Opportunities and Challenges of Indigenous Food Plant Farmers in Integrating into Agri-Food Value Chains in Cape Town

Abstract

In many regions of the Global South, introduced crops have led to a loss of biodiversity and left the food system vulnerable to climate change. As a result, the (re-)introduction of indigenous food plants (IFPs) into agriculture is discussed as a way to a more sustainable and resilient food production, which might also be feasible for Southern small-scale garden farmers. In Cape Town (South Africa), the first attempts to commercialize IFPs of the Cape Floristic Region are currently being made. By using a value chain perspective, this study analyzes the opportunities and challenges for farmers to integrate IFPs into regional commercial agri-food chains. Based on qualitative interviews and ethnographic participant observation, we identify and explain different challenges and potentials: Challenges include the complex harvest licensing procedure and limited seed/cutting access for growers, limited capabilities and capacity of growers, the competition with subsidized conventional production and limited distribution options, as well as a negative cultural perception of IFPs and a lack of preparation knowledge at the consumption level. Further, we identified opportunities for environmental adaptation and income generation. Remarkably, our results indicated a, so far, barely discussed geographical component in the success of indigenous crops. The findings are useful for guiding relevant market development interventions and raising awareness of IFPs in Cape Town and beyond.

1. Introduction

In South Africa, as in many other countries of the world, highly productive non-domestic crops, e.g., maize and sweet potato, have replaced traditional food plants, e.g., sorghum and millet [1,2]. Although introduced crops have often comparatively lower nutrient content than indigenous crops, they were favored for their higher physical yield. Many native plant species that were previously utilized as a part of a food source were neglected, even though they can provide valuable nutritional benefits [3]. The existing agriculture policies in South Africa are focused on promoting non-native cash crop production for the market [4,5]. These cash crops are energy-dense but provide restricted or even inadequate nutritional intake [6]. This has been seen in the high prevalence of malnutrition health issues in South Africa [7] and stays in conflict, e.g., with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2 Zero Hunger and 3 Good Health and Wellbeing [8].

This current agri-food system is also vulnerable to climatic changes because of industrialized production, the low diversity in plant selections [9], and a high agricultural water consumption intensity [10]. In Cape Town, several severe drought events in recent years have placed constraints on agricultural practices [11]. This impacts in particular small-scale farmers who often do not have sufficient access to resources such as land, water, and equipment [12]. Social disturbances such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic have negatively impacted the local food system, with loss of income and limited access to food [13]. In light of the disruptions brought by climatic events and social disturbances, confidence in a reliable food system has decreased [14]. Therefore, unless interventions are made to increase the resilience of local food systems, the impact will be more severe in the face of the next adverse events. In this regard, alternative ways to narrow down the nutrition security gap and increase the food system resilience should be sought.

The indigenous plants in Cape Town bear the potential to deal with droughts and other extreme weather events. Cape Town is located on the coastline of the Western Cape and is characterized by distinct Cape Floristic Region (CFR) vegetation [15]. The CFR is one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world with over 9000 species, known as the smallest of the world’s six floral kingdoms [16]. CFR Indigenous Food Plants (IFPs)1 could be a way to increase the agri-food system resilience as they tend to cope better with extreme weather conditions and climate change [17] and are more likely to be tolerant to drought, heat, and high salinity conditions compared to introduced species [18,19].

Studies on IFPs also stress their general societal benefits. In recent years, various studies on different continents have analyzed the potential of native plant species and their potential as food sources [20,21,22]. For example, native plant populations can contribute to local biodiversity conservation efforts [23], enrich genetic diversity, and thereby increase resistance to adverse climate change events [24,25]. Planting, using, and eating these plants help to preserve indigenous knowledge [26], and encouraging the reuse of IFPs can reconnect people with their traditional knowledge, cultural identity, and collective heritage [27]. The use of IFPs can further positively influence people’s health by diversifying their diets [28].

Concerning farmers’ opportunities and challenges to commercially producing these plants, studies indicate that the potential for African small-scale farmers in cultivating and commercializing IFPs is currently undervalued [3]. Generally, different studies outline different potentials for small-scale farmers in the Global South to integrate into commercial agricultural value chains in order to increase their incomes [29,30]. Even though IFPs are increasingly being grown and consumed in Cape Town, so far, commercial value chain structures for IFPs are only emerging, and little is known about how and why this is the case [31]. Against this background, this study addresses the following question: What are the main opportunities and challenges for farmers to integrate IFPs into commercial value chains?

To address this question, this study first develops an analytical framework by building upon recent works on agricultural value chains in the Global South and on the potential and challenges of indigenous crop commercialization. Following up on this analytical framework, Section 3 presents the methods which mainly consist of qualitative primary data collection and analysis along the emerging IFP value chain structures in the Cape Town area. Section 4 presents and discusses the main results, which are finally summarized and interpreted in the Conclusion.

2. Agricultural Value Chains in the Global South and Indigenous Crop Commercialization

2.1. Agricultural Value Chains in the Global South

2.1.1. General works on Agricultural Value Chains

There has been a large strand of literature analyzing the structures, interactions, and dynamics within agricultural value chains from the Global South through the lens of Global Commodity Chains [32], Global Value Chains (see, e.g., [33]), and related Value Chain approaches (e.g., [34,35]). Different studies analyzed the possibilities for farmers to integrate into international value chains in the context of their capabilities, the complexity of transactions and the ability to codify these transactions, and the related governance types of the chains [36]. Here, they focused, e.g., on the role of the state, NGOs, the role of private and public standards, or modern information and communication technologies [36,37]. Typical results included that when the complexity of transactions in the chain (e.g., product and process specifications) are high and the capabilities (e.g., technological and financial capabilities) of the farmers are low, they usually cannot meet the terms and conditions set by the buyers (e.g., supermarkets or large food producers). However, different support systems such as a simple codification of transactions or financial, technical, and knowledge assistance can support integration in the chain (e.g., [29]).

2.1.2. Shorter Agricultural Value Chains within the Global South

Most farmers in the Global South are not included in international value chains but produce for local and national markets or subsistence. Particularly in the last decades, however, also on these scales, value chain structures increasingly emerged [30]. Such regional value chains are typically more market-driven, less governed, and have related complex terms and conditions to be met [33]. So far, relatively few studies have covered these Southern agricultural value chains on the national and in particular the regional and local levels (e.g., [38]; [39]).

Concerning value chains on the national level, studies on Southern retailers—including works on South African supermarkets [40,41]—outlined the terms and conditions of national buyers and the changing consumer market. Here, they emphasized the importance of emerging Southern middle classes with different expectations and wishes concerning their food, which led to new and expanding demand and related requirements for the producers [42,43]. Studies on local agricultural chains (e.g., [44]) further outlined the specific role of the proximity to the consumer (e.g., for fresh and perishable fruits and vegetables). These and other studies further discussed the importance of functioning physical infrastructures (in particular transport, information, and communication infrastructures) and the role of the state (e.g., public agricultural and trade policies) as facilitating conditions [30,45]. Additionally, in the Cape Town region, large food retailers dominate the main parts of the agri-food value chains [40]. A few large retailers replaced local small stores and took over a majority of the business activities, the so-called “supermarketization” [46] (p. 289). For smallholder farmers in Cape Town, the terms and conditions to become a supplier of these supermarket-based chains are high (e.g., concerning the volumes and the quality), and competing with large farms has become a big challenge [47].

2.2. Indigenous Crops Commercialization

Studies on other continents (particularly North America and Australia) have analyzed the commercial potential of IFPs [20,21,22]. For example, the contribution of indigenous food species to the promotion of a healthier community in Northwestern North America [20], including fruits such as Pacific crabapples (Malus fusca), bog cranberries (Vaccinium oxycoccus), and wild rose hips (Rosa spp.), along with other edible roots and seaweeds; and the increasing commercial viability of native edible plants in Australia, such as the Australian bush tomato (Solanum centrale) [21,22].

In the African continent, studies were also conducted on the value chains of African indigenous vegetables. For example, a study in Uganda researched the improvement of the IFP value chains and the potential for their commercialization and income generation [48]. One recent project in Kenya looked into the opportunities for IFPs to improve food and nutrition security [49], involving African nightshade (Solanum scabrum), Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), and Ethiopian kale (Brassica carinata), while another similar study analyzed the access to high-value markets by Kenyan IFP farmers [50].

Generally, there are a lot of opportunities for growing IFPs for commercial markets discussed in the literature: On the input side, indigenous species usually require less chemical inputs, irrigation, and soil preparation compared to introduced plant species, since indigenous plants are more adapted to the local environmental conditions. Therefore, a smaller capital is needed to participate in the value chain [51]. Concerning market opportunities, consumers have become increasingly interested in indigenous vegetables and fruits and this market is growing [50]. Responding to this rising demand, planting and selling IFPs can offer economic returns to the growers [49]. Growing indigenous plants along with conventional crops further allows for the diversification of income options by providing additional income sources [52]. Rural communities can use diverse food plants to better address environmental and commercial risks and meet their livelihood needs [53].

However, studies have also identified the different challenges of growing IFPs for commercial markets. On the market side, the acceptance of indigenous food plants can be difficult to predict, especially since this type of novel food is not commonly consumed by the public. Potential consumers tend to be reluctant to eat unfamiliar foods [52,54]. Some indigenous plants have a bitter taste, which may prevent people from consuming them [55]. The products of modern supermarkets became more attractive to younger generations as a symbolic sign of economic development and social status achievement [56,57], which further limited the development of the IFP market. Current policies, extension services, and research remain largely concentrated on a few conventional crops, which in turn hinders the development of indigenous food plants [58]. Some indigenous plants are not easy to cultivate or are slow-growing because of certain biological features or ecological requirements, and cultivated plants are sometimes considered qualitatively inferior compared to wild-gathered specimens [59]. Knowledge of cultivating such plants is also limited since there is not much documentation and information available to guide interested farmers [3].

An overview of important analytical categories to study challenges and potentials is summarized in

Table 1. Overview of important analytical categories to study challenges and potentials of IFP producers to integrate into commercial value chains (own compilation).

Agricultural Value Chains in the Global South
Capabilities (e.g., technological and financial capabilities); Complexity of transactions (e.g., product and process specifications); Ability to codify these transactions; Related governance types of the chains (e.g., market, relational, modular, captive, hierarchical) Role of the state and NGOs (e.g., as an enabling environment); Role of private and public standards; Role of information and communication technologies; Support systems (simple codification of transactions or financial, technical, and knowledge assistance).
Shorter Agricultural Value Chains within the Global South
Terms and conditions within the chain (e.g., with large buyers such as supermarkets); Changing consumer market (e.g., expectations of middle classes concerning their food); Proximity to the consumer (e.g., for fresh and perishable fruits and vegetables); Functioning physical infrastructures; Role of the state (e.g., public agricultural and trade policies).
Indigenous crops commercialization
Inputs required (e.g., irrigation, chemical inputs soil preparation); Market opportunities due to higher demand for IFP; Diversification potentials (by growing indigenous plants along with conventional crops); Consumer reluctance against not commonly-known food; Competition with established and partly state-supported conventional crops; Implementation costs and risks of new production (no established sales channels and production line, etc.) Production limitations (e.g., due to relatively low output).

.

3. Data and Methods

Following these outlined analytical categories, this study uses a qualitative approach that included semi-structured interviews with value chain participants, and ethnographic participant observation. The data were collected in Cape Town from January to March 2022.

3.1. Background of the Study Region

Cape Town is located on the coastline of the Western Cape in the Mediterranean climate zone, characterized by winter rainfall and its distinct Cape Floristic Region (CFR) vegetation [15]. Most interviewed farmers are located in the eastern suburban area of Cape Town, a large plain that is commonly referred to as the Cape Flats. Many of the urban small-scale farming activities are performed by the township residents on the Cape Flats [60]. Cape Town has experienced severe droughts in the past few years. Low precipitation has led to strict government restrictions on water use, which has largely affected agricultural activities and people’s daily lives [11]. Urban expansion limits the space available for agricultural production and open areas on public ground are not easily accessible for urban farmers in Cape Town [12]. The soil quality in the Cape Flats is considered very poor, with the topsoil being highly bleached and lacking in nutrients [61]. Being native to the environment, IFPs are adapted to the local climatic and soil conditions [53,62]. As one recent study shows, CFR IFPs grow prolifically on sandy soil without much rainfall [61].

3.2. Data Collection Methods

Following a value chain approach, multiple sources of data were collected to generate a deeper understanding of the complex process [35]. The study took place in 18 gardens and other sites (e.g., restaurants, nurseries, etc.) recommended by local experts and supporting NGOs. It was carried out by visiting each place onsite to investigate who is currently participating in the IFPs value chain and what is planted and sold by producers. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 31 value chain actors, including 5 producers, 11 consumers, 3 demonstration gardens and nurseries, 1 intermediary, 1 processor, 1 retailer, 4 research institutions/researchers, 3 governmental agencies, and 2 NGOs (see

Table 2. Interviewee lists and their assigned codes.

Interviewee Code	Value Chain Activities	Function
DTG1–2	Pre-production	Demonstration and Training Garden
PN5	Pre-production	Plant Nursery
P10–14	Primary Production	Producer
In21	Distribution and Commercialization	Intermediary
Pr22	Distribution and Commercialization	Processor
Rt23	Distribution and Commercialization	Retailer
RC24–29	Customer	Restaurant and Chef
B31–32	Customer	Bar
W33–35	Customer	Workshop Provider
E37	Enabling Environment	Educator
RI38–40	Enabling Environment	Research Institution
GOV41–43	Enabling Environment	Governmental Agency
S44–45	Secondary Support	Farmers Network NGO

). One key educator was continuously consulted throughout the interview phases, with three expert interviews conducted (pre-field, field, and post-field). Snowball sampling was employed for identifying participants [63]. This is a non-probability sampling technique that asks existing interviewees to recommend next participants. Interview questions focused on the outlined important analytical categories to study the challenges and potentials of IFP producers to integrate into commercial value chains. The structure of the interview guide was followed but flexibly adapted. The order of the questions was adjusted and follow-up questions were asked accordingly. Some re-emerged themes were asked for comments in the later interviews.

All the interviews were transcribed and coded using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA. A coding approach was derived from the analytical framework following the identified value chain segments [64].

Ethnographic participant observations were carried out during the research period to triangulate the data validity. These consisted of participating in three workshops (on cultivation knowledge, preservation methods, and stakeholder engagement), farmers’ meetings, site visiting, and market sales. Additionally, secondary data were reviewed to cross-check the collected primary data. Data source triangulation increased confidence in the validity of the studies conducted, which involves using other existing studies to cross-check the collected data [65]. Nevertheless, the findings need to be interpreted carefully within certain limitations. The results of this study may not be generalizable because the sample was geographically restricted and the sample size was small. Second, the market for CFR IFPs is rapidly evolving, thus making the study results time-sensitive. Third, data collection was limited by access to the communities as an outsider and the seasonality of the product.

4. Results and Discussion

In the following chapter, this study first outlines the main characteristics of indigenous food plant production and the related value chain structures in Cape Town, followed by discussions on the main identified challenges and opportunities of the farmers.

4.1. Indigenous Food Plants in Cape Town

The value chains of IFPs in Cape Town are based on a variety of different crops (Figure 1). For example, Dune spinach, Sea pumpkin, and Soutslaai/Ice plant have recently been cultivated in gardens for commercial production. They are also known as coastal greens because they grow in abundance along the coast (E37). Sandkool and Veldkool are popular in restaurants because of their similarity to asparagus in appearance but growing them is a challenge (In21). Sunrose and Spekboom are commonly grown as garden plants but are not well-known as edible plants (RI40). Sour figs are grown in gardens but have not been commercialized. Most of the sour figs on the market come from wild harvesting (GOV42). Slangbessie is being grown by a medium-sized producer after the successful propagation of seeds (In21). Identified IFPs are mainly consumed fresh and are often incorporated into the cuisine by innovative chefs as alternatives to conventional vegetables (RC24, RC25, RC26, RC27) (e.g., Dune spinach instead of Swiss chard). Most of the identified IFPs are perishable and they are kept in the cold chain during storage (Rt23). Workshops on IFPs fermentation and pickling methods have been held in recent years (W33, E37). Fruits and berries are often made into jams or chutneys by chefs or workshop providers (E37, PN5, Rt23, RC24, RC28). Herbs are dried and made into condiments (E37, RI40) and used in alcoholic products (B31, B32).

4.2. Identified Value Chain Structures in Cape Town and Their Enabling Environment

We could identify different typical IFP value chain structures at a modest scale. These can be mainly categorized into four consecutive segments (Figure 2): 1. The pre-production segment includes suppliers of seeds, seedlings, and some training supports. Typical actors are plant nurseries and NGO demonstration and training gardens (DTG1, DTG2, PN5). 2. Primary production is carried out by small-scale garden farmers in townships (e.g., in Khayelitsha, Mitchells Plain, Nyanga, and Philippi) (P10, P11, P12, P14) and two medium size producers (In21, RI40). The interviewed small-scale gardens in the townships have a size of less than three hundred square meters and IFPs are planted complementary to conventional plants (P10–P14). Out of the two identified medium size farms, one belonged to an intermediary (In21), and another one was located outside of the Cape Flats in Lynedoch as a pilot project at a research institute (RI40). 3. Distribution and commercialization were in our case currently the weakest part of the value chain (In21, Pr22, Rt23, RC24, RI40), and we could only identify one active intermediary doing the collection and distribution (In21), and one active agri-processing company (Pr22). 4. Consumption mainly happens in the middle-upper class market, with fine dining restaurants being the largest customer group (RC24–27). A small amount of city market visitors contributes to the rest of the customer group. The small scale of production, the low number of segments, and the proximity to the market give a simple structure to the value chain.

Apart from these value chain structures, IFP farmers are differently linked to an enabling environment that supports IFP production. This includes research institutions, governmental agencies, and other organizations. The Department of Agriculture (DoA), the City of Cape Town, and the conservation agency Cape Nature are the key governing bodies. Secondary support that goes directly to the farmers is provided by farmers’ network NGOs, funds/trusts, governmental support, and certification bodies3. Cape Nature issues permits for IFP seed harvesting and commercial selling activities (GOV42, E37). They hold the legislative mandate to conserve the biodiversity of the Western Cape. Multiple NGOs, such as Abalimi Bezekhaya, are supporting farmers in accessing the knowledge of IFP cultivation and commercialization. Research institutions, particularly Stellenbosch University and the Sustainability Institute (SI), have multiple research projects on IFPs.

Concerning the governance and organization of the chain, in general, this study revealed low requirements of buyers concerning quality and quantity for the farmers to produce for the market and as a result a low complexity of the transaction. As in other urban agriculture chains, the requirements and related transactions on IFPs are simple and can be easily communicated to growers [44]. There are few, if any, special requirements for IFPs on the market side. The lack of familiarity with the plants makes it difficult to develop any specifications. While acknowledging that quality does play a role, market providers emphasized that there are no additional specifications in terms of quality standards for IFPs compared to other fresh produce (Rt23). There is no high demand for quantity. The market and customers understand seasonality (RC25, RC27, RC29, B31), as most of them work with organic products. While continuous supply can be beneficial, consumers also emphasize that there is no need to provide year-round availability, as it goes against the idea of organic farming (RC27, RC29). Therefore, information on product specifications is easily codified and transmitted to producers. In total, this makes it generally possible for growers with very low capabilities (who were usually excluded from other commercial chains; see [33]) to produce for these chain structures.

4.3. Main Identified Challenges

IFP garden farmers in Cape Town trying to produce commercially experience many similar challenges along the value chain structures, as typically outlined in African smallholder-based value chains (see, e.g., [12,50]). This is true in particular for limited and/or uncertain market access, and limited capabilities to produce (i.e., cultivation knowledge). Additionally, we found many opportunities mentioned in the recent literature (e.g., [49,50,52,[58]), such as a general potential for environmental adaptation and income generation. However, this study also revealed more specific challenges and opportunities, which can be related to the particular characteristics of IFPs and the related composition of the consumer base. In the next paragraphs, we outline the most important challenges and opportunities along the chain from inputs (pre-production), and primary production to commercialization and consumption (Figure 2).

4.3.1. Challenges at the Pre-Production Level

The main challenges on the pre-production level are complex harvest licensing and the limited availability of seeds/cuttings of IFPs. Agricultural and food value chain studies in the past (see, e.g., [30,45]) have mainly used a “field to fork” perspective but have not paid much attention to pre-production segments. A few studies (see, e.g., [66,67]) have shown the importance of access and organization of agricultural supply for farmers and particularly African small-scale farmers to be successfully integrated into commercial agricultural-food value chains.

As discussed above, IFPs can grow prolifically without much input such as water or fertilizers. Many of the IFPs in this study are perennials and can be reproduced from cuttings. However, constraints such as limited access to seeds/cuttings—compared to conventional vegetables—have restricted the commercial development of IFPs for farmers in Cape Town. For example, one interviewee explained that the limited IFP value chain structures are “a reflection of the fact that there hasn’t been enough input” (E37). While some IFPs are easy to find in regular nurseries as they are also used for gardening or planted in urban areas, such as Sour figs, others are difficult to obtain, especially Veldkool, Sandkool, and Sea pumpkin, which could not yet be found in any commercial nursery.

Governmental Agency Cape Nature is licensing seed harvesting and marketing activities but only a very limited number of value chain participants have in fact received such licenses (GOV42). There are a couple of nurseries specializing in indigenous plants in the Cape Town area, which focus more on medicinal plants and plants for house gardening. Some nurseries harvest seeds in the wild but this is subject to a complex permit process. Thus, as one interviewee explained, some of them are doing it without a permit, which further complicates the issue (P12). A complex regulatory environment for seed harvesting leads to informal ways of seed exchange and limited seed access. While most of the commercialized crops are registered or listed for markets [68], IFP seeds are far from being certified and are at the very beginning of the process of where to obtain them from.

4.3.2. Challenges of Limited Capabilities on the Production Level

As the IFPs value chain is in the early stages of commercialization, financial and technical capabilities such as communication tools, storage, cultivation equipment, and transport vehicles are not currently the most important constraints, although this may be an issue when further commercialization takes place. Similar challenges were seen in developing organic farming systems in Cape Town [69]. The most significant constraint is that there is, so far, not much documentation and information available on cultivating IFPs to guide interested farmers [3]. However, growers need to understand how to grow IFPs in their gardens in order to produce effectively, especially when they are introduced as a “new crop”. Questions that emerged from the interviews were: how to plant, when to harvest, which part to harvest, how to process, and in some cases, how to produce cost-effectively. Even so, IFPs are generally more suitable and with fewer inputs to plant than conventional crops, some of them still need certain conditions, of which farmers need to be aware. Although limited cultivation knowledge was generated through recent trials and pilot projects, there is still a significant knowledge gap on how to grow IFPs4. In the Cape Flat, most land is leased from schools or acquired public land under special contracts [70]. Some IFPs (e.g., Dune spinach) tend to take up land, which is especially concerning for small farmers who have limited space. Some of the IFPs go dormant in the summer but grow back in the winter (e.g., Veldkool). Many of the IFPs should not be planted in fertile soil (e.g., Dune spinach and Sour figs). The commonly mentioned difficulties of domestication efforts to cultivate new crops include: (1) establishing an ecosystem in which they can thrive, (2) finding the right soil type and mixture for propagation, and (3) understanding how to manage pests and diseases.

These challenges in cultivation particularly occurred for a large proportion of the smallholder growers in the Cape Flats that are originally not from the Cape Floristic Region but from regions such as the Eastern Cape province (as a result of migration flow; [12]), where the climate, rainfall and, as a result, the indigenous plants and their growing conditions differ from the Cape Town area [71]. Most of the North part of South Africa experiences summer rainfall, whereas the Western Cape is dominated by winter rainfall. Many of the IFPs in the Cape Town area are, as a result, not indigenous, e.g., to the Eastern Cape because of the climatic differences between these two places [71]. As a result, growers’ knowledge about indigenous plants differs. The lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of the benefit have slowed down the cultivation process of IFPs in the gardens.

4.3.3. Challenges of Starting to Produce for a Niche—Initial Risks

Compared to the already developing value chain of conventional vegetables, developing new products such as IFPs needs startup investment. Although local researchers (e.g., RI38, RI39) and institutions (e.g., the SI) encourage the incorporation of IFPs into current farming practices, there is little incentive for growers to change current practices, especially since such change involves new investments (particularly in the training, management and new market development, but not on physical agricultural inputs—as discussed earlier, the costs of physical inputs in IFPs are low) and greater risk because of the uncertain market prospects. However, long-term benefits (e.g., the establishment of climate-resilient farming systems) are not yet tangible. Given their high vulnerability due to limited capacities, smallholder farmers generally tend to be more risk-averse [72]. This is also true for most interviewed IFP farmers as they are already threatened by many insecurities such as land and water shortages and market instability (P10, P11, P12).

4.3.4. Competition with Subsidized Conventional Production—No Categorization as Solution for Food Security

So far, the production of conventional vegetables is financially supported by government agencies such as the DoA and the City of Cape Town to alleviate food insecurity. In contrast, IFPs so far are not categorized as a viable solution for food security (GOV41) as they are not yet fully commercialized and have a low acceptance by local communities (see below). Governmental agencies such as the DoA and the City of Cape Town support conventional crop productions with start-up funding for community gardens and household gardens. They also assist with infrastructure buildings (e.g., water access) and provide production inputs (e.g., equipment, seeds and cuttings). The DoA supports smallholder farming activities in Cape Town (P11, E37, GOV41), providing funding, assessment services, and assistance with irrigation systems and other equipment. The City of Cape Town assists the DoA as the local municipal agency and provides land access to smallholder farmers (GOV41, GOV42). IFP production has no additional financial support if not less than the conventional ones. While the market for conventional vegetables is therefore relatively stable and income is predictable, growing IFPs is considered risky for farmers and the supporting agencies as the market is small and acceptance is not guaranteed. The limited financial support that IFP producers can receive further restricts the potential commercialization development.

4.3.5. Challenges of Producing for a Niche—Limited Distribution Segments

The current IFP production and distribution is in a rudimentary stage and IFP production and distribution remains a niche (see below). There is a limited number of intermediaries, processors, and retailers that are currently involved. However, studies suggest that a larger scale of production might lead to a stable supply and potential market logistics [48,50], particularly in this case, where the lack of transport and more specialized intermediaries are frequently mentioned by interviewees across different sectors of the value chain (from producers to retailers to consumers) as the lacking pieces of the value chain development (E37, RC24, Rt23, P11). The current IFPs’ commercial activities are dependent on one intermediary that specializes in organic conventional vegetables but does not necessarily hold the knowledge or experience in marketing IFPs. This leads to a gap between supply and demand information as the information is not accurately communicated to buyers (Rt23). The current missing physical and institutional supply chain infrastructures (e.g., logistic and intermediaries) creates a barrier for customers to access the indigenous plants even if they were interested. Beneficiaries and value-added companies are currently missing from the value chain. Few processors have incorporated IFPs (only one is currently active in the study area; Pr22), although the processes for IFPs are not very different from those for conventional vegetables (Pr22). Some restaurants and workshops have tried to produce similar products (RC25, W34). However, their capacity is limited and a larger commercial scale requires the intervention of beneficiaries. Additionally, the small amount of supply and demand does not provide many initiatives, and the intermediary is not financially motivated to arrange logistics (e.g., the intermediary work with 600–800 kg of vegetables weekly but only 10 kg of those is IFPs; In21). So far, the IFP production is not only limited by the outlined lack of supply of seeds/cuttings but also the other segments are barely developed and partly dependent on the existing infrastructure for conventional products. The whole cultivation sector at the moment is almost negligible with a very limited number of growers.

4.3.6. IFPs Image Negatively Affects Their Production and Consumption in Local Communities

Negative perceptions around IFPs exist among the smallholder farmers in the Cape Town area. IFPs have long held a stigma of being the “poverty food”, which leads to a reluctance in eating on the consumer side [51] but also in planting on the production side. Various interviews revealed an unwillingness to engage with IFPs from the grower community because of what they represent (P10, P11, P12). The negative perception comes from the memory of hunger and starvation, as one researcher pointed out that “because they had to go and forage for food when they had literally nothing else in the house” (RI38). People associate IFPs with such an image, which discourages people from consuming them. On the other hand, the rapid emergence of supermarkets has significantly changed the food system in the area [40]. Buying from the supermarket is seen as a symbol of progression and the notion of success. As one interviewee mentioned, “So why would I want to eat something that grows wild when I can go to the supermarket to buy the food?” (RI39). There is a disconnection because the middle-upper class market sees IFPs as high-value crops but farmers do not consider them as a food source. The lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of the benefit have slowed down the cultivation process in the gardens.

So far, we could not identify any established market for commercial IFPs in the local communities of the Cape Flats. According to our interviews, there are at least three reasons for this:

• As mentioned, IFPs are so far not considered by the state as a solution for food insecurity and are therefore not subsidized or promoted as some conventional foods;
• The outlined negative perceptions of IFPs as “poverty foods” further restrict the demand;
• A lack of knowledge about which IFPs to eat and how to prepare them so far limits their market potential.

The migrant background of many Cape Flat inhabitants not only leads to a lack of awareness of how to produce but also on what IFPs to eat and how to prepare IFPs, which goes along with an often low connection with the indigenous plants from the region. Due to a lack of knowledge about these crops, many do not consider them for their diet (see above). For many potential customers, CFR indigenous plants are strange because of their appearance, tastes, and names. Furthermore, the lack of cookbooks and recipes for using IFPs also discourages people from trying to work with them. As one cook said, “without knowing how to prepare it, it is just a random ingredient”(RI38).

4.4. Main Identified Opportunities

4.4.1. Opportunities at the Production Level—Low Demand for Water and Soil Conditions

As less water and lower soil quality are required to plant IFPs and they can be grown on marginal lands and poor soils, the investment to participate in the production is low. Indigenous plants require less water and attention from growers because they are adapted to the local environment [18,53]. The most mentioned trait of IFPs by interviewees is their drought tolerance (DTG1, P10, P11, P12, P13, RC27, E37, RI38, RI40). Many growers have mentioned that CFR IFPs do not demand water and they rarely need to take care of them (P10, P11, P12, P13). For example, during the pilot project on the cultivation of CFR IFPs (see footnote 3), “dune spinach plants survive even though my irrigation system failed, and my neighboring farmers on the farm were having to irrigate over and over and over again” (E37). Growing IFPs also involve fewer inputs and low requirements on the soil [51]. The soils of the Cape Flats are sandy, poor, leached-out soil [61], and IFPs thrive on it because they have adapted to the poor soil conditions [53]. As a result, many IFPs are planted outside the bed. The opportunity cost is low for producers. Some gardeners are already growing IFPs but are so far not aware that they can commercialize or sell them (E37). Most IFPs are grown as hedges, windbreaks, or for pollination reasons. One interviewee described them as the “fallback crops”:“If you get something for it, great. If you don’t, it’s okay. You know, so it’s low risk and interesting. If you can’t sell it, at least you can eat it. So it’s one of those fallback crops” (S45). Combining existing plant species with indigenous food plant species that are more resistant extends farmers’ livelihoods further, as production systems are less likely to fail during extreme weather events. Farmers can therefore reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of their production systems [73].

4.4.2. Opportunities at the Consumer Level—High Return Potential Based on Upper Middle-Class Markets

IFPs have attracted increased interest and are selling at a prime price. Prices for CFR IFPs are set much higher than for conventional vegetables (see

Table 3. Indicative Wholesale Prices of Selected IFPs and Conventional Vegetables (Data collected in March 2022).

IFPs	Indicative Price (Rand/kg)	Conventional Vegetables	Indicative Price (Rand/kg)
Sea Pumpkin	141	Cabbage	18
Dune Spinach	54	Spinach Chard	20
Spekboom	141	Kale	42
Sunrose	141	Leeks	21
Sout Slaai/Ice Plant	141	Lettuce	40

). The target market for IFPs is the high-end market, with most supplies ending up in elite downtown restaurants. This is different from many other studies in which the indigenous vegetables are sold at a lower or average rate in the market (see, for example, [50,74,75]). This might be due to different selections of IFPs and the economic-cultural context in the study region (which forms different customer groups). In Cape Town, CFR IFPs’ image positively affects their consumption as part of upper-middle-class cuisine in Cape Town. The major market for indigenous plants is located in the city center, not the community where they are grown (P10, P11). IFP production in other studied cases shows that IFPs are traded and consumed in the farmers’ communities (see, e.g., [74]). In Cape Town, the common consumer groups of IFPs are middle-to-high-class diners and the gastronomic experiences of IFPs are highly praised as a unique local experience [51]. As one chef described, “when you sit down here, you are having a meal that you’re not going to have somewhere else, and you’re tasting the season and the area” (R25). Some chefs choose to incorporate existing dishes, replacing conventional ones with similar IFPs (RC24, RC26). Many of them compared Dune spinach to Swiss chard and Veldkool to asparagus (RC24, RC25, RC26, RC27, RC29). Given the interest of upper-middle-class consumers and also tourists, CFR indigenous edibles have the potential to be a high-value cash crop, especially considering that current retail prices at the city farmer’s market can reach four times higher than their conventional counterparts5. There is a niche but lucrative market because customers treat them as novel food products. Producers in the townships can potentially benefit from high economic returns by selling IFPs to the market.

4.5. Outlook: Opportunities through Knowledge Support

Following the outlined results and based on further interviews, a couple of opportunities could be identified in supporting IFP farmers and the establishment of commercial value chains. While there are various opportunities for capacity building and strengthening the limited capabilities of the farmers, the results suggest that the potential support strategy could first focus on knowledge support and education for farmers, potential consumers, and policymakers.

As the acceptance of IFPs among local grower communities is currently low, IFPs are not currently seen by many conventional growers as food sources. However, IFPs’ value chain development has just started recently and the capacities of growers are developing. Efforts to improve growers’ capabilities in cultivation knowledge and reduce alienation from native plants can be seen in various educational workshops and community engagement projects. According to the interview with an NGO (S44), integrating smallholder initiatives requires a strong training component to ensure that growers have access to information and knowledge. To expect growers, to grow things they do not know is impractical. Establishing demonstration sites where IFPs are presented is a way to increase the visibility of IFPs and as one producer said, “a garden isn’t just an isolated place. People come in all the time. And they ask questions. What’s this one? What’s that? It is always good to educate your local surrounding neighbors” (P11). Increased exposure to those food plants helps to make people more aware of the IFPs in their surroundings. Given the modest requirements and low investment barriers to producing IFPs, these plants also generally provide an opportunity for so far marginalized groups in producing for markets or at least their own consumption (see also [24]).

To educate the consumer side, so far, efforts come from educators, research institutions, and NGOs. Workshops on cultivation and cooking and preservation methods were hosted for the growers and the public. Some ongoing community involvement projects on the harvesting of IFPs (e.g., Sour figs) are supported by the government agency Cape Nature. Increased awareness of IFPs was seen through the inclusion of local communities and a more structured benefit-sharing plan. Here, referring to the already existing upper-middle-class markets might support education to overcome the image of IFPs as a poverty food.

As outlined, the results suggest rediscussing that IFPs are not categorized as a possible part of the “solution” to food insecurity. Here, it should be reconsidered how far IFPs have the potential to contribute to alleviating the problem by providing more accessible food sources and a more sustainable way of self-sustaining for the growers (see also [3]). One of the interviewed NGOs expressed the potential contribution of IFPs to food security, “People are hungry, but food is everywhere” (DTG1). This view is shared by NGOs, Trusts, and governmental agencies, many of whom value the contribution of food plants to self-consumption and food security within communities rather than selling them to markets (S44, S45, GOV41, GOV43).

Future research and work projects might focus on indigenous and business knowledge holders and marginalized actors within the chain. Knowledge gaps in cultivation, nutrition, and cooking are challenges that can be mitigated through research and translation of academic knowledge into practice. Integrating smallholder initiatives requires training and additional knowledge—not only concerning IFP production but also concerning management, bookkeeping, and sales—especially at this early stage of cultivation and commercialization.

5. Conclusions

Our study revealed different opportunities and limitations to integrating IFP production into commercial value chains. So far, there are few producers, distributors, and buyers along the chain. Although the identified chain structures are marked by low complexity, the current low capabilities of the IFP growers limit their potential to integrate. While IFP growers in Cape Town experience typical challenges of African smallholders trying to integrate into commercial value chains, this study also revealed specific challenges and opportunities, which can at least partly be related to the particular characteristics of indigenous food plants.

These challenges included:

• Complex harvest licensing procedures and limited access to seeds/cuttings for growers at the pre-production stage;
• Limited capacity of growers (lack of knowledge of cultivation, different indigenous knowledge, initial risk to start producing niche markets) at the production stage;
• Competition with subsidized conventional production and limited distribution segments at the commercialization stage;
• Negative cultural image and the lack of knowledge of preparation at the consumption stage.

However, IFP commercial production also presents opportunities for:

• Environmental adaptation (e.g., low requirements for water and soil conditions);
• Income generation (e.g., high economic return potential based on upper-middle-class markets).

Remarkably, our results indicate a geographical aspect of the success of indigenous crops, which has barely been addressed so far: if (potential) farmers and customers themselves do not have a regional background (as in our case—and probably in many other parts of the Global South), knowledge on production, preparation and consumption will be rare and therefore the production and usage of IFPs will be limited.