The nexus of land-based livelihood adaptation and natural resource governance in a former homeland communal area of South Africa

Abstract

Agriculture and the use of natural resources are important components of the rural economy in Africa. However, climate projections indicate worsening weather conditions, which come with negative impacts on the availability and access to critical environmental resources. This scenario introduces fresh demands on management approaches by way of innovation to adequately cope with these challenges. The process of developing and deploying effective solutions to challenging and often systemic socio-economic and environmental issues in support of societal progress is broadly termed social innovation. This study investigates the dynamics of social innovation in relation to climate change adaptation and land degradation in a former homeland area of South Africa. It involves innovation in natural resource governance and rural agriculture. The study site is Mpakeni village in the Mpumalanga Province of South Africa. It is the site of the Mthethomusha Game Reserve whose ownership is contested by the traditional (as well as other community members) and state authorities. This has affected collaboration between the two principal institutions in managing the reserve and the associated communal rangelands which support land-based livelihoods in the area. The first component of the study involved a case study on the changing roles of traditional institutions in the management of natural resources and the challenges to effective comanagement with state institutions. A combination of focus groups, key informant interviews and interviews with 182 household heads was used between 2015 and 2016. The findings of the case study indicate that the effective management of common pool resources in the area is undermined because there is insufficient good governance and aggravated by an inadequate understanding of civic rights, resulting in their abuse. Given the increasing scale of environmental degradation in the area, the case for an effective co-management framework between the state and the traditional institution has become exigent. This study demonstrates the mode of an effective natural resource co-management by these principal institutions in the context of social innovation.

Iinnovation thrives in a conducive actioned policy environment. The introduction of social grants in the post-apartheid era is regarded as one of the important actioned policy interventions in the rural milieu that is backed with funding. These, non-contributory social grants benefit over a quarter of the South African populace, with consequences for their livelihoods. A mixed method approach (qualitative and quantitative) was used involving interviews with 182 household heads and 58 key informants to investigate the impact of social grant receipt on beneficiaries’ engagement in agriculture-related activities. The findings of this component of the study support the argument that social grants serve as enabling resources for beneficiaries’ participation in agriculture. Without the supplementary grant, some community members would be too financially compromised to invest in land-based livelihood activities. Thus, the social grant, which has been given to the poorest to help them survive, has equally empowered them to participate in land-based livelihood activities.

Hence, contrary to observations that only a third of the rural populace is able to engage in resource-intensive livestock production, over two thirds (70%) of grant beneficiaries engaged in livestock production. The study disputes the claim that there is a general decline in agriculture participation in the rural areas, as 95% of respondents were involved. This is exclusive of the level of intensity or the centrality of agriculture to rural livelihoods. As the majority of farming respondents rechannel their grants to enhance their agriculture, there is a need for improved extension support. Moreover, social grants have been described as having other livelihood enhancing effects. A cause-effect diagram is used in this study to highlight the context which makes an individual either gravitate towards their positive use or abuse.

The strategic location of a resource such as hosting vital agricultural assets (for example a pond or a communal cattle dip) can coincidentally facilitate smallholders’ interactions. Such crucial interactions can inadvertently transform an area into an epicentre for cross-pollination of ideas and assist them (users or smallholders) to further morph into a dynamic community of practice that nourishes innovations. In the context of this study innovation refers to the uptake or use of an individual mitigation strategy in response to climate change and land degradation. Moreover, poor access to financial capital and requisite information were the main impediments to strategy uptake amongst respondents who exhibited low strategy uptake (as listed by farmers). Respondents’ socio-demographic parameters such as educational levels, location of farming activity and age were positively associated with strategy uptake. In addition, the location of farming activity, had a significant impact on strategy uptake after controlling for variables in a binary logistic regression model. These factors can be collectively, regarded as pillars/scaffolds of innovation as they serve as catalysts that facilitate strategy uptake. These ingredients must hence be prioritised in innovation policies targeted at the rural environment to increase policy effectiveness and success of interventions. In addition, relatively higher numbers of specialist smallholders practiced increased usage of fertiliser in comparison to generalist smallholders. Ultimately, in mixed smallholder systems, when a farmer exhibited high innovation in plant cultivation, it did not simultaneously translate into animal productivity. However, in terms of agriculture, livestock production is considered as relatively more prone to climate impacts than crop production. This makes the case for capacity building in terms of knowledge and organisational and related skills to enable smallholder systems improve productivity in both crop and animal production imperative. This will also promote the successful entry of smallholder farmers into the mainstream economy in accordance with the objectives of government priority and policy.

Smallholder farmers can further maximise their livelihood resilience by exploiting microfactors such as diversifying the use of mitigation strategies in support of their land-based livelihood activities. Thus, the deployment of a suite of mitigation strategies comes with positive returns on the optimum use of relative assets and coping with livelihood shocks. Age iv

had a significant influence on respondents’ mitigation strategy diversification. Smallholders in the 35-54 year age cohort exhibited extensive strategy diversification compared to vulnerable groups such as the youth and the elderly. Moreover, there was a significant positive association between respondents’ levels of diversification in strategies practiced, and their usage/ownership of land-based assets. Thus, a high level of strategy diversification is associated with a corresponding high level of use/ownership of land-based assets. Respondents with low diversification of strategies registered a low level of use/ownership of land-based assets because they have limited options for diversification, possibly being more invested in off-farm activities and thus relatively wealthier. Moreover, people with limited use/ownership of land-based assets had higher livestock numbers because they developed adequate organisational and financial capacity. Consequently, rural agro-environment policies and programmes that implement government policy need to factor the site and age dynamics into the use of common pool resources (e.g. grazing land) and climate change adaptation interventions whilst foregrounding education, given its positive returns on agricultural productivity.

Ultimately, effective resource governance is needed to safeguard the environment and related ecosystem services that sustain agriculture and related land-based livelihoods in the area. This necessitates integrating key indicators of good governance in co-governance frameworks for the successful governance of common pool resources and related ecosystem services by core actors. Moreover, the sustenance of land-based livelihood activities is enhanced by novel approaches such as the adoption of mitigation strategies. Consequently, the deployment of a suite of mitigation strategies helps optimise the harnessing of land-based livelihoods and related assets for sustainable rural development.