Most food producers in Epworth did not report experiencing problems with authorities or with the law. Again, this differs significantly with most studies undertaken on food production in Harare (Mbiba, 1995; Mudimu, 1996; Mudimu et.al, 2005; Taru and Basure, 2013). Most of these studies reported ‘harassment’ and ‘repression’ of farmers. The low level of conflict between urban food producers and planning authorities is explained by the absence of significant open land parcels in Epworth. Local authorities have been documented to object to cultivation on public land and other vacant spaces without authority. The different laws they administer do not conflict with small-scale domestic production on-plot.
There is however a small percentage of farmers that reported having problems with authorities because of the law. Only 5 percent had at any time been stopped from growing food crops and 8 percent from keeping livestock. The only people that had at any time been stopped from growing food were found growing crops in areas that were outside of their plots, the open space off-plot cultivators. They were stopped for two specific reasons: either they were said to have violated environmental laws or the water laws as discussed in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 above. The accounts below from different growers affected differently by different laws demonstrate the reasons:
Case One: The Environmental Management Act and use of Wetlands
We used to have gardens along the Jacha River, but we always ran into problems with officials from the board (ELB) and from the Environmental Management Agency. They would always come and ask us to apply for a permit because we were using a wetland. The process of obtaining the permit was complicated and cumbersome. Whilst we have stopped farming there, the land has been taken over and subdivided into housing stands. We wonder whether housing is allowed in a wetland. Yes, they managed to stop us from accessing our gardens there, but the wetland has now been occupied by the new stand owners
(Interview with a former producer who was stopped by EMA from farming in the Jacha wetland, July 2017)
The farmers were stopped from cultivating the wetland because the law requires anyone who cultivates in a wetland to obtain a permit from the Environmental Management Agency (EMA). The process is cumbersome as it requires lengthy application processes which must be accompanied by detailed justification and so they failed to get it. This finding mirrors what cultivators on open spaces face in much of the developing world cities (Bryld, 2003; Van Veenhuizen, 2006; Mougeot, 2010; Redwood, 2012). The finding also demonstrates the weakness of urban farming as a land use. In many instances land used for farming at some point loses its place to some other ‘urban development’ use (Mbiba, 1995; Mubvami and Mushamba, 2006; Redwood, 2009). It is important to note that the housing development that has displaced the food production is not formally planned nor permitted by authorities. Indications are however that the housing developments may end up being regularized
hence legitimized13. The small cultivators cannot stand the might of not only other land
demands but are not supported by authorities and they have no influence (Scott et al, 1993). In a study covering the two cities of Lilongwe and Blantyre in Malawi, it was observed that ‘most land’ earmarked for urban food production was being taken over by other urban development uses (Mkwambisi et.al, 2010).
Case Two: The Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act and Use of Wells I used to produce a lot of vegetables and was actually selling some at my own market stall here as well as to other vendors. Unfortunately, I had problems with the water people (ZINWA officials). They came and asked us where we got water for irrigating our crops. We told them that we had a protected well from which we also got our domestic water since this section does not have water supplies from the board (Epworth Local Board). He asked to see our permit. I told him I didn’t have a permit and I asked him where I could get the permit. He directed me to their head office in town (Harare city centre). When I got there, they not only wanted us to fill in a few forms, they also wanted us to pay a penalty fee and a regular user fee and I told them I’d rather stop farming. How could I pay for water that I have struggled to get from underground? To avoid trouble, I now produce just for myself, maybe that will not attract their attention
(Interview with a food producer in Ward 4, Zinyengere, July 2017).
Case Three: Epworth Poultry Farmer and the Poultry Regulations
I was keeping 2000 chickens on my plot in five big fowl-runs. One-time health inspectors came to my premises. They indicated that they had received reports that I was keeping chickens without a permit. I told them I had always kept chickens, but they indicated that I needed a permit. I asked them to give me the permit, but they asked me to apply to the board (ELB). I went to the offices and applied but they refused to give me the permit. They said this is a residential area and I cannot keep 2000 chickens, so I had to stop. As you can see my fowl-runs are now empty.
(Epworth Resident Poultry Producer, July 2017)
Out of the twenty-five respondents that keep livestock, only two reported having ever been stopped from doing so. One of these two was stopped from keeping
chickens because their enterprise was seen as having grown to an extent where it was deemed to assume a ‘commercial’ character. The farmer was found keeping 2000 chickens, 1975 chickens above the permitted 25. The case was corroborated by one of the board officials in an interview. He confirmed that there were a few chicken farmers who had been stopped from keeping ‘many more than the permitted 25 chickens’.
The limitation of chickens kept to only 25 reflects the envisaged production in an urban area. The law imagines a small-scale production typology which is limited to poverty alleviation only but not looking at livelihood and beyond. This fits into how urban agriculture has been framed in the global South. From a scalar perspective, it is an insignificant activity because real supply is supposed to come from the rural and commercial farming areas (Mbiba, 1994; Bowyer-Bower and Tengeh, 1995; Battersby, 2013).
Case Four: Epworth Goat Producer and Health Inspectors
I had four goats that I was keeping. I did not think they were a problem with anyone since I would tie them to a tree everyday inside my premises. They would graze around the trees and sometimes I brought them additional fodder. I think one of my neighbours got jealous and reported me to the authorities. When the health inspectors came they said my neighbours were not happy with me keeping goats in town so I had to move them elsewhere. I had nowhere to take them so I killed them, sold most of the meat and ate some with my family.
(Epworth Resident who participated in the Food Production Survey, July 2017)