The safety net function of NTFPs in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa

Original Paper

Abstract

Various South African studies have shown that rural households use NTFPs as safety nets in times of misfortune. However being focussed on one or two sites, they do not show the prevalence of NTFP use as safety nets across multiple sites. In addition, they do not show the use of NTFPs as safety nets by rural households in different agro-ecological zones. The results of the study showed that about 79% of the total households interviewed experienced at least one shock of some magnitude in the previous 12 months. The most experienced shocks were illness, death, crop failure, and hunger. The households employed various coping strategies in response to different types of shocks, with the three widely used strategies being assistance from friends and relatives, using cash savings, and using NTFPs. Households in low agro-ecological zones used NTFPs as safety nets more than households in high agro-ecological zones.

Keywords

Agro-ecological potential Rural livelihoods Shocks Coping strategies 

References

  1. Ahenkan, A., & Boon, E. (2011). Non-timber forest products (NTFPs): clearing the confusion in semantics. J Hum Ecol, 33(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  2. Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., et al. (2008). Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Agric Syst, 98(2), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, C. B., Bezuneh, M., Clay, D. C., & Reardon, T. (2001). Income diversification strategies in rural Africa. New York. Working Paper 2001-25. Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  4. Belcher, B., & Schreckenberg, K. (2007). Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: a reality check. Development Policy Review, 25(3), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blignaut, J., Ueckermann, L., & Aronson, J. (2009). Agriculture production’s sensitivity to changes in climate in South Africa. S Afr J Sci, 105, 61–68.Google Scholar
  6. Debela, B., Shively, G., Angelsen, A., & Wik, M. (2012). Economic shocks, diversification, and forest use in Uganda. Land Econ, 88(1), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delacote, P. (2007). Agricultural expansion, forest products as safety nets, and deforestation. Environ Dev Econ, 12(02), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department for international development (DFID) (1999). DFID’s sustainable livelihoods approach and its framework. Available via DIALOG http://www.gloch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf.
  9. Fisher, M., Chaudhury, M., & McCusker, B. (2010). Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev, 38(9), 1241–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, T. (2008). Reviewing 15 years of resource poor small-scale agriculture in South Africa: is there any way forward? Available via DIALOG. http://www.tips.org.za/files/Hart_Paper_24_Oct_2008__tmp52aa50cf.pdf.
  11. Hunter, L. M., Twine, W., & Johnson, A. (2011). Adult mortality and natural resource use in rural South Africa: evidence from the Agincourt health and demographic surveillance site. Soc Nat Resour, 24(3), 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P., & Sjaastad, E. (2009). Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu district, Malawi. Ecol Econ, 68(3), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liswanti, N., Sheil, D., Basuki, I., Padmanaba, M., & Mulcahy, G. (2011). Falling back on forests: how forest-dwelling people cope with catastrophe in a changing landscape. Int For Rev, 13(4), 442–455.Google Scholar
  14. Livingston, G., Schonberger, S., & Delaney, S. (2011). Sub-Saharan Africa: the state of smallholders in agriculture. Paper presented at the IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, 24–25 January, 2011. Rome.Google Scholar
  15. López-Feldman, A. (2014). Shocks, income and wealth: do they affect the extraction of natural resources by rural households? World Dev, 64(S1), S91–S100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E., & Vedeld, P. (2007). Economic dependence on forest resources: a case from Dendi district, Ethiopia. Forest Policy Econ, 9(8), 916–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manjengwa, J., Kasirye, I., & Matema, C. (2012). Understanding poverty in Zimbabwe: a sample survey in 16 districts. Paper prepared for presentation at the Centre for the Study of African Economies Conference 2012 “Economic Development in Africa”, Oxford, United Kingdom, March 18–20, 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Mason, N. M., Chapoto, A., Jayne, T. S., & Myers, R. J. (2007). HIV /AIDS and agrarian livelihoods in Zambia: a test of the new variant famine hypothesis. Policy synthesis, food security research project number 23. Lusaka. Available via DIALOG. http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/ps23.pdf.
  19. McSweeney, K. (2005a). Natural insurance, forest access, and compounded misfortune: forest resources in smallholder coping strategies before and after Hurricane Mitch, north eastern Honduras. World Dev, 33(9), 1453–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mcsweeney, K. (2005b). Forest product sale as financial insurance: evidence from Honduran smallholders. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, Number 10. Ohio.Google Scholar
  21. Mutenje, M. J. (2010). Rural livelihoods in south-eastern Zimbabwe: the impact of HIV/AIDS on the use and management of non-timber forestry products. PhD thesis. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg.Google Scholar
  22. Mutenje, M. J., Ortmann, G. F., & Ferrer, S. R. (2011). Extraction of non-timber forest products as a coping strategy for HIV/AIDS-afflicted rural households in south-eastern Zimbabwe. African Journal of AIDS Research, 10(3), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neves, D., Samson, M., Van Niekerk, I., Hlatshwayo, S., & Du Toit, A. (2009). The use and effectiveness of social grants in South Africa. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS).Google Scholar
  24. Oni, O. A. (2014). Livelihood, agro ecological zones and poverty in rural Nigeria. J Agric Sci, 6(2), 103–113.Google Scholar
  25. Paumgarten, F. (2005). The role of non-timber forest products as safety-nets: a review of evidence with a focus on South Africa. GeoJournal, 64(3), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paumgarten, F. (2007). The significance of the safety-net role of NTFPs in rural livelihoods, South Africa. MSc thesis. Rhodes University. Grahamstown.Google Scholar
  27. Paumgarten, F., & Shackleton, C. M. (2011). The role of non-timber forest products in household coping strategies in South Africa: the influence of household wealth and gender. Popul Environ, 33(1), 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Posel, D., Casale, D., & Vermaak, C. (2013). The unemployed in South Africa: why are so many not counted? Available via DIALOG. http://www.econ3x3.org/sites/default/files/articles/Posel%20et%20al%20Feb%202013%20Measuring%20unemployment%20FINAL_0.pdf.
  29. Poverty and Environment Network (PEN). (2007). PEN technical guidelines, version 4. Available via DIALOG. http://www1.cifor.org/fileadmin/fileupload/PEN/pubs/PEN%20Technical%20Guidelines%20-%20version%204%20-%20May%202007.zip.
  30. Shackleton, C.M., 2004. Assessment of the livelihoods importance of forestry, forests and forest products in South Africa. Rhodes University. Accessed 21 May 2016, http://www.daff.gov.za/doaDev/sideMenu/ForestryWeb/dwaf/cmsdocs/Elsa/Docs/Forests/Assessment%20of%20the%20Livelihoods%20Importance%20of%20Forestry,%20Forests%20and%20Forest%20Products%20in%20SA,%202004.pdf
  31. Shackleton, S. E. (2005). The significance of the local trade in natural resource products for livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. PhD thesis. Rhodes University. Grahamstown.Google Scholar
  32. Shackleton, C., & Shackleton, S. (2004). The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. S Afr J Sci, 100, 658–664.Google Scholar
  33. Shackleton, S. E., & Shackleton, C. M. (2012). Linking poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change to human and ecosystem vulnerability in southern Africa: consequences for livelihoods and sustainable ecosystem management. Int J Sust Dev World, 19(3), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., Buiten, E., & Bird, N. (2007). The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy Econ, 9(5), 558–577.Google Scholar
  35. Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Shackleton, C. (2008). Links between the local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa. World Dev, 36(3), 505–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shisana, O., Rehle, T., Simbayi, L. C., Zuma, K., Jooste, S., Zungu, N., et al. (2014). South African national HIV prevalence, incidence and behaviour survey, 2012. Cape Town: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  37. Siegel, B. P. (2008). Profile of Zambia’s smallholders: where and who are the potential beneficiaries of agricultural commercialization? World Bank. Africa Region Working Paper Series, (113). Available via DIALOG. http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/WPS113_Zambia_Smallholder.pdf.
  38. Sivakumar, M. V. K., & Valentin, C. (1997). Agroecological zones and the assessment of crop production potential. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 352, 907–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takasaki, Y. (2011). Do the commons help augment mutual insurance among the poor? World Dev, 39(3), 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2004). Risk coping strategies in tropical forests: floods, illnesses, and resource extraction. Environ Dev Econ, 9(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thondhlana, G., & Muchapondwa, E. (2014). Dependence on environmental resources and implications for household welfare: evidence from the Kalahari drylands, South Africa. Ecol Econ, 108, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tibesigwa, B., Visser, M., & Twine, W. (2014). Investigating the sensitivity of household food security to agricultural-related shock and the implication of informal social capital: the case of rural small-scale farming households in the Mpumalanga region of South Africa. ERSA Working Paper 470. Available via DIALOG. http://www.econrsa.org/system/files/publications/working_papers/working_paper_470.pdf
  43. Tregurtha, N., & Vink, N. (2008). Presidency fifteen year review project: review of agricultural policies and support instruments. Available via DIALOG. http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/docs/reports/15year_review/economic/agricultural_policy.pdf.
  44. Uberhuaga, P., Smith-Hall, C., & Helles, F. (2011). Forest income and dependency in lowland Bolivia. Environ Dev Sustain, 14(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Völker, M., & Waibel, H. (2010). Do rural households extract more forest products in times of crisis? Evidence from the mountainous uplands of Vietnam. Forest Policy Econ, 12(6), 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woittiez, L. S., Rufino, M. C., Giller, K. E., & Mapfumo, P. (2013). The use of woodland products to cope with climate variability in communal areas in Zimbabwe. Ecol Soc, 18(4), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wunder, S., Börner, J., Shively, G., & Wyman, M. (2014). Safety nets, gap filling and forests: a global-comparative perspective. World Dev, 64(S1), S29–S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations