It is important to note that the phenomena of translocality and circular migration in Africa have often served as a strategy of resilience in tough times.
Many rural areas in South Africa are in dire straits. Turning this around is fertile ground for debate.
With the dawn of the Zuma presidency, a ray of hope ignited with the establishment of a ministry dedicated to rural development and land reform.
The incumbent minister, Gugile Nkwinti, is aware of the mammoth task ahead and is probably bewildered about where to start. Cajoling other ministries to join the cause will be essential because rural development is not a unidimensional challenge that can be addressed by a single ministry.
The primary differentiation between urban and rural systems is the greater reliance of the latter on land and natural resources. Rurality conjures up pictures of crops and livestock. Therefore, interventions to address rural decline typically focus on improving agricultural production.
However, rural dwellers use the land for more than just crops and livestock. Throughout South Africa rural people make widespread use of wild natural assets for food, medicines, fibre, shelter and energy, such as thatch grass, medicinal plants, firewood, wild fruits and vegetables, mushrooms, honey, construction timber, edible insects and reeds and grass for weaving. These are used for direct home consumption and in trade to generate cash.
Several household surveys have shown that all rural households make use of at least one natural resource from the surrounding land and that most make use of several.
‘Natural-resource management’
The direct use value of these resources has been conservatively calculated in today’s terms to be more than R5 000 a household a year and R10-billion to R15-billion nationally.
Indeed, the direct use value of natural-resource extraction is equivalent to the benefits the same households obtain from arable and livestock production combined. Yet there is no extension service for natural-resource management similar to those supporting arable and livestock production.
There is additional value associated with trade in village and regional markets for almost any resource, including firewood, thatch, medicinal plants, wood carvings, wild fruits and vegetables, mopane worms, and so on. Estimates of the number of people involved are guesswork, but certainly hundreds of thousands.
Many have adopted natural-resource trading as their only means of keeping poverty at bay. Equally importantly, growing evidence shows that these resources are especially important for the poorest households and can be a vital safety net during times of shock, such as drought, disease, retrenchment or HIV/Aids.
If these figures are accepted, it is obvious that neglect or mismanagement of the rural commons will result in a loss of value and the poorest rural households will be hardest hit. One of their core safety nets in times of need will be diminished or removed. The question then becomes who is responsible for sustainable local resource management.
The responsibility for maintaining these resources for their intrinsic value and ensuring they continue to supply the consumptive and trade needs of poor households is fragmented and weakly implemented. From national to local level, there is little recognition of their value.
The departments of environmental affairs, agriculture, fisheries and forestry and local government focus on the protection of biodiversity rather than promoting and managing sustainable use towards poverty alleviation. Local government lacks the resources and skills to manage commons proactively.
Few local municipalities mention management of natural resources other than via ecotourism, in spite of their obvious role in mitigating poverty. The role of traditional authorities in natural-resource management has waned, leaving an institutional and control vacuum in all but a few areas.
Even in these few areas, they do not monitor or manage supply and demand, or offer any advice on sustainable harvesting methods. They simply collect permit fees or issue fines. The funds collected are not invested in sustainable management, restocking or training local people in management and harvesting approaches and so opportunities to help mitigate local poverty and environmental decline are missed.
There is a compelling need for an extension service promoting sustainable natural-resource use to engage actively with rural communities through appropriately trained officers on the ground. Perhaps this is something for Minister Nkwinti’s department to initiate.
Charlie Shackleton is professor of environmental science at Rhodes University, Grahamstown