Sheetal Bhoola|Published
The National School Nutrition Programme has been earmarked to be investigated and independently evaluated in relation to the continual irregularities that have been reported. The allegations, which primarily include tender fraud and other varied allegations, have been ongoing for years, but we are yet to be informed of a successful measure to curb these incidents.
Last month, there were fresh allegations that the tenders in KwaZulu-Natal had been rigged to benefit allies of KZN Education MEC Sipho Hlomuka. The Association has said it is consulting its legal team and will be reporting the matter to the Public Protector.
The successful tender awardees were listed as candidates that are ‘intended to be awarded’, which does demystify the allegations.
Minister Gwarube has indicated that the programme feeds approximately 10 million children twice a day and that she will spearhead the investigation. The meals are provided during the school day and administered by school heads, teachers, and principals.
The school feeding programmes have attained their objectives of contributing towards the elimination of hunger among children and lessening the impact on food-insecure households, but we question if these meals meet the nutritional needs of these children and if the impact of this programme is effective and aligned with the holistic objectives of the National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
It clearly stipulates in section 28 (1) that every child has the right to basic nutrition. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child indicates that “every child shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical, mental, and spiritual health,” and article 14 (2) (c) says that the state should take the appropriate measures to ensure children are provided with adequate nutrition.
It has been documented that approximately 2.4 million learners in 5,436 participating schools across 12 education districts in KwaZulu-Natal have been benefitting from the programme, and approximately 21,000 schools are actively participating in the project nationally. The monetary worth of this project is in the billions of rands.
The impact of the programme has been central in ensuring that approximately 9 million children receive meals twice a day, especially in rural South Africa. In child-headed households, children are predominantly dependent on the meals provided by the programme and often do not have much to eat in their homes.
However, the programme specifically addresses child hunger among children over the age of 6 years and fails to adequately address the nutritional needs of a growing child.
Unpublished scholarly research has indicated that child-headed households have children as young as 3 years old, and older siblings are left to be responsible for these children after the school day. The probability of these younger children lacking adequate nutrition is likely, as the school-going children are receiving their main meals at school and not at home.
The lack of good nutrition in the diets of these young children has led to the prevalence of double burden malnutrition in South Africa.
Mkhize & Sibanda (2020) indicate that the predominant reasons for stunting, being underweight, and wasting in rural areas are poor access to water and sanitation, child illness, inadequate dietary intake, and food-insecure households, which are intrinsically linked to unemployment.
The other big challenge that is upon us is the decision for the government to close a number of schools permanently in and around South Africa.
Children that will no longer attend nearby schools will not be able to benefit from the programme. Within KwaZulu-Natal, several primary and secondary schools located in rural areas have been earmarked for permanent closure between the years of 2024 and 2028.
Little information about these decisions has been available to South Africans. The reasons for these instructed closures by The Department of Basic Education include poor attendance and the lack of appropriate resources, but South Africans are uncertain if there are any alternative arrangements made for these learners to attend other schools in the vicinity.
Sceptics have blamed urbanisation for the declining number of learners that attend schools in rural areas, and some scholars say the impact of the programme has been partially exclusive rather than completely inclusive.
In addition to the manipulation of tender awards to selected entrepreneurs, the entire facility needs to be externally audited and evaluated so that children receive nutritional meals, and not just meals.
There have also been reports of children being hospitalised in the Eastern Cape because of a mass food poisoning incident last month. Approximately 120 learners from Gobisizwe Agricultural School in Mthatha were rushed to hospitals and a local clinic. Some children were reportedly left seriously ill, and one child vomited blood.
There have been multiple reports of similar incidents across all provinces in South Africa. Health spokesperson Siyanda Manana said the department believed the meal that caused the children to fall ill consisted of meat, samp, beetroot, carrots, and beans.
It is incidents such as these that should question the quality and freshness of the meals prepared by service providers. The other concern that needs to be interrogated is when the food was prepared and how it has been stored. The Department of Education should be interrogating service providers in this regard.
It is sad that the procurement, monetary, and administrative challenges of the School Nutrition Programme become the focal areas of investigation rather than the efficacy and practical challenges of the implementation process.
The Department of Education needs to adjust its focus and be realigned to the purpose of the programme by interrogating the types of services rendered by food tenderpreneurs in South Africa.
How do we continue with a programme that has only truly benefited some children and not all? Shouldn’t the Department of Education aim to become more inclusive after years of experimenting and implementing this programme?
*The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.
DAILY NEWS
.
