Economic Botany

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 130–146 | Cite as

Use patterns and value of Savanna resources in three Rural villages in South Africa

  • S. E. Shackleton
  • C. M. Shackleton
  • T. R. Netshiluvhi
  • B. S. Geach
  • A. Ballance
  • D. H. K. Fairbanks
Research

Abstract

Rural communities in South Africa harvest a diversity of wild resources from communal woodlands for home consumption and sale. The contribution these resources make to the rural economy has been little recognized, and few studies have attempted to place a monetary value on this use. This paper describes three case studies which aimed to determine the value of savanna resources for the livelihoods of rural households.

Use patterns and values of resources in three villages of differing socioeconomic status were determined using household interviews, PRA techniques and key informant interviews. Questions were designed to establish the types of products used, frequency of use, quantities used, seasonality of use, longevity of durable resources, local prices, and the extent of trade.

All households were procuring at least some woodland resources, with the most frequently used being fuel wood, wood for implements, edible herbs and fruits, grass for brushes, and insects. Patterns of resource use varied across villages. The most “rural” village used the greatest diversity of resources and had the highest number of users for most resources. Gross value of resources consumed per household per year ranged from R28I9 to R7238. Total value was highest in the less obviously resource dependent village, primarily the result of higher local prices due to greater extraction costs and a larger market for traded goods. Values are comparable to those contributed by other land-based livelihood activities such as subsistence cultivation and livestock production.

Key Words

savanna resources NTFPs resource valuation South Africa rural livelihoods trade in NTFPs subsistence use of NTFPs 

Les Modéles D’ usages et la valeur des Ressources de la Savane pour tois villages Ruraux dans l’afrique du sud

Resumen

Les communautés rurales en Afrique du Sud récoltent une variété de ressources naturelles provenant de régions boisées qui appartiennent á la communauté pour la consommation personnelle et pour la vente. La contribution que ces resources apportent á l’ économie rurale a été peu reconnue, et peu d’études ont tenté d’assigner une valeur monétaire à ces usages. Cet article décrit trois cas d’étude qui ont pour but de déterminer la valeur des ressources de la savane dans la vie des families rurales.

Les motifs d’utilisation et les valeurs des ressources furent estimées dans trois villages de statuts socio-économiques différents, en combinant entretiens avec les families, techniques de PRA et entretiens de sources dés. Les questions furent concues afin d’établir les types de produits utilisés dans chaque maisonnée, la fréquence d’utilisation, les quantités utilisées, le degré d’utilisation par saison, la longévité de ressources durables, les prix locaux et l’étendue du marché.

Chaque famille se procure au moins quelques unes des ressources provenant de régions boisées; les plus utilisées sont le bois de chauffage, le bois pour les outils, les herbes et fruits comestibles, l’herbe pour les brosses et les insectes. Les motifs d’utilisation ont varié selon les villages. Les villages les plus “ruraux” utilisaient la plus grande variété de ressources et possédaient une nombres d’usagers plus important dans le cas de la plupart des ressources. La valeur totale brute des ressources consommées par maisonnée par année variait entre R28I9 et R7238. La valeur totale s’est avérée être plus élevée dans les villages qui semblaient dé-pendre le moins sur les ressources: ceci étant le résultat de prix locaux plus élevés basés sur des coûts d’extraction plus importants et un marché pour les biens échangés (non-vendus). Les valeurs obtenues sont comparables à celles contribuées par d’autres activités qui servent de moyens d’existence et qui proviennent de la terre; par exemple, la culture comme moyen de subsistence et l’élevage de bétail.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Acocks, J. P. H. 1998. Veldtypes of South Africa (3rd ed.). Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of Southern Africa 57:1–146.Google Scholar
  2. Ainslie, A. 1999. When ‘community’ is not enough: managing common property natural resources in rural South Africa. Development Southern Africa 16:375–401.Google Scholar
  3. —,Kepe, T., S. Cinderby, and T. Petse. 1996. Rural livelihoods and local level management of natural resources in the Peddie district. LAPC working paper no. 42. LAPC, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, J. E. M., C. Leidholm, D. Mead, and I. M. Townsend. 1994. Structure and growth of small enterprises using forest products in southern and eastern Africa. OFI Occasional Papers No. 47, Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Beukman, R., N. Rivers-Moore, M. Mander, M. de Wit,and R. Hassan. 1998. Economic valuation of KwaZulu-Natal woodlands based on household use: an input-output (I-O) framework. Unpublished report, CSIR, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, J., and I. Scoones. 1994. Beer and baskets: the economics of women’s livelihoods in Ngamiland, Botswana. IIED research series, Vol. 3, No. 1. IIED, London.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, B., J. Clarke, M. Luckert, F. Matose, C. Musvoto, and I. Scoones. 1995. Local-level economic valuation of savanna woodland resources: village case studies from Zimbabwe. IIED, London.Google Scholar
  8. —, M. Luckert, and I. Scoones. 1997. Locallevel valuation of savanna resources: a case study from Zimbabwe. Economic Botany 51:59–77.Google Scholar
  9. Carney, D., ed. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods. What contribution can we make? Papers presented at the Department for International Development’s Natural Resource Advisers Conference, July 1998. DFID, London.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, J., W. Cavendish, and C. Coote. 1996. Rural households and miombo woodlands: use, value and management. Pages 101–136in B. Campbell, ed., The miombo in transition: woodlands and welfare in Africa. CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, A. B. 1997. Review of ethnobotanical literature from eastern and southern Africa. Bulletin of the African Ethnobotany Network 1:23–88.Google Scholar
  12. Griffin, N. J., D. Banks, J. Mavrandonis, C. M. Shackleton, and S. E. Shackleton. 1992. Household energy and wood use in a peripheral rural area of the eastern Transvaal lowveld. Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  13. Hassan, R., ed. n.d. Accounting for asset depreciation and non-market values of woody land resources: methods and results from South Africa. Environmental Economics Society of Eastern and Southern Africa.Google Scholar
  14. -,and J. Haveman. 1997. The values and rates of harvesting natural forest and woodland products for direct use by communities in the Eastern Cape Province. Unpublished report, Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), Midrand.Google Scholar
  15. Heinsohn, R-D. 1991. The potential for cultivation ofJuncus kraussii and other wetland species used for craft work in Natal/KwaZulu. Unpublished report, Institute of Natural Resources, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. 175 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, F. F. 1997. Integrating conservation and development: a study of KwaJobe. Masters of Environment and Development thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.Google Scholar
  18. Mander, M. 1998. Marketing of indigenous medicinal plants in South Africa: a case study in KwaZulu- Natal. Forest Products Divisions, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  19. May, J., and A. Vaughan. 1999. Mistaken identity? Markets and the strategy for poverty alleviation in rural South Africa. Indicator SA 16:67–72.Google Scholar
  20. McGregor, J. 1995. Gathered produce in Zimbabwe’s communal areas: changing resource availability and use. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 33:163–193.Google Scholar
  21. Mukamuri, B. B., and W. Kozanayi. 1999. Commercialization and institutional arrangements involving tree species harvested for bark: the case ofWarburgia salutaris, Berchemia discolor, andAdansonia digitata in Zimbabwe. IES, University of Zimbabwe, Harare.Google Scholar
  22. Mwambo, L. R. 2000. Species utilisation preferences and resource potential of miombo woodlands: a case of selected villages in Tabora, Tanzania. M.Sc. thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  23. Nattrass, N., and J. Nattrass. 1990. South Africa, the homelands and rural development. Development Southern Africa 7:517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qureshi, M. H., and S. Kumar. 1998. Contributions of common lands to household economies in Haryana, India. Environmental Conservation 25:342–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shackleton, C. M. 1993. Fuel wood harvesting and sustainable utilisation in a communal grazing land and protected area of the eastern Transvaal lowveld. Biological Conservation 63:247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. —. 1996. Potential stimulation of local rural economies by harvesting secondary products: a case study of the central eastern Transvaal lowveld. Ambio 25:33–38.Google Scholar
  27. -, T. R. Netshiluvhi, S. E. Shackleton, B. S. Geach, A. Ballance,and D. H. K. Fairbanks. 1999a. Direct use values of woodland resources from three rural villages. Unpublished report no. ENV-P-I 98210, CSIR, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  28. -, and S. E. Shackleton. 1997. The use and potential for commercialisation of veld products in the Bushbuckridge area. Unpublished report DANCED Community Forestry Project, DWAF, Nelspruit.Google Scholar
  29. —,and—. 2000. Direct use values of savanna resources: a case study of the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South Africa. Journal of Tropical Forest Products 6:28–47.Google Scholar
  30. -,-, T. N. Netshiluvhi, F. R. Mathabela, and C. Phiri. 1999b. The direct use value of goods and services attributed to cattle and goats in the Sand River catchment, Bushbuckridge. Unpublished report no. ENV-P-C 99003, CSIR, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  31. -,-, M. Ntshudu,and J. N. Ntzebeza. 2001. Direct use values of non-timber forest products from three rural villages in the Kat River valley, Eastern Cape Province. Unpublished report, Environmental Science Programme, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.Google Scholar
  32. Shackleton, S. E. 1993. A situation analysis of the woodcraft industry in the Bushbuckridge district of the eastern Transvaal, with particular reference to resource use. Unpublished report, Wits Rural Facility, Klaserie.Google Scholar
  33. —,C. M. Shackleton, and B. Cousins. 1999. The economic value of land and natural resources to rural livelihoods: case studies from South Africa. Proceedings of the Land and Agrarian reform conference, 26-28 July 1999. PLAAS, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  34. —,—,C. M. Dzerefos, and F. R. Mathabela. 1998. Use and trading of wild edible herbs in the central lowveld region, South Africa. Economic Botany 32:251–259.Google Scholar
  35. —, G.von Maltitz, and J. Evans. 1998. Factors, conditions and criteria for the successful management of natural resources held under a common property regime: a South African perspective. PLAAS Occasional Paper No. 8. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  36. Tapson, D. R. 1996. The technical component of mixed and livestock farming in semi-arid lands.In M. Lipton, F. Ellis, and M. Lipton, eds., Land, labour and livelihoods in rural South Africa—Volume Two: KwaZulu-Natal and Northern Province. Indicator Press, University of Natal, Durban.Google Scholar
  37. ter Braak, C. J., and P. Simlauer. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to CANOCO for Windows- software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer power, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden Press 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. E. Shackleton
    • 1
  • C. M. Shackleton
    • 1
  • T. R. Netshiluvhi
    • 1
  • B. S. Geach
    • 1
  • A. Ballance
    • 1
  • D. H. K. Fairbanks
    • 1
  1. 1.EnvironmentekPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Environmental Science ProgrammeRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa
  3. 3.Parkview
  4. 4.Percy Fitzpatrick InsituteUniversity of Cape TownRondebosch

Personalised recommendations