Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

Olalekan Adekola; Sylvie Morardet; Rudolf de Groot; Frederic Grelot

doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.671191

Adekola, Olalekan; Morardet, Sylvie; de Groot, Rudolf; Grelot, Frederic

2012-09-01 00:00:00

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2012, 248–264 Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods a,b c,d a d Olalekan Adekola *, Sylvie Morardet , Rudolf de Groot and Frederic Grelot a b Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands; Department of Geography, Federal University of Technology, Yola, P.M.B 2076 Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria; International Water Management Institute, Southern Africa Ofﬁce, Private Bag X813, Silverton, 0127 Pretoria, South Africa; Irstea – UMR G-EAU, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, 34196 Montpellier Cedex 5, France This article describes an assessment of the contribution of provisioning services provided by the Ga-Mampa wetland (1 km ) to the livelihoods of local stakeholders, including monetary values for some services. The study used a combination of data collection approaches including a questionnaire survey, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, ﬁeld observation and measurements and collection of market prices. The results show that the contribution of the wetland to the livelihoods of the local community is an estimated annual $228 per household, which represents about 15% of the average 2006 household income of $1584/year. Crop production contributed the highest gross value, while sedge collection yielded the highest cash income. Overall, an annual gross value of $900/ha is provided through provisioning services in the Ga-Mampa wetland. In addition, it was found that wetland services are essential for household subsistence and providing resources for gift giving to neighbours and relatives. Due to the lack of alternative income sources, the declining income from sedge and reed harvesting caused by continued degradation of the wetland poses considerable economic hardship. Integrated assessment of all ecosystem services and identiﬁcation of involved stakeholders is needed to develop sustainable management strategies that deal with the environmental and socio-economic changes in the area. Keywords: wetland ecosystem; provisioning services; livelihood; market valuation; South Africa Introduction why their conversion and ‘development’ have been, and still are, viewed as a generally more attractive option than Wetlands have provided valuable resources and refuge for conservation and sustainable use, especially in developing human populations since the beginning of human life on countries (Balmford et al. 2002; Mmopelwa 2006). In the Earth (Ramsar Convention Bureau 2000). They perform African continent, there are few studies that explicitly esti- many ecological functions, such as regulation of biogeo- mate the economic values of wetlands (Schuyt 2005). Even chemical cycles and provision of habitat for life cycles of where such studies are available, they are often for large plants and animals, which in turn provide many goods and wetlands or focused only on a single ecosystem service services (hereafter called ecosystem services) (De Groot (see Eaton and Sarch 1997; Emerton et al. 1999; Schuyt et al. 2002). Ecosystem services are the beneﬁts derived 1999, 2005; Turpie et al. 1999; Turpie 2000; Mmopelwa from nature which are important for human well-being 2006; Lannas and Turpie 2009). The economic value of (MEA 2005). Many studies have shown that wetlands in smaller wetlands (i.e. smaller than 5 km ) has been little Africa support the livelihoods of rural and often poor studied, possibly because they are considered insigniﬁcant. households (Adams 1993; Turpie et al. 1999; Mwakaje However, in Africa, small wetlands are extensively used 2009). However, in spite of their importance in sustain- for subsistence agriculture and are often more important ing livelihoods, many African wetlands are threatened by to national development than the large ones (Taylor et al. human activities (Schuyt 2005) such as conversion to agri- 1995; Macfarlane and Teixeira-Leite 2009). They are also cultural lands and urbanization, which are responsible for important for the maintenance of biodiversity (McCulloch the loss of about half of the global wetlands in the twentieth et al. 2003; Gbogbo 2007). This underscores the need century (Bruland et al. 2003; Rijsberman and Silva 2006; for more and better information on the values of small Wood and van Halsema 2008). It is becoming increasingly wetlands. clear that corresponding changes in wetland ecosystems Beneﬁt transfer (applying economic value estimates not only undermine their ecological integrity but also alter from one location to a similar site in another location) the supply of wetland services resulting in signiﬁcant con- (Plummer 2009) is often suggested as an alternate method sequences for human well-being (McMichael 1993; MEA to value ecosystem services. However, the variation in 2005; Schuyt 2005). values from existing studies suggests that it is not real- The lack of readily available data and information on istic transferring values from one wetland to another. the values of wetlands is identiﬁed as a major reason *Corresponding author. Email: lekola1@yahoo.com ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online © 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.671191 http://www.tandfonline.com International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 249 For instance, in the study of four wetland sites in the and another 30% have less than 5 years of formal educa- Zambezi Basin, Turpie et al. (1999) estimated that annual tion. There are two main villages in the valley: Ga-Mampa net ﬁnancial income per household from livestock produc- and Mantlhane, of which Ga-Mampa is the largest. Both tion ranges from US$31 in the Lower Shire to US$120 and villages have a headman (Induna, traditional head of the US$422 in the Barotse and Caprivi wetlands, respectively. people), who is responsible for allocation of commu- In the same study, cropping yields net ﬁnancial incomes per nal land and gives authorization for harvesting natural household between US$89 in Barotse and US$295 in the resources within the wetland. The people of Ga-Mampa Lower Shire. In essence, the value of each wetland ought have also formed a development forum – Ga-Mampa to be considered as unique to it. Community Development Forum (GCDF) – responsible This article is an addition to the scarce literature on for formulating programmes for the development of the economic value and contribution of small African wetlands area and liaising with the local municipality. to livelihoods. The aim is to describe the monetary value Three small-scale irrigation schemes built in the mid- of the provisioning services derived from the Ga-Mampa 1940s have contributed to a large part of the local food wetland and their contribution to the livelihoods of local production. After the withdrawal of government support in stakeholders. Provisioning services are the tangible goods the mid-1990s, and ﬂoods in 1995 and 2000, the irrigation or products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fresh- infrastructure has deteriorated, thereby rendering a large water, timber and ﬁbre. We discuss two pertinent questions: part of the schemes obsolete. After the collapse of irri- (i) What is the monetary value of provisioning services gation schemes and drought following the ﬂoods, farmers derived from the Ga-Mampa wetland? (ii) Will house- have resorted to the wetland for agriculture because of holds value gross ﬁnancial gain from the wetland over the its wetness and rich soils. As a consequence, half of the wetlands’ contribution to cash income (CI)? wetland area was converted to agricultural land between 1996 and 2004 (Troy et al. 2007). The Ga-Mampa wetland provisioning services include Methods the use for crop cultivation, livestock grazing (forage and Study area water), reed collection (building material), sedge collec- tion (art and craft material), ﬁshing, hunting, fuelwood The Ga-Mampa valley is a rural area located in the Mafefe collection, wild edible plant collection, medicinal plant tribal area of the Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality of the Republic of South Africa. The Ga-Mampa valley covers collection and collection of water for drinking, washing 2 2 an area of about 5 km of which approximately 1 km is the and bathing. Wetland cultivation is popular because of the Ga-Mampa wetland of the Mohlapitsi River, a tributary of limited availability of arable land in the area which was the Olifants River (Troy et al. 2007). The Mohlapitsi makes aggravated by the damage done to the irrigation schemes. a signiﬁcant contribution of up to 16% of the Olifants River Wild edible plants (mostly leafy greens), used by the local ﬂow during the dry season (McCartney 2006). Thus, it population to diversify their diet, are collected from the was initially hypothesized by stakeholders outside the local wetland because it provides high-quality edible plants all community that the hydrological regime of the Ga-Mampa year round, unlike the surrounding area. The wetland is also wetland might be important to the Olifants River (Troy the only location where reeds and sedges, used for building et al. 2007). and crafting activities, are available. Use of other services The Ga-Mampa valley has a semi-arid climate with is usually combined with these main activities. For exam- ple, collection of bathing water is mostly associated with seasonal rainfall that largely occurs from October to April cropping activities in the wetland. with mean annual rainfall of 630 mm. May to September are dry months. The area is rugged and mountainous with Conceptual framework and research methods an average altitude of 1305 m. In the wetland, the altitude ranges from 536 to 755 m. The surrounding area of the Ga- This study adopts an integrated ecosystem assessment Mampa valley is covered by bushes which were established framework ﬁrst developed by De Groot et al. (2002) and as a nature reserve in the 1960s. Reeds (Phragmites mauri- improved by De Groot et al. (2010) to disentangle the inter- tianus) and sedges (Cyperus latifolius and C. sexangularis) actions between ecosystems and human well-being. This are abundant plant species occurring in the wetland (Kotze framework was used to identify and measure the contri- 2005). bution of wetland provisioning services to the livelihood Based on the ﬁeldwork done for this study, the of local communities. The two important steps of analy- population of the valley was estimated at 2758 inhabi- sis guiding this study are ecosystem function analysis and tants in 394 households in November 2006. The average economic valuation of the associated services (Figure 1). household size is seven persons, and average monthly Ecosystem function analysis is the process by which a income in 2006 was $132 per household per month wide range of key elements of complex ecological struc- ($1584/household/year), the majority of which comes tures and processes are translated into a limited number from pension and welfare grants. There are few employ- of functions, which in turn determine the services an ment opportunities in the valley and people resort mainly ecosystem provides (De Groot 2006). to farming (65% of respondents) as their main occupation. This study adopts the typology and nomenclature Of the household heads, 30% have no formal education of ecosystem services proposed by the Millennium 250 O. Adekola et al. Ecosystem structure and process Provisioning Regulating Cultural Habitat services services services services Recreation, Food, sedge, reeds Climate regulation Nursery, gene pool education Decision- making process to determine policy Stakeholders’ Total economic value options and interest and views management measures Use values Non-use values Indirect use Bequest value Existence value Direct use Option value value value (Future possible (Future (Right of existence) (Resources (Resources use) generation used directly) used indirectly) possible use) All services Supporting Provisioning and Regulating All services services cultural services services Figure 1. Framework for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Stakeholders’ interest and views should be considered in most steps of the assessment. Tools such as cost–beneﬁt analysis, trade-off analysis and multi-criteria analysis are used in support of the decision-making process. Source: Adapted from De Groot et al. (2002). Ecosystem Assessment, which classiﬁes them into main provisioning ecosystem services derived from the provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services Ga-Mampa wetland was based on existing literature on (MEA 2005). Once the services derived from the ecosys- the wetland, that is, Darradi (2005) and Tinguery (2006) tem are identiﬁed (top part of Figure 1), the next stage of complemented with information collected during the ﬁrst the assessment is to determine the value to human society focus group discussion and ﬁeld observations. In total (economic valuation – bottom part of Figure 1). 66 households were interviewed directly (face-to-face) Humans attach value to ecosystems because they sat- between August 2006 and November 2006 using a struc- isfy material and non-material needs. Economic valua- tured questionnaire. The sample (N = 66) was divided into tion attempts to assign quantitative values to market and two subsamples: 33 farmers (households cultivating one or non-market services provided by environmental resources more plots in the wetland) were randomly selected among (Barbier et al. 1997). Part of the economic value can be the 99 wetland farmers identiﬁed by the headmen of the expressed in monetary terms to make the outcome compa- two villages. From the rest of the population, 33 house- rable to other sources of income for local population. The holds were selected randomly. The proportion of farmers main approaches to attach monetary value to ecosystem selected for the interview is higher because they are the services are direct and indirect market valuation, non- main users of the wetland, and available time did not per- market valuation and beneﬁt transfer. In this study we mit a survey of a corresponding proportion from the rest only used market valuation which is based on collecting of the population. The questionnaire was structured into information on the quantities of the ecosystem services three sections: the ﬁrst section captured demographic and harvested, their market prices and cost implications. This socio-economic characteristics of respondents; the second is done by quantifying the amount of an ecosystem service dealt with general information about access and use of derived from an ecosystem and then relating this (multi- the wetland; and the third section asked detailed informa- ply) to the local market value (or value of a substitute) of tion on each provisioning service under study (quantity of the service. Having identiﬁed the ecosystem services to be service harvested, costs and price). Additional questions valued, and the valuation methods to be used, the next step were asked to farmers on their crop production. Most of is to collect relevant data on the quantity of services used, the questions covered respondents’ activities in the last costs of using the service and market price. year (September 2005 to October 2006). The question- naires were administered to the head of households and when possible done in the presence of other household Data collection members. Data were collected using a combination of approaches that These interviews were complemented by group dis- include questionnaire survey, focus group discussions, key cussions, interviews with key informants and direct informant interviews, ﬁeld observation and measurements ﬁeld observation and measurement. A ﬁrst focus group and collection of market prices. Identiﬁcation of the discussion was held at the beginning of the study to provide International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 251 some background information, identify the main uses and for subsistence. On the other hand, NFV is an accept- users of wetland resources and establish the list of farmers. able indicator of the potential market values that could A second focus group discussion was conducted after com- be received, if the ecosystem service would be sold on pletion of the household survey, to verify and complement markets and if the costs of collection involve the direct information collected during the survey, for example, on ﬁnancial costs made. In other words, it gives a good indi- price variability, durability of tools and methods used in cation of the proﬁt made. CI is an appropriate indicator for wetland services collection or cropping and use of house- the actual cash generated from the sale of ecosystem ser- hold labour. During the second focus group discussion, vices. This indicator measures cash generated from sale of participants were asked to collectively rank wetland ser- ecosystem services and used for other household livelihood vices in terms of their value for the community, using the activities. so-called pebble distribution method, which is a participa- Quantities expressed by respondents in local units were tory rural appraisal tool used to document the perception of converted to standard units, while monetary values were respondents on selected issues (Sheil et al. 2003). To under- expressed by respondents in South African Rand (R) and stand the perceived livelihood value of the wetland by were then converted into US dollars ($) based on an aver- local people, participants were asked to discuss and divide age exchange rate between September 2005 and September 25 tiny stones among wetland ecosystem services based on 2006 at R6.46 = $1. their perceived importance. Several key informants were The ‘expected’ number of households participating in also interviewed: the headman of Mantlhane (who pro- a speciﬁc production activity (EPHH) (e.g. maize crop- vided information on access to the wetland and number of ping, sugar cane cropping, sedge collection) and the total households in his domain); the chairman and secretary of annual quantity harvested (or produced) (TQH) were used the GCDF (who gave general information on cultural and to compute for GFV and NFV as follows: historical background); agricultural extension ofﬁcer (on activities in the wetland and crop yield); the ward council- EPHH = × N lor (on future potential of the wetland for tourism); a farmer who could speak English (on cropping activities, sale and where m is the number of households participating in the use); and the wife of one of the traditional healers (on use activity in the sample, n the total number of sampled house- of wetland plants for medicinal purpose). Traditional mea- holds (n = 66) and N the total number of households in the surement units used by local people (e.g. ‘bambas’ for land population (N = 394). area) had to be translated into standard units, and travel TQH (i.e. for production activity a) was computed from time between homesteads and the wetland was estimated the average annual quantity collected per sample house- through direct ﬁeld observation and measurements. hold, multiplied by the ‘expected’ number of households In cases where market prices could not be ascertained participating in that speciﬁc production activity (EPHH): through the household survey, group discussions or infor- mant interviews, a visit to the local market in Ga-Mampa HC ia i=1 and the neighbouring community at Mafefe provided fur- TQH = × EPHH ther information about market prices. When a product was not marketed in Ga-Mampa, the price of the closest mar- where HC is the quantity of product a collected by ia keted substitute was used. For example, hunted animals are household i. not sold; hence, we used the price of chicken suggested GFV was computed as follows: as the closest substitute during the focus group discus- sion. Finally, in the spirit of giving back to the community GFV = TQH × P a a (Walker 2007), a feedback workshop was organized for the local stakeholders to communicate the preliminary results where P is the average price per unit at which a product is of the study. The questions and comment sessions proved sold in Ga-Mampa (September 2005 to October 2006). to be an important avenue for gaining more insight into NFV was computed as follows: stakeholder perceptions on the services. NFV = GFV − CST a a a Data analysis The values of the Ga-Mampa wetland provisioning ser- where CST is the total costs of collection/production, vices were estimated and expressed as annual values excluding cost of family labour and travel. The cost of using three economic indicators: the gross ﬁnancial value family labour was not taken into account as the opportu- (GFV – economic worth of total quantity harvested), the nity cost was considered minimal in the context of high net ﬁnancial value (NFV – the total subsistence plus cash unemployment and low earning skills. Costs were esti- value to households net of input costs but not household mated based on monetary inputs (such as cost of seeds, labour costs) and CI (economic worth of quantity sold). tools and hired labour) going into the harvesting and use GFV captures the total monetary value of the service. of each provisioning service of the wetland. Tools used for This indicator is appropriate for services that are used harvesting resources represent the main source of cost. The 252 O. Adekola et al. cost of tools such as hoes, cutlasses and axes used for col- 0.66 km or 66% is currently under cultivation. Wetland lecting wetland provisioning services was calculated using cropping plots ranged from 0.25 to 1.5 ha; the average plot straight line depreciation. Costs of implements at the time size in the wetland is about 0.7 ha per farming household. of purchase were corrected for inﬂation using rates from Our analysis showed that plot size does not vary a lot across Statistics South Africa (2006) and then further divided by households. The greatest upsurge in wetland farming was average length of use suggested during focus group dis- after 2000; this was when about 80% of farmers acquired cussions and the number of uses (for implement used in their plot. This coincides with the period of the second multiple activities as indicated by households during the ﬂood that destroyed the irrigation scheme. To maintain the survey). By using GFV and NFV as indicators we are able integrity of the wetland, croppers are to rely on natural fer- to assess the level of ﬁnancial investment needed to derive tility of the wetland, because the GCDF discourages the beneﬁts from the Ga-Mampa wetland. use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, the secretary of Finally, the CI is the monetary value of quantity sold: the forum does not exclude that some farmers may be dis- obeying this rule, but maintained they will be punished if CI = QSD × P caught. a a The main crops cultivated in the wetland during the where QSD is the total quantity of product sold. It was esti- wet season (October–April) are maize (mabele), which mated using the same method as for TQH. CI is different is the staple food, often intercropped with vegetables from GFV in that it is an indication of the total local market (morogo) and groundnut (dimake). Coriander (mospo) and value of the quantity sold out of the total harvest. beans are popular dry season crops. Sugar cane (moba) and banana are the most common permanent crops in the wetland, but in limited quantity. Other crops cultivated in Results the wetland include spinach, cabbage, tomatoes, onions, pumpkins and beetroot. While maize cultivation remains Use and value of wetland provisioning services high, cultivation of coriander is decreasing because of rapid This section presents the results on the value of each of decline in its market price. the provisioning ecosystem services derived from the Ga- Of the 99 households with a wetland farm plot, 90 cul- Mampa wetland. We have presented the value of each tivated their plots during the 2005/2006 cropping season. ecosystem service separately to make its individual con- Lack of money and ill health are the reasons given for tribution to livelihood clear. However, it is important to not cropping. Data for individual crops are presented in note that in reality services are interlinked and a change Table 1. The total value of all crop production was esti- in the wetland will impact not one, but multiple ecosys- mated at an annual gross value of $36,798 (Table 1). The tem services because the ability to provide one group of main costs associated with cropping come from purchase services depends on the proper functioning of the others of seeds, hiring of tractors and donkeys and transportation (MEA 2005). of yields. If this is factored in, the NFV from cropping Because of the high uncertainty associated with infor- is $25,687. About 92% of this is generated from wet mation obtained on grazing, water collection and medicinal season crops – maize (83%) and vegetables (9%). Total plant, these services are not included in the ﬁnancial and CI from cropping is $3783. Only 57% of this is gen- economic results presented; however, some information erated during the wet season, indicative that dry season about these services is still provided. Households seldom crops are marketed more. Up to 86% of dry season crops collect forage from the wetland and are not aware if their – groundnut, coriander and beans – are sold for house- livestock graze in the wetlands; neither is information hold income (Table 1). In all, cropping contributes 27% on time spent by livestock grazing the wetland reliable. of the total CI of the Ga-Mampa wetland provisioning Likewise, the secrecy surrounding collection of medicinal services. On the other hand, most of the wet season plants from the wetland meant that necessary information crops – maize and vegetables – are used for household on types, quantity collected and location was not disclosed consumption. during the interviews. The Ga-Mampa wetland supplies a large proportion of food consumed by the people. More than 20% of the Cropping total yield of each crop is consumed directly for house- About 25% (99) of households in Ga-Mampa valley have hold subsistence. The proportion of wetland products self- permission to access and use the wetland for cropping consumed is even higher (over 80%) for maize (main purposes. As the wetland falls under communal land, per- staple meal in Ga-Mampa valley) and vegetables (source mission to access it for cultivation is usually given by of nutrient diversiﬁcation). Pap made from maize is the the headmen. Presently, there are no more available plots most common meal of the locals, eaten almost every day and even if there are, no more authorization is being by each household in the Ga-Mampa valley. Considering given due to advocacy by a non-governmental organization the generally low level of CI per household, most families on wetland conservation (Mondi Wetlands Project) which cannot afford buying milled maize from the market. Thus, argued about the negative impacts of wetland clearance the Ga-Mampa wetland plays an important role in the on the catchment hydrology. Of the 1 km wetland, about food security of the local population. It is deduced that an International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 253 Table 1. Monetary values of the main crops cultivated in Ga-Mampa wetland 2005/2006. Total Average Gross Net number of quantity ﬁnancial ﬁnancial participating Total harvested per Unit price in value value Cash households harvested participating Yield Rands (GFV) (NFV) income GFV/ GFV/yield (EPHH) (TQH) household Total area per Percent (US$) (P) (US$) (US$) (CI)(US$) EPHH per ha Crops (1) (2) (3) Unit (ha) ha sold (4) (5) (6) (7) (US$) (US$/ha) Maize 90 110,010 1222 kg 56.3 1960 5 1.79 (0.28) 30,483 25,687 1,524 339 541 a a b Vegetable 57 1,584 28 kg 0 13.33 (2.06) 3,269 3,181 0 57 Groundnut 8 1,704 213 kg 2.2 774.5 88 2.69 (0.42) 710 660 624 89 323 Sugar cane 6 750 125 Stick(s) 0.4 1875 72 1.00 (0.15) 116 74 84 19 290 Banana 3 150 50 Bunche(s) 0.4 375 60 12.50 (1.93) 290 235 174 97 725 Coriander 3 2,880 960 kg 1.9 1516 67 2.69 (0.42) 1,199 1,150 804 400 631 Beans 3 840 280 kg 2.3 365 86 4.69 (0.73) 610 444 524 203 265 Beetroot 3 450 150 kg 40 1.75 (0.27) 122 79 49 41 Total crops 36,798 31,510 3,783 Average per 409 350 42 EPHH Average per all 93 80 10 households (N = 394) Notes: (1) Estimated from proportion of participating households in the sample and total household number in the population. (2) Computed from average quantity harvested per participating household and total number of participating households. (3) Estimated from surveyed households. (4) Unit prices were estimated from household survey and observation in local markets. Rand prices were converted to US$ using an exchange rate of R6.46 for US$1 (Statistics South Africa). (5) GFV is the economic worth of total quantity harvested. (6) NFV is GFV less cost of harvesting. Here GFV and NFV are almost equal because most uses often require little or no cost to households. (7) CI is the economic worth of quantity sold. Intercropped with maize. None of the planted vegetable was sold; however, the standard price of vegetable in Ga-Mampa valley is R13.33/kg. 254 O. Adekola et al. average household requires approximately a bag (95 kg) of Ga-Mampa wetland as quite important. Therefore, besides maize per month. The total annual maize requirement for direct nutritional contributions, the diversity of wild edi- the 394 households would then amount to around 449 tons. ble herbs is a source of variety, spice and taste in local With total maize production from the wetland estimated meals (Dovie et al. 2007). The remaining 11% of wild edi- at 110 tons per annum (Table 1), maize produced from ble plants are used to meet social responsibilities through the wetland therefore represents almost 25% of the sub- gift giving to elderly neighbours and relatives. sistence needs in the valley. Some part of the maize is It takes 91 h of household labour to collect the aver- kept to be used as farm seed for the next cropping season, age value of $84 per participating household. The value of while another part is given in exchange for farm labour. time spent on edible plant collection is thus worth about R6 Cultivating vegetables (cabbage and spinach) in the wet- ($0.9) per hour. land is also important to household food supply. Over 80% of cultivated vegetables are used directly for house- Reed collection hold consumption, serving the same purpose as wild edible plants collected from the wetland. The wetland further con- Reeds together with sedges are the most sought-after ﬁbre tributes to food security by enabling all year-round access resource provided by the Ga-Mampa wetland. The period to crop production and aids diet diversiﬁcation by allowing to collect reeds (usually between June and July) is sanc- the cultivation of crops, such as bananas or sugar cane that tioned by the headmen. It is an offence to collect reeds cannot be found in dryer areas of the valley. without the headmen’s permission when they have not yet An average cropping household spends about 942 h declared time for reed collection. on cropping annually to generate $409. Therefore, the About 96% of households have collected reeds from value of time spent on cropping was estimated at R3/h the wetland in the past, but only 21% collected reeds from ($0.4) which is less than the average hourly wage in the Ga-Mampa wetland in 2005/2006 session. Most house- Ga-Mampa valley (R8, $1.24). holds desired to collect this resource but indicated that they could not ﬁnd any, probably a sign of declining service. The annual reed harvest is estimated at 2526 bundles (a bun- Wild edible plant collection dle is about 60 cm in diameter and could weigh between 5 and 10 kg). At an average price of R20 ($3.10) per Wild edible plants are the most widely used provisioning ecosystem services provided by the Ga-Mampa wetland. bundle of reed, the GFV accruing from reed collecting Collection takes place all year round with the highest from the Ga-Mampa wetland is estimated as $7820. Taking collection intensity between November and March. Some the cost of tools (cutlasses) used in reed collection into households collect an excess of these plants in the wet consideration, it contributes an NFV of $7795. season and sun-dry them for use in the dry season when About 18.8% of harvested reeds are sold for cash. available quantity in the wetland is reduced. Collection is In total reeds contribute $1467 (10.6%) of the total CI from done by hand into small farm seed buckets. There are about the Ga-Mampa wetland provisioning services. About 72% 24 different varieties of edible plant collected in the wet- of collected reeds were used directly by households for land. Morogo is the generic name for wild edible plants and rooﬁng their own houses. Field observation revealed that the most common are Moshwe, Leshashe, Mshigi, Morotse about half of the buildings in Ga-Mampa are roofed with and Bolotse, all leafy plants comparable to spinach. reeds believed to have come from the wetland. This is an All households in the valley have collected wild edible indication of the wetland’s support of basic material for plants from the wetland prior to the 2005/2006 session, good life through the provision of shelter. The remaining but about 95% of the households collected edible plants proportion of collected reeds is used as gifts. This is mostly from the wetland during the 2005/2006 session. This is the given to neighbours as a sign of social bond, to relatives and service in which most households (376) participate. The to elderly ones who cannot go into the wetland. total quantity of wild edible plants collected from the wet- Each participating household spent an average 41 h col- lecting an average quantity worth $93. This translates to land is estimated at 15,273 kg. At an average price of R13 R14.6 ($2.3) per hour spent on reed collection. ($2.01) per kg, annual gross value of wild edible plants from the Ga-Mampa wetland is $30,735 (Table 2). The cost of using this service is associated with the farm seed bucket Sedge collection used for collection and is regarded as negligible; therefore, the NFV of wild edible plant is estimated equal to GFV. Sedge (C. latifolius and C. sexangularis) is another sought- About 3% of collected wild edible plants are sold after service harvested from the Ga-Mampa wetland. Sedge to generate household income. In all, an annual CI of collection is regulated by headmen in the same way as $861 representing about 6% of total CI from the wet- reeds. land is generated from wild edible plant collection; 86% The wetland has been a source of sedge to about 94% of of harvested edible plants are used for direct household the households in the past, but only 23% of them collected consumption. Wild edible plants are used to diversify meals sedges from the wetland during the 2005/2006 survey. All as most household may not have enough money to buy interviewed households reported their desire and efforts meat. Thus, local people consider edible plants from the to collect sedges during this period; however, they could International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 255 Table 2. Monetary values of the main provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, 2005/2006 (for details on cropping – see Table 1). Total number of Total Average Gross participating harvested or quantity Price per unit ﬁnancial Net ﬁnancial Cash GFV/yield households produced collected per in Rands (P) value (GFV) value (NFV) income (CI) per ha Material (EPHH) (TQH) participating Percent (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) GFV/EPHH (US$/ha) GFV/h harvested (1) (2) household Unit sold (4) (5) (6) (7) (US$) (8) (US$/h) Wild edible 376 15,273 41 kg 3 13.0 (2.01) 30,735 30,735 861 82 307 0.9 plants (Morogo) Building 84 2,526 30 Bundle 19 20.0 (3.10) 7,820 7,795 1,470 93 78 2.3 material (reeds) Art and craft 90 756 8 Bundle 25 20.0 (3.10) 585 − 595 material (sedge) 756 Mats 77 80.0 (12.38) 9,362 7,918 7,190 9,947 7,918 7,785 111 99 1.4 Fuelwood 6 1,296 216 Bundle 0 20.0 (3.10) 4,012 4,003 0 669 40 6.2 Hunting 6 60 10 Piece 0 31.5 (4.80) 288 288 0 48 3 4.8 Fishing 18 708 39 Piece 0 2.25 (0.35) 247 221 0 14 2 Total natural 53,049 50,960 10,116 resources Per household 135 129 26 (N = 394) Total cropping 36,798 31,510 3,783 409 368 0.4 Total wetland 89,847 82,470 13,899 898 service Total per 228 209 35 household (N = 394) Notes: (1) Estimated from proportion of participating households in the sample and total household number in the population. (2) Computed from average quantity harvested per participating household and total number of participating households. (3) Estimated from surveyed households. (4) Unit prices were estimated from household survey and observation in local markets. Rand prices were converted to US$ using an exchange rate of R6.46 for US$1 (Statistics South Africa). (5) GFV is the economic worth of total quantity harvested. (6) NFV is GFV less cost of harvesting. Here GFV and NFV are almost equal because most uses often require little or no cost to households. (7) CI is the economic worth of quantity sold. (8) Based on total wetland area. 256 O. Adekola et al. not ﬁnd any. An estimated 756 bundles of sedges was har- wetland (Table 2). The standard price for fuelwood in vested from the wetland during this period (2005/2006). Ga-Mampa valley is R20 ($3.10) per bundle. Thus, GFV Sedges are used for making different art and craft items for fuelwood is estimated as $4012. The only cost involved such as baskets and mats (legoga). In calculating the eco- in fuelwood harvesting is the cost of the axe. NFV is nomic value of sedge we took note of the quantity sold as therefore estimated as $4003 (Table 2). All collected ‘raw material’ (in bundles) and the value added from the fuelwood is used directly by households as a source of portion used in making art and craft material. cooking energy and energy to keep warm. No part of the Of the total quantity harvested, 75% (567 bundles) was fuelwood is sold or used as gift. used in making mats and the remaining 25% (189 bundles) An average of 108 h is spent per participating house- was sold as ‘raw material’, mainly to households within hold collecting fuelwood in the wetland. Relating this to Ga-Mampa. It can be assumed that they were also used the average $669 per participating household means that for making mats; however, because this was not investi- R40 ($6.2) is gained for every hour spent on this service. gated during the ﬁeldwork, this was not considered in the Of all services, fuelwood generates the highest monetary calculation. On average, 0.75 bundles of sedge are required value per time spent. to make one mat, meaning in total, about 756 mats were made. Of this total, 77% were sold to customers from Ga-Mampa, Kappa and Mafefe. The remaining was used Hunting as gift and for personal use. Combining the worth of the An estimated 1.5% of households hunted in the wetland quantity sold directly in bundles (189) at R20 ($3.10) per during the 2005/2006 survey, but about 40% hunted game bundle, with the number of mats made (756) at a stan- in the wetland in the past. Rabbit was the most com- dard price of R80 ($12.38) leads to an average annual GFV mon animal mentioned to be collected from the wetland. derived from sedge harvesting from the Ga-Mampa wet- Hunting in the wetlands seems to be a spontaneous activity land estimated at $9947 (Table 2). The cost involved in and not a deliberate action as it is mostly associated with the use of sedge from the wetland is due to (i) cutlass cropping. Game is not commonly sold in Ga-Mampa val- used for harvesting, (ii) thread and needle used in making ley; hence, it was not possible to get its market price. mats, (iii) cost of building a locally made knitting machine Participating households and members of focus group dis- and (iv) cost of transportation to and from market. Taking cussion suggest chicken as the closest substitute for game. these monetary costs into consideration, the average annual It is believed that an average carcass of about 3 kg is worth NFV was estimated as $7918. CI derived from sales of about R31.5 ($4.80). A total of 60 animals (mostly rab- bundles of sedges and mats amounts to $7785 (Table 2). bits) were hunted in the wetland. Annual GFV of hunting As such, sedge contributes the highest proportion of 56% in the Ga-Mampa wetland was therefore estimated at $288. to the total CI derived from the Ga-Mampa wetland. Unlike Game was collected using dogs to hunt them down; cost other services, no part of harvested sedge is used in gift was thus considered insigniﬁcant as such GFV = NFV. All giving. the hunted animals from the wetland were used for house- It takes about 20 h of household labour to collect an hold consumption. On average, 10 h a year is spent hunting average quantity of sedge (8.4 bundles). In addition, it per participating household, which equates to a beneﬁt of requires about 7.2 h making one mat. The total time spent R31.5 ($4.9) per hour spent hunting. on average beneﬁt of $111 is 80 h. Therefore, the value of time spent in this activity is then estimated at R8.9 ($1.4) per hour. Fishing In this study the Mohlapitsi River was not considered as Fuelwood part of the wetland; hence, ﬁshing activities going on in Fuelwood collection in the wetland is very limited and the river were not regarded as wetland activities although occurs only in the dry season. This is due to the lim- the wetland will likely provide a nursery service. In the ited availability of woody plants and their wetness. While 2005/2006 survey, 4.5% of households collected ﬁsh from about 40% of households have collected fuelwood from the wetland while 30% suggested they have ﬁshed in the the wetland in the past, only 1.5% of Ga-Mampa valley wetland in the past. Only households with cropping plots in the wetland reported ﬁshing from the wetland. It was not households collected fuelwood from the wetland in the 2005/2006 survey. All of these reside in Mantlhane – the possible during this study to determine the different species settlement closest to the wetland. Wood from the surround- of ﬁsh available in the wetland. ing mountains and other parts of the Ga-Mampa valley is An average-sized ﬁsh of about 100 g weight is worth the main source of fuelwood to all households. Fuelwood is R2.25 ($0.35). In total, 708 average-sized ﬁsh were collected in bundles, which could measure up to 70 cm in caught from the Ga-Mampa wetland annually. This gives diameter and about 200 cm in length with an approximate an annual GFV of $247. Cost is associated with buy- weight of 10–15 kg. ing hooks and thread, giving an annual NFV of $221 An estimated annual harvest of 1296 bundles of (Table 2). All ﬁsh collected were used for household fuelwood is reportedly collected from the Ga-Mampa consumption. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 257 Water collection for domestic use source of milk, eggs and meat. Their faeces are important source of manure used on farms and as a substitute to Wetland water is mainly used for washing, bathing and cement for plastering ﬂoors. The animals are also used as drinking. Other uses of wetland water are for drinking a means of transportation and draught power. water for domestic animals and building purpose. Because of their close proximity to the wetlands, only households from Mantlhane sub-village deliberately go to the wetland Medicinal plant collection to collect water. For households in other settlements, water Not much is known about the use of the Ga-Mampa wet- collection in the wetland is associated with other activities, land plants for medicinal purpose. This is due to ‘secrecy’ such as cropping or edible plant collection. In all the vil- in the community about its use. Information gathered lages, the main sources of water for domestic uses are the reveals that three main medicinal plants are collected numerous springs and streams located at the bottom of the from the wetland: Mupurogu, Mutusa, Masheo Mabe. mountains and closer to the settlements than the wetland. Unfortunately it was not possible to determine the scien- It is estimated that about 1288 m water is drawn annu- tiﬁc name of these plants during the ﬁeld survey. Mupurogu ally from the wetland. This represents about 418 m for is claimed by one of the users to be able to ‘prevent any 3 3 bathing; 186 m for washing; 583 m for drinking; and type of disease, no matter how bad it could be’. Mutusa 101 m for other purposes. Valuing the monetary beneﬁt and Masheo Mabe are used together with other plants col- from water collection in Ga-Mampa valley presents two lected from elsewhere (mountain) as local male fertility main difﬁculties: (i) generally, in South Africa, there is no drug. Because of the secrecy surrounding its use, it was market price for water in this kind of rural areas with very not possible to estimate the economic value of medicinal low level of water services (Lefebvre et al. 2005) and (ii) plants in this study. Several authors have emphasized the substitutes are available for wetland water and these alter- importance of such medicinal plants to the health care of natives (because of its location and geology, there are a rural people particularly in remote parts of the developing number of springs and rivers closer to the settlement from world (Levingston and Zamora 1983). where most households collect their daily water require- ment) require even less travel time. Thus, the economic value of water is not included in the economic analysis in Aggregated economic value of the main provisioning this study. On the basis of a daily consumption ranging services from 29 l (the consumption from the municipal network Based on the calculation of the economic value of each estimated by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry individual provisioning service of Ga-Mampa wetland, (2006)) to 50 l per person (suggested by Gleick (1996) the aggregate economic value of provisioning services as a minimal water requirement) only between 2.6% and provided by Ga-Mampa wetland was estimated at about 4.5% of the total water requirement of the inhabitants of $90,000 for GFV; $83,000 for NFV; and $14,000 for CI Ga-Mampa valley is collected from the wetland. (Table 2). Based on this estimation, cropping contributes the highest value of about 40% of the total GFV and NFV of the Ga-Mampa wetland while sedge collection accounts Livestock grazing for the highest CI, generating 56% of the total CI. It is estimated that approximately 70% of households in To address the question whether locals would value Ga-Mampa valley own at least one type of livestock (cows, gross ﬁnancial gain over CI from wetland resources, dur- donkeys and goats). However, only an estimated 38% of all ing the second focus group discussion respondents ranked households in Ga-Mampa valley could ascertain that their the value of wetland services, using a pebble distribution livestock does depend on the wetland for forage. Generally, method. The weights assigned by respondents were then data on grazing beneﬁts from the wetland (number of ani- used as the ‘perceived’ livelihood value (how locals value mals, period of grazing, contribution of the wetland to the importance of a wetland service) of the wetland by the total grazing needs) were difﬁcult to acquire because peo- local people. Comparing the weight of empirically esti- ple usually leave their livestock roaming unsupervised. mated economic values of each wetland service with the Using a rough extrapolation based on ﬁeld observations, weight of the perceived livelihood value put on them by 84 donkeys, 618 cows and 1115 goats are grazing in the respondents (Figure 2) shows that, except for cropping, Ga-Mampa wetland. Using an estimated average intake per the relative importance of services perceived by people animal per day (animal unit day) of 5 kg of dry matter is closer to their relative weight in gross ﬁnancial terms for cattle, 1 kg for goats and 3 kg for donkeys (Taddese than in CI ones. This suggests that people generally inte- 2003), grazing in the wetland contributes a gross value of grate in their valuation the part of services self-consumed up to $75,000 annually. This value is over three-quarters by households and that GFV is an appropriate indicator of of the value of all other wetland services. However, because value of ecosystem services to local people. This result is of lack of adequate data and high uncertainty, the eco- supported by a correlation analysis using SPSS (Statistical nomic value of livestock grazing is not included in the total Package for the Social Sciences, version 14; Chicago, economic value. IL, USA) that showed that correlation between weight Livestock is consumed (and sometimes sold) during assigned by household and weight of GFV is signiﬁcant festivities or celebrations. The animals are an important with a Pearson correlation of 0.857. However, the closeness 258 O. Adekola et al. Gross financial value Cash income Perception of households Cropping Wild edible Reeds Sedge Fuelwood Hunting Fishing plants collection collection collection collection Wetland ecosystem service (activity) Figure 2. Relative importance of economic value of wetland services (GFV and CI in percentage of total wetland economic value) compared with their relative value as perceived by stakeholders (from ﬁeld survey 2006). of the perceived weight of cropping and its CI will sug- beneﬁt of $669 per annum while ﬁshing yield the least gest that for cropping, CI will be a better indictor. However, value of $14 per annum. In the next section, we anal- this comparison should be made with great caution, as the yse our result based on the premise that beneﬁts from the metric used in both cases is not the same and the com- wetland can be distributed among all households in the position of the focus group, even if it reﬂects the general valley. diversity of wetland users, is not statistically representative of the population, contrary to the sample. GFV is used as Distribution of beneﬁts among households against NFV because the cost of production in Ga-Mampa The facts that all households used the wetland for at least is negligible, that is, less than 8% of the total gross value one service during the 2005/2006 cropping season and is associated with cost and most of the cost (72%) is from all ranked the wetland as either important or extremely cropping. Respondents during focus group discussions also suggest that for most services they do not regard the cost important to their livelihoods underscore its importance as relevant. in Ga-Mampa. If we assume that all beneﬁts will accrue In all, about $900 can be generated from every hectare equally to all households in Ga-Mampa, then each house- of the wetland. However, it is difﬁcult to assume that hold receives $228 in gross value of which $35 is in CI. all hectares of the wetland have an equivalent value, for If compared with the average annual household income of example, in terms of comparing ﬁshing with cropping. $1584, CI from the wetland makes up only 2.2% of house- On the other hand, if we are to consider beneﬁts based hold income, but considering that households value GFV on time inputs, fuelwood will yield the best beneﬁt at more than CI, the wetland contributes up to 15% of the the value of time spent collecting fuelwood at $6.2/h. average annual household income. This value exceeds average hourly wage in Ga-Mampa In practice there were considerable differences between valley (1.24). The hourly wage for reeds ($2.3/h), sedge households. The household with the highest estimated ($1.38/h) and hunting ($4.9/h) exceeds the average hourly annual gross beneﬁt of $2625 used the wetland for all ser- wage in Ga-Mampa valley, but that for cropping ($0.4/h) vices except for ﬁshing and hunting. On the other hand, the household with the least gross beneﬁt of $17 used the and collecting edible plants ($0.93/h) is less than the aver- wetland only for wild edible plant collection. This suggests age hourly wage in Ga-Mampa valley. Putting these ﬁgures a high variation in value of beneﬁt between households. in the context with Figure 2 gives an indication that house- Therefore, an analysis of differences in beneﬁts derived holds do not value household labour time spent on wetland from wetland provisioning services across households was activities. For example, cropping which gives low beneﬁt conducted using SPSS (Table 3). For the purpose of this per time spent but generates a high proportion of gross analysis, provisioning services have been grouped into value is ranked higher than fuelwood. three categories: cropping; material collection (sedge, reed If beneﬁts are divided only among participating house- and edible plant collection) and others (ﬁshing, hunting and holds, households collecting fuelwood has the highest Relative importance (%) International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 259 Table 3. Differences in beneﬁts derived from ecosystem services across different household variables, Ga-Mampa community. Coefﬁcient Material Material Material collection collection collection Cropping Cropping Cropping Variable GFV NFV CI GFV NFV CI GFV NFV CI Income 0.934 0.891 0.427 ∗ ∗ ∗ Household size 0.317 0.278 0.163 0.042 0.039 0.033 Age of household 0.102 0.123 0.460 0.032 head Year of education of 0.763 0.818 0.596 head of household ∗ ∗ ∗ Occupation 0.632 0.715 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.006 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Ownership of wetland 0.208 0.235 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 cropping plot Gender of household 0.981 0.971 0.197 head Note: p < 0.05. fuelwood collection). We observe that age of the household as farmers get more beneﬁts from cropping than others. head has a signiﬁcant effect on CI from material collec- Ownership of wetland cropping plot has a signiﬁcant effect tion. Households with a head aged over 70 derive more only on overall CI, but not on the overall gross value and CI than households with a younger household head. This net value. There was no signiﬁcant variation in beneﬁt might be due to the possibility that the older generation based on gender and education level of the head of the possesses the old skill in mat making (which is a major household and household income. source of CI) and probably, the younger are not interested We sought respondents’ (participating households) per- in this activity anymore. Similarly, material collection ben- ception on the status of each service. Figure 3 is based on eﬁt (CI, NFV, GFV) is signiﬁcantly impacted by household data of respondents’ recall of past activities when they cast size: households sized between 11 and 15 tend to get more their mind back to the last 5 years and compare the avail- beneﬁt than households with other sizes, probably due to ability of services then and now. Except for cropping, most their higher manpower. As expected, differences in wetland respondents believe that all services are declining in the beneﬁts from cropping can be explained by the occupation wetland. Respondents blamed poor rainfall and the clearing of the household head: the households who see themselves of reeds and sedges and digging of drainage ditches by No idea Decreasing Not changing Increasing Crop Wild edible Reed Sedge Fish Game Fuelwood plant Wetland ecosystem service Figure 3. Household perception of the availability of wetland services based on whether they were more or less compared to the last 5 years prior to the study. Household (%) 260 O. Adekola et al. farmers to convert natural wetland into agricultural land absence of the wetland, the chances of struggling for the for the changes in wetland ecosystem services. This has remaining marginal lands may be higher. caused the shrinking of the natural wetland thus reduc- ing the availability of most wetland services. Considering the importance of these services to the well-being of the Discussion locals as enumerated above, these changes can have a Comparison with literature strong impact on their livelihoods since some do not have Our study underscores the importance of wetlands to peo- alternatives. ple’s livelihoods in Africa and compares well with the For ﬁshing, fuelwood and game, there may be direct results from other studies on African wetlands, for exam- substitutes like collecting wild edible plants in other loca- ple, Emerton et al. (1999) on the Nakivubo urban wetland, tions or even planting in the garden, travelling further Uganda (529 ha), and Turpie et al. (1999) who study the distance into the surrounding area to collect fuelwood, Barotse wetland in Zambia (550 km ), the Lower Shire ﬁshing in the river and hunting games in the surround- wetland in Malawi (162 km ) and the Zambezi Basin in ing. Finding substitute/alternatives to sedge and reeds is Zambia (1275 km ). To make their values comparable, they more challenging; 93% of sedge-collecting households do were converted to 2006 values using an annual inﬂation not have a substitute/alternative for it. Those who collect rate of 3%. sedge to make mats for household use suggested the use of When per hectare value estimates are compared, the wooden beds as a substitute, but they do not have the ﬁnan- services of the Ga-Mampa wetland yield high values rel- cial means. Likewise, use of rooﬁng zinc was suggested as ative to other studies. For example, the gross value of substitute for reeds. Although it appears that preferences of cropping per hectare in Ga-Mampa is $368 while it was some households are changing for modern materials such $196 in Nakivubo urban wetland in Uganda (Emerton et al. as zinc, most households cannot afford this. All those gen- 1999); $165 in Barotse, Zambia; and $66 in Chope Caprivi, erating CI from reed and sedge do not have an alternative, Namibia (Turpie et al. 1999). should this resource disappear. If considered in terms of In Ga-Mampa valley, the total contribution of the main existence of alternatives, the foregoing will suggest that provisioning services provided by the wetland per house- households may be able to adjust (economically) to decline hold is estimated at $228 in GFV and $35 in CI. When in wetland services more easily in the case of services values per household from Ga-Mampa wetland are com- used for subsistence, than for those generating household pared with a similarly small wetland such as the Nakivubo income. But, only 15% of the wetland value generates cash; urban wetland (529 ha), the Ga-Mampa community derives 85% is used for household subsistence. This is an indica- higher gross beneﬁts due to the population density per wet- tion that the Ga-Mampa wetland may be more important land area (0.25 ha/household in Ga-Mampa against about for subsistence rather than for CI. Besides, households 0.02 ha/household in Nakivubo). Interestingly, we found value cropping and edible plant collection (used mainly no relationship between wealth (household income) and for subsistence) ahead of sedge and reed (used mainly gross annual direct beneﬁt from the wetland. This is con- for income generation) and more households depend on sistent with ﬁndings in literature suggesting that wealth the wetland for subsistence than for income generation. does not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the use of resources in However, it is clear that decline in sedge and reed translates terms of proportion of households or the average number of into a reduction in CI source. This makes it imperative to resources used per household (Shackleton and Shackleton ﬁnd alternative sources of income. 2006; Paumgarten and Shackleton 2009). For some services (such as fuelwood, water collection Furthermore, it was found that households place more and edible plants) households are able to ﬁnd alternatives value on gross ﬁnancial gain over CI, indicating that the to the wetland services lost. However, they expressed regret subsistence value of ecosystem services from the wetland at having to travel extra distance to collect fuelwood or is important. This is consistent with studies which suggest having to do with lower quality edible plants. For these that communities using wetlands for subsistence constitute households the economic implication of wetland loss was a signiﬁcant proportion of the population in Africa (Silvius rather minimal. However, for wetland services used for et al. 2000; Lannas and Turpie 2009). Similarly, households income generation and for which there are no alterna- do not count their time spent for the use (mainly harvesting tives (sedge and reed), households experienced economic time) of ecosystem services, which supports studies that do hardships since they do not have alternative source(s) of not account for household labour in estimating the value of income. This lack of alternative income-generating activi- ecosystems. ties seems to stem from the limited agricultural lands in the community and low educational skills in the community which limit opportunities for off-farm employment and Uncertainties in valuation lack of capital to embark on any meaningful enterprise. This further highlights the economic safety net role played Our study was limited to direct market valuation of by the Ga-Mampa wetland. Because of the limited irriga- provisioning services which can only capture use values of ble area due to the poor state of irrigation infrastructure, wetland services. It is likely that the inclusion of other tech- alternatives to cropping in the wetland are limited. In the niques (e.g. contingent valuation) to elicit cultural values International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 261 attached to some provisioning services will lead to dif- services with added value, such as sedge used for mat ferent results and probably indicate even higher livelihood making. To avoid double counting we estimated monetary values. values based on the end product. For instance, the portion Economic valuation approach has its critics, who point of sedge used or sold directly by households in bundles is to the fact that not everything can or should be valued in valued based on the price of each bundle, while the portion monetary terms and that economic valuation studies are of sedge used for making mats is valued based on the price by nature fraught with uncertainties which can result in of mat. value estimates that are crude and inexact (Serafy 1998; Toman 1998). Nevertheless, economic valuation is useful Data collection constraints because ‘failure to quantify ecosystem values in commen- surate terms with opportunity costs often results in an Time was a major limiting factor in this research, especially implicit value of zero being placed on ecosystem services’ for data collection. There was only about 6 months for the (Loomis et al. 2000). In practice, therefore, it may be better entire study, of which less than 3 months was spent on to reach an agreement based on imperfect value estimates actual ﬁeld data collection. A research with ﬁeldwork cov- rather than continuing theoretical disputes over the ‘real’ ering a longer period, allowing for monitoring of household value of ecosystem services (Hermans et al. 2006). wetland use, will no doubt allow for collecting more data In order to calculate market values, we had to make and provide better estimates. We believe longer ﬁeld study several assumptions regarding quantities and prices of the with adequate time to observe livestock grazing activity provisioning services included in this study. The average would have greatly enhanced the reliability of the monetary quantity of resources collected per time period (e.g. aver- value of this service. Likewise, time was needed to build age weekly collection) was used to calculate the TQH adequate rapport with users who are secretive with their within a year. For services such as wild edible plants whose uses. The little success achieved on medicinal plant collec- period of collection is seasonal, this assumption may gen- tion was in the late stage of the ﬁeld study when this level erate some uncertainty, either over- or underestimating the of rapport was just building. yearly average. The same holds for the prices of some prod- Interviews were often long, on average about 1.5 h, ucts which are dynamic and vary over the year. For the taking a toll on respondents. This was not always a prob- sake of simplicity, average values have been used in the lem because respondents were informed more than a week calculations. before they were scheduled to be interviewed, and for some In conducting any valuation study (for naturally pro- respondents interviews were split into two sessions. The duced services as well as man-made), such assumptions fact that the researcher collected ﬁeld data personally was are unavoidable and highlight the fact that all prices (and very helpful, as it allowed for more probing questions economic values) are time and context dependent lead- not originally foreseen in the questionnaire. The iterative ing to a high level of uncertainty to the value estimates. nature of the study left some ﬂexibility and was essential in Approaches to dealing with such uncertainties have been positively modifying the study as it progressed to take new discussed in literature (Bingham et al. 1995; Korsgaarda information into account. This is important to a success- and Schoub 2010) and to reduce uncertainty, we found ful valuation study. These facts are in line with suggestions the use of the so-called triangulation method (Punch 2005) for an integrated wetland research framework suggested by very useful to offset some of the limitations by providing Turner et al. (2000). complementary and supplementary information. For exam- In spite of some of the limitations mentioned above, ple, some values given by households were cross-checked this study shows that it is possible to collect data on the with the extension ofﬁcer and the secretary of the GCDF. economic value of ecosystem services of reasonable qual- Another potential source of uncertainty is the risk ity in a relatively limited amount of time (approximately of double counting of beneﬁts. There are three potential 6 months), even in a data-poor environment. It is important sources of double counting relevant to this study. First is for the quality of data to combine different data collection double counting the value of services. The risk is highest techniques and to closely monitor the administration of the in studies valuing services that correspond to two different household survey. One of the original aspects of this study service categories (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Ojea et al. is that it applies to a small wetland, unlike most studies in 2010), for example, valuing water quality (regulating Southern Africa, which generally focussed on larger wet- service) and water quantity (provisioning service). Since lands (e.g. see Turpie et al. 1999). It shows that smaller the Ga-Mampa study only looked at provisioning services wetlands are also important to sustaining the livelihoods of the potential of double counting for this reason is minimal the local stakeholders. (Ojea et al. 2010). Second is double counting due to the use of GFV, NFV and CI. It should be noted that the values Conclusions and recommendations calculated for GFV and NFV include CI values. If the value for CI is counted as additional, this would result in The aim of this study was to analyse the livelihood impor- double counting of values. Therefore, CI should be treated tance of African wetland ecosystems, especially of small as that part of the GFV that is sold for household income. wetlands (<5km ) which have been little studied. This The third potential source of double counting arises from study collected original ﬁeld data which provided valuable 262 O. Adekola et al. information, showing that the direct use value of the main their cooperation, giving their time and useful insights into the use of the Ga-Mampa wetland. This research received ﬁnancial provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland (1 km ) support from the Challenge Program Water and Food and the contributes at least $90,000 per year (2006 values) to Fonds de Solidarité Prioritaire Echel-Eau of the French Ministry the livelihoods of communities in Ga-Mampa valley. This of Foreign Affairs. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their translates into a total wetland provisioning service value of valuable comments that helped improve the paper. at least $900/ha/year since this study only looked at a lim- ited number of provisioning services and excluded all other regulating, habitat and cultural services. Notes This study showed that the Ga-Mampa wetland con- 1. Elderly citizens are paid $137 per month while $29 is paid to tributes signiﬁcantly to the livelihoods of the local children under 14 years. stakeholders as a source of income and subsistence needs 2. Pedi names used by local people are indicated in brackets. 3. Based on farmers’ average time spent on major farm activ- (food, raw materials) and for the sustenance of social ities such as land preparation, sowing, weeding, fertility and cultural responsibilities through gift giving to neigh- management, pest control, disease control, harvesting, trans- bours and relatives. The contribution of the wetland to portation of harvested produce and post-harvesting activities. the livelihoods of the local community (394 households) Most of the labour used for these activities comes from was estimated at an annual GFV of $228 per household of household labour. which only $35 was CI. 4. If we use the value of bulk water supplied to municipa- lities received from the Department of Water Affairs and Unfortunately, the wetland size has decreased recently Forestry in Tzaneen (closest settlement to Ga-Mampa where due to agricultural encroachment which, if left unchecked, price exists) at R3.44 per kl, domestic water use drawn from will deplete the livelihood contributions of the wetland. Ga-Mampa wetland will yield a gross value of $686. The present lack of alternative income-generating activ- 5. This excludes the estimated value of water taken by animals ities will lead to much hardship if the wetland is fur- from the wetland. This was estimated to be 5041 kl giving a gross value of $2684. ther degraded. We therefore recommend that integrated 6. Over 60% of respondents have less than 5 years of education. assessment of all ecosystem services and identiﬁcation This might be a consequence of the long apartheid regime of involved stakeholders is needed to develop sustainable which did not provide the black population adequate access management strategies that deal with the environmental to education. and socio-economic changes in the area. Based on our observations, options available for wet- land management may include the repair of the irrigation References scheme, and an analysis of other ecosystem services (reg- Adams WM. 1993. Indigenous use of wetlands and sustainable ulating, supporting and cultural, including recreational development in West Africa. Geogr J. 159(2):209–218. beneﬁts) can help to involve other local and downstream Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green stakeholders in developing sustainable management strate- RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science. gies for the Ga-Mampa wetland. Also the development of 297(5583):950–953. educational materials aimed at showing the importance of Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D. 1997. Economic valuation the wetland is important. of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Gland Information generated from this study was integrated (Switzerland): Ramsar Convention Bureau. into the overall Challenge Program Water and Food Bingham G, Bishop R, Brody M, Bromley D, Clark E, Cooper W, Costanza R, Hale T, Hayden G, Kellert S, et al. 1995. Issues research project in the Limpopo Basin. In particular, it in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision contributed to the dynamic model developed to analyse making. Ecol Econ. 14(2):73–90. trade-offs among Ga-Mampa wetland services and support Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need decision-making about its management (Jogo and Hassan for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 2010; Morardet et al. 2010). A better understanding of the 63(2–3):616–626. Bruland GL, Hanchey MF, Richardson CJ. 2003. Effects of agri- biophysical functioning of the wetland and the running of culture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water the above-mentioned dynamic model will help to draw con- quality of a Carolina bay complex. Wetlands Ecol Manage. clusions regarding the sustainability of present wetland use 11(3):141–156. levels. Darradi Y. 2005. Analyse de la perception des porteurs d’enjeux. Le cas de la zone humide du bassin versant de la Mohlapitse River, Province du Limpopo, Afrique du Sud. Gradignan (France): Mémoire de ﬁn d’études pour l’obtention du Acknowledgements titre d’Ingénieur des Travaux Agricoles, Ecole Nationale This research was conducted as part of the research project d’Ingénieurs des Travaux Agricoles de Bordeaux. Wetlands-based livelihoods in the Limpopo basin: balancing De Groot RS. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to social welfare and environmental security, which included assess land use conﬂicts in planning for sustainable, multi- National Agricultural Research Institutions from Zimbabwe, functional landscapes. Lands Urban Plan. 75(3–4):175–186. Mozambique and South Africa (University of Zimbabwe, De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines- University Eduardo Mondhlane, University of Pretoria, Young R, Gowdy J, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, et al. Witwatersrand and Limpopo), French research institutions 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions (Cemagref, IRD, Cirad) and the International Water Management in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar Institute (IWMI). We are grateful to the people of Ga-Mampa for P, editor. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 263 (TEEB): ecological and economic foundations. London McCulloch G, Aebischer A, Irvine K. 2003. Satellite track- (UK): Earthscan. p. 9–40. ing of ﬂamingos in southern Africa: the importance of De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology small wetlands for management and conservation. Oryx. for the classiﬁcation, description and valuation of ecosystem 37(4):480–483. functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41(3):393–408. McMichael AJ. 1993. Planetary overload: global environmen- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2006. Water resource tal change and the health of the human species. Cambridge management charges: simpliﬁed guide. Pretoria (South (UK): Cambridge University Press. Africa): DWAF. [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystem Dovie DBK, Shackleton CM, Witkowski ETF. 2007. and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Conceptualizing the human use of wild edible herbs for Press. conservation in South African communal areas. J Environ Mmopelwa G. 2006. Economic and ﬁnancial analysis of har- Manage. 84(2):146–156. vesting and utilization of river reed in the Okavango Delta, Eaton D, Sarch MT. 1997. The economic importance of Botswana. J Environ Manage. 79(4):329–335. wild resources in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands, Nigeria. Morardet S, Masiyandima M, Jogo W, Juizo D. 2010. Trade- Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment offs between livelihoods and wetland ecosystem services: and Development (CREED). London (UK): International an integrated dynamic model of Ga-Mampa wetland, South Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Africa. International Conference on Integrative Landscape Emerton L, Iyango L, Luwun P, Malinga A. 1999. The present Modelling; 2010 Feb 3–5; Montpellier, France. [cited 2012 economic value of Nakivubo urban wetland, Uganda. Gland Mar 14]. Available from: http://www.symposcience.org/exl- (Switzerland): IUCN, Biodiversity Economics for Eastern doc/colloque/ART-00002427.pdf. Africa and National Wetlands; Conservation & Management Mwakaje AG. 2009. Wetlands, livelihoods and sustainability in Programme. Tanzania. Afr J Ecol. 47(supp 1):179–184. Gbogbo F. 2007. The importance of unmanaged coastal wet- Ojea E, Martin-Ortega J, Chiabai A. 2010. Classifying ecosystem lands to waterbirds at coastal Ghana. Afr J Ecol. 45(4): services for economic valuation: the case of forest water ser- 599–606. vices. BC3 Working Paper Series 2010–12. Bilbao (Spain): Gleick PH. 1996. Basic water requirements for human activities: Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3). meeting basic needs. Water Int. 21(2):83–92. Paumgarten F, Shackleton CM. 2009. Wealth differentiation in Hermans L, Renault D, Emerton L, Perrot-Maitre D, Nguyen- household use and trade in non-timber forest products in Khoa S, Smith VK. 2006. Stakeholder-oriented valuation to South Africa. Ecol Econ. 68(12):2950–2959. support water resources management processes. Confronting Plummer ML. 2009. Assessing beneﬁt transfer for the valuation concepts with local practice. Rome (Italy): FAO. of ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ. 7(1):38–45. Jogo W, Hassan R. 2010. Balancing the use of wetlands for Punch KF. 2005. Introduction to social research: quantitative and economic well-being and ecological security: the case of qualitative approaches. London (UK): Sage Publications. the Limpopo wetland in southern Africa. Ecol Econ. 69(7): Ramsar Convention Bureau. 2000. Ramsar handbook for the wise 1569–1579. use of wetlands. Gland (Switzerland): RCB. Korsgaarda L, Schoub JS. 2010. Economic valuation of aquatic Rijsberman F, Silva S. 2006. Sustainable agriculture and wet- ecosystem services in developing countries. Water Policy. lands. In: Verhoeven J, Beltman B, Bobbink R, Whigham 12(1):20–31. D, editors. Wetlands and natural resource management. Kotze DC. 2005. An ecological assessment of the health of the Heidelberg (Germany): Springer. p. 33–52. Mohlapetsi wetland, Limpopo Province. South Africa: Centre Schuyt KD. 1999. Economic valuation of the Lake Chilwa wet- for Environment, Agriculture and Development, University land report for the Lake Chilwa wetland and catchment man- of KwaZulu-Natal. agement project. Zambia. Copenhagen (Denmark): Danida. Lannas KSM, Turpie JK. 2009. Valuing the provisioning services Schuyt KD. 2005. Economic consequences of wetland of wetlands: contrasting a rural wetland in Lesotho with a degradation for local populations in Africa. Ecol Econ. peri-urban wetland in South Africa. Ecol Soc. 14(2):18. 53(2):177–190. Lefebvre M, Morardet S, Montginoul M, Farolﬁ S. 2005. How Serafy SE. 1998. Pricing the invaluable: the value of the world’s to ﬁnance multiple use water systems for the rural poor? ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ. 25(1): Lessons learnt from the domestic sector in the Olifants 25–27. River Basin, South Africa. International Workshop on ‘Water Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE. 2006. Household wealth status poverty and social crisis’; Agadir, Morocco. [cited 2012 and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Mar 14]. Available from: http://www.musgroup.net/content/ Ecol Econ. 57(2):306–317. download/942/8310/.../AgadirPaper. Sheil D, Puri RK, Basuki I, van Heist M, Wan M, Liswanti N, Levingston R, Zamora R. 1983. Medicine trees of the tropics. Rukmiyati, Sardjono MA, Samsoedin I, Sidiyasa KD, et al. An International Journal of Forestry and Forest Industries. 2003. Exploring biological diversity, environment and local Unasylva. 35:7–10. [cited 2012 Mar 14]. Available from: people’s perspectives in forest landscapes: methods for a http://www.fao.org/docrep/q1460e/q1460e00.htm. multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Jakarta (Indonesia): Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A. 2000. Center for International Forestry Research. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem Silvius MJ, Oneka M, Verhagen A. 2000. Wetlands: lifeline for services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent people at the edge. Phys Chem Earth B Hydrol Oceans valuation survey. Ecol Econ. 33(1):103–117. Atmos. 25(7–8):645–652. Macfarlane D, Teixeira-Leite A. 2009. Qualitative assessment Statistics South Africa. 2006. South African statistics 2006. of the wetland functions and beneﬁts in the Orange/Senqu Pretoria (South Africa): Statistics South Africa. basin. In: Sullivan C, Dickens C, editors. Final Report of Taddese G. 2003. Increasing water productivity: livestock the NeWater Orange River Basin Case Study. Oxford (UK) for food security and poverty alleviation. Addis Ababa and Pietermaritzburg (South Africa): Institute of Natural (Ethiopia): International Livestock Research Institute Resources. (ILRI). McCartney M. 2006. Technical note: hydrology of the Mohlapitsi Taylor ARD, Howard GW, Begg GW. 1995. Developing wet- Catchment. Pretoria (South Africa): International Water land inventories in southern Africa: a review. Plant Ecol. Management Institute (IWMI). 118(1):57–79. 264 O. Adekola et al. Tinguery N. 2006. The interface between the local community – Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientiﬁc integra- based wetland resources management and the formal wetland tion for management and policy. Ecol Econ. 35(1):7–23. policies, laws and institutions. Case studies in South Africa Turpie JK. 2000. The use and value of natural resources and Zambia. Unpublished master dissertation, Brandeis of the Ruﬁji ﬂoodplain and delta, Tanzania. Cape Town University, South St Waltham, MA. (South Africa): Ruﬁji Environmental Management Project, Toman M. 1998. Special section: forum on valuation of IUCN – Eastern Africa Regional Ofﬁce, Fitzpatrick Institute, ecosystem services: why not to calculate the value of the University of Cape Town. world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ. Turpie JK, Smith B, Emerton L, Barnes J. 1999. Economic value 25(1):57–60. of the Zambezi Basin wetlands. Harare (Zimbabwe): IUCN Troy B, Sarron C, Fritsch JM, Rollin D. 2007. Assessment of the Rosa. impacts of land use changes on the hydrological regime of Walker PA. 2007. Political ecology: where is the politics? Prog a small rural catchment in South Africa. Phys Chem Earth. Hum Geogr. 31(3):363–369. 32(15–18):984–994. Wood A, van Halsema G. 2008. Scoping agriculture-wetland Turner RK, van den Bergh JCJM, Söderqvist T, Barendregt interactions. Towards a sustainable multiple-response A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC. 2000. strategy. Rome (Italy): FAO.

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/contribution-of-provisioning-services-of-the-ga-mampa-wetland-south-mFKULNE0AF

Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 2151-3732
eISSN: 2151-3740
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2012.671191
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Sep 1, 2012

Keywords: wetland ecosystem; provisioning services; livelihood; market valuation; South Africa

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

Contribution of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa, to local livelihoods

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies