was additionally implemented to gain a more varied understanding.

3.4.1 Semi-Structured Interviews

In-depth semi-structured interviews “allow for spontaneity, flexibility, and responsiveness to individuals” and are thereby highly suitable for gaining a comprehensive understanding of people and exploring topics thoroughly (Carter et.al. 2014, p.). To allow for spontaneity, flexibility and responsiveness, a guiding list of interview questions was arranged under general topics. The order in which the questions and topics were addressed during the individual interviews depended on the conversations themselves. The semi-structured style of interviewing insured that, through the provision of a ‘topic guide’ the topics that were important were addressed, while simultaneously allowing space for participants to add their own insights and raise new issues which were not initially anticipated (Ritchie et al., 2013). The topic guide itself was designed through in-depth research beforehand. The topic guide was furthermore continuously adapted throughout the research period as new topics emerged.

The in-depth interviews helped to create an understanding of the current realities and perceptions of the project participants in the context of urban agriculture. This included the challenges that the small-scale farmers and the projects faced, and the emerging coping mechanisms. As the research time progressed the preliminary findings were integrated into the following interviews to gain the perception of the research participants on these preliminary findings. This enabled not only the validation of the data but also ensured transparency of the research and allowed for reflection on the findings (Ritchie et al., 2013).

(28)

The interviews with most farmers were conducted on the project sites, either sitting in the gardens11_{or walking through them. This created a sense of ease during the interviews and}

was conducive to their semi-structured nature. Neutrality and objectivity and the keeping of a certain distance are a central element of the independent researcher even if objectivity and neutrality may not be fully feasible (Ritchie et al., 2013). During the interviews the aim was to strike an adequate balance which was appropriate for both the research participants and the researcher in the given context. Additional data collection enabled for the research to be placed into a more historical political and economic local context and for new questions to emerge.

3.4.2 Participatory Observation

Overall the research was complimented through observations made during the fieldwork which were noted down in a field diary. This includes observations made during visits on the farms themselves and during the attended farmers meetings, other conferences and events, but also during the day-to-day research period. Especially, at the farmers meetings, participatory observation allowed observations to be made on how the farmers engaged with one another and other stakeholders. It furthermore allowed to corroborate the findings gained through individual interviews regarding the perceived benefits and challenges the farmers encountered. Observations were further made in the process of the volunteering in relation to the SAFSC. In like with the work for SAFSC, conferences and meetings were attended which allowed further insight on issues of food insecurity in South Africa.

3.4.3 Field Notes/Diary

The field notes/diary not only allowed for the recording of observations made but also enabled reflection on the role as a researcher in the field, the relation to the research participants and the research process itself. Additionally, it allowed for the recording of information and observations made beyond the interviews themselves (Ritchie et al., 2013). This allowed for connections to be made, beyond the first-hand observations, as the notes were reviewed. The field notes are used throughout the thesis, both to contextualize and confirm the findings presented in the empirical chapters.

11_{The term farms and gardens are referred to interchangeably. The interviewees themselves used the term gardens} more often.

(29)

3.4.2 Secondary Data Analysis

Secondary data was used to gain a better understanding of the overall political, social, economic and historical context. This secondary data includes academic literature and NGO reports. Especially, reports by the FAO and by the African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN) were reviewed to both help in contextualizing the findings, find relevant statistics and corroborate the findings made. The secondary data analysis therefore helped with what Kvale (1996 as cited in Ritchie, 2013) termed the ‘theoretical understanding’ in the interpretation of the findings.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data analysis utilized an open coding approach. As Smit states (2002), “data analysis in qualitative research is an ongoing, emerging and iterative or non-linear process” (p.66). The qualitative data collection phase was guided by constant reflection on the data and the process itself. Both transcribing and preliminary coding of the interviews and observations were conducted during the research period. This allowed for the establishment of overarching patterns and links which were then used to inform the further research and enabled the reflection on the research process and the research itself. It also enabled the verification of some of the preliminary assumptions and data with the research participants themselves and the incorporation of their feedback. As noted above, this revisionary process is vital to ensure that the generic set of indicators are made applicable to the specific local context as well as to verify the findings.

Following the conclusion of the fieldwork, the collected information was fully coded. The data was organized, and patterns and relationships identified. This coding process allowed for a comprehensive analysis beyond the descriptive level. Through this data management the data could then be connected to the existing body of knowledge explored in the theoretical framework and literature review (Ritchie et al., 2013). Finally, the data generated through this process was then utilized to answer the research questions.Atlas.ti was used for this purpose.

3.5.1 Limitations

In order to gain a more detailed understanding of the overall context and to be able to speak to more urban agriculture stakeholders, a longer research period would have been preferred. Due to the limited research period of 8 weeks the research itself had to be done under severe time constraints. A specific difficulty here was gaining access to relevant stakeholders and establishing connections in such a short time period. As the research was conducted independently, finding respondents and establishing contact with them required some time. It

(30)

was further complicated by the fact that the farmers could only be identified through other connections established beforehand as they otherwise lacked in visibility. Due to the time constraint, it was decided to focus on gaining a more contextual understanding which could be corroborated instead of going into microscopical detail into a specific kind of urban agricultural practice. In order to ensure the validity and address the limitations as a result of the time constraint, experts on the field were also interviewed. Furthermore, secondary data has been used to triangulate the findings and provide the necessary information that time constrains made difficult to obtain.

3.5.2 Ethical Considerations and Reciprocity

Procedural ethics were ensured by gaining the approval of the University of Amsterdam to conduct this research before leaving to the field. For all interviews and other research activities informed consent was a prerequisite. This includes that the participants were given the competence to make the decision to participate, did so voluntarily and on the basis of full information and comprehension of the nature and usage of the research (Diener & Crandall, 1978 in Cohen et al., 2007). To ensure both the ethical and social appropriateness of the research the AISSR (2017) ethical guidelines were used. The research per se was not of a highly politically or otherwise sensitive nature, nonetheless all steps possible were taken to ensure the voluntary, informed consent of individuals and their safety. In order, not to place any stress, temporal nor financial, onto the research participants the individual interviews were held on the project sites. This guaranteed physical safety of the respondents and further allowed for participatory observation. Before, conducting observations and interviews ethical concerns that could emerge were discussed with the research assistant. An Ethics and Informed Consent form12_{was drafted which was sent to the supervisor along with a draft of the interview}

questions. These forms were not used during the interviews after it became evident that they rather irritated the interviewees and they preferred to be informed verbally. Nonetheless, the consent forms were sent to representatives of the organizations beforehand if they were available. Before conducting interviews at the farm in Alexandra, a representative was contacted with whom ethical considerations were discussed and who received both the ethics and informed consent form as well as the confirmation of Amsterdam University and the supervisor authorizing the research. At the Alexandra farm itself the research and its purpose were explained to each of the farmers individually and they were presented with the informed consent form.

(31)

Before visiting Siyakhana the research was explained through email contact with the person responsible for research as well as the founder and director of the organization. The observations and interviews only began after personally sitting down with the director to discuss the research further. Before each individual interview the research was explained again, and permission sought for the voice recording of the interviews.

The same procedure also preluded the interviewing process at the Betrams Inner City Farm. The research was explained to a representative via various phone calls beforehand and then again explained in detail to each individual respondent to reach their informed consent.

At the farmers meetings and all other meetings that were attended, the researcher’s presence and purpose was made clear to the organizers and the individuals spoken to. By following this process each time, it was made certain that all parties had the information necessary to provide both their voluntary participation and informed consent. Some respondents preferred not to give their full-names or to give nicknames which were then used during the voice recordings and the notes that were made.

In the spirit of reciprocity, the transcripts will be shared with the interested respondents. The published thesis itself will be shared with the respondents and organizations that expressed interest and could derive a benefit from its findings.

3.5.3 Methodological Reflections

While replicability in social research may be hard to ensure, by clearly explaining the research process, the premise for procedural replicability is at least given. As the interviews were in part conducted with well-known experts in the field, there is higher replicability of this part of the study as they are open about their views, which have also been published in some cases. The interviews with farmers aimed at identifying the respondent’s perceptions and experiences as well as the observations made, can be replicated to the extent that the procedures of interviewing urban farmers and attending famers meetings do not pose a difficulty. However, the subjectivity an individual has with the respondents is what limits the external reliability of qualitative research (Bryman, 2008). The same questions can be asked, but it cannot be guaranteed that the same answers will be given. Gender may have played a role in facilitating open and relaxed interviews with the older female farmers. All respondents were very interested in the purpose of the research. It is hard to tell whether the clarification of the purpose may have impacted the interviews and the information provided.

Validity deals with the issue whether the outcomes that were developed in consequence of the research are legitimate and can therefore be deemed as valid (Bryman, 2008). As this research was of an exploratory nature there is always the presence of an inherent bias as the

(32)

analysis is guided by the personal interpretation and perspectives of the researcher. True objectivity as such does not exist (Ritchie et al. 2013). To address this flaw, and ensure internal validity of the research, a thorough study of the literature concerning the concepts of urban agriculture and food sovereignty was conducted in the months preceding the research and continued throughout the research. The research was therefore continuously related to the theoretical background. The fact that the findings correlate with findings made in the reviewed literature provides a degree of internal validity. Furthermore, the triangulation of the data sources both in number and kind further strengthens the internal validity (Bryman, 2008).

As this research is an exploratory study of urban agriculture in Johannesburg the external validity or generalizability of the findings has its limits as the findings are to a large extent specific to the case. Nonetheless, the findings could be critically applied to guide considerations in other cities that share institutional and socio-economic realities with Johannesburg. The impacts on urban food insecurity and dietary choices discussed in the first empirical chapter can to a certain extent guide research in other rapidly urbanizing southern cities. The emphasis here lies on critical and the guiding of research, as the focus should always be on the specific individual context. The general benefits of urban agriculture within Johannesburg may be relevant to other cases as well. It may be further interesting to see if other cities in other nations face similar constraints and whether there are similar coping mechanisms that have emerged in response. The discussion on the urban peasant and an expansion of the food sovereignty framework, have a higher degree of generalizability than the other findings as they are of a rather conceptual nature.

The context of urban agriculture in Johannesburg : exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African context

The Context of Urban Agriculture in

Johannesburg

Exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African

context

MSc. International Development Studies

Master Thesis

The Context of Urban Agriculture in

Johannesburg

Exploring food sovereignty in relation to the urban South African

context

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

List of Figures, Pictures and Maps

1

Introduction

2

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

3

Research Methodologies