The contribution and direct-use value of livestock to rural livelihoods in the Sand River catchment, South Africa
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Shackleton, Sheona E , Netshiluvhi, T R , Mathabela, F R
- Date: 2005
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/181335 , vital:43720 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2989/10220110509485870"
- Description: The productive functions of livestock ownership in communal areas are multipurpose in character, comprising a mix of stock types and a range of goods and services used. When all these multiple uses are accounted for, the cash and direct-use returns of livestock in communal areas can be comparable to commercial systems, although temporally and spatially variable. Yet previous work has generally excluded small stock from such analyses, as well as benefits and costs to non-owning households. This paper presents empirical results of a study in the Sand River catchment, assessing the benefits and costs accruing to owners and non-owners for both cattle and goats within a livelihoods analysis framework. Results indicate that cattle are used for a greater variety of goods and services than are goats. The savings value represented the most important function, followed by milk and then manure. Even if savings value was excluded, cattle ownership made a significant contribution to local livelihoods. Goats also provided a net positive benefit, represented largely by the savings value, followed by meat and cash sales. Non-owners also benefited through donations of manure, milk, draught and meat for free, or at a cheaper rate than alternatives. The majority of non-owners aspired to livestock ownership, although the risk of theft of animals was of growing concern. Averaged across the whole catchment, the net value of goods and services from livestock was just over R400 per hectare, with an annual return to capital of 36%. Cattle contributed the bulk of the value by virtue of their greater numbers and larger size, but on a per kilogramme basis goats provided higher value. Many of the goods and services obtained from livestock were not enumerated in regional or national economic statistics.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2005
Use patterns and value of savanna resources in three rural villages in South Africa
- Authors: Shackleton, Sheona E , Shackleton, Charlie M , Netshiluvhi, T R , Geach, B S , Ballance, A , Fairbanks, D H K
- Date: 2002
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182384 , vital:43825 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2002)056[0130:UPAVOS]2.0.CO;2"
- Description: 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.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2002