The personal and social benefits of urban agriculture experienced by cultivators on the Cape Flats

ABSTRACT

Urban agriculture is considered a grassroots solution to food security in Africa. Research consistently supports this belief, and in South Africa urban agriculture is promoted by national and local government. One city supporting urban agriculture is Cape Town, the only South African city with an urban agriculture policy. Although many questions remain regarding the sustainability of non-governmental organisation (NGO)-supported urban agriculture projects in Cape Town and their contribution to food security, this study argues that one must look beyond economics and the physical benefits of urban agriculture to the personal and social benefits. By capturing the lived experiences of cultivators on the Cape Flats in Cape Town, the study shows that urban agriculture not only contributes to food security but builds social capital, which improves livelihood strategies and interpersonal relations. This is especially the case where urban agriculture projects are facilitated by NGOs that fund, train and oversee cultivators in these impoverished communities.

KEYWORDS:

• Urban agriculture
• social capital
• food security
• Cape Town
• non-governmental organisation

1. Introduction

Many endorse cultivation in urban areas, or urban agriculture, to enhance the food security of those living in poverty in African cities. Some even call it ‘one of the “last frontiers”’ in the fight ‘against world hunger’ (Niñez, 1985:1). This has led to widespread debates on the benefits of urban agriculture and the need for the government to support this endeavour (Mougeot, 1994; Thornton et al., 2010; FAO, 2012). Such support is reflected in the Republic of South Africa’s Growth and Development Plan 2012, which specifically states that support for urban agriculture at the national, provincial and municipal levels is ‘crucial for ensuring household food security’ (DAFF, 2012:36).

A municipality that has come out strongly in support of urban agriculture is the City of Cape Town (Battersby, 2012), as reflected in its urban agriculture policy which makes provision for inputs, resources, land access and training (City of Cape Town, 2007). Cape Town’s urban agriculture policy reflects the national view, namely ‘that urban agriculture can play a pivotal role in poverty alleviation’ by improving ‘household food security [ … ] and income’ (City of Cape Town, 2007:2). Nevertheless, many have criticised urban agriculture for being unsustainable and providing insufficient food, even where dependent on support from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or the government (Ellis & Sumberg, 1998; Webb, 2011). Almost all of these debates focus on the economic viability of urban agriculture and the physical benefits of urban agriculture in terms of providing sufficient food. Few, however, consider that there are other benefits associated with being involved in a meaningful activity that provides a sense of purpose, pride and well-being.

The personal and social benefits of being involved in urban agriculture projects have received comparatively less attention (Battersby & Marshak, 2013), although some studies such as that by Gallaher et al. (2013) point out some of these benefits. The present study aims to provide some evidence-based empirical research on precisely how urban agriculture affects the livelihoods of those involved in urban agriculture on the Cape Flats from a personal and social perspective. We start by reviewing existing research that illustrates urban agriculture’s contribution to livelihoods to place this study within a broader context. Thereafter, the empirical findings on urban agriculture from the Cape Flats in Cape Town are deliberated. The aim of this research is to demonstrate that the involvement of cultivators in urban agriculture projects run by NGOs not only strengthens household bonds and community networks necessary for survival, but provides a sense of purpose and well-being that cannot be measured in quantitative ways. Accordingly, when evaluating the benefits of urban agriculture one has to look beyond economics to the social benefits and how these can strengthen livelihood strategies within impoverished communities.

2. The personal and social benefits of urban agriculture

Publications on urban agriculture in Africa attribute many benefits to urban agriculture, such as waste recycling, urban beautification, saving money and raising self-worth, but the main thrust of urban agriculture research remains food security (Mougeot, 2006). In urban centres, where cash transactions mediate food access, urban agriculture supplements poor households with healthy food, thereby increasing vitamin intake (Maunder & Meaker, 2009). There are also numerous economic benefits that vary in scale. Studies show that being involved in urban agriculture can free up some of the budget for buying staple foods, contributing to savings rather than income (Dunn, 2010). On a larger scale, urban agriculture can provide cash income. For example, urban cultivators provide almost all of the leafy greens sold in Accra, Dakar and Kinshasa and use this income to live in the city (FAO, 2012). Similarly, in Cape Town, urban agriculture was found to both supplement the food budget and generate income (Kirkland, 2008). Thus, for urban households, urban agriculture can fulfil an important economic role.

Often underestimated is the ecological benefit of urban agriculture. In much of Africa, cultivators use freely available organic inputs that promote soil biodiversity, such as compost and manure, rather than expensive commercial chemicals (Asomani-Boateng, 2002). In Cape Town, organic cultivation is actively promoted by the NGOs who train cultivators to make their own compost. The benefits of making one’s own compost include considerable savings on input costs as well as an increase is the sustainability of urban agriculture, because cultivators are more autonomous (Kirkland, 2008). There is also the aspect of land use. In Cape Town, for example, cultivation groups often use derelict land such as illegal dumping sights or waste land. By restoring such land, cultivators benefit the surrounding ecology and assist in creating orderly, lush urban open spaces (Ward, 2007). Urban agriculture’s ecological benefits are thus incentivised not only by considerably reducing production costs for cultivators and raising the sustainability of production, but also by contributing to ecological health

In addition to the economic and physical benefits of urban agriculture are the social benefits. Research increasingly shows how urban agriculture builds social and human capital at various levels and contributes to the livelihood strategies of the urban poor (Rogerson, 1993; Jacobs, 2009; Gallaher et al., 2013). Of particular relevance is the research by Battersby & Marshak (2013), who argue that the local government frames urban agriculture in Cape Town almost entirely in economic terms, whereas cultivators value urban agriculture for a far broader range of benefits, including social benefits. One of the social benefits is the formation of supportive networks (Dunn, 2010). One sees over time how cultivators form groups and develop networks of trust through sharing knowledge, produce, meals and even money (Jacobs, 2009). Furthermore, this unity empowers cultivators to ‘become a strong force in the community’ with ‘the capacity to take social and political action’ (Slater, 2001:648). Thus, the social capital that urban agriculture facilitates has important implications for building resilient livelihoods.

This social capital development takes place at various levels. At the level of the household, cultivators indicate how this strengthens bonding capital. Bonding capital refers to the bonds of trust and support between friends and family. At the micro level, this is especially important to low-income households, because it provides emotional and practical support that helps people get through tough times (Vervisch et al., 2013). These support networks may even support migrant labourers over long distances (Foeken & Owuor, 2008). This form of social capital is important because it serves as the primary motivator to keep cultivators committed to urban agriculture projects, but is not sufficient to sustain their involvement (Jacobs, 2009). For this, a certain amount of bridging capital is required.

Bridging capital refers to networking between people who do not know each other. It extends beyond friends and family to a broader circle of acquaintances (Gittel & Vidal, 1998). Indicators of bridging capital include community-level groupings, which for urban agriculture might include street groups, networks between cultivators and the surrounding community, or urban agriculture associations (Karaan & Mohammed, 1998; Gallaher et al, 2013; Tembo & Louw, 2013; Vervisch et al., 2013). Bridging capital facilitates the dissemination of information far more effectively than bonding capital, because information within a close-knit group tends to be redundant (Granovetter, 1973; Vervisch et al., 2013). It also facilitates access to resources. For example, cultivators with bridging capital, or broad networks, learn more about urban agriculture by rubbing shoulders with a range of other cultivators and gain access to cash, food items or favours by nurturing a network of acquaintances in their community (Gallaher et al., 2013). Thus, bridging capital is a valuable capital for increasing the sustainability of urban agriculture, because it makes cultivators more knowledgeable and more resilient. In Cape Town, NGOs play a key role in facilitating bridging capital for cultivators (Jacobs, 2009). This facilitating role is needed, because bridging capital is scarce in low-income communities (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).

Important as community-level networks are, connections with the government and markets are vital for community development (Misselhorn, 2009). This ‘linking capital’ entails relationships with those in authority and the capacity to engage explicit power structures that affect livelihoods, which includes the government and the private sector (Vervisch et al., 2013:272). However, like bridging capital, linking capital is rare in low-income communities (Vervisch et al., 2013). For this reason, poorer urban cultivators in South Africa fail to access both government assistance and markets (Thornton, 2008; Shackleton et al., 2010). Thus, NGOs play a key role in facilitating linking capital, because they have capacity to engage with the government, raise funds and access markets. Cultivators associated with such an NGO then access the benefits of linking capital, such as land access, inputs and customers, through the NGO’s links (Jacobs, 2009).

In this article, we show how urban agriculture develops these different forms of social capital and the effect this has on strengthening family relations, community interaction and social cohesion. We also reflect on the human capital advances of those involved. Before presenting the findings of this empirical research, the research methodology is briefly described.

3. Research methodology

This study took place on the Cape Flats, an area of primarily high-density formal and informal housing located between Cape Town’s wealthy northern and southern suburbs (De Swardt et al., 2005). This area is populated primarily by poor black and coloured communities, with a small but growing contingent of work seekers from other African countries. Work is scarce, with unemployment rates as high as 64% in Khayelitsha and Nyanga, the two major suburbs (De Swardt et al., 2005). The sandy ground on the Cape Flats inhibits commercial agriculture and the uptake of urban agriculture depends primarily on NGOs, and to a lesser extent the local municipality (Battersby & Marshak, 2013). According to Crush et al. (2011), about 5% of residents practice some form of urban agriculture.

The selection of appropriate case studies was complex. In 2013, at least 134 NGOs were involved in urban agriculture in Cape Town.¹ The vast majority of these are either cultivation groups or institutions cultivating a portion of their land, but these do not train and support cultivators. Only two NGOs oversee almost all urban agriculture in Cape Town, namely Abalimi and Soil for Life, who have the largest membership and operate throughout the Cape Flats (Karaan & Mohammed, 1998; Battersby & Marshak, 2013). These two NGOs have existed for a long time, but recently two smaller NGOs, Sozo and Inity, began training and supporting cultivators in Vrygrond and Nkanini, respectively. Together, all four NGOs service 6563 cultivators² (Table 1). A director from all four of these NGOs was interviewed initially to obtain an overview of the urban agriculture sector in Cape Town. Thereafter, with the consent of the directors, fieldwork commenced among the cultivators associated or linked to these four NGOs.

Table 1. Selected non-governmental organisations.

NGO	Training since	Members registered	Members interviewed
Abalimi	1982	4 558	30
Soil for Life	2003	1 930	16
Sozo	2011	60	7
Inity	2013	15	6
Total		6 563	59

The next consideration was how to select an appropriate sample of participants, because numerous factors had to be considered. Firstly, cultivators can be divided into four groups (Table 2). Home cultivators are individuals using their own land. Cultivation groups are a number of individuals who work together and share produce or profits among themselves. Institutional cultivators work for an institution on land owned by the institution. Garden centres are non-profit resource centres owned by the NGO that service cultivators in the neighbourhood. Participants were selected from each of these four types to see how their experiences differed. Secondly, age, gender and ethnicity were important considerations. There is as yet no profile of cultivators in Cape Town, but existing case studies suggest that the majority of cultivators are of middle age and older, female and isiXhosa (Karaan & Mohammed, 1998; Tembo & Louw, 2013). The profile of participants for the present study reflects this suggestion. Most were over 40 years old (74%) with very few young people participating in urban agriculture. The majority were also female (60%) and isiXhosa (85%). The selection also included coloured (12%) and black Zimbabwean (3%) cultivators.

Table 2. Types of cultivators.

Type of cultivator	Registered with NGOs	Individuals interviewed
Home cultivator	6 563	30
Cultivation group	206	11
Institutional plot	No data	11
Garden centre	7	7
Total		59

In terms of the method of data collection, this study posed a number of challenges. Poor infrastructure, informal living arrangements and unpredictable daily routines made traditional sampling methods impossible. A mixed purposeful sampling method was therefore adopted, combining opportunistic sampling with criterion sampling (Patton, 1990). Ultimately, the aim was to interview cultivators supported by each of the different NGOs and representing each of the urban agriculture types. A total of 59 cultivators were interviewed, comprising 34 in-depth individual interviews, with cultivators from each of the urban agriculture types, as well as four focus groups. The focus groups consisted of four to five people: one mixed-gender group, one all-female group of home cultivators, one all-male institutional group and one mixed-gender formal group. In order to avoid biasing responses in the focus groups, no NGO employees were present at the focus groups, and neither were they involved in the selection of focus group participants. Focus groups deepened discussion on common issues, while individual interviews provided insight into personal experiences. Data collection continued until the point of data saturation was reached. Additionally, the senior leadership in each of the four NGOs as well as a representative from the City of Cape Town municipality responsible for the coordination of urban agriculture in the city were interviewed to solicit their views. Each cultivator is assigned a unique identifier that includes a number from 1 to 59, their gender, their age range³ and the method of data collection. For example, an individual interviewee being a young adult woman may be assigned the identifier ‘Individual F1 ≥ 18’. Because only four NGOs feature, their directors were not assigned identifiers in order to protect their identity. The findings based on these interviews are discussed in the following.

4. Findings: Voices of cultivators on the Cape Flats

This section looks at the personal and social benefits of urban agriculture as expressed by the cultivators interviewed. The section first reflects on the personal enrichment many cultivators experienced being involved in urban agriculture, as well as the physical and psychological benefits. The section then explains how urban agriculture strengthens and develops various forms of social capital necessary for urban agriculture to be successful and sustainable.

4.1. Personal empowerment

The cultivators all found urban agriculture enriching in various ways. The first was in terms of their growth and understanding of growing crops. All of the cultivators had received some form of formal training provided by the NGOs and in some cases received advanced training. For example, Abalimi and Soil for Life run small business courses. Soil for Life also runs micro-enterprise courses such as preserve-making, seedling propagation, earthworm farming and building garden accessories, all of which may be used for income generation. Abalimi and Soil for Life also offer advanced courses to cultivators who want to train others. The cultivators really valued this, as reflected in the following comment by a cultivator that is himself a qualified trainer: ‘The training is fantastic because when you train you unconsciously give yourself information. The impact of training does not only happen to the recipients, but also to you’ (Individual M50 ≥ 18).

Many of the NGOs provide additional training unrelated to urban agriculture, such as life-skills training, computer literacy and fire safety, with notable benefits for cultivators’ careers. One woman who had been a janitor was promoted to garden centre manager after becoming computer literate. She aspired to manage the NGO’s training programme as the next step in her career: ‘I can see myself taking over when I have more experience on the computer. Then there will be space for someone else [to run the garden centre]’ (Individual F12 ≥ 40). Thus, while cultivators value urban agriculture basic training, NGO membership opens up many more learning opportunities.

In addition to formal training from NGOs, the cultivators share knowledge among themselves. Cultivators who are in walking distance of each other are often in contact, and cultivated plots, being visible to the public, attract interest and conversation from fellow community members. Knowledge is constantly exchanged through such conversations over the fence, and knowledgeable cultivators feel privileged to share their knowledge with others. As a young male cultivator explains, ‘I am a man that wants to learn more so that I can improve my mind and share what I have with other people’ (Individual M50 ≥ 18). Thus, cultivators are proud of their specialised knowledge and are eager to share it with their community.

4.2. Physical and psychological benefits

The health benefits of urban agriculture were a prominent finding. Cultivators regularly ate from their plot and believed their produce superior to what they normally buy. NGOs teach on healthy eating as part of their urban agriculture training. Cultivators believe that dietary problems such as high levels of diabetes are common in their areas because of unhealthy diets, and they spoke about the importance of eating more vegetables to address this. Even entrenched dietary norms can be changed. A Xhosa man, for example, explained that ‘African people [ … ] only believe in the meat, but now we learn to really enjoy the vegetable’ because of urban agriculture (Individual M25 ≥ 40). He went on to explain that his family now prioritise eating vegetables, to the extent that ‘some days we don’t even cook the rice, we cook just vegetables’. Cultivators also spoke of how they now had more variety in their diet and ate vegetables that they never thought of eating before. For example, a man from Lavender Hill (Individual M44 ≥ 40) stated:

The turnips are my favourite – with the leaves; and the parsley. I grate them into soup. I had Chinese cabbage – almost like lettuce. I put it on a cheese sandwich. The first time I was amazed! It was so crispy. It was so nice.

Besides the physical benefits, many spoke of the psychological aspects of being involved in urban agriculture. The cultivators live in high-density areas, where crime and violence are prevalent. For cultivators, working on the plot relieved anxiety, settled thoughts and removed them from danger. As one Coloured female cultivator explains: ‘Diè plek is ʼn baie deurmekaar plek. Veral as die gangsters baklei. Maar as ek in the tuin is, is dit amper soos ek is weg van alles af’ (This area is crazy, especially when the gangsters are fighting. But when I am in the garden, it is almost like I am away from it all) (Individual F43 ≥ 40). This peaceful environment takes on a spiritual significance for some, as described by a Xhosa female cultivator (Individual F10 ≥ 40):

It’s only you. The children are not there, the husband is at work. It is a quiet time. These little veggies, they are not talking back to you, they are there to listen; you plant them in a gentle way, you give them love. I’m telling you, you will sense the Holy Spirit when you are gardening, and then you will come up with the peace of letting go. You let the problem go. You say, ‘Okay, God; you are going to solve this problem.’ Peace. Then at the end of the day, you see each problem go.

Associated with this was also a sense of pride and accomplishment when tending to their gardens and watching the plants grow. ‘You grow as a person’, a cultivator explained (Individual F20 ≥ 18), and many expressed how being involved in urban agriculture gave them a sense of purpose and belonging and prevented them from becoming involved in drugs and other social ills. This is captured in the following quote by a middle-aged male cultivator (Individual M44 ≥ 40), who stated:

Last night I was thinking: one day in my old age, sitting there, being able to think back to the wonderful things I did. Not drinking or smoking tik ⁴ or things like that, but thinking about the flowers: how much money did I make, the lovely things that I ate from my garden, the wonderful people I met through this and conversations I had with people about simple things – things that we just pass, things we don’t care about but that would be wonderful to our lives. I was an alcoholic before. Bad, very bad alcoholic – laying in the street. That is why I am saying, one day I can think back, [but] not about being a bad person. This is something I want to do in my old age, if God spares me, and reflect on my life.

These examples show that the benefits of urban agriculture cannot be restricted to economic terms. The personal benefits may be difficult to measure, but even on a very small scale urban agriculture contributes to the well-being of those involved in this activity. Thus, considering the immense value cultivators attribute to these aspects of urban agriculture, it is concerning that this facet of urban agriculture is largely overlooked.

4.3. Strengthening bonding capital

This links to another major area of benefit that emerged from the findings of this study, namely how social capital is fostered, developed and sustained through urban agriculture and how this affects livelihood strategies within these communities. In these impoverished Cape Flats communities, many families are torn apart by domestic violence, substance abuse and crime (May & Norton, 1997; Slater, 2001; Misselhorn, 2009). The cultivators mentioned how their involvement in urban agriculture strengthened relationships with family and friends. A male cultivator (a father) explains, ‘When they come back from school they start watering’ and so the whole family becomes involved in the garden (Individual M42 ≥ 18). Another cultivator jokingly explained that his wife drew him into urban agriculture ‘as a slave for all the digging’, but that he has come to love it (Individual M47 ≥ 18). Even where family members were not directly involved in cultivation, they enjoyed harvesting and eating produce together.

This bonding extended beyond the immediate household to include those with family still in rural areas. A young female cultivator described a conversation she had with her father in the Eastern Cape who could not believe she was farming in Khayelitsha, in the city and in the sand. He asked: ‘Do you have the land to do that?’ She replied: ‘No, but you will be amazed. We are using tyres, containers, cardboard.’ He asked her to ‘take a picture of that’, to show him how it is done (Individual F10 ≥ 18). For many, urban agriculture serves as a conversation point connecting families and friends, or facilitating new friendships. A young woman, one of two women volunteering at an NGO’s garden centre as part of their tertiary education course, described her relationship with the elderly manager, ‘Mama’:⁵ ‘Mama is not just a person that we work with. We share with her, everything, and she understands. So when we have a problem at home we come and share it with Mama and she understands’ (Individual F40 ≥ 18). Many of the home cultivators worked in each other’s gardens and so formed deep friendships, sharing life’s ups and downs. A woman pointed to four names on her garden wall, and to one name in particular: ‘That’s Minnie, the one that died. That tree belongs to her, Minnie’s tree’ (Individual F15 ≥ 65). Thus, these friendships and bonds of trust are deep and enduring.

Such bonding capital strengthens not only emotional support, but livelihood strategies through the sharing of labour, resources and produce. Cultivators from the same area often work together to reduce production costs. For example, a Khayelitsha group told how it is more productive and profitable that they share their crops and money. An Mfuleni cultivator explains: ‘We are the friends who share everything. We know each other, we know where [there is] [ … ] lack, you see. We are like one family, you see. By knowing each other, you know where to help’ (Focus group F1 ≥ 40). Thus, by working together cultivators diffuse production costs throughout the group and help individual members overcome temporary shocks or stresses such as crop failures or financial strains.

Notwithstanding the positive examples, some things affect relationships negatively. For example, bonding capital is severely tested when a group moves from subsistence to commercial production. An NGO director explains: ‘While you are still just dealing with food, everybody shares. The moment money comes in, “That’s mine!”’. Furthermore, parents may oppose their migrant daughter or son taking up urban agriculture, because, ‘If you are coming to Cape Town, then you come to work in the city, not to garden’ (Individual M3 ≥ 18). Within families, social ills such as drug dependence also impact on urban agriculture. One female cultivator told how her drug-dependent husband stole her wheelbarrow and sold it for drugs (Individual F11 ≥ 40). Hence, numerous factors can undermine bonding capital, but it is an important foundation for urban agriculture at the micro level because it builds trust.

4.4. Building bridging capital

In these communities trust rarely exists beyond the household, not even extending to neighbours. A Lavender Hill cultivator tells how he approached a neighbour for cuttings from her flourishing garden. She cut him short, ‘No! You must leave my stuff. You can’t take my stuff, go away!’ Thinking he might buy the cuttings, he returned with some money. His second attempt only aggravated her, and he fled with her screaming ‘Go away! Get out of my yard!’ (Individual M44 ≥ 40). Neighbours may also discourage cultivation by ridiculing those involved and even sabotaging their plots. Some cultivators in Nkanini claimed that their neighbours uprooted their crops in the night, urinated on crops and scattered ‘bread crumbs or stale bread in the garden to attract birds’ (Focus group F2 ≥ 40). This implies that while urban agriculture may foster neighbourly exchanges and relations, some bridging capital is required for cultivation to be accepted in these neighbourhoods.

In order to build bridging capital, NGOs often train neighbours together and host networking events so that there is some level of communal support. By training neighbours together, NGOs establish local networks that provide ongoing support once training concludes. For example, a Vrygrond woman recalled: ‘Just from my first training session, I met two ladies that inspired me’ (Individual F12 ≥ 40). This inspiration carries cultivators through notable challenges. For example, a tuberculosis patient lost his spinach crop when he became bedridden. However, he met a woman with a bounty of spinach that season. He recalls: ‘So, when I see her spinach, it reminds me of the spinach that I was supposed to be having. It’s sort of an inspiration’ (Individual M3 ≥ 18). Upon recovering, he started over and had a flourishing spinach crop at the time of the interview. These interactions also broaden cultivators’ informal safety nets by building community relations as cultivators give to others. A Nyanga cultivator said how he constantly hands out produce: ‘Onions, spinach, potatoes, carrots; I don’t sell it, I give it for free’ (Individual M30 ≥ 40).

The events NGOs host also bring cultivators together. These events include gardening competitions, seminars and end-of-year functions that provide an opportunity for networking. These networks not only facilitate cooperation and support, but also develop human capital by expanding the knowledge base of cultivators, as a cultivator from Nkanini township explains: ‘It is a wise thing that you interact with other farmers [ … ]. It makes you grow mentally, seeing how other farmers are progressing in terms of skill, technique, business-wise and so forth’ (Individual M3 ≥ 18). Thus, bridging capital creates support networks that sustain urban agriculture. Just as bridging capital is important for sustaining urban agriculture, linking capital increases the profitability of cultivation.

4.5. Developing linking capital

The NGO Inity realised early on that to increase their impact they should link up with the government, funders and experienced NGOs. The director states: ‘As we were growing and planting, we [found] that we can also [ … ] create jobs if we are having the right connections and having funders, having supporters and assisters’. The government, funders and NGOs were imperative to Inity’s origin, and are in fact the key role players in Cape Town’s urban agriculture sector. If cultivators are to increase productivity, profitability and sustainability, they need to forge linkages with these power holders. However, cultivators find that they cannot forge such links without NGO assistance. NGOs play a critical role not only in developing bonding and bridging capital, but for establishing linking capital too, by connecting cultivators to the public and private sectors. An NGO director explains this as follows:

[Cultivators] don’t have the wherewithal to make those market connections themselves [ … ]. They feel out of their depth and they feel belittled [ … ] because businesses don’t have time. They’re a business and they must get things done [ … ]. So, we are kind-of a go-between.

A cultivation group that attempted to trade with a local supermarket confirmed this statement. The group remembered that for two years ‘we tried to arrange it [ … ] but they chop and change. It is a difficult situation’ (Focus group M5 ≥ 40). The supermarket took months to pay, returned unsold produce and pushed prices as low as possible. Thus, because cultivators lack resources such as transport, business and legal expertise, they struggle to work directly with the private sector. Here NGOs, who have the knowledge and skills, serve as key catalysts to facilitate marketing. This also related to cultivators’ dealings with the state, especially to secure land access. For example, a group from Nkanini described the application process to farm a piece of derelict land (Focus group F8 ≥ 40):

We did go to [ … ] Eersterivier [but] they shifted those offices to Khayelitsha [ … ]. That particular chunk of land is under provincial government, under the housing department. There is a lady called Cindy⁶ [ … ] [but] each and every time they were referring me to her assistants, which doesn’t help because each day [they say] they don’t have the powers [ … ]. We were then giving up on that land and that land is very, very, very fertile [ … ] but we can’t gain access to that land.

This group’s experience summarises a complaint that came up repeatedly; namely notwithstanding the City of Cape Town’s supportive stance, cultivators feel powerless to apply for the resources they need. This situation indicates cultivators’ limited linking capital and the important role that NGOs involved in urban agriculture play in helping cultivators to gain access to these resources.

Linking capital is also important for increasing cultivators’ access to different economic markets for their produce and value-added products. Soil for Life, for example, sells cultivators’ hand-made preserves, vermi-compost, garden accessories and other value-added products at their Constantia garden centre. Abalimi runs Harvest of Hope, a community-supported agriculture scheme supplying Cape Town’s wealthier suburbs. This expands cultivators’ income opportunities. For example, a Lavender Hill cultivator sold his season’s stock of potted herbs at Soil for Life’s Constantia garden centre. The proceeds bought him a kettle, a clock, a screwdriver and bulk groceries. Income may also be expanded through capacity development. For example, cultivators received training in business management, computer literacy and fire safety. Cultivators who had received this training respectively increased their profits, received a raise and qualified for donor funding. A cultivator from the business management course states: ‘Soil for Life do a lot of things, it’s amazing. They put me on the business programme [ … ] three months training. They are also going to finance me. So I’m looking forward to making money’ (Individual M44 ≥ 40).

These opportunities are expanding through the NGOs’ own linking capital. They have the resources to tap into other donor bases, through advertising, television, radio interviews, newspaper articles, flagship project tours, online newsletters and fundraisers. Through this, the NGOs in this study could link up with patrons for funding and gain access to other resources necessary to sustain their urban agriculture projects. The NGOs in this study, for example, received infrastructure, inputs and funding from the City of Cape Town; compostable waste from supermarkets, housing estates and equine clubs; land access from churches and schools; and access to venues at local libraries and community centres for training and gatherings. From this it is clear that the NGOs in this study are critical to the sustainability of pro-poor urban agriculture in Cape Town because they unlock asset bases that would otherwise be inaccessible to cultivators.

5. Conclusions

This study did not report on the challenges NGOs face in raising funds or interacting with the government, because the aim was to highlight what urban agriculture means to cultivators. We argue that while the economic gains of urban agriculture are important, the social benefits are equally important, especially in the under-privileged communities that are caught in a poverty trap. This study has shown that cultivators value urban agriculture not only for its economic benefits, but as a component of their livelihoods; for building relationships, improving self-esteem and creating safe spaces. This social component improves well-being more sustainably than the simple economic goals of increasing income or production. Thus, when looking at the benefits of urban agriculture, it is imperative to look at this holistically and not just focus on whether it can provide food security to impoverished communities.

This study showed how urban agriculture develops social capital throughout the four urban agriculture types. At the micro level, family relations and friendships were strengthened by tending, harvesting, processing and eating produce together. Increased bonding capital created a sense of belonging and the impression of being loved – a rare experience for some. Bonding capital also had a practical outcome, namely increased productivity through sharing resources and labour. Thus, while bonding capital may not raise income, it improved the quality of life of many of those involved.

Urban agriculture also connected cultivators with the broader community by generating bridging capital. Cultivators created these networks by donating, trading or selling produce to passers-by, needy households or organisations. Additionally, NGOs facilitated bridging capital by employing local trainers, training neighbourhood groups and hosting networking events. These networks restored cultivators’ pride, empowered them with knowledge and skills and expanded their support networks. Crucial in this whole process was the role that the NGOs played. NGOs developed the bridging and linking capital that fostered community support and enabled cultivators to access markets and other resources, which sustain and expand their ventures. On their own, cultivators lacked the capacity to enter formal markets, lobby the government and access key resources. With support from NGOs, urban agriculture not only builds social capital, but in doing so has a positive impact on other capitals; this includes financial benefits from increased bartering and markets as well as human capital, through increasing knowledge, physical health and self-esteem. Thus, by increasing social capital, urban agriculture instigates the growth of other livelihood capitals as well.

The socio-economic environment in which cultivators operate presents a number of challenges. Inasmuch as urban agriculture can address some of these, without the support that NGOs provide it is likely that social ills can undermine urban agriculture’s potential. Trust, in particular, seems fragile, which limits the spread of urban agriculture as well as its benefits. For example, mistrust in neighbourhoods hamstrings efforts by cultivators, as neighbours sabotage their work. The income potential of urban agriculture is also undermined by mistrust, particularly between group members. In such cases, increases in financial capital appear to reduce bonding capital, ultimately dissolving the group to the detriment of all potential benefits. These limitations indicate the important role that NGOs play in terms of facilitating the spread of urban agriculture, particularly in terms of their mediatory role in establishing neighbourhood networks and coaching cultivation groups over the long term.

This study conclusively shows that urban agriculture has meaning beyond food security. For those involved it is a meaningful and enriching activity that bonds families and communities and builds important bridges of trust and reciprocity. For communities ripped apart by social ills such as crime, domestic violence and drug abuse, and facing high levels of unemployment, urban agriculture provides a sense of meaning that extends beyond the physical and economic benefits of the activity itself. The sustainability of many of the urban agriculture projects on the Cape Flats depends on both the support of NGOs and the government, as well as their cooperation. We have not discussed these tensions in this article, but many challenges stem from the inevitable bureaucratic regulations and the politics associated with relations between the public sector and civil society. These tensions hinder the pro-poor urban agriculture initiatives of NGOs. Nonetheless, it is clear that urban agriculture is gaining support as more and more research points out urban agriculture’s role in improving quality of life and the livelihoods of impoverished communities. Hopefully this research has been able to demonstrate this by adding the voices of cultivators from the Cape Flats.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Abalimi, Inity, Soil for Life and the Sozo Foundation, along with the cultivators affiliated with them, for the time and insights they gave to this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

David W. Olivier http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6037-9150

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation [grant number 78647].

Notes

1 This was calculated by cross-referencing names obtained from City of Cape Town procurement notices, the City of Cape Town Urban Agriculture Summit attendance list, one NGO’s membership database, online search engines and the Republic of South Africa Registered NPOs in the Western Cape database. Because many of the names are from the private NGO database, this list is not available publically.

2 Established through conversations with a representative from each NGO.

3 Three age ranges are used: ≥18 (18 to 39), ≥40 (40 to 64) and ≥65.

4 Methamphetamine.

5 Not her real name.

6 Not her real name.