RESEARCH ARTICLES

 

Importance value of landscapes, flora and fauna to Tsonga communities in the rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa

 

 

Brandon P. Anthony^I; Edward G. Bellinger^II

^IEnvironmental Sciences and Policy Department, Central European University, Nádor u. 9, Budapest, Hungary
^IISchool of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Many parts of the former homeland areas of South Africa are believed to be experiencing environmental scarcity, and are increasingly vulnerable to resource over-exploitation. Frequently, these areas are adjacent to formally protected areas and present unique challenges in integrating biodiversity conservation and sustaining livelihoods, especially for resource-dependent rural communities. Although studies have been undertaken on the use of various plants by Tsonga communities, and the economic value of specific taxa, no investigation on the relative importance value that considers both wild flora and fauna, together with landscapes, has been carried out previously in the former Gazankulu homeland. We used a weighted ranking exercise for nine focus groups within three rural villages bordering the Kruger National Park, which are largely dependent on wild resources, to assess the relative importance of landscape units and species-level biodiversity. Landscape units, particularly forest/bush and river/stream, were found to be extensively used in meeting community needs, across a range of resource use categories including maintaining socio-cultural norms. Moreover, landscape units vary among villages and age/gender regarding how they contribute to sustaining livelihoods. In total, 162 taxa were identified, with two taxa (Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra; Ficus spp.) exploited in up to seven use categories. Sclerocarya birrea, Combretum imberbe and Colophospermum mopane were the most highly valued species among those surveyed, contributing 22% to the overall value of wild flora and fauna in the area. Of those identified, 28 faunal (60%) and 10 floral (8.7%) taxa are listed in either IUCN, national or provincial protected species schedules. Based on combined Local Users Value scores, over 20% of all biodiversity value for local communities comes from protected tree species. Similarly, faunal taxa with enhanced protection constitute almost 12% of all local biodiversity value. In developing strategies for resource conservation, it is necessary to recognize this widespread use of the natural environment and the wild products, including those under formal protection, exploited by local people.

---

 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

 

REFERENCES

1. Homer-Dixon T. and Percival V (1998). Environmental scarcity and violent conflict: the case of South Africa. J. Peace Res. 35, 279-298.         [ Links ]

2. Els H. (2002). Rural development and game ranch management. In Game Ranch Management, 4th edn, ed. J. du P Bothma, pp. 674-684. Van Schaik, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

3. Twine W, Moshe D., Netshiluvhi T.R. and Siphugu V. (2003). Consumption and direct-use values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo province, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 99, 467-473.         [ Links ]

4. Abalu G. and Hassan R. (1998). Agricultural productivity and natural resource use in southern Africa. Food Policy 23, 477 - 490.         [ Links ]

5. Bryceson D.F. (1999). Sub-Saharan Africa Betwixt and Between: Rural livelihood practices and policies. ASC Working Paper no. 43. African Studies Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.         [ Links ]

6. Bailey N. (2000). Global and Historical Perspectives on Market Hunting: implications for the African bushmeat crisis, p. 44. Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology, University of Maryland & Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, Silver Spring, Maryland.         [ Links ]

7. Shackleton C. and Shackleton S. (2004). The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 100, 658-664.         [ Links ]

8. Shackleton S. (2004). Livelihood benefits from the local level commercialization of savanna resources: a case study of the new and expanding trade in marula (Sclerocarya birrea) beer in Bushbuckridge, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 100, 651-657.         [ Links ]

9. Taylor R.D. (1982). Buffer zones: resolving conflict between human and wildlife interests in the Sebungwe region. Zimb. Agric. J. 79, 179-184.         [ Links ]

10. Western D. and Gichohi H. (1993). Segregation effects andthe impoverishment of savanna parks: the case for ecosystem viability analysis. Afr. J. Ecol. 31, 268-271.         [ Links ]

11. Homewood K., Lambin E.F., Coast E., Kariuki A., Kikula I., Kivelia J., Said M., Serneels S. and Thompson M. (2001). Long-term changes in Serengeti-Mara wildebeest and land cover: pastoralism, population or policies? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 12544-12549.         [ Links ]

12. Posey D.A. (ed.)(1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, p. 750. Intermediate Technology Publications for UNEP London.         [ Links ]

13. Putney A.D. (2003). Introduction: perspectives on the values of protected areas. In The Full Value of Parks: From economics to the intangible, eds D. Harmonand A.D. Putney, pp. 3-11. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.         [ Links ]

14. Oviedo G., Maffi L. and Larsen P.B. (2000). Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation: An integrated approach to conserving the world's biological and cultural diversity. WWF, Gland.         [ Links ]

15. MaffiL. (2001). Introduction: on the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment, ed. L. Maffi, pp. 1-50. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.         [ Links ]

16. Ombe Z.A. (2003). Indigenous land use management in Lower Changane Chibuto: sacred and profane desacralisation and recovery. Indilinga Afr. J. Indig. Know. Sys. 2, 1-9.         [ Links ]

17. Ntsebeza L. and Hendricks F.T. (1998). Democracy and despotism in postapartheid South Africa: the role of chiefs/traditional authorities in rural local government. In Conference on Comparing Experiences on Democratization between South Africa and Nigeria, University of Cape Town, 30 May-2 June 1998. Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town.         [ Links ]

18. Anthony B.P. (2006). A view from the other side of the fence: Tsonga communities and the Kruger National Park, South Africa. PhD thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.         [ Links ]

19. Junod H.A. (1962). The Life of a South African Tribe. University Books, New York.         [ Links ]

20. Liengme C.A. (1981). Plants used by the Tsonga people of Gazankulu. Bothalia 13, 501-518.         [ Links ]

21. Terblanche H.P. (1994). Geselekteerde tegniese skeppinge van die Tsongavrou met spesifieke verwysing ma die Tsongakraal opelug Museum. MA thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

22. Botha J., Witkowski E.T.F. and Shackleton C.M. (2001). An inventory of medicinal plants traded on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 44, 7-46.         [ Links ]

23. Shackleton C.M. (1996). Potential stimulation of local rural economies by harvesting secondary products: a case study of the central Transvaal lowveld, South Africa. Ambio 25, 33-38.         [ Links ]

24. Shackleton C.M., Netshiluvhi T.R., Shackleton S.E., Geach B.S., Ballance A. and Fairbanks D.F.K. (1999). Direct use values of woodland resources from three rural villages. CSIR Rep. No. ENV-P-I 98210. Pretoria.         [ Links ]

25. Mashabane L.G., Wessels D.C.J. and Potgieter M.J. (2001). The utilisation of Colophospermum mopane by the Vatsonga in the Gazankulu region (eastern Northern Province, South Africa). S. Afr. J. Bot. 67, 199-205.         [ Links ]

26. Shackleton C.M. (2001). Re-examining local and market-orientated use of wild species for the conservation of biodiversity. Envir. Cons. 28, 270-278.         [ Links ]

27. Shackleton S.E., Shackleton C.M., Cunningham T., Lombard C., Sullivan C.A. and Netshiluvhi T.R. (2002). Knowledge on Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra with emphasis on its importance as a non-timber forest product in South and southern Africa: a summary. Part 1: Taxonomy, ecology and role in rural livelihoods. S. Afr. For. J. 194, 27-41.         [ Links ]

28. Shackleton C.M. and Shackleton S.E. (2004). The use of woodland resources for direct household provisioning. In Indigenous Forests and Woodlands in South Africa: Policy, People and Practice, eds M. Lawes, H. Eeley, C.M. Shackleton and B.S. Geach, pp. 195-226. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.         [ Links ]

29. GOSA-DEAT (2001). Environmental potential atlas. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria (available on CD Enviro-Info 2001).         [ Links ]

30. DWAF, DEAT and WRC (2001). State of the rivers report: Letaba and Luvuvhu River systems. Online: http://www.csir.co.za/rhp/state_of_rivers/letluv_01_toc.html. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and Water Research Commission, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

31. Kruger National Park ecozone map. Jacana Education, Johannesburg (2000).         [ Links ]

32. Sheil D., Puri R.K., Basuki I., Van Heist M., Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, Sardjono M.A., Samsoedin I., Sidiyasa K., Chrisandini, Permana E., Angi E.M., Gatzweiler F., Johnson B. and Wijaya A. (2002). Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people's perspectives in forest landscapes: methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. CIFOR, Jakarta.         [ Links ]

33. People Matters: The Nature Conservancy's use of social science tools to understand and work within the human context of conservation. Emerging Issues in Conservation Science: main report (2001). The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.         [ Links ]

34. Krueger R.A. (1994). Focus Groups: Apractical guide for applied research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.         [ Links ]

35. Olson J.M., Manyara G., Campbell D.J., Lusch D.P. and Hu J. (1995). Exploring methods for integrating data on socio-economic and environmental processes that influence land use change: a pilot project. BSP No. 165. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.         [ Links ]

36. Van Wyk P. (1974). Trees of the Kruger National Park, vols I and II. Purnell, Cape Town.         [ Links ]

37. van Oudtshoorn F. (1991). Guide to Grasses of South Africa [in Afrikaans]. Briza, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

38. Van Wyk B. and van Wyk P. (1997). Field Guide to Trees of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.         [ Links ]

39. Van Wyk B-E. and Gericke N. (2000). People's Plants: A guide to useful plants of Southern Africa. Briza, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

40. Grant R. and Thomas V. (2001). SAPPI Tree Spotting: Lowveld including Kruger National Park. Jacana, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

41. Schmidt E., Lotter M. and McCleland W. (2002). Trees and Shrubs of Mpumulanga and Kruger National Park. Jacana, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

42. Apps P. (ed.)(2001). Smithers' Mammals of Southern Africa - A field guide. Struik, Cape Town.         [ Links ]

43. Sinclair I., Hockey P. and Tarboton W. (2002). Sasol Birds of Southern Africa, 3rd edn. New Holland, London.         [ Links ]

44. Junod H.A. (1978). The Wisdom of the Tsonga-Shangaan People, 3rd edn. Sasavona, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

45. Mabogo D.E.N. (1990). The Ethnobotany of the VhaVenda. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

46. Saaty T.L. (1996). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory, with the Analytical Hierarchy Process, vol. VI. RWS Publ., Pittsburgh.         [ Links ]

47. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groots S., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R., Paruelo J., Raskins R., Sutton P and van den Belt M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.         [ Links ]

48. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A. and Boumans R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393-408.         [ Links ]

49. Pimbert M. (2003). Reclaiming diversity and sustainability in community-based conservation. Policy Matters 12, 76-86.         [ Links ]

 

 

Received 16 May 2006
Accepted 2 January 2007.

 

 

We thank the Central European University Joint Student-Faculty Research Grant for funding assistance; traditional authorities in Maphophe, Peninghotsa and Ndindani villages for logistical support; and all the focus group participants. Comments by anonymous reviewers improved an earlier draft of this text.
* Author for correspondence. E-mail: anthonyb@ceu.hu