Creating Institutions for Urban Agriculture: An Editorial for all leading urban farmers in Soweto, 5

On the 5th of November we are hosting leading urban farmers in Soweto at the iZindaba Zokudla Farmers’ Lab (please see: https://www.izindabazokudla.com/post/5-nov). In my writings I have set out a manifesto on how enterprises can be constructed to develop urban agriculture further. Two of my previous blogs are important in this regard. (Please see the Manifesto I developed: https://www.izindabazokudla.com/post/urban-peri-urban-and-small-scale-rural-agriculture-and-township-economies-a-manifesto and the blog on Siyoyisile Indlalala https://www.izindabazokudla.com/post/siyoyisile-indlala-a-farm-in-protea-soweto).

-o0o-

I am often inspired and motivated by seeing what farmers do, and the ideas I profess are not always created by me, but I follow the lead of farmers who experiment and push forward their own enterprises. In this sense, I am in an interactive relationship with them, and they mostly lead my thoughts on what could be done. All hail, such leading farmers!

This editorial aims to consolidate some of the ideas I have developed. Some farmers have implemented these ideas, but it is unclear how these will transpire once they work in a real farming context. These ideas need to lead to lasting changes in society, in the form of the creation, maintenance and adaptation of durable structures for social behaviour. These ideas give us a scaffold which will uphold new ways of producing, trading, and recovering waste from food production. What arrangements amongst farmers and amongst farmers and society can uphold new sustainable, circular and regenerative practices for farmers? This editorial contemplates what we can do to support these farmers and their communities. We are here interested in institutional impacts these new ways of producing, trading and recovering waste from food can create. Can we build durable arrangements amongst ourselves that would not only further the gains of these enterprises and protect the benefits they hold for farmers and society? This will give us clues on how to further interpret the institutional form of the market in South Africa, and how this form accommodates emergent and new enterprises. Does the market, as an institution, accommodate such new and innovative practices? We also need to understand how the benefits of a new innovation or enterprise can be accumulated by those who use it, and how benefits flow to those immediately next to them in the local area. This is what we need to build a just and sustainable food system.

This will enable us to understand, particularly in the food sector, if South Africa, and its present “institutional” ways of working, can accommodate innovation, particularly innovation outside our very dominant food and agricultural sector, and how the sector itself can transform. Regional, local and sustainable and regenerative food systems would hold benefit for emergent actors in a very concentrated and hegemonic food sector. 80% of food trade in South Africa is concentrated in about 10% of all agribusiness enterprises in South Africa, and this makes emergent, urban and small farmer entry into the market a really interesting case of market access and development. The current institutional structure for the food market is heavily concentrated, and we may expect actors from this sector to intensify their activities to concentrate this sector further. We are thus interested in how such emergent actors, alone and amongst themselves, are able to develop alternative structures in the economy, with a particular focus on the food system.

Hence, we should be interested in how "institutions" are built or emerge alongside the process of economic inclusion, and this is appropriate to emergent urban farmers. Institutions could be described in both simple and complex ways. Complex descriptions however cannot go past the philosophical point that these arrangements are merely systematic arrangements within the terms the original social contract gives us. The idea of the “social contract” is a fiction we use to justify our present constitutional arrangements. In this myth, fiction, or narrative, it is us, the members of society, that come together and decide on what we want as a society. The “Constitution” is the living embodiment of this “deal” or “contract” we make with ourselves, and we agree to transfer our power to the state, in return for social and other benefits. The state has the monopoly on violence and authority, as we have given our own power to the state, but the state must then protect what we do within this arrangement on how power, authority and privilege is distributed in society. Us as humans are most comfortable when taking taking action within a broader arrangement, and in the end, this broader arrangement is created by what we see as “society”. We do well if we act for a cause or ideology, as many activists will testify.

The philosopher John Searle spoke of "Constitutive rules" that regulate behaviour and in essence create society, and almost all "institutions" are made of such constitutive rules (Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO6WcPX7BR0). This makes a definition like "Institutions are regular patterns of behaviour" very meaningful. What we want is the right kind of regular patterns of behaviour that points to inclusive workings of institutions like markets so we can see if the changes (from an innovation or a new urban farm) that are brought about are progressive. They will be "progressive" if those around the new innovation are able to gain, accumulate and protect the benefit that it brings.

This is relevant to how emergent entrepreneur trade and produce, and also process wastes. Waste, for instance, may “belong” to the municipality (as it is currently, as local government has responsibility for all waste), and this indicates how the benefits of new food production systems may be appropriated by others. Once we see the value in waste, it may be that the municipality will extract “rent” or benefit from those who process waste. We thus place a burden on those who do perform this public function for us, as we would allow them to process it, and then extract rent from them. (This is almost the case with waste reclaimers who process the plastic and other waste we generate. They do us all a great service but are still unrecognised and unrewarded and are still at the mercy of “buy back centres”.) We need to develop the institutional rules of action in such a way that the activities that a farmer performs and the benefits that accrues to a farmer in doing such things are protected as belonging to the farmer.

To know how the market in South Africa will protect, promote and further develop new approaches and patterns in the economy, we need to take a look at the "enterprises" new entrepreneurs in the economy form. This could be a "pre-enterprise" as when someone sells a windfall, like an unexpected new harvest, in the informal sector, in an impromptu way. This gain would be protected by property rights, but may be eroded by police harassment or expensive transport costs. It could also refer to the complexity of enterprise creation and we can take a look at the degree of compliance, trade etc such an enterprise makes. Are new entrepreneurs able to manipulate the compliance needed for registration in their favour – i.e. can they become true registered and compliant enterprises, and be in command of this process?

Most of what I say below relates to enterprises, but some of it is about the things that need to emerge outside the enterprise, and if these occur, we can start to see if this change is progressively including someone in the "market" in the sense that their entry and activities in this sphere is productive for their interests, and is being protected by the institutional structures that exist outside these activities. Does South Africa accommodate the market entry of new entrepreneurs?

A next level of analysis relates to the product or service that is made available: what is it, and here we need a qualitative assessment. Some kinds of products and services may be environmentally detrimental, and this means that future activity will be harder to complete. The environmental impact of a product or service needs to be benign or regenerative. If it is not, we should question the form of the market that is created by the production and sale of such a product or service. Here we can find great qualitative things about the product or service, whom is it intended for, what is sold or traded, where is it made etc. Behind this is a view of local innovation and manufacturing, but it could also relate to creative and innovative new products and how these emerge, are used and sold and then wasted in a particular place. It is not merely that there is a product or service, but the kind of product and service is important.

Here we should be alert to the externalities that emerge right outside an enterprise. Farmers can process waste, and this will indicate a progressive approach to product or service creation, as it will benefit future activities. We need to know if we protect and prefer such products and services, as these will indicate if we are developing the market in a progressive way. Farmers who farm regeneratively, organically and by following permaculture and other similar practices increase opportunities in the future, and this is important. Here we would be able to see how a circular enterprise model would increase opportunities for further production. When we develop enterprises, or look back and investigate them, we can clearly ascertain its sustainability. Unfortunately, current processes in the market allow for both regenerative and extractive enterprises. For an enterprise that is highly integrated with the surrounding community, sustainability is a benefit, as such an enterprise will deliver value that others can use. The best example would be when an urban agriculture enterprise makes food available at a lower cost than formal retail markets can. The value lost in a lower price is recovered by a food for waste relationship. This value is created by processing food waste to compost, and it is the creation of this circular arrangement that is of benefit to society. It may be that only such kinds of circular enterprises could deliver benefit in a decentralised and highly distributed way, and this is a future model for enterprise creation we should take note of.

A next level of interest would concern the operations of such an enterprise. A linear enterprise feeds a distant supplier network, which often includes high volume producers on rural lands. A circular enterprise delivers benefits in the local area, by mobilising all externalities and turning them into “by-products” that have value. We should look at how an urban farm processes wastes, biomass, and also how it produces reciprocal relationships with its customers. Such a local enterprise can build trust with its customers (in various ways, from WhatsApp to a loyalty programme). Such a circular approach crowds in value around the enterprise, and this is the basis of its existence and profitability.

We should also ask: Where is the enterprise situated, what does it do, and what operations does it exhibit? In studies of the South African informal sector done by the Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation, mention is made of the "individualism" of informal enterprises. There is a dearth of cooperative behaviour in the informal sector as actors act as individuals. Others point to the cooperation that may be possible. This affects prospects for growth etc, and here we can ascertain the networks, strategies and operations and critique them. Are emergent entrepreneurs able to develop Communities of Practice amongst themselves so they can use these networks to gain better supplies, and gain access to larger markets no individual can fill? Are they able to create “contracts” amongst themselves that will protect both parties? Can they find the means amongst themselves to further this sector? What would we need to promote the urban agricultural sector, and how can the arrangements amongst entrepreneurs forward this agenda?

Let’s think of how this emergent enterprise would be embedded in its local "society". To what extent is this enterprise created "behind closed doors" or to what extent does it engage with customers, suppliers, interested and affected parties, and with those who are ineffable like plants animas and the environment? Strong engagement processes suggest the enterprise is open to local influence and this may make the enterprise's products services and operations appropriate to its context (This will decisively affect “product design”, marketing and sales). Whom does it serve, distant suppliers or local customers? We all need the distribution that markets make possible, but this, once again, could be differentiated and we can choose certain ways of operating the enterprise that would have more or less local benefit.

To ascertain the degree to which an enterprise is serving local and more ineffable interests, we need to see what it does with the networks that form around it. The "Community of Practice" that will emerge in these networks is a case in point. Here we can analyse it with social capital theory, to ascertain what influence distant or local interests have on the enterprise. We should not shun Bridging and Linking social capital as this could bring in distant and new ideas and connect to new actors and innovations. Bonding social capital – when we bond with those who are like us – at the local level is important as this gives an indication whom the enterprise is accountable for, distant suppliers or local customers? Behind innovation are bundles of stakeholders, and it is this cluster of stakeholders and actors that needs to be understood behind a new intervention. Can an enterprise manage and mobilise the stakeholders behind it for its own interests?

Hence, we need to be attentive of the associations that emerge around a new product, service, enterprise or innovation. The critique of this will give us clues as to what interests are served.

A similar critique of technology, use, design, promotion, or waste of the technology needs to be performed. When we are able to adapt and innovate in technology, we move forward to protecting the gains the technology makes possible. This ability to manipulate the world through the manipulation of technology is an indicator of how an actor can protect their own activities from outside interference. When farmers can hold their own, we are moving in the right direction.

We can also take a look at the media and materials the enterprise or entrepreneur develops. The literary or similar (symbolic) analysis of the media and materials that emanate from the enterprise will give us clues as to where this is heading, and the effects this would have going forward. This would extend to an analysis of the social media proficiency and use by the entrepreneur. Social media, from WhatsApp to websites, create an alternative institutional structure wherein economic activity takes place. A typical website will afford the user communication, marketing, financial and other analytical and instrumental tools and it is conceivable that almost all economic activity will take place within the platform the website makes possible. This nevertheless affords an avenue of enterprise development, and we can ascertain the activities and proficiency here to understand how the broader institutional context wherein economic development takes place, can protect new and emergent patterns in the economy. Social media, being private and independent of the state, may allow a “super-informality” independent of the state, but eventually local compliance will bring it back to its host country and the state will extract tax from it. But is also affords the informal or unregistered user to trade in a “formal” way, and this is important. Hence, we need to inquire as to how well used, understood and trusted these systems are for emergent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs on the other hand, need to adapt these systems as they use them, and if these can be sufficiently adapted, we are moving in the right direction.

A similar analysis can be done with the places and spaces the enterprise occupies. Are farmers able to devise an attractive site and place for trade? Are they able to build infrastructure, use technology like payment systems and machines, and are they able to secure the area for their own activities? This includes a view of the events organised at these places and spaces, and this will enable us to understand how the social environment can be manipulated by emergent entrepreneurs. The ability to manipulate this social environment gives clues as to the extent to which emergent entrepreneurs can re-create a real institutional context wherein their enterprises will function.

All the above will give us a clue as to the degree of local benefit that is possible from enterprise and economic development. Are people able to gain and capture for themselves the benefits that a new technology, new product or service, or new way of doing things creates? We need to enable people to capture, accumulate and protect their gains, and this idea, although a bit removed from local areas, figured quite strongly in the excellent book "Why Nations Fail" by Dorian Acemoglu and James Robinson.

These patterns of behaviour should thus crowd in the benefit a new development makes possible. It has to include outsiders, inevitably, but it is about the appropriation by the entrepreneur of the benefit new developments makes possible. To do that, local actors and stakeholders should be able to arrange and "stack" stakeholders and technology and anything else in such a way that they can derive benefit from this. The way they build systems (even those that may be almost invisible) will give us a clue as to the progressiveness of the new innovation, enterprise, product or service.

The above gives us clues as to the ability of emergent entrepreneurs, including urban farmers, to build patterns of behaviour that serves them. They need to actively create these systems that will protect them, but this does not say the state, civil society or the market cannot help in this regard. Only if they have a strong connection to their immediate community, will this move to market participation also benefit the community. The inclusion of community behaviour in the operations of such an urban enterprise is the means to distribute the benefits of economic growth more widely. However, these institutional structures cannot be created by anyone but them, and it is only in building their enterprises and being attentive to the effects they have on society in general, that we will succeed in building a new market pattern for food trade and production in urban areas. In the editorial on the day, we will discuss the concrete things we can do to build this durable institution that will protect the rise of new entrepreneurs in society.

#PhambiliBalimi