Mopane worm utilisation and rural livelihoods in Southern Africa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eduction through increasing agricultural productivity whilst the latter is more closely aligned with the concept of poverty reduction through decreasing dependence of rural households on agriculture through providing non-farm income earning opportunities. Since it is widely acknowledge that rural households, especially in low rainfall areas, depend on a multiplicity of farm and non-farm income sources to sustain livelihoods the two poverty reduction strategies need not be seen as alternatives. However, households or individuals within households are likely to favour one of these alternatives as they become better off even if they continue to keep a foot in both farm and non farm income activities. This pattern is compatible with observations that poorer households often have more difficulty in engaging in higher return non-farm activities 17 We now apply this type of analysis to examine current and potential roles of MW (and environmental resources in general) in enabling vulnerable households in precarious environments to hang on and/or to promote or support advancement out of poverty. We also need to ask how MW or natural resource based strategies compare against alternative means (farm and non farm) of ‘hanging on ’, ‘stepping up’ and ‘stepping out’. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ROLES OF MOPANE WORM HARVESTING IN RURAL LIVELIHOODS IN THE REGION. We begin by adding a fourth role for livelihood activities, to acknowledge the role natural resource based strategies may play in maintaining and improving standards of living (more than just ‘hanging on’) without resource accumulation or productivity investments (as is assumed in the ‘stepping up’ livelihood path) and without use of income to fund investments in alternative activities (as is implied in the ‘stepping out’ strategy). We have termed this fourth livelihood strategy ‘linking in’. Table 17 and Figure 6 illustrate the relationships between these different activity roles: 17 Reardon et al., 2000 summarising evidence from a number of studies in Africa suggest ‘a rough pattern’ (with exceptions) of ‘a positive relationship between non-farm income share (and level) and total household income and/or landholding in much of Africa’ (p272). Barrett et al., 2000 and Toulmin et al., 2000 note a common (but not universal) ‘U shaped’ relationship between the proportion of income earned and total income, with poorer and better off households with a higher proportion of offfarm income, but with very different returns to these activities, while intermediate households often have lower proportions of earning from off farm activities, as they are able to gain more from farm activities than the poorest households, but are not able to engage in the highest return off farm activities open to the better off households. 25
Table 17. Principal Activity Roles of Income component by livelihood strategy 26 Livelihood strategy Principle MW roles ‘Hanging in’ Subsistence Buffering ‘Linking in’ Subsistence Market production/ income for small cash purchases Income to initiate some lower order ‘stepping up’ activities Income to initiate some lower order ‘stepping out’ activities Accumulation of primarily social capital ‘Stepping up’ Accumulation of all types of capital assets Complementary production Market production / income ‘Stepping out’ Accumulation of capital assets Figure 6 Livelihood pathways Hanging ON Linking IN Stepping UP Stepping OUT Studies that have looked at NTFPs in the context of rural livelihoods have noted that NTFPs are generally most extensively used to supplement household incomes during particular seasons in the year and help meet dietary shortfalls. . In particular, these resources are widely important as a substitute and economic buffer (or safety nets) in hard times (Luckert, 2001; Campbell et al, 2001, Arnold and Townson, 1998; Hobane, 1995; Mukwekwerere, 1996, quoted in Mutamba and Frost, 2002). The importance of forest income usually lies more in its timing than in its magnitude and although it seldom accounts for a large share of a household’s total income, but is often important in filling seasonal or other cash flow gaps, and in helping households to cope with particular expenses, or to respond to unusual opportunities. Such activities may thus play ‘hanging on’ and ‘linking in’ roles. A number of pointers from the survey data suggest that MW’s livelihood contribution, particularly for poorer rural households in Zimbabwe, may also be most commonly characterised in terms of a ‘hanging on’ strategy. Mopane worm outbreaks coincide with the ‘hungry season’ (when the previous year’s food stocks are depleted, particularly for households farming in low rainfall areas and when newly planted crops are still too young to harvest which coincides with a time of high seasonal cash needs ( the Christmas period and the start of the new school year). For the poorest
Page 1 and 2: Topic 2: Non-timber forest products
Page 3 and 4: INTRODUCTION In recent years there
Page 5 and 6: together with key informant intervi
Page 7 and 8: Table 1. Demographic and socio econ
Page 9 and 10: Figure 1. Map of Zimbabwe study are
Page 11 and 12: involvement in MW collection, measu
Page 13 and 14: on traditional non working days. In
Page 15 and 16: considering innovation development.
Page 17 and 18: Table 9. MW Processing methods, in
Page 19 and 20: Table 113. Average quantity of MWs
Page 21 and 22: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 For instance, i
Page 23 and 24: and youths; participation in MW act
Page 25: Variation between households and co
Page 29 and 30: stocks, increasing size of business
Page 31 and 32: - lower order ‘stepping out’ in
Page 33 and 34: development initiatives need to be
Page 35 and 36: REFERENCES Agritex/USAID FEWS - Zim
Page 37 and 38: Mutamba, M., Chirara, C., and Peter

Mopane worm utilisation and rural livelihoods in Southern Africa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?