The Russo-Ukranian War: implications on the right of access to sufficient food in South Africa

Abstract

As the Russo-Ukrainian war rages on, its effects are felt far beyond the battlefield, threatening the fundamental right of access to sufficient food in South Africa. This study analysed the adequacy of instruments for the protection of the right of access to sufficient food. The analysis includes an in-depth study of international, regional, and national legal instruments, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to South Africa’s Constitution, legislation, and policy frameworks. Global conflicts. Calamities have demonstrated, particularly in the case of South Africa, their ability to unravel even the most well-intentioned protections. South Africa’s food system, precariously balanced on about 30% import reliance, continues to teeter on the brink of crisis even at around thirty-four (34) months since the war began in February 2022. The war has laid bare the vulnerabilities created by trade liberalisation laws and policies. Trade liberalism seeks to increase interconnectedness and exportation by promoting free trade and reducing barriers, too much dependence on it leads to increased dependence on exported foods. This focus can undermine local food production, making countries more reliant on global markets. Once hailed as progressive, these frameworks now stand as potential barriers to food security in the face of global shocks such as the Russo-Ukrainian war. The study used a doctrinal research methodology, consisting of an analysis of the legal and policy landscape, including the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act 47 of 1996, the Competition Act 89 of 1998, the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2014) Integrated Food Security Strategy (2022), Agricultural Policy Action Plan (2015) and the Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture (2001). The study examined how legal and policy frameworks have unintentionally hindered local food production, exposing the nation to international market fluctuations. It assessed the “reasonableness” of these measures, as required by Section 27(2) of the Constitution, which mandates reasonable steps to protect the right to access sufficient food. Using Constitutional Court cases like Grootboom and Mazibuko as benchmarks, the study has shown the inadequacy of these frameworks. Drawing from international best practices in a comparative aspect from countries such as Singapore, Finland, Brazil and India, the study recommended legal and policy reforms to protect the right of access to sufficient food amid global market instability.