This Act provides for the establishment of municipalities and towns and the administration of municipal and town councils. It provides for the conferment of various categories of urban status on settlements. It also gives certain powers to, and imposes
duties or obligations of municipalities, town councils and local boards. Some of those duties and powers have a direct impact on food production, processing and retailing.
The Act is administered by Local Governments with the guidance from the Ministry of Local Government. The Urban Councils Act has often been used by planners in controlling urban food production, processing, and retailing as will be shown in Chapters Five, Six and Seven. The sections below will highlight how some of those powers and duties affect food in urban areas.
The Act has several sections that explicitly engage food along the whole value chain. Section 198(3) confers power to urban councils to ‘plant and farm land owned by the municipality or town which is not required for other purposes’. Whilst this provision appears to facilitate food production, the fact that this is land ‘which is not required for other purposes’ implies that the use of land for food is secondary. It can only happen after all other land needs have been met. The section goes on to give authorities powers to permit grazing of livestock on land under the control of the council as well as to provide support facilities. They can also operate or authorize public slaughter houses and similar infrastructure such as for the ‘inspection, grading, storage and treatment of agricultural produce’. They are also expected to ‘provide markets for the sale of agricultural produce and carry on the business of dealing with agricultural produce’ (GoZ, 1996a:134). The law clearly considered food in Zimbabwe’s urban areas. However, the law appears to focus more on control than on facilitating easier access to food. Rather than being enacted to enhance food production processing and retailing, it appears the legislation exists to control rather than to facilitate and promote improved urban food systems.
Local governments are also given powers to make by-laws. The Third Schedule of the Act (Sections 102, 145(1), 227 and 232) lists the matters for which council may make by-laws. Some of these have a direct impact on food in urban areas. The Third Schedule Part III section 18 provides for councils to issue permits for certain activities which include fishing, hunting of game, picking of wild flowers and taking of bees or honey. This regulates food harvesting in urban areas. Whilst the issuance of permits is supposed to ensure sustainability, the actual implementation tends to be so constraining that the law is neither relevant nor responsive. In fact, the laws are ignored by the majority and enforcing them becomes unpopular.
Similarly, Part IX section 81 (1) provides for the prohibition and regulation of the cultivation, ‘which may give rise to circumstances which endanger public safety or security or unsightly in the area or locality’. This section impacts on food production.
Some areas that food may be grown can be considered illegal because growing food in them is considered to be a danger to the public or makes it ‘unsightly’. This section has been used to destroy food crops that have been interpreted to ‘endanger public safety’. There are documented cases of municipal officials slashing maize crop in Harare (Mbiba, 1995). The maize has been destroyed for endangering public safety even where there is taller grass that the municipality has failed to cut adjacent to the staple food crop.
The law also has strong provisions for regulating the keeping of animals that constitute food to urban residents. Part X of the Third Schedule regulates the keeping of animals, reptiles and birds, Section 82 provides for the licensing of buildings used for the keeping of animals, bees, reptiles or birds. The section also makes it an offence to undertake any of these without a license. The intention probably is to avoid infringing the rights of the said animals or other people. It however imposes a barrier to other groups of people who may fail to meet the requirements as set in the law. Complying with the law also exerts costs on potential producers that they may not afford.
There are also sections that impact on food processing and retailing. Part XI of the Third Schedule mandates the Local authorities to regulate and monitor food premises or vehicles that transport food as well as food markets. It goes on to regulate the ‘preparation, manufacture, keeping, storing, depositing, conveying, handling and sale of food including pet food’ (GoZ, 1996a: Part XI Section 90(1)). It prevents the sale, preparation, manufacture, keeping, and even storing of food that is, in the opinion of the medical officer of health or a health inspector, ‘adulterated, unwholesome or diseased’.
The law is particularly strict on fresh and perishable food trading. Section 90(3) prohibits the sale or supply of fresh meat obtained from cattle or other domestic livestock unless slaughtered at a slaughterhouse that was established or approved by the local government. The effect is to criminalize any processing and handling or
storing of food anywhere else. These requirements can only be met by formal large-scale food businesses. Their effect is to criminalize the thousands of small-large-scale players in the urban food sector in Zimbabwe. AFSUN studies have indicated that as much as 70 percent of poor people buy their food (staple cereals, oils, meats and vegetables) from the informal sector (Tawodzera et al, 2012). These are the people that are largely responsible for providing food to most city residents. It is ironic that are these are the people from whom the law does not allow them to buy. There is a disconnect between the reality of food in Harare’s urban areas and the intention of legislation.
Section 91 provides for the inspection and licensing of premises in which food is ‘sold, prepared, manufactured, stored, deposited or exposed for sale’. It prescribes that a local authority specifies the standards for the construction of premises used for food storing, processing and selling. This law governs the quality of food, the food processing and retailing environment and the personnel handling the food in order to promote public health. The requirements set above show that the food sector is governed very strictly in Zimbabwe. The strict legislative framework clearly envisaged a formal food system. The implementation of this law is very difficult in a largely informal setup, where people are handling, processing and retailing food informally.
Whilst authorities could be genuinely trying to act in public interest, the question becomes whose public interest? If most of the population can no longer meet or appreciate the set standards, maybe it is the standards that are not responsive to the reality on the ground.
The law also regulates the markets where food is sold. Section 94 (1) stipulates the regulation of markets (public food markets) and the licensing of persons authorized by the council to trade as market agents. It also seeks to regulate the cleanliness, sanitation and good order of markets and places used for public sale of food. The law also provides for the regulation and licensing of food traders and people who employ street vendors. It provides for the need to inspect the goods which may be sold by street vendors to promote safety. All this reinforces the fact that the food sector is regulated. This all contributes to making food production processing and retailing in compliance with the law extremely difficult. The intention of the laws may be noble in trying to prevent unsafe food systems in urban areas.
With all the above strict provisions one would expect Zimbabwe’s urban areas to reflect the spirit of the law. Implementation does not appear to have been successful. It would appear that even with these strict laws on the streets one sees more happening outside of the law than compliance. This is despite the fact that there are many governance actors who ‘impact on urban food systems, and thus urban food security’ (Smit, 2016:80). Unfortunately, whilst local governments have the most impact on urban food systems since they interface more directly with residents, the regulation of urban food has historically been the preserve of central governments who have focused more on securing national production (Duminy, 2018). The regulations have therefore generally reflected the twin approaches of urban local governments focus on market control and health regulation whilst central government drove rural production and control of product distribution.