South Africa must redouble its policy and relief efforts to stave off hunger

South Africa must redouble its policy and relief efforts to stave off hunger
South African Ederies Samodien hands apples to a child from the 7de Laan shack settlement as he assists the 9 Miles Project Covid-19 community support programme in Strandfontein, Cape Town, South Africa, 20 April 2020. The 9 Miles Project Covid-19 community support programme feeds over 1500 people from vulnerable coastal communities across Cape Town. Born out of a surf outreach initiative the 9 Miles Project is a registered non-profit organisation (NPO) founded in 2013 by Nigel Savel. The project works with youth in coastal informal settlements and provides mentorship and support to the at-risk youth. Now with extreme lockdown measures in place food security is a massive problem in South Africa. The 9 Miles Project Covid-19 community support programme is one of the organisations that has stepped into this void to try alleviate the growing hunger across the city. (Photo: EPA-EFE/NIC BOTHMA)

Ending the Social Relief of Distress grants and grant top-ups at the end of October, as proposed by government, would be disastrous. These interventions must continue alongside existing social insurance, like the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Temporary Employer-Employee Relief Scheme (TERS) and social relief efforts like the distribution of food parcels until there is consistent evidence of economic recovery and stabilised conditions in households.

Hunger and food insecurity in South African households is at disturbingly high levels. But, with concerted, committed and long-term policy interventions that involve the government, civil society, community and faith-based groups, the private sector and philanthropic organisations, we can turn the situation around.

That is the key message from research conducted with my colleagues Professor Servaas van der Berg and Grace Bridgman as part of the second wave of the National Income Dynamics Study-Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (NIDS-CRAM). This research built on work we undertook as part of the first wave, whose data shed light on how the first weeks of hard lockdown necessitated by the coronavirus pandemic affected 7,000 respondents. Data for the first wave was collected between 7 May and 27 June 2020; it painted a dismal picture of hunger and food shortages. 

Most worryingly, comparisons with data from earlier surveys such as the General Household Survey (2002 to 2018) found that many of the improvements made since 2000 in adult and child hunger, as well as food security, were almost entirely reversed by the hard lockdown and the pandemic. Those improvements before the pandemic were largely driven by the expansion of the Child Support Grant.

For the second wave, which retained around 5,670 from the first wave, we examined people’s experiences of hunger and food shortages from 13 July to 13 August. By then, hard lockdown had been relaxed to “advanced” Level 3. There were some improvements in adult and child hunger, as well as food security. In Wave 1, 22% of households reported that someone had gone hungry in May and June; by Wave 2, this figure declined to 16%. Child hunger dropped from 15% in wave 1 to 11% in wave 2. The number of households that ran out of money for food also declined: from 47% in April to 37% in June.

Hunger is a deeply personal pain experienced by individuals and families who go without food. But it has far broader societal implications in the long term. The effects of child stunting through mal- or under-nutrition linger throughout a person’s lifetime: mental health challenges, poor school attendance and performance and pathways from food insecurity to intimate partner violence  to mention a few. All of this impairs a person’s ability to participate meaningfully in the economy and society. When families go hungry, its ripple effects are felt by us all.

The Wave 2 results affirm our conclusion from the first NIDS-CRAM report on hunger, food insecurity and policy produced by myself, Stellenbosch University’s Dr Gabrielle Wills, Professor van der Berg and Bokang Mpeta: the need for social relief efforts remains undiminished.

The government introduced several temporary emergency social support measures when the lockdown and associated State of Emergency began on 27 March. Three of these have been central to relief efforts: first, the provision of a temporary supplementary social assistance benefit, a “top-up” to existing social grants for different beneficiary categories; second, the creation of a Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant; and, finally, the Temporary Employee/Employer Relief Scheme (TERS). All of this occurred alongside localised social relief efforts in the form of emergency food assistance delivered by government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), faith-based organisations, the private sector and philanthropic initiatives. 

How have these responses helped? Research by the University of Cape Town’s Development Policy Research Unit suggests that the reduction in hunger between the two waves of NIDS-CRAM may have been because of someone getting or returning to a job, or due to the expansion of social protection through the two new grants (TERS and the SRD). Our own findings point to TERS in particular having lifted many out of food insecurity.

In addition, the National Schools Nutrition Programme, which provides school children with meals and stopped during the hard lockdown, also recommenced in July. This, too, may have assuaged hunger. Finally, public and private food assistance may have had a localised effect in reducing hunger.

Existing grants like the Child Support Grant, and their associated top-ups, would not have reached many more people in the second wave of the survey and are less likely to have been associated with reduced hunger between the two periods.

The government plans to end the grant top-ups and the SRD at the end of October. We cannot express strongly enough how disastrous this would be. These interventions must continue alongside existing social insurance, like the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the TERS and social relief efforts like the distribution of food parcels until there is consistent evidence of economic recovery and stabilised conditions in households. This is necessary in the interim until other longer-term social assistance measures being considered are in place. 

The government needs to work with other actors to mitigate and alleviate the negative socioeconomic effects of Covid-19 and the hard lockdown. This is, as the return to at least partial lockdown in some European countries shows, a long road, and we cannot slow our pace. DM/MC

Leila Patel is with the Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg. Servaas van der Berg  is with the Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch. Grace Bridgman is with the University of Stellenbosch. 


"Information pertaining to Covid-19, vaccines, how to control the spread of the virus and potential treatments is ever-changing. Under the South African Disaster Management Act Regulation 11(5)(c) it is prohibited to publish information through any medium with the intention to deceive people on government measures to address COVID-19. We are therefore disabling the comment section on this article in order to protect both the commenting member and ourselves from potential liability. Should you have additional information that you think we should know, please email [email protected]"

Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Gavin Ferreiro says:

    Is it better to give people food or to give them the facility to grow their own as in community farms? Well feeding the disadvantaged is great, this must surely be a short to medium term strategy with the long term being employment and self sufficiency?

    South Africa can not at this time become a social state, there is no money in the coffers and lending more breaks the donkeys back. Government and not the ANC should do what is right for the country not the party which has wasted and lost too much money to its deployment of inexperienced people. Get the country working and Ubuntu will work.

  • Glyn Morgan says:

    Has anybody thought of the long-term advantages of having a small family? Only have as many children as one can afford. Maybe a “Family Planning Grant” would be advantageous?

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider
Elections24 Newsletter Banner

On May 29 2024, South Africans will make their mark in another way.

Get your exclusive, in-depth Election 2024 newsletter curated by Ferial Haffajee delivered straight to your inbox.