We use the ecological and social resilience surrogates of grazing pressure and inequality of herd sizes to map the dynamic patterns constituting SES resilience in order to identify systemic change due to external disturbances.
4.3 Case study
The following section delineates the SES case, presents field data collection methods and outlines the main findings. A condensed case study description can be found in Rasch et al. (2014).
4.3.1 Delineation
The empirical case informing our SES model is constituted by the village community of Sediba. Sediba is one out of 37 communities spread over the rural area of Thaba Nchu in South Africa. During Apartheid, the Thaba Nchu district was a target area for massive betterment and resettlement program. In 1972, the district became part of the Bophuthatswana Homeland, which was declared “independent” in 1977. The agricultural policy of Bophuthatswana aimed at the increase of the agricultural production to achieve self-sufficiency in food production and the improvement of the livelihoods of the people living in the rural areas. A parastatal organization called Agricultural Development Corporation of Bophuthatswana (Agricor) was established in 1978 in order to plan agricultural projects and rendering assistance to local farmers (Erasmus and Krige 1998; Drummond 1990). Agricor implemented projects in which participants hired the organization to conduct all the agricultural operations. At the seasons end the organization paid them after deducting the costs for the services. This procedure created a high dependency of the rural farmers from governmental aid. Agricor’s support discontinued in the early 1990s (Murray 1996). Agricultural subsidization ended but the inflow of capital remained after the fall of Apartheid. That is, post-apartheid government substantially increased large-scale social assistance payment schemes which changed the determinants of livestock ownership structure and management.
104 4.3 Case study
4.3.2 Data
A living standard and measurement survey (Worldbank) was administered to 230 livestock producing HH in several villages of the rural Thaba Nchu region. The questionnaire entailed modules on HH structure, livestock production and management, income, assets, expenditures, credit, savings and institutional issues. Additionally, a survey encompassing 120 HH who are not engaged in livestock production contributed to the data base on social determinants of the SES. Moreover, nine months of anthropological field research assessed cultural aspects and ecosystem perception. The assessment of rangeland condition and productive capacity was conducted by rangeland and soil scientists by sampling vegetation (cover, biomass, species composition) and soil (composition, bulk density) along a degradation transect, and at random plots throughout the community’s rangelands. Links to survey templates and data files can be found in the appendix (A).
4.3.3 The Sediba SES
Among the respondents of the HH survey was the full population (80) of livestock producers out of the total population of 160 HH residing in Sediba. A 2500 ha rangeland constitutes the natural resource base for the village community. The region is categorized as a semi-arid grassland biome (Rutherford and Westfall 1994). The mean precipitation is 537 mm per annum (Swemmer et al. 2007; Woyessa et al. 2006). Forage is the main ecosystem service of the rangeland. Dominant species of the “Moist Cool Highveld Grassland Type” (Bredenkamp and van Rooyen 1996) are perennial C4 bunchgrasses (Themeda triandra, Eragrostis lehmanniana and Digitaria eriantha). The South African term “sweet veld” refers to the good palatability of the dominant species on those rangelands (Palmer and Ainslie 2005). Cattle are the predominant grazer. Villagers have common access to the rangeland such that the regime is characterized as a common-pool resource (CPR) (Ostrom 2005, p.24). Ownership in Sediba is fluctuating due to entries and exits of HH into and from livestock production. Herds belonging to HH are small with 25 cattle in the largest herd. Livestock is not viewed to be a main income source (Berzborn 2007, p.679). Instead, livestock ownership reduces HH vulnerability, is seen as a saving account or is slaughtered during funerals and other cultural events. Livestock production is a phenomenon
4.3 Case study 105
of a middle class as the probability to own livestock is lower for poor and richer HH compared to those with a moderate income. Villagers either sell cattle according to simple rules of thumb or because of liquidity constraints. The latter does not occur if HH have income and monetary savings giving them a “superior coping capacity” (Barrett et al. 2001, p.326). Cash income also increases the probability to sustain herds in times of drought allowing to buy agricultural inputs (Berzborn 2007, p.683). From the standpoint of the poor we might say: “the poor are poor not only because they have few assets, but also because they are constrained in their ability to utilize effectively the assets they do have” (Carter and May 1999, p.15). Carter and May specifically mention transfer income in this context. In Sediba, off-farm income itself is dominated by state transfers. Figure 4.3 shows the sources of HH income along the income quintiles.
Figure 4.3 Income quintiles with sources for livestock producing HH in Sediba
Figure 4.3 emphasizes the importance of state grants per se (old age, child, and disability grant) as well as the effect of the demographic structure of HH. That is, the most important state grants are coupled to age: child grant (<18 years) and old age grant (>60 years). Low-income HH receive a larger share of income from child grant (270 Rand per child) whereas old age grant (1140-1160 Rand per eligible person) constitutes the main income source for richer HH.
Next to off-farm-income-driven selling practices, HH pursue a minimal input strategy. New livestock is only bought for entering livestock production and inputs as supplementary fodder or veterinary items are only supplied with low