Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
18 June 2020 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied
Dr Chantell Witten.
On 26 March 2020, the President declared a national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as it started to emerge in South Africa. Since then and several weeks into the lockdown, Statistics South Africa (2020) has provided evidence which many intuitively knew would be more devastating to households than the coronavirus itself – loss of income and the negative effects that follow hunger. Stats SA reported that the percentage of respondents receiving no income increased from 5,2% before the lockdown to 15,4% by the sixth week of the national lockdown. Given that the majority of South Africans depend on the informal labour market, such as informal traders and casual workers, this lack of income would hit millions of households. Furthermore, Stats SA also reported a decrease in formal wage/salary earners for the same period, from 76,6% before the national lockdown to 66,7% by the sixth week of national lockdown.

While South Africa is food secure at national level, millions of households are food insecure. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 1996 definition of food security, this simply means that there is not enough food at all times for all the people in a household to have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.  In short, people are hungry and at greater risk for ill health – physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  A hungry man is an angry man. Likewise, a hungry nation is an angry nation.

In July 2019, the measurement of extreme poverty – the food poverty line (FPL) – was raised to R561 (using April 2019 prices) per person per month, which was up from R547 last year. This is the amount of money that Stats SA calculates an individual requires “to afford the minimum required daily energy intake” of 2 100 calories per day. Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa already had a precarious food and nutrition situation, especially for young children. South Africa’s child stunting levels – an indication of chronic and long-term food insecurity – increased from 21% in 2008 to 27% in 2016.  With COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown, child malnutrition rates are expected to increase. Stunting not only affects a child’s health, making them more susceptible to disease and infection, but also impairs their mental and physical development – meaning that children who suffer from stunting are less likely to achieve their full height and cognitive potentials as adults.  

What can we do to address this food situation or prevent it from worsening?
The 2020 Global Nutrition Report recognises and asserts that inequality and globalisation are major drivers of food insecurity. As individuals and as collectives, we need to continue to advocate for and support calls to continue raising the child support grant to help households stay above the poverty line.  Millions of households in South Africa are supported by social grants; in solidarity, we need to appreciate the safety net that these social grants provide to vulnerable households. Advocate for and support initiatives to safeguard child health and nutrition, including efforts to promote, protect, and support breastfeeding in neonatal care, postnatal care, and ongoing support to breastfeeding mothers.  Breastfeeding remains the most cost-effective health intervention for infants and young children, supporting optimal growth and development and providing long-term health benefits into adulthood. Advocate for and support initiatives to coordinate sustainable food support to vulnerable households, including, among others, food distribution, food vouchers, onsite feeding, home gardening, and tax-free food baskets.  These efforts would be our collective solidarity to support and protect vulnerable households as we enter the global economic recession as a result of COVID-19.

How can we protect our households’ food and nutrition security? 
COVID-19 brings with it much uncertainty and many unintended negative effects.  While we seek out strategies to support mental well-being and emotional resilience, we also need to remain physically healthy.  Good nutrition is fundamental to good health and well-being. South Africa has a set of ten healthy eating guidelines that promote the principles of eating more unprocessed foods, eating more vegetables and fruit, reducing the use of fats and oils and reducing the intake of sugar and salt.  Good nutrition starts with good food and sometimes good food can cost more, so it is important to use your food budget wisely.  The food budget includes food eaten at home, as well as funds spent on food eaten outside of the home, eating take-outs, foods bought online, and food eaten away from home.  Planning your meals in advance and sticking to a food plan will limit opportunities to spend money on items that are not on the plan; planning ahead also means you can take advantage of good prices, especially as food prices are on the increase and will continue to increase. Bulking up when prices are low and on special, making use of combo buying, e.g. buy three and pay for two, and buying directly from food producers such as co-ops, all help to save money in the long run.  Meat, fish, and especially seafood are the most expensive food items; rather use eggs, chicken, and less expense meat cuts for your meals.  Legumes such as dried beans, peas, and soya are less expensive with great nutritional value.  Explore these less-known group of foods with many great health benefits, such as no fat, more fibre, and lots of vitamins and minerals.

In an effort to eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, starting a home garden is a great family challenge and a definite way of keeping food costs low. And as we navigate the new normal post-COVID times ahead, let us keep mealtimes and meal preparation a fun family activity. Discovering new foods and new tastes can be as exciting as travelling to a new place.  Stay safe, stay healthy! 

Opinion article by Dr Chantell Witten, Division of Health Professions Education, University of the Free State.


News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept