ARTICLES

 

Livelihood Analysis of Gasela Community in Amahlathi Local Municipality of the Eastern Cape Province

 

 

Mkhungela M.N.^I; Khwidzhili R.H.^II

^IScientific Technician, Dohne Agricultural Development Institute, Livestock Production Improvement research and Development Directorate, P/ Bag X15, Stutterheim, 4930, Tel. 043 683 4004; Email: mabutomkhungela@yahoo.com
^IISenior Lecturer, University of Mpumalanga, P/Bag X11283, Nelspruit, 1200, Tel. 013002 0144, Email: Humphrey.khwidzhili@ump.ac.za, Orcid 000-00021964-1102

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to distinguish the livelihood activities that need sustainable development intervention in the Gasela rural community. A sample survey procedure was done on a population of 77 community household heads. A sample size of 65 was randomly selected. It was found that cabbage, spinach, and potatoes were the most crops produced by the community. Wattle forest was used for cooking, housing, and kraal fencing. The households were affected mostly by pests, diseases, environmental stresses, and weather-related shocks. These sources of vulnerability are cited to limit sustainable crop production. Therefore, the recommendations were interventions for the sustainable production of cabbage, spinach, and potatoes. A further suggestion was to investigate the alternative resource for wattle that will provide the same livelihood outcomes for the Gasela rural households when biological control of this invader species is implemented.

Keywords: Livelihood activities, Sources of vulnerability, Sustainable development intervention

---

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Livelihood is the means of securing physiological survival needs and other physical essentials at a primitive level. The poverty category begins below this level. The vast bulk of absolute and relative poverty is found in developing countries (Baulch & Hoddinott, 2000). South Africa is an example of a country where poverty is prevalent, with unequal societies having persistent high levels (World Bank & Statistics SA, 2018). The Eastern Cape Province is the second-largest and poorest in South Africa (Adekunle, 2013). The primary goal of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development recognises ending poverty in all its forms. To attain this, the Agenda realises the strategies that build the economy, address social needs, tackle climate change, and protect the environment as key. One such strategy is sustainable development. Only drafts and guidelines delineate South Africa's intentions toward sustainable agriculture (Khwidzhili & Worth, 2017). Hence, there is a need to approve policies on this.

The Gasela community in the Amahlathi Local Municipality was established through land redistribution in 2001. According to Kepe and Cousins (2002), when land, resource rights, and income are secured, people are more likely to invest efforts and resources in conservation and land-use practices that meet the present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. The Eastern Cape Agricultural Economic Transformation strategy (2016-2021) is informed by the overarching Rural Development Framework Policy directive outcome 7. The strategy ensures that life quality, services, livelihoods, and income are improved in rural communities. However, the programs implemented to solve the problems of poverty and food insecurity are continuously failing to produce the desired results (Musemwa, 2013). The study examined the characteristics of the Gasela community's livelihood to distinguish forms of livelihood activities that need sustainable development intervention. A sample size of 65 was randomly selected. It was found that cabbage, spinach, and potatoes were the most crops produced by the community. Wattle forest was used for cooking, housing, and poles for kraal fencing and selling. The households were affected mostly by pests, diseases, environmental stresses, and weather-related shocks. Therefore, the recommendations are interventions for the sustainable production of these most produced crops and investigating the alternative resources for wattle that will provide the same livelihood outcomes for the community.

1.1. Objectives and Purpose of the Study

The study's main objective was to determine how the rural community within the vulnerability context develops livelihood strategies to achieve the desired livelihood outcomes. The purpose was to identify the different types of livelihood assets and activities used by household categories to support their livelihood. Further, determine institutions, policies, and processes that influence community livelihood strategies. Lastly, provide livelihood outcomes that suggest entry points for sustainable development approaches at the micro and macro-economic levels.

 

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study Area and Research Design

The study was conducted at Gasela local rural community situated 8 km away from Stutterheim under Amahlathi local municipality of Amathole District in the Eastern Cape Province with GPS coordinates: 32° 37' 58" S 27° 28' 52"E. The area falls under Montana Grassland (Rutherford et al., 2006). A survey method was chosen to sum up the community characteristics and make general statements about the study population using information obtained from the sample (Yin & Heald, 1975). The method is a personal interview survey in the respondent's home. The qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect information on human behaviour and numerical data, respectively. The mixing method of qualitative and quantitative research presents a comprehensive discussion of the theoretical, methodological, and practical issues (Brannen, 2017). A semi-structured questionnaire collected data from 65 randomly selected household heads. The data was collected in October 2019.

2.2. Unit of Analysis and Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted on key informants and household heads of the Gasela community in Amahlathi local municipality of the Eastern Cape Province. The participants were selected using a sample survey procedure to obtain a sample representing the community household heads population. Based on the rural household head population size of 77, a confidence level of 95%, a confidence interval of 5%, and a response distribution of 50%, it was calculated that a random sample of 65 household heads would be sufficient for a survey of this nature (Raosoft, 2004).

2.3. Data Collection Techniques

A semi-structured questionnaire collected data from key personnel and 65 randomly selected household heads. The type of questioning used to collect data was closed, demographic, contingency, skilled-based, dichotomous, side-by-side matrix, and open-ended questions. The information collected through questionnaires included demographic information, community profile, vulnerability context, livelihood assets, institutions, policies, processes, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes. Key personnel and household heads were individually visited in their homes. Interviews were conducted face-to-face using the respondent's home language, and responses were recorded manually on the questionnaire. Participation in the survey was voluntary and treated with confidentiality.

2.4. Data Analysis and Interpretation

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework of the UK DFID was used as a checklist for livelihood analysis. The framework depicted Gasela's rural community as operating in a vulnerable context within which the community has to access livelihood assets. The vulnerability context decisively shapes the livelihood strategies open to people in pursuit of their self-defined beneficial livelihood outcomes (Sife et al., 2010). The Survey data was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 25.

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results present the different livelihood assets and activities household categories use to support their livelihood. Further, the results cover institutions, policies, and processes that influence community livelihood strategies. Lastly, it included the livelihood outcomes that suggested the entry points for a sustainable development approach at the micro and macro-economic levels.

3.1. Human Capital

Human capital is an individual's productive capacity, inherited and acquired through education and training (Goodwin, 2003). The choices and options to develop strategies for sustainable livelihood are widened by an increase in this capital (Kanel & Niraula, 2017). The education level enabled the Gasela rural community to make informed decisions on livelihood activities that support their livelihood. The education level of respondents is summarised in Table 1.

3.2. Natural Capital

The study covered only renewables used by the Gasela rural community. Land, water, and forest were used to support livelihood. It is the pattern that rural households in low- and middle-income countries create employment using livelihood assets (Berchoux et al., 2020). Hence, the Gasela rural community used land, water, and forest for livelihood activities. The main natural capital the households had access to is shown in Table 2.

The land was used to produce watermelons, beans, green pepper, potatoes, pumpkin, onion, beetroot, spinach, cabbage, maise, and carrots. The main crops produced were cabbage, spinach, and potatoes. According to Perret et al. (2000), cabbage, spinach, and potatoes are the most produced crops in rural communities in the Eastern Cape Province. Table 3 shows crops grown by households.

The reasons for households to produce crops were consumption, feeding livestock, and consumption and selling. The research participants who produced crops for consumption and sale constitute 68.8%. Raleting and Obi (2015) support the findings that rural communities produce crops for sale and consumption. Figure 1 presents the household reasons for producing crops.

 

 

The range of activities of the community was based on the natural capital. Such activities included collecting and gathering in the forest, food cultivation, non-food cultivation, livestock keeping, and pastoralism. Activities of the community are summarised in Table 4.

The wood produced from wattle was used for cooking, making fires, housing, and poles for building kraals and selling. The study supports Johnson and Bryden (2012) that most rural communities use firewood as the primary energy source for livelihood activities. The use of the forest by the community is shown in Table 5.

3.3. Physical Capital

The households accessed water through the community piped water, household piped water, delivered by the municipality, river, and other (nearby farm reservoir). Most Eastern Cape rural communities access drinking water through groundwater supply (Lehloesa & Muyima, 2000). Even though the source of water accessed by the Gasela rural community was groundwater, the scarcity remains a challenge. Water scarcity burdens rural women as they have to walk more distances in search of water (Sigenu & Pelser, 2009). The access to water resources by households is presented in Table 6.

Water was used for consumption, washing, bathing, and irrigation. The Water Poverty Index (WPI) of Amahlathi local municipality falls at 51 (Cullis, 2005). The WPI of 100 is considered a perfect score. However, South Africa falls below that; hence it stands at 52 (Lawrence et al., 2002). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is recommended for the Gasela community with low WPI. The IWRM encompasses different stakeholders at different levels using water resources to manage water to achieve sustainable development goals of the 2030 agenda. The use of water resources by households is shown in Table 7.

The rural community needs equipment and machinery that are economically affordable and environmentally safe to be used locally to produce crops. The types of manual implements used by the participants to produce crops were spade and hoe, and others combined spade, hoe, and rake. The results support Phezisa (2016) that households mostly use manual implements to produce crops from home gardens. Relatively few research participants used a tractor. Adekunle (2014) highlights that the lack of machinery makes most rural communities rely on labour-intensive crop production. Table 8 indicates the implements and machinery used to produce crops.

3.4. Financial Capital

The Gasela rural community creates financial capital from different sources such as employment, farming, off-farm activities, forest products, pension, and child grants. The unemployment rate was relatively high compared to the Eastern Cape Provincial unemployment of 37.4% in the first quarter of 2019. The Gasela rural community can improve financial capital through support services, including agricultural and entrepreneurship, networking, and financial education. According to Hamdan (2019), entrepreneurship offers a means to overcome present challenges through sustainable development. Table 9 illustrates the principal occupation of the research participants.

3.5. Social Capital

Most research participants know each other, enabling the community to act collectively. Conversely, the productive results in the community were not created by components of social structure. The structural social capital of the community was poor; hence 98.2% were not members of any organisation or social group, and 9.8% were members of Ilima. Bebbington (1997) emphasises the importance of civil society actors in improving agriculture, livelihoods, and resource use.

3.6. Institution, Policies, and Processes

The Ilima is a government grant that helps vulnerable communities increase agricultural production. The research participants that were participating in this project were 9.8%. South African agricultural policy on conserving natural resources promotes sustainable resource use. Nevertheless, no organisation was found to promote sustainable resource use in the Gasela community. The social process indicated no interactions that could improve the livelihood quality. Bachke (2019) emphasises that organisation membership has been used to improve market access, access to information, and capacity to increase production. Table 10 shows the membership of the research participants in an organisation or social group.

3.7. Livelihood Strategies

The livelihood strategies are a set of economic actions influenced by social context to source the location of internal and external resources. The rural community commonly follows a traditional livelihood strategy by adopting two widely known adaptations: intensification of agricultural production and diversification of income sources. The research participants practised no agricultural production intensification. However, the diversification of income sources was a phenomenon; hence there were combinations of off-farm and on-farm activities and revenue generated from crops, livestock, and forest. Diversity is an intrinsic attribute of many rural livelihood strategies (Warren, 2002).

3.8. Livelihood Outcomes

The sources of vulnerability found in the community were weather-related shocks, pests, disease shocks, economic shocks, seasonal stresses, environmental stresses, idiosyncratic shocks, and structural shocks. The three main sources of vulnerability with the highest percentages were pests and diseases, environmental stresses, and weather-related shocks. As per Dhanush et al. (2015), climate change changes the stages and rates of pathogen development and host resistance, ultimately resulting in changes in the physiology of host-pathogen interactions. To alleviate the effects of pests and diseases, Climate-Smart Pest Management (CSPM) can be used, which reduces pest-induced crop losses, improves the ecosystem, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Heeb et al., 2019). The abiotic and biotic stresses were the second-highest sources of vulnerability experienced by the Gasela rural community. Amongst the abiotic stress mentioned by the research participants was the drought that caused the planted seeds not to germinate and seedlings to perish because of water stress. Drought caused some research participants not to participate in crop production.

Biotic stresses mentioned by the research participants were moles in potatoes and aphids in cabbages. According to Hanawalt (1922), with no interest in vegetables, moles primarily eat earthworms, centipedes, millipedes, slugs, and snails. In addition, Pocket Gophers are burrowers that create mounds on the soil in the same way that moles do and feed on vegetables (Hafner, 2004). Therefore, it might be inaccurate that the moles are biotic stress in potato production when Pocket Gophers are responsible for vegetable damage. The recommendations were that further research be conducted to accurately identify the pests responsible for potato damage in Gasela rural community gardens. Aphids were mentioned as another biotic stress on vegetable production. The cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (L.), significantly reduces the percentage of epicuticular wax, dry weight, sugar, and amino acids in cabbages (Khattab, 2007).

The Green Peach Aphid is a significant pest of brassica vegetables and a vector of more than a hundred viruses (Ahmed et al., 2018). It was further recommended that research be conducted to accurately identify the type of aphids responsible for cabbage damage in the Gasela community gardens. Plants develop specific mechanisms that enable them to withstand the damaging effect of environmental stress (Chelli-Chaabouni, 2014). Hence, crops with identified stress-responsive genes and overexpression within sensitive crop species are recommended to withstand environmental stress (Ahanger et al., 2017). Figure 2 indicates the Gasela community's sources of vulnerability.

The environment in South Africa is characterised by shocks, with a significant percentage of households being affected, and that threatens daily sustenance (Carter & Maluccio, 2003). The frequency of the sources of vulnerability experienced by the Gasela community on a yearly basis was 55, with 84.6% of people being affected. The principal abiotic stress experienced by the research participants was drought which led some of the community members to a coping strategy by not participating in crop production. The Eastern Cape Province is highly vulnerable to drought, and the determination to reduce the impact should be a significant research effort (Mdungela et al., 2018). Appropriate risk management strategies, such as prevention, mitigation, and coping, are recommended to manage shocks. The major shocks to be managed in the Gasela community are pests and diseases, environmental stresses, and weather-related shocks. Figure 3 illustrates the frequency of shocks and the percentage of the affected people in the community.

 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Livelihood analysis of rural communities is essential because these communities have the potential to produce or reduce natural resources by their action or inaction. This, in turn, can significantly affect the micro and macro economy. The study was to determine how the rural community within the vulnerability context develops livelihood strategies to achieve the desired livelihood outcomes. The intention was to provide livelihood outcomes that suggest entry points for a sustainable development approach at the micro and macro-economic levels. Crop production was the main livelihood activity in Gasela rural community. The most produced crops were cabbage, spinach, and potatoes. The wattle forest was used to collect firewood, poles for building houses, livestock kraals, and selling. Crops were produced for consumption, feeding livestock, and selling. The Gasela rural community was affected mostly by three main sources of vulnerability: weather-related shocks, pests and diseases, and environmental stresses. Research participants cited these sources of vulnerability as limiting crop production. Thus the study recommends the IWRM for weather-related shocks existing in Gasela rural community. CSPM is recommended to reduce pest-induced crop losses, improve the ecosystem, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to alleviate the effects of pests and diseases. The number of gaps that will benefit these findings and enhance this study within the Gasela rural community is:

• To assess soil and water suitability for sustainable production of cabbage, spinach, and potatoes.

• To conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for sustainable production and marketing of cabbage, spinach, and potatoes.

• To improve their control and management, determine the type of pests and diseases of cabbage, spinach, and potatoes.

• To investigate the alternative resources for wattle that will provide the same livelihood benefits when biological control of this species is implemented.

 

REFERENCES

ADENKULE, O.O., 2014. An investigation of challenges facing home gardening farmers in South Africa: A case study of three villages in Nkokonbe municipality Eastern Cape Province. J. Agric. Sci., 6(1): 102.         [ Links ]

AHANGER, M.A., AKRAM, N.A., ASHRAF, M., ALYEMENI, M.N., WIJAYA, L. & AHMAD, P., 2017. Plant responses to environmental stresses-from gene to biotechnology. AoB Plants., 9(4).         [ Links ]

AHMED, N., CHAMILA DARSHANEE, H. L., FU, W. Y., HU, X. S., FAN, Y. & LIU, T. X., 2018. Resistance of seven cabbage cultivars to green peach aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol., 111(2): 909-916.         [ Links ]

BACHKE, ME, 2019. Do farmers' organisations enhance the welfare of smallholders? Findings from the Mozambican national agricultural survey. Food Policy, 89:101792.         [ Links ]

BAULCH, B. & HODDINOTT, J., 2000. Economic mobility and poverty dynamics in developing countries. J. Dev. Stud., 36(6): 1-24.         [ Links ]

BEBBINGTON, A., 1997. Social capital and rural intensification: local organisations and islands of sustainability in the rural Andes. Geogr. J., 63(2): 189-197.         [ Links ]

BERCHOUX, T., WATMOUGH, GR, JOHNSON, FA, HUTTON, CW & ATKINSON, P.M., 2020. Collective influence of household and community capitals on agricultural employment as a measure of rural poverty in the Mahanadi Delta. India.Ambio., 49(1): 281-298.         [ Links ]

BRANNEN, J., 2017. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Routledge.         [ Links ]

CARTER, M.R. & MALUCCIO, J.A., 2003. Social capital and coping with economic shocks: An analysis of the stunting of South African children. World Development., 31(7): 11471163.         [ Links ]

CHELLI-CHAABOUNI, A., 2014. Mechanisms and adaptation of plants to environmental stress: a case of woody species. In P. Ahmad & MF Wani (eds.), Physiological mechanisms and adaptation strategies in plants under changing environment. New York: Springer, 1-24.         [ Links ]

DHANUSH, D., BETT, BK, BOONE, RB, GRACE, D., KINYANGi, J., LINDAHL, JF & SMITH, J., 2015. Impact of climate change on African agriculture: Focus on pests and diseases. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on climate change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). [viewed 09 June 2021]. Available from www.ccafs.cgiar.org.         [ Links ]

GOODWIN, NR, 2003. Five kinds of capital: Useful concepts for sustainable development Working Paper No. 03-07. Global Development And Environment Institute        [ Links ]

HAFNER, MS, DEMASTERS, JW, SPRADLING, TA & REED, DL, 2003. Cophylogeny between pocket gophers and chewing lice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

HAMDAN, A.M.M., 2019. Entrepreneurship and economic growth: An Emirati perspective. The Journal of Developing Areas., 53(1).         [ Links ]

HANAWALT, F.A., 1922. Habits of the Common Mole: Scalopus aquaticus machrinus. Available from https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/2174/V22N06_164.pdf        [ Links ]

HEEB, L., JENNER, E. & COCK, M.J., 2019. Climate-smart pest management: building resilience of farms and landscapes to changing pest threats. J. Pest. Sci., 92(3): 951-969.         [ Links ]

JOHNSON, N.G. & BRYDEN, K.M., 2012. Energy supply and use in a rural West African village. Energy., 43(1): 283-292.         [ Links ]

KANEL, K.R., & NIRAULA, D.R. 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Janakari., 14(1): 19-26.         [ Links ]

KHATTAB, H., 2007. The defense mechanism of cabbage plants against phloem-sucking aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae L.). Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 1(1): 56-1362.         [ Links ]

KHWIDZHILI, R.H. & WORTH, S.H., 2017. Evaluation of policies promoting sustainable agriculture in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., 45(2).         [ Links ]

LAWRENCE, PR, MEIGH, J. & SULLIVAN, C., 2002. The water poverty index: an international comparison. Keele, Staffordshire, UK: Department of Economics, Keele University.         [ Links ]

LEHLOESA, L.J. & MUYIMA, N.Y.O., 2000. Evaluation of the impact of household treatment procedures on the quality of groundwater supplies in the rural community of the Victoria district. Eastern Cape. Water SA., 26(2): 285-290.         [ Links ]

MDUNGELA, N.M., BAHTA, Y.T. & JORDAAN, A.J., 2017. Farmer's choice of drought coping strategies to sustain productivity in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Frontiers in Sustainability., 1(1): 73-89.         [ Links ]

MUSEMWA, L., ZHOU, L., NDHLEVE, S. & AGHDASI, F., 2013. Factors affecting household access to enough food in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. J. Dev. Agric. Econ., 5(3): 84-91.         [ Links ]

PERRET, S.R., CARSTERNS, J., RANDELA, R. & MOYO, S., 2000. Activity systems and livelihoods in Eastern Cape Province rural areas (Transkei): Household typologies as socio-economic contributions to a Landcare project. Working Papers No. 18061. University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.         [ Links ]

PHEZISA, B., 2016. A situational survey of Siyazondla homestead food production program and food security, poverty alleviation in selected communities of Nkonkobe local municipality of the Eastern Cape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Fort Hare.         [ Links ]

RALETING, P.M. & OBI, A., 2015. An analysis of institutional factors influencing vegetable production amongst small-scale farmers in six vegetable projects of the Nkonkobe Local Municipality. J. Agric. Sci., 7(6): 184.         [ Links ]

RAOSOT, I., 2004. Sample size calculator. Available from ww raosoft com/sample size.         [ Links ]

RUTHERFORD, MC, MUCINA, L. & POWRIE, LW, 2006. Biomes and bioregions of southern Africa. In L. Mucina & M.C. Rutherford (eds.), Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute, 30-51.         [ Links ]

SIGENU, K. & PELSER, A., 2009. Rural women and water scarcity: challenges and strategies in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Master's thesis, University of the Free State.         [ Links ]

SIFE, AS, KIONDO, E. & LYIMO-MACHA, JG, 2010. Contribution of mobile phones to rural livelihoods and poverty reduction in Morogoro region, Tanzania. The Electronic J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Countries., 42(1): 1-15.         [ Links ]

WARREN, P., 2002. Livelihoods diversification and enterprise development. An initial exploration of concepts and issues. Rome: FAO.         [ Links ]

WORLD BANK., 2018. Overcoming poverty and inequality in South Africa: An assessment of drivers, constraints, and opportunities. Washington, DC: World Bank.         [ Links ]

YIN, R. K. & HEALD, K. A., 1975. Using the case survey method to analyse policy studies. Adm. Sci. Q, 20(3): 371-381.         [ Links ].

 

 

Correspondence:
MN. Mkhungela
Correspondence Email: mabutomkhungela@yahoo.com