Livt. 33...}, V II, b 33 up” w: r‘ its. u l a :- M15 ‘1‘ .. .V .5 .9555? r: unliftu 41.3 u. ( . vi 5.: £11.. .2. . 55... .. 17 :5?! $21.17.: El»; .. > v. , I. 1.1.; . ~ . .o. - .:.r :9. E"! .I Mr . a . , , .. In). 9.... . u~ , all), . 3 , .fifiwvmmwgfsg I. .V .a .ltrinhfl. , ‘ 1.3.x a: d4 .c .n‘wfimwwfla:£n.1fl...tuflw.. 0.3!: ‘. . Mug}! 1.... .. (a)!l\ln\.iéf l». '.:vnr|\.ttl .AI.I“$1.)VI‘5III310¥D7 L 537...:- .l|si )‘ .. ‘1: I'll}? . .‘J‘vatiplli‘lg I is}!!! (i ...n.,....:.l,llu 3 rl 15‘s.!- ..1 1o 4 .1. ”RH"! Wlllllllllllllll“ :2 coo Lienmv * Michigan Stat-e University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Climate Dependent Comparative Productivity Study of Communal and CommerciallLivestock Farming Systems in Namaqualand South Africa presented by AYELE SOLOMON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Mw5_degree in _RESD_URC.E_ DEVELOPMENT Majgprofjcssor ?}3¢‘F, G: t—.>c>r-l \Jr LT :AJek, mm c.7539 Msuu ... Ayn-m— ‘ ' "‘1 '3" ',In:titution PLACE IN REI'URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINE return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE moo animus-p.19 A Climate Dependent Comparative Productivity Study of Communal and Commercial Livestock Farming Systems in Namaqualand South Africa By Ayele Solomon A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 2000 ABSTRACT A Climate Dependent Comparative Productivity Study of Communal and Commercial Livestock Farming Systems in Namaqualand South Africa BY Ayele Solomon A dual economy exists between commercial and communal livestock farming in the semi-desert succulent karoo agroecological zone (AEZ) of South Africa and Namibia. Individually owned commercial farms are interspersed with pockets of communally held reserves comprised of the former 'Coloured Rural Areas' (CRAs). Generally, communal areas stock sheep and goats at double the density of commercial farms, and thus have lower levels of vegetative cover on inherently more marginal land (fewer natural drainage areas, and more rocky or mountainous rangeland) compared to commercial farms. This study explores the relationship between Stocking Density (SD) and productivity to determine how close to an economic carrying capacity the two Livestock Farming Systems (LFS) are under Good, Average, and Poor (GAP) veld condition years as conceptualized by the farmer. To compare the relative efficiency and profitability of the two forms of livestock farming, total net returns, and net returns on a per animal and per hectare basis are calculated. The findings are related to the Quality of Life (QOL) found on these two LFS. Policy recommendations (on livestock management and land reform) aimed at improving welfare on communal farms are discussed. Finally, the study creates a typology of A communal and commercial livestock farmers based on the survey responses of seven communal farmers and one neighboring commercial farmer. Copyright © Ayele Solomon 2000 TO MY PARENTS SARA AND SOLOMON iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly, I am indebted to my family and friends for without their support I would not have completed this project. I am very grateful to the people of Paulshoek, particularly to the livestock farmers and my translator, and to the commercial farmer and his wife. I would like to thank Michigan State University for financial assistance, and for giving me the liberty to pursue this project. This work would not have been possible without the European Commission project- Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa. Thanks also to the implementing agency, the South Africa National Botanical Institute, for providing technical assistance and transportation. I am especially grateful to my academic advisor, Dr. Ger Schultink, and my other thesis committee members, Dr. Eric Crawford and Dr. Jeff Riedinger, as well as to other professors, for their comments. Special thanks to the many genuinely concerned researchers, agriculture extension agents, civil servants, students, and development specialists doing work in the various provinces of South Africa for their comments, and offers of assistance and hospitality during my trips to the country. Fremont, California March 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Problem Statement 1.1 Problem Background 1.2 The Former ‘Reserves’ and Paulshoek Today 1.3 Namaqualand History to the mid 20th Century 1.3.1 Livestock Farming Subsidies 1.3.2 Small-Stock Market Trends 1.4 Livestock Farming since the 1960’s 1.5 Mining in Namaqualand 1.5.1 Mining and Social Stratification 1.5.2 Current Trends in the Mining Sector Chapter 2: Area and Livestock Farming System (LFS) Description 2.1 Agroecological Zone (AEZ) 2.2 Land Use Sub-System 2.3 Livestock Management Practices 2.3.1 Communal Open Access 2.3.2 Commercial Rotational Grazing 2.4 Small-Stock Marketing System 2.4.1 Sheep 2.4.2 Goats Chapter 3: Research Objectives and Design 3.1 General Objectives 3.2 Research Questions 3.3 Theoretical Perspectives 3.3.1 Land Use-Capacity 3.3.2 Economic vs Ecological Carrying Capacity 3.3.3 Stocking Density (SD) Model for Profit Maximization 3.4 Methods of Comparison 3.5 Survey Questionnaire 3.5.1 Sample Population 3.6 Good, Average, Poor (GAP) Annual Farm Budgets 3.6.1 Output Data 3.6.2 Variable Input Data 3.6.2.1 Forage 3.6.2.2 Veterinary 3.6.2.3 Moves 3.6.3 Fixed Input Data 3.6.3.1 Maintenance and Farm Implements 3.6.3.2 Labor 3.6.3.3 Rams 3.6.3.4 Land-Lease vi Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Findings and Analysis 4.1 Stock Holdings 4.2 Lambing Percentages 4.3 Weaning Percentages 4.4 Factor Productivity of Animals (FPA) 4.5 Factor Productivity of Animals (FPL) 4.6 Total Factor Productivity (T F P) 4.7 Veld Condition Probability Weighted F PA and TFP 4.8 Does Communal Herd Size Matter? 4.8.1 Labor Cost Advantage 4.8.2 Transportation Advantage 4.8.3 Allocation of Inputs Summary, Conclusions, and Policy Recommendations 5.1 Summary and Conclusions 5.1.1 Stock Size and Productivity 5.2 Recommendations 5.2.1 Land Reform 5.2.1.1 Market-Led Initiatives 5.2.1.1.1 Land Lease 5.2.2 Increase Herd Size by Pooling Herds 5.2.3 Introduce Animal Head Tax 5.2.3.1 Tax-Subsidy 5.2.4 Livestock Extension Service 5.3 Afterward and Recommendations for Future Research Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire Appendix B: Good, Average, Poor (GAP) Annual Farm Budgets Appendix C: Three-Year Small Stock Data for Paulshoek and Two Commercial Farmers References vii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Namaqualand and Leliefontein ............................................................ 2 1.2 Paulshoek ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 A Paulshoek Farmer at his Stockpost .................................................... 7 1.4 Paulshoek and a Commercial Farm Fenceline ........................................ 9 1.500mmerciaI-Communal Karoo LFS Table ............................................. 13 3.1 Land Use-Capacity Graph ................................................................. 36 3.2 Land Use-Capacity in GAP Veld Condition Years ................................... 39 3.3 Rainfall in Springbok and Stocking Density (SD) in Paulshoek .................. 41 3.4 Profit Maximization and Stocking Density SD ........................................ 49 3.5 Surveyed Communal Farmers’ Small-Stock Percent of Total .................... 55 4.1 Stock Holdings ............................................................................... 63 4.2 Goat Lambing Percentage ................................................................ 65 4.3 Sheep Lambing Percentage .............................................................. 66 4.4 Goat Weaning Percentage ................................................................ 68 4.5 Sheep Weaning Percentage .............................................................. 69 4.6 Net Returns Per Head (F PA) ............................................................. 71 4.7 Good minus Poor Year Net Returns Per Head ....................................... 73 4.8 Weight Gain Per Animal and Hectare .................................................. 74 4.9 Net Returns Per Hectare (FPL) .......................................................... 75 4.10 Total Net Returns (T FP) ................................................................. 77 4.11 GAP Weighted Average Net Returns Per Head .................................... 78 4.12 GAP Weighted Average Total Net Returns .......................................... 79 4.13 Communal Net Returns without Labor Cost ......................................... 81 4.14 Variable Input Cost Per Head ........................................................... 83 4.15 Fixed Input Cost Per Head ............................................................... 84 5.1 Commercial-Communal Quantitative Comparison Table .......................... 87 5.2 Comparative Average Net Returns Per Head ........................................ 89 5.3 Namaqualand Showing Communal Areas and Land Transfers .................. 98 5.4 Karoo LFS Problems and Intervention Schematic ................................. 113 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEZ-Agroecological Zone CRA-Coloured Rural Areas FPA-Factor Productivity of Animals FPL-Factor Productivity of Land FSR-Fanning Systems Research GAP-Good, Average, Poor Veld Condition Years LE-Land Evaluation LFS-Livestock Farming Systems QOL—Quality of Life SD-Stocking Density TFP-Total Factor Productivity WTP-Willingness To Pay ix CHAPTER 1: PROBLEM STATEMENT 1.1 PROBLEM BACKGROUND Namaqualand is a semi-desert district in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. The scenery of endless plains covered with succulent shrubs, is interrupted by hills and valleys, comprising the Kamiesberg mountains. This view is interrupted by the occasional herd of sheep and goats, and some roaming donkeys. This landscape is transformed once a year, around August, when the succulents bloom and a carpet of flowers appears—drawing tourists from around the world. It is the largest district in the Northern Cape province, and consists of fourteen small urban settlements, seven former Coloured Rural Areas1 (CRA), and large amounts of white owned commercial farmland and mining company holdings. Stocking Density (SD) of sheep and goats on commercial land is generally around the Department of Agriclulture’s recommended sustainable levels while the SD on communal areas is twice as high. As a result, the land on the former ‘reserve' areas are severely degraded relative to commercial lands? Dualism between the communal and commercial economy is reflected by the large discrepancies in Quality of Life (QOL). This is defined as income, land quality (measured by the diameter of rocks, soil quality, the presence of natural rainwater catchment and drainage areas, and the level of vegetative cover present), and land holding size per family. For the purpose of this analysis, the above parameters; income, land quality, and quantity are a measure of QOL. Seven communal farmers in this study come from the former ‘reserve’ area of Paulshoek which is one of nine sub-divisions in the Leliefontein ‘reserve’ found in southern Namaqualand. Paulshoek is situated in the southeast corner of Leliefontein (see figure 1.1 and 5.3). Eight hundred people from 140 families (largely of old and very young inhabitants) live on the 220 sq. km (22,000 ha) area of Paulshoek. Namaqualand Succulent Karoo AEZ Greater Leliefontein SPGQ ' Figure 1-1 Namaqualand and Leliefontein A case study approach was undertaken, and seven farmers from Paulshoek were selected for analysis. ........... ........ 0. n '- -. ..._ » a o e y ‘ Figure 1-2 Paulshoek Paulshoek lies 50 km east of the small town of Garies and 80 km south of the District capital, Springbok (see figure 5.3). The economically active citizens who have moved out of Paulshoek send remittances back to relatives. Government funded welfare and pensions also contribute significantly to the economy on the former ‘reserve’. Democratic local government structures were weak before the local government elections of October 1995; the area is now administered by the Leliefontein Transitional Council. A Local Development Forum was established in 1995 and consists of all the organizations and structures of the community. Recently, residents organized the Paulshoek Development Forum, or Paulshoek Ontwikkelings Forum (POF) to promote and manage the development of Paulshoek. The geographic isolation coupled with limited livelihood opportunities make Namaqualand, and the Northern Cape Province in general, one of the least developed areas of South Africa. Various measures of wealth used by Leibbrandt and Woolard (1999) consistently rank the Northern Cape as the second poorest province after the Eastern Cape. The South Africa National Botanical Institute (NBl) held consultative workshops throughout the county (1997 to 1998) to assess the level of land degradation as part of a process toward compiling an National Action Plan (NAP) to combat desertification that is based on local level input. The results indicate that 25 percent of the Magisterial Districts are severely degraded (among them is the district of Namaqualand), and that communal areas are 1.85 times more densely stocked, on average, than commercial farms. According to Snyman (1998), “Stocking rate is the variable input directly controlled by the stock farmer and has the greatest effect on: 1) the limitation of environmental risks (Synman and Fouche 1991, 1993 cited in ibid.); 2) the long term vegetation composition (Van den Berg et al., 1975 cited in ibid.); 3) animal performance (Danckwerts and King, 1984 cited in ibid.); and 4) economic advantages for the farmers.” Northern Cape is the second richest province in mineral wealth after Gauteng, but its standard of living is far lower than Gauteng (which include Johannesburg and Pretoria) since most of the wealth is not reinvested in the province (Krohne and Steyn, 1990). The QOL on the former CRAs is arguably one of the worst found in South Africa. Fishing (on the Atlantic coast) and mining are major sectors of employment in Namaqualand, but they have been in decline. 1.2 THE FORMER ‘RESERVES’ AND PAULSHOEK TODAY The current situation on these rural pockets of poverty is described by Catling and Saaiman (Lipton et al, 1996) as, "Underdeveloped and overcrowded, the CRAs are characterized by declining agricultural productivity, high levels of unemployment and deepening poverty (Gilfellan et al, 1995 cited in ibid.). Most of the farming is done on a part time basis by middle aged or elderly males...deep rifts and opposing factions often hold back social progress (Land Development Unit 1992, cited in ibid.)." As in most former ‘reserve’ areas, there are few private enterprises or civic institutions in Paulshoek. There are two small shops that sell necessity food items and soft drinks, a recently built community center, and an elementary school. Some residents live in modern constructed houses while others live in informal structures made from corrugated steel, or in traditional matjieshuts (reed huts)3. There is no refrigeration, very few telephones, and no electricity in the village. As a result of limited opportunities, most residents rely on remittances, welfare payments, or government pensions (including two of the livestock farmers interviewed for this study). A minimal amount of crop production in the form of barley, wheat, oats and rye takes place on the former ‘reserves’ in the years when rainfall permits. But the primary form of independent livelihood in these remote and arid ‘rural camps’ is the keeping of sheep and goats. Communal livestock farming has few financial costs for the farmer. Communal farmers have no access to credit so they have no debt, they usually are not taxed, and they don’t pay for water, land, and infrastructure. There are approximately 30 active livestock farmers in Paulshoek (the number fluctuates as farmers drop-in and out from owning herds-see Appendix C). Seven communal farmers (numbered 1001-1007) are compared to one neighboring commercial farmer (No.1008) who primarily keeps sheep on 5200 ha. Livestock farming is a male-dominated livelihood in Namaqualand, so the pronoun ’he’ is used for all the farmers in this study since all the farmers interviewed are male‘. The sole commercial farmer in this study inherited 3400 ha of his farm and he leases the remainder. He lives on the farm with his family in a modern house with a telephone, electricity and other amenities not found on the neighboring communal residences. He is not considered wealthy by commercial farmers’ standards, and his land holdings are below average for a commercial farmer in this part of Namaqualand. At the same time, Paulshoek is one of the poorest of the nine communal areas in Leliefontein. The commercial farmer (No.1008) practices rotational grazing by using fences to create grazing camps. In Paulshoek, veld is an open access resource. The commercial farmer gives his sheep supplemental feed, and dips and vaccinates routinely. The communal farmers also give fodder in the form of supplemental feed, and provide veterinary services, but they are constrained by a lack of information (market and livestock management), land, and capital. Paulshoek farmers graze their animals in a classic open access system that is characterized as being non-exclusive and rival. All the benefits to keeping livestock go to the farmers while the environmental costs are borne by the entire community. Figure 1-3 A Paulshoek Livestock Farmer at his Stockpost hl Previously functioning mechanisms of community oversights which regulated the use of veld (e.g. identification of rest periods) have broken-down during the post- apartheid administrative restructuring of the former ‘reserves’. Now there is no incentive for any one farmer to reduce herd size. Currently there are about 2000 sheep and goats kept in Paulshoek, but this number has fluctuated between 2000 and 4000 since 1995 (see Appendix C and figure 3.3) with a mean of 3906 between 1971 and 1995. The present number of 2000 sheep and goats represents double the SD of the commercial farmer (No.1008) who currently stocks at about 300 small-stock (on 5200 ha), but on average this figure is approximately 520; the recommended SD of 10 ha per animal. The overstocking in Paulshoek has led to overgrazing compared to commercial farms (see figure 1.5). This has led to a decrease in the volume of palatable shrubs, and also a reduction in the size of palatable shrub species. As a result, the number of invading, and unpalatable toxic shrubs, namely Gelania Africans, have increased in Paulshoek while there has been a shift from perennial to annual plants (Todd and Hoffman, 1999a). Rohde et al (Swallow, 1999) find plant-cover regeneration to be higher on the less densely stocked commercial farms, compared to communal farms. The lack of electricity in Paulshoek also puts pressure on the veld; it was found that each household spends an average of 4.5 hours per day collecting firewood (from shrubs since this AEZ does not support trees) for cooking and heating. Also, the temperature drops rapidly at night in this arid environment and firewood is the only heat source. In addition to subjecting the residents to the travail of wood collection, it is also destructive. This activity strips 1.5 tons of wood per family per year (Solomon, 1999). j“-’ I E Smith ‘, Figure 1-4 Paulshoek and a Commercial Farm Fenceline A fence-line photograph of Paulshoek and a commercial farm taken by the author in July of 1998 shows the relative degradation between the communal and commercial farms. The unsustainability of livestock farming can be gleaned from the reductions in small-stock carrying capacity in Namaqualand. Recommended SD has gone down by half from 1974 to 1984 (Department of Agriculture, Springbok 19 Dis fl0r Encr cited in Dunne, 1988). Dean and Macdonald (1994) found that between 1911 and 1981, seven of eight districts in the succulent karoo AEZ experienced a 50 percent or greater decrease in SD. In 1800 farms in karoo lands could be stocked at about 4.5 sheep per ha, but today the recommended carrying capacity has dropped to 1 sheep per 10 ha on the most marginal lands which is 12 times less than 1800 SD (Shearing, 1994). 1.3. NAMAQUALAND HISTORY TO THE MID 20TH CENTURY Human populations in the karoo including Namaqualand can be traced back 3 million years (Smith in Dean and Milton, 1999). Nama speaking Khoi people practiced pastoralism in Namaqualand for 2000 years until European and ‘baster’ trekboer and hunters began moving into the area in the 18'" Century. This was later encouraged by the colonial authorities through ‘loan farms’ (Smith, 1992). Thus before the beginning of copper mining in the late 19‘“ century and the subsequent transformation of agriculture to include agronomic production, livestock farming was the only livelihood option in Namaqualand. In 1847 the boundary of the Cape Colony was extended to the Orange River and trekboers were given Crown lands to farm. Also beginning in the mid 19th Century, the Rhenish Mission Society of Germany emerged in the area. Displaced local inhabitants moved around these missions which became havens from attacking trekboers. At this time the missions solicited ’Tickets of Occupation' from the colonial government for protection against further encroachment from trekboers. 10 ‘Tickets of occupation’ restricted access to the mission stations (and areas around them called 'zones of occupation’) through a system of burgherskap, or citizenship. Tickets of occupation for a mission reserve were available only to indigenous people and ’bastards’ of aboriginal descent (Sharp, 1984)5. Act 29 of the1909 Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act put the ‘zones of occupation’ under secular control. Once someone entered a reserve, they were forever classified according to origin. Thus a measure introduced to protect natives became a system of racial classification. This was institutionalized in the 1950’s with the National Party’s apartheid policy which classified populations on the reserves as ‘coloured’. Through the creation of enclosed ‘reserves’, and a reduction in available rangeland, arable farms developed as native populations moved from nomadic to sedentary crop farming. Beginning in the 19th Century, missions converted the indigenous pastoral Khoi inhabitants to Christianity. During this period, the population of mixed (European and Khoi) persons grew, and it is these Afrikaans speaking descendents that inhabit the ‘reserves’ today. As a result of apartheid policy, CRA densities increased as the area of land under the 'reserve’ continued to shrink through the 20th Century (Smith, 1992). Today, herd densities on commercial farms are half of those on the former ’reserves' where the land is severely degraded. Namaqualand initially had flexible racial association, and then through historical and political processes, adopted features of racial and economic 11 separation that characterizes the dual economy and society today. There was relative flexibility between ‘reserves’ and commercial farms during the late 19'“ century to the early 20th century; white trekboers could settle on the reserves and would be identified as ’aboriginal’ or mixed as they lived and interrnarried on the reserves (Sharp and West, 1994). There was no formal cash economy among whites or ‘coloureds’, and culture revolved around livestock and the church. Burgherskaps could gain individual title to land outside reserves if they could gain acceptance as a Boer. During this period it was not uncommon for trekboer and burgherskap to enter into mutually benefiting plowing and grazing agreements in a system of bywonership. The fluid divisions between communal and commercial areas ended when the state began awarding land to mining companies and grazing licenses, on easy terms, to European farmers through the Land Settlement Act 12 of 1912 and Land Settlement Act 21 of 1956. When the unsurveyed ‘zones of occupation’ were redrawn during apartheid, it is alleged that these mission areas lost even more land (Smith, 1992). Also with apartheid, church mission areas became associated with what became ‘Coloured Rural Areas’. Divisions and boundaries became more static as the state assumed control of these areas and reserved 74 percent of land in Namaqualand for whites (Dunne, 1988). As a result fences were erected and human and livestock movements were curtailed. A qualitative comparison of communal and commercial LFS for the karoo AEZ is ' presented below. 12 Comparison Communal areas Commercial farms History Rooted in dispossession and confinement. Linked historically to indigenous Khoi subsistent economies characterized by large cycles of transhumance Arise from European colonization in 18th and 19'“ centuries with a focus on market economies, private ownership and sedentarism Location and Predominantly in the west Throughout the karoo covering sIze comprising 2.3% of karroid probably >80%of the land area rangelands Biophysical Generally in low (<250 mmlyr) and In <50 mmlyr to >500 mmlyr rainfall environment hyper-arid (<50 mmlyr) rainfall areas environment of Nama and succulent of succulent karoo biome; dominated karoo biomes, dominated by by leaf succulent shrublands grasses (in the east), and dwarf karroid shrubs Lend tenure ‘Citlzenship’ grants individual rights Ownership grants individual rights to to shared grazing areas and water exclusive, responsible use of sources and leased cropland areas rangeland resources Institutional Elected village and Reserve council Elected municipal, district, authorlty representatives linked to district, provincial, and state authorities provincial, and state authorities State and Community and individual benefits Individual benefits via direct business via limited direct infrastructural (e.g. subsidization of infrastructural Involvement boreholes and fencing); and improvements, drought aid, loan remittances, pensions, etc subsidies, extension servicesLetc Human Relative high population (>5 Relatively low population (<5 density people/km2) and farmer density people/km2) and farmer density Production Multiple use of range (firewood, Primarily for cash sales focussed on ' objectlves construction materials, etc) but the quality and quantity of wool, primarily for increasing small-stock meat and pelts animal numbers for meat, investment and to a lesser extent hides and milk Livestock Generally twice the recommended Generally at or below (according to denslty carrying capacity estimates, often 1995 data) the recommended sustained over decades , carrying capacity estimates, also sustained over decades Herd size Usually between 10 and 500 animals Usually greater than 500 animals Domlnant Boer goats and Dorper sheep, Beer and Angora goats, Merino, breeds donkeys Afrino, Dorper, and Karakul sheep, beef cattle, ostriches Management Animals herded daily around grazing Free ranging herds in paddocks strategy area-water source- night kraal orbit with associated water point, often under rotational grazing and resting systems Production Relatively poor lambing and weaning Relatively high lambing and coefficients percentages, slow growth rates, high weaning percentages, higher growth mortalities rates, lower mortalities Marketlng Poor access markets and reliance on Markets form integral part of m speculators production system Impacts on Transformation from perennials to Shift from palatable to unpalatable natural ephemeral and poisonous plant mix shrubs; increase in short-lived resources in heavily grazed areas grasses especially in the east Figure 1.5 Communal-Commercial Karoo LFS Table. Source: Hoffman et al (Dean and Milton, 1999) 13 1.3.1 LIVESTOCK FARMING SUBSIDIES6 In the 1930’s the government sought to address the ‘poor white problem’ through land subsidies and irrigation projects. Loans at market rates were made available to farmers in order to create a white middle class with high state support. Other subsidies include drought relief, fencing, restoration with saltbush, and windmills. In addition, from the 1930’s to the 1960’s, the state began subsidizing the removal of stock from Namaqualand around crop seeding time. From May to December livestock were removed out of arable lands in Namaqualand to summer rainfall areas lying east in ‘Bushmanland’. Livestock would graze in ‘Bushmanland’ while wheat would grow in the winter rainfall areas in Namaqualand for harvest beginning in October. Thereafter, livestock would be returned to the graze the stubble during the dry summer months thereby reducing impact on the veld (on commercial farms) during fragile low rainfall periods. Subsidies in the form of price floors on wheat encouraged this; as a result yields as low as 700 kg per ha became acceptable. Livestock prices dropped to R2 per goat as prices for wheat increased dramatically which benefited the commercial farmers. In keeping with the pattern of following trends in white farmers’ agricultural practices, communal farmers began growing wheat and removing stock from arable land during the growing season, but on a relatively small scale, and they could not send their animals to ‘Bushmanland’. 14 1.3.2 SMALL-STOCK MARKET TRENDS In the 1940’s and 1950’s Afrikaaner and Karakul sheep, and local goat breeds were kept. Karakul sheep were mainly “fat tailed” which means that fat is within flesh, not outside. This period was also the peak of the Karakul wool market. By the 1960’s the market demanded Dorper sheep (sheep with fat outside flesh). Also around this time, Red-Haired Boerbuck goats were brought in from Kwazulu-Natal, and sold via markets in Upington back to Kwazulu Natal (mainly for traditional festivals in December). Communal farmers emulated white commercial farmers by buying ‘reject’ Dorper sheep from commercial farms and by keeping Boerbuck goats. 1.4. LIVESTOCK FARMING SINCE THE 1960’s During the 1980’s, CRAs were governed by the Bestuursraad, or Read. The Read had 2 or 3 administrators from every subdivision in a CRA (1 political, 1 elected from the district). The Leliefontein Reed was located in the subdivision of Karkams. To farm livestock a farmer had to apply to the Read for a veepost (stockpost). The Reed was controlled by the Department of Coloured Affairs, and it appointed people from the community to be administrators. There was a livestock fee based on the number of animals a farmer kept. Traditionally, communal veepost locations were developed by farm families overtime. This changed with the introduction of windmills in communal areas during the 1980’s. Farmers began to group their herds in new areas that were more accessible to watering points. There was also a ‘pound’ for stray 15 animals to be held until claimed. A saaiperseel, or cropping area, was available through the Read, which typically charged R70 per year for 3 ha. A dryland garden, usually near a river, for planting pumpkin and squash would cost R40 per year. Today there is no formal regulatory structure on where to plant or graze. Following successful rotational grazing on white farms, “economic units’ were introduced from the late 1960’s through the 1980’s. Economic units emerged on CRAs under the guise of rotational grazing schemes called ‘betterment schemes’. Individual farmers had to apply to the Reed for access to grazing lands, but these private units of production were largely rejected by communal residents because it benefited a wealthy minority, and because farm sizes were actually too small to be feasible. Sharp (1984) recounts how so-called 'betterment' schemes of the 1960's separated land into discrete residential and agricultural zones (to the benefit of the wealthy and/or supporters of the Read administration) with the aim of increasing agricultural production. These schemes divided the population into bona fide farmers and non-farmers. This did not take into account the social and cultural aspects of communal agricultural production, and the medium of reciprocity it represents. Archer et al (1990) found “economic units’ to be economically unfeasible. As a result, community response to “betterment schemes’ ranged from luke- warm to outright rejection on the smaller ’reserves' (Sharp, 1984). Another 16 privatization scheme was initiated in the 1980's, but four Leliefontein residents convinced the Supreme Court to annul it on procedural grounds in 1988. During the transition to a non-racial democracy in South Africa, the state disbanded the Read because it was deemed unqualified to administer the former ‘reserves’. As a result, no regulation of livestock farming occurs today. There is no regulation of where and when livestock can graze on communal lands. Thus a ‘free for all’ exists, and a classic case of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ prevails (Hardin, 1968). 1.5 MINING IN NAMAQUALAND Most livestock owners in Namaqualand supplement their income from other sources and the mining sector is the principal form of formal employment. Eighty-six percent of Namaqualand’s Gross Geographic Product (GGP) comes from mining. Approximately half of the ‘reserve’ residents, and 46 percent of the economically active residents of Namaqualand work in copper and diamond mines (Steyn and Krohne, 1990). Two diamond mines and two non-ferrous metal mines account for most of the formal employment in the district. Mining began in Namaqualand in 1852, but it did not have a strong effect on the economy until much later. The mining sector expanded during the 20th century, so by the 1960’s a cash economy had developed in Namaqualand. At this time, remittances and wages from mines were the primary cash source for reserve residents. Livestock represented the only form of equity for CRA residents since there was no formal rural banking system (a situation that 17 remains the same today). Income from the mines was invested in livestock for security and insurance in old age, so as a result, stock numbers increased dramatically. Mining company profits have been declining in the last 20 years. Usually these profits are invested outside of the district (because of limited investment opportunities) making Namaqualand one of the poorest districts in South Africa (Seyn and Krohne, 1990). The level of SD is likely to increase as more migrant laborers return home to the communal areas, so the current problems of veld degradation and lack of alternative livelihood sources in Namaqualand is foreseen to worsen in the near future. The ‘reserve’ residents have traditionally served as a labor pool for the mines, and communal residents typically invest their income from mining into livestock. Migrant laborers from the ‘reserves’ are highly insecure in their mining jobs since international prices for minerals fluctuate widely. Livestock is seen as a form of security to this uncertainty. Uncertainty in mining sector jobs has increased with a decline in profits reported by the major mining companies, and will probably continue to do so because of long term exhaustion (during the next ten years) of diamond deposits in the region (UNCTAD, 1998). 1.5.1 MINING AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION In the paper "Controls and Constraints: Land, Labor, and Mobility in Namaqualand," John Sharp and Martin West (1984), present a historical account of how the reserves, and the system of racial stereotyping and classification 18 were created after colonial settlement of Namaqualand. The study serves as an overview of anthropological research in the 1980's that focused on the development of social and economic differentiation as some communities accumulated wealth, while others, particularly the ’coloured' populations on the reserves, became impoverished. The authors describe how the development of copper mining industries influenced social differentiation based on racial classification. The paper relates colonial legislation, and employment practices in the mines, to the contraction of communal areas, and lack of capital investment on them. Conversely, these factors led to expansion in the size of commercial farms, and to overall increased investment in commercial agriculture. According to Sharp and West, an era of flexibility and mobility came to an end with the onset of copper mining in the late 19th century. Mutually benefiting bywonership agreements ceased when agricultural production became more lucrative as the mining sector increased food demand. Wealthy land owners began employing wage labor from the ‘reserves’ as did the mining companies who also imported labor from Mozambique, and later from the Eastern Cape Province. Land shortage, drought, and indebtedness forced local populations into wage labor in the mines (as did the 1909 Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act which imposed a tax on adult males in the reserves-forcing them out of agriculture and into the mines). This law reduced the size of the reserves 19 in Namaqualand to 26% of the region, and transferred control of the reserves from the Missions to the (secular) colonial government. Locals were given the most menial jobs, thus employment categories began to further entrench social differences based on race, origin, and physical appearance. According to the authors, "Their (the locals) lack of skills thus confirmed the status accorded by the Tickets of Occupation.” Sharp and West point out that some whites were not much better off than locals, and although some of the unskilled ones left the regions (since they resented doing menial labs in the mines) the remaining ones benefited from increased training in the mines. They were paid more than local employees, and were thus able to invest this in agriculture. In addition, the land holdings of the whites who remained in the area grew as they took over land from emigrating whites. The report points out the instability of the mining industry sector, and discusses how each opening and closing disproportionately affected the local ’coloured’ population. In 1918, the mines closed due to difficulties with shipping at the end of World War I. They re-opened in 1940, but scaled back operations in 1975 because of difficulty with reaching copper deposits, and a decline in copper prices. The retrenched African (black) workers were returned to their home regions, and white workers found employment elsewhere. ’Coloureds' faced hardships in finding other work because of discrimination in employment, lack of marketable skills, and because authorities limited housing units for them in urban areas.7 Thus the number of 'coloured’ workers in the mines increased relative to 20 black and white employees (and in absolute terms from 1300 in 1975, to 1800 in 1982). Sharp and West argue that these local employees were more dependent on the mining companies since they were tied to the region, and the companies benefited because ‘coloureds’ were paid less for the same positions whites held. The authors conclude by stating that the 1980’s were more flexible than the 1950's when apartheid was first introduced, but they describe such flexibility as 'superficial‘ since the racial boundaries were still the same. The only major change they observe is increased economic differentiation within each racial category depending on access to employment, capital and land. This paper by Sharp and West has therefore set the stage for future studies to examine how trends in the mining sector affect the communal areas in Namaqualand. 1.5.2 CURRENT TRENDS IN THE MINING SECTOR GGP in Namaqualand declined by 32 percent in real terms between 1980 and 1991, and continued to fall between 1992 and 1995 due to declines in the mining sector (UNCTAD, 1998). At the same time the farming sector and the service sector grew. The trend of moving from the mines to livestock farming is supported by the responses to the survey questionnaire in this study. Farmers expressed that livestock is a post mining investment for most. There are two major Diamond mines in Namaqualand, one of them is government owned Alexkor, which retrenched 338 employees in 1997 (as a pre- privatization restructuring measure). Okiep Copper Company retrenched employees in 1998 due to diminishing ore reserves. Formal employment in 21 Namaqualand fell from 87.5 percent to 66.5 percent during the 1980’s (ibid.). So, declines in the mining sector (which increase the demand for livestock farming) continue to dominate the attention of the Northern Cape Provincial Government today. 22 CHAPTER 2: AREA AND LIVESTOCK ECONOMY DESCRIPTION 2.1. AGROECOLOGICAL ZONE (AEZ) Paulshoek is located at 18°16’ E and 30°22’ S. It falls in the winter rainfall region (June-August) of South Africa’s succulent karoo agroecological zone (AEZ) shown by the semicircle in figure 1.1. Rainfall in Paulshoek ranges between 150mm and 250mm, with a mean of 200 mm and a coefficient of variation of 33 percent (Todd and Hoffman, 1999a). The higher lying (western) region of Paulshoek near the Kamiesberg foothills receive 250mm of rainfall while the while the eastern area, near Moedverloor, receives between 120- 130mm (May et al, 1997). Low rainfall in the succulent karoo AEZ is supplemented by heavy coastal fog from the Atlantic Ocean (Cowling et al, 1999). Farmers surveyed in this study indicate they can expect above average (good) veld condition two of every ten years, and they indicated same probability of expecting below average (poor) veld condition years. The mean annual temperature in Paulshoek is 15.9 °C with large seasonal and daily amplitudes, and there is a 2-2.5 °C increase in annual temperature following a West-east gradient (May et al, 1997). The soils in Paulshoek are coarse and sandy with over 50 percent of the sand grains having a diameter of greater that .3 mm (Allsop, 1999). Acocks (1953) indicates two distinct veld types: Mountain Renosterveld in the cooler, high-lying regions of the Kamiesberg foothills in the western areas of Paulshoek, and Namaqualand Broken Veld in the low-lying western regions. Paulshoek is in the Kamiesberg mountains, between 1100 and 1300m (Allsop, 23 1999). To the west is the low-lying sandveld, and to the east is Bushmanland Plateau. Aerial photography done by Vetter (1996) and cited in May et al (1997) reveals four distinct land forms in Paulshoek: Riverine areas (comprise less than one percent of land area but support many of the boreholes), sandy pediments (located in low-lying areas-14 percent of Paulshoek), rocky pediments (33 percent of the area and characterized by shallow soils dominated by small/medium size rocks), and steep rocky slopes (52 percent, rising sharply out of surrounding pediments and consisting of large rocks, boulders, and foliated gneiss). 2.2 LAND USE SUB-SYSTEM The greater karoo AEZ covers the western 35 percent of South Africa, and extends into Namibia. The succulent karoo is dominated with succulents, and comprises the westernmost strip of this zone (see figure 1.1). Eighty percent of the greater karoo is owned by commercial farmers or mining companies; in Namaqualand district this figure is 74 percent (Anon 1986 cited in Dean and Milton 1999; Dunne 1988). Half of the commercial farms in the greater karoo are 3000 he or less, and 25 percent are larger than 6000 ha (Anon 1986 cited in Dean and Milton 1999). The remainder of the land falls under communal management on former ‘reserves’. Agricultural water supply in Paulshoek is obtained from the seven operational windmill boreholes. There are currently 26 separate cropping areas that grow oats, wheat and rye, but crop and vegetable production are minimal 24 compared to livestock production because of ecological and input constraints. Currently there are approximately 2000 sheep and goats in Paulshoek (other domestic animals include a few head of cattle, and over 20 donkeys) with goats comprising 63 percent of the small-stock. 2.3 LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Commercial farmers service a month or two earlier than the communal farmers; this ensures that peek ewe demand for veld (just after dropping) corresponds with the winter rainy season when the veld is in good condition which allows the ewe to recover more efficiently. Commercial farmers give supplemental feed in November or December. They generally send rams to service ewes in December which drop in May, and they begin selling the cohort at 3 to 5 months old (depending on veld condition) around peek price time beginning in August. Sale of young lambs and kids also affords a premium. The communal farmers’ ram and ewe are in poor condition since they have less biomass to graze, and they service ewes later than commercial farmers-thus they drop in July to August, at the end of the rains and the ewes have little time recover on good veld. The ewes do not recover and as a result the lambs do not suckle sufficiently and grow rapidly enough for sale during the peak price period in December. Thus the communal farmers are forced to keep their small-stock on the veld longer. This is usually until the winter rains of the following year. This practice causes them to miss the peak September-December season, miss the premium on younger animals, and it puts pressure on the veld 25 for another year. The commercial farmers also gives a little supplemental feed during the summer, for good milk. This system is highly efficient from a profit maximization perspective. Feeding at three critical periods would increase lambing percentages and weaning percentages for communal farmers to close to the level of the commercial farmers’; the three periods are“: 1) Before servicing ewes. 2) Six weeks before lambing. 3) As soon as the lamb is dropped. Major differences in management practices also exist between communal and commercial LFS with respect to goats. Goat kids are more immature at birth than sheep lambs, so they must stay in the kraal. In communal system, goats go out of the kraal to graze while the kids stay because they would be prey for jackals outside of the kraal. This practice of separation does not allow the kid to suckle to grow to its full potential. Commercial farmers have enough land and fenced areas to allow goat and kid to roam together in a paddock for three weeks to a month after birth. Fencing for small camps to kraal goat kids at three months would decrease mortality, but this is difficult in a communal system where land is owned by the community, and any one farmer cannot restrict access to other farmers. Keeping goats is generally more labor intensive than sheep. During rains some farmers do not plant crops because they are looking after goats. 26 Communal farmers lose relatively more goats due to aborted fetuses as a result of vitamin E deficiency. When goats abort they re-conceive in June and lamb in summer, beginning in August, requiring sale during the following pre-December season which puts pressure on the veld for an extra year-with no additional cash benefit to the farmer. Communal kraaling also presents problems with the spreading of gostridium infection that results in a runny stomach. The solution to this is to move the kraal every fortnight and dose the kids with sulfazine. 2.3.1 COMMUNAL OPEN ACCESS The communal farms stock at double the density of commercial farms because they have no property rights that links their individual actions of stock reduction to higher profits (or even the use-value of milk and meat) since other farmers can continue increasing stock numbers. In other words, there is no price mechanism to indicate a decreasing value of veld as animal inputs are increased. They do not internalize the value of veld. The dual LFS in Namaqualand has high societal costs in the form of on- fann and off-farm environmental externalities, such as soil erosion and loss of plant species (or the spread of noxious species such as Gelania Africans in Paulshoek). This duality is evident in the patches of relatively over-grazed and over-stocked communal lands that are surround by commercial farms. The case of a non-exclusive and rival goods produces environmental externalities because the cost of veld is not internalized by the livestock enterprises of the farmers. Panayotou (1995) states that, “If externalities are local (e.g. local watersheds, village forest, or‘ local fishery). communal property 27 rights combined with private use rights (regulated by the community) could intemalize external costs with minimal management efficiency loss.” lntemalization of veld costs in Paulshoek could be realized in the form of a small- stock head tax (see section 5.2.3). Survey responses indicate that communal farmers keep livestock primarily for income, so they presumably would keep less stock if it was perceived to increase income. Aside from causing degradation (visible in figure 1.4) the communal property rights structure causes an input factor price imperfection since the opportunity cost of grazing veld is zero which makes the factor price of purchased feed inputs relatively higher, and higher than its social value”. Communal farmers apply very little purchased inputs at the expense of natural grazing (farmer 1005 is a classic example) because they are capital constrained, and also because they substitute veld for purchased forage at a socially inefficient rate. The deviation of social cost to a zero private cost for land constitutes the extemality which is manifested by the decreased ground cover on communal land visible in figure 1.4. Section 3.3.3 presents an economic perspective of this phenomenon. According to de Janvry et al (1998) “Achieving the social optimum requires either inducing a non-cooperative behavior by individual members that mimics what cooperative behavior would dictate, or inducing cooperative behavior." Simulating cooperative behavior by introducing an animal head tax is discussed in section 5.2.3. Livestock experts in the region emphasis the timely use of forage and veterinary inputs applied according to the lambing cycle of small-stock. The low 28 level of purchased inputs that communal farmers utilize causes them to be labeled ‘inefficient’ farmers who simply run subsistence hand-to-mouth operations. Lack of capital, lack of knowledge in managing feeding regimes, high transportation cost of acquiring feed, and the imperfect factor cost of forage all contribute to low productivity. Intemalizing veld cost is required for purchased forage use to be at a social and private optimal level. Question 21 of the survey questionnaire asked the communal farmers if they would be willing to invest in forage to feed their animals at three critical periods during the lambing cycle as the commercial farmer does. They all responded positively, but cited capital constraints as to why they do not do it. 2.3.2 COMMERCIAL ROTATIONAL GRAZING Commercial management of small-stock in the karoo follows a rotational grazing system. This system and other karoo livestock management practices originate from a research station established in 1934 at Middleburg. The rotational system uses fenced camps that allow the resting of veld at various times of the year instead of continuously grazing the veld (as practiced in communal areas). This system simultaneously attempts to maximize the growth of animals and shrubs. It is predicated on two principles: The first is that different veld areas (e.g. foothills and floodplains) have varying plant composition and carrying capacities, so if they are not separated and grazed separately then selective grazing would occur. It therefore advocates the grouping and fencing of similar 29 landscapes. The second principle is the rotation of grazing periods from year to year. This is done because different types of plant species (i.e. grasses and shrubs) in the karoo are thought to flower and germinate at different times of the year, so by fluctuating grazing period no one species would be over-grazed Hoffman et al (Dean and Milton 1999). 2.4. SMALL-STOCK MARKETING SYSTEM 2.4.1. SHEEP Sheep in Namaqualand are primarily sold on a dead-weight basis (unlike goats which are sold on a live-weight basis). The commercial farmer can either take the sheep to the livestock auction (where the farmer groups animals of similar weight by pen and an offer is made per pen), or an agent comes to the farm and pays for the animals on a per kilogram basis. Currently the agent charges R11 per head for this service. The communal farmer has two options, he can sell his sheep to the cooperatives or sell to a speculator1o who comes around the communal areas. The cooperative transports the carcasses to the abattoir where they are graded (A, B, C), weighed, and slaughtered. The communal farmer is sometimes working at the mines and therefore cannot take his animals to the cooperative (where he can get about R180 per head several weeks after it has been slaughtered). In this case the farmer is paid weeks later by the cooperative minus a commission which is a disincentive. The more common scenario, particularly for less developed communal areas such as Paulshoek, is the practice of selling to a speculator who comes 30 around when the farmer is with his herd. The speculator pays R12 per kilogram for a dead-weight carcass, skin, and offal (carcass weight of ewes is generally around 20 kg which is 60% of the live-weight, and a sheep lamb carcass weight is about 12kg or 40kg live). Direct sales to local urban areas are not possible since transportation costs are prohibitively expensive (for example, the cost from Paulshoek to Garies is R150 for a 50 km distance) and market mechanisms other than auctions do not exist. The commercial farmer in this study keeps a few goats around for sheep lambs to suckle (in case some sheep ewes have twins and there is increased demand for milk), but his primary enterprise is sheep production. 2.4.2 GOATS Typically, agents come from Upington for a monthly auction and buy primarily from commercial farmers to supply traditional Zulu festivals that occur in December. For this reason goats can be marketed at a premium from September to November-for sale through December in Kwazulu-Natal Province. During this time of the year, livestock agents from Upington buy goats at auction. They usually buy from commercial farmers and transport the sheep, southeast, across the country. All the communal farmers in this study said they sell in the peak price spring months because of good (animal) condition in spring after the winter rains; they are not aware of market premiums. They do not benefit from pre-December price premiums anyway because they generally do not sell at auction. Instead of going to livestock auctions, communal farmers sell to speculators who drive 31 around buying livestock to take to the Garies and Kamieskroon auctions. The farmers prefer to sell to speculators. Why do they do this? Why are communal farmers effectively shutout from goat auctions that occur at Garies and Kamieskroon in late September to November? 1) They are paid in check instead of cash. 2) They prefer not to pay a sales agent a commission. 3) They sell by weight, but the farmers prefer eyeball pricing. 4) They usually do not have transportation or it is too expensive. 5) They do not feel welcome at auctions because they were not allowed to attend during the apartheid period. When communal farmers sell to a speculator they suffer from a lack of market information. In addition, they operate in an environment where (because of asymmetric inforrnaticn) the livestock agent does not pass-through the December price increases that he will receive. Even if the communal farmers went to the auctions, agents would buy from commercial farmers in the area who are generally producing goats in better condition. There also is a high probability that the agent, who is white, would buy from a commercial farmer, who he has historically dealt with (both personally and through family networks, and on the basis of race) instead of buying from a communal farmer. For these reasons, the auction aspect of the LFS in Namaqualand has remained the business of commercial farmers. 32 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 3.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to relate Stocking Density (SD) to productivity, subject to Good, Average, Poor (GAP) veld conditions, for livestock farmers in the succulent karoo agroecological zone (AEZ) of Namaqualand sampled at Paulshoek, and a neighboring commercial farm. Productivity is measured by the Factor Productivity of animals (F PA), land (FPL), and Total Factor Productivity (T F P) or net return per head, hectare, and total net return, respectively. The independent variable, SD, will be defined as sheep and goats per hectare. The dependent variable is the net return to the farmers’ livestock enterprise measured on a per animal and per hectare basis. The mediating variable is a qualitative description of veld as ‘Good’, ‘Average’, or ‘Poor’ as conceptualized by the farmer. The farmer usually expressed these GAP conditions as a function of rainfall, but veld condition (or biomass productivity of rangeland) can be modeled to include many factors. These include evaporation (a function of rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, windspeed, and solar radiation), evapotranspiration (which include the slope of land, aspect, soil type, and root depth), and other determinants such as plant wilting point and run-off amounts (Shultink et al, 1987). Todd and Hoffman (1999b) found that stocking numbers in Paulshoek are correlated with two year mean rainfall. This supports the farmers’ perceptions of decreased productivity during years of poor veld condition, and 33 the intuition that less rain results in reduced plant growth. Figure 3.3 shows the relationship between rainfall and SD in Paulshoek from 1971-1998. This study utilizes a survey questionnaire to obtain animal production data to use in GAP annual farm budgets. The intention of this study to promote the Quality of Life (QOL) of communal residents that live in the succulent karoo AEZ and specifically Namaqualand. Therefore, the findings will be used to identify policy measures that reduce SD and increase the QOL of communal residents. This is particularly relevant with respect to large scale reduction of work force in the mining sector. 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study aims to provide insights into the carrying capacity of the succulent karoo AEZ under current boundaries and management practices. This is done by comparing FPA, FPL, and TFP in GAP veld condition years while answering the following four questions: 1) What is the current SD and what is the difference between Paulshoek and the neighboring commercial farm? 2) What are the net returns per animal for farmers in this study? How do communal and commercial farmers compare? 3) How do net returns per animal relate to GAP veld condition years for surveyed farmers? 4) What are the differences in net returns between Paulshoek farmers’ enterprises, and the less densely stocked commercial farms, in GAP veld condition years? Low net returns per animal, and large differences in net returns per animal, between GAP veld condition years would indicate that SD (is. grazing demand) on veld is too high to be sustainable for the level of expected climate variability. Sustainability is defined as achieving zero economic profit in the worst, or ‘poor', expected veld condition year. Furthermore, negative net returns per animal (for any given veld condition year) leads to the deduction that SD is beyond the economic carrying capacity of the succulent karoo AEZ under the current farm/reserve boundaries and existing management practices. A stocking density beyond the economic carrying capacity of the succulent karoo AEZ has a depressing effect on QOL (defined earlier as a function of income, land quality and quantity). Large differences in net returns between the communal area of Paulshoek (with relatively low QOL and high SD), and neighboring commercial farm (high QOL and low SD) would support this premise" . 3.3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 3.3.1 LAND USE-CAPACITY The theory used to compare the relationship between SD and productivity under climatic variation is the Land Economics theory of land use-capacity. A key 35 concept in land use-capacity theory as it relates to this study is production at the intensive margins of input use, and the extensive margins of land quality. Land economics was expanded and developed in the 1920‘s. The first general course on the subject was offered by Richard Ely in 1892 in a seminar entitled ‘Land Property’ at the University of Wisconsin. The US Department of Agriculture established the Division of Land Economics in 1919, and the first course materials dealing specifically with Land Economics were published in 1922 (for additional details see Salter, 1948; Ely, 1949; Barlowe 1986). A \ . Intensive A . \ . dawns '\ ‘0 ° . 5 \1 5 -. -’ ' \ . "5 "x. '\ . , a '\ \. g- 10 \ \ O \ 8 ‘°-\. ‘ ‘~\. Extensive .9 ' x ' E O ' \ 2 5 ~~ 8 LIJ < m a t 2 < Decreasing Use-Capacity Figure 3-1 Land Use-Capacity (Source: Barlowe, 1986) Barlowe (1986) states that land-use-capacity “involves the relative ability of a given unit of land resources to produce a surplus of returns and/or satisfactions 36 above the cost of utilization for a given use at a given time with a given technological and production conditions.” Schematically it is represented above. The horizontal axis represents decreasing use-capacity of land types, and the vertical access represents the resultant economic capacities of these land types. As one moves right on the x-axis, the quality of land decreases and the number of economic inputs that can be utilized to gain economic profit (i.e. positive net return) at a particular land use-capacity decreases also (a downward shift along the y-axis). In this study, economic inputs are sheep and goats. The intensive margin is the point where the cost of an additional input is just greater than the returns for a given grade of land. The extensive margin is the point where it is not profitable to bring an additional unit of land into production for a set number of inputs. The optimal points (where it does not pay to utilize an additional input) on successively decreasing land qualities, is represented by the line A-B. Where this line crosses a particular grade of land represents the point where Marginal Cost (MC) of an input equals the Marginal Revenue (MR) gained from it on a given grade of land. The farmers in the study expressed that in relatively good veld condition years they are able to attain higher profits from their livestock farming enterprise, and that their returns become successively less as they encounter years of average and poor veld condition. This would indicate a positive relationship between net returns and veld condition. If net returns decrease as veld condition declines, and assuming technology and management practices do not change in 37 the inter-annually (across GAP years) then the horizontal axis can be modified for this study to represent decreasing use-capacity as one moves through G => A => P veld condition years. In figure 3.2 below, the vertical axis represents animal inputs per ha of land, or SD, which is expressed as sheep and goats per ha. The average number of small-stock in Paulshoek between August 1998 to March of 1999 (the latest period where stock data is available for both Paulshoek and the surveyed commercial farmer) is represented by the line SDp. The commercial farrner’s stocking level is represented by SDc. SDp = .13 small-stock per ha (2880 small- stock on 22,000 ha, or 7.6 ha per animal, and SDc = .09 sheep per ha (460 small-stock on 5200 ha, or 11.3 ha per animal). Animal numbers are lower than average because 1998 was a poor veld condition year”. The 26 years average (1971-1995) SD for Paulshoek is 3906 small-stock. The Long-Run SDp (LRSDp) is .18 animals per ha-(or 5.6 ha per animal). The commercial farmer expressed that his long-run average stock numbers roughly correspond to the Department of Agriculture’s recommended stocking level for succulent karoo AEZ (.10 animals per ha, or 10 ha per animal). The figure of .10 animals per ha is assumed for LRSDc. The traditional theory of use-capacity assumes different entities of land representing ‘use-capacities’ at a specified time with other production variables constant. In this study, the opposite is true; the area of land under study is constant as are the exogenous variables-inherent Land Quality (Lo), Technology (f), and the endogenous variable, Management Practices (MP). The exogenous 38 variables- time (annual with respect to veld condition) and animal prices vary. This produces theoretically changing use-capacities on a constant land entity. An SD line above and to the right of line A-B represent small-stock inputs (SD) beyond the intensive margin of production for a given biomass productivity year (GAP). Conversely, positive net returns per animal input to veld can only be realized when SD falls below and to the left of line A-B. A N l M A L LRSDp=.18 S p E LRSDc=.10 R H A > GOOD AVERAGE POOR Decreasing Use-Capacity (Rangeland Biomass Productivity Year) Figure 3-2 Land Use-Capacity in GAP Veld Condition Years MP, Lo, and tdiffer between communal and commercial LFS. They are assumed to be constant between the two LFS in the medium-tear: (across GAP veld condition years). The profitability of a particular SD will be determined for a given set of variables (MP, Lo and t) that exist on commercial and communal 39 LFS. This allows for a comparison of the dependent variable, productivity (as measured by FPA), and the independent variable SD, through changes in the mediating variable, annual (GAP) veld condition. This relationship is expressed below. AFPA,FPL(G <—> A e P): f[SD| LQ,MP,t] The MR of an additional animal per ha is going to be diminishing to the point of being negative if the number of animal inputs per ha, or SD, is beyond the intensive margin for a given use-capacity (above and to the right of line A-B in figure 3.2). If this is the case, SD is beyond the use-capacity for a given veld condition year. Net returns are expected to be negative, and with time, SD will shift down in response. The change in net returns between GAP veld condition years can be used to indicate how far from the economic carrying a given SD is given the level of climate variability. A conservative stocking rate would produce a smaller magnitude of change in net returns from year to year since there would be enough ungrazed forage for animals to utilize in years of lower use-capacity (poor veld condition years). An analysis of SD in relation to climate variability by Danckwerts (1984) found that farmers lose profits by applying a ‘conservative’ stocking rate when encountering a ‘wet’ year (since SD is not high enough to utilize the increased use-capacity of the improved veld-SD is below and to the left of line A-B in Figure 3.2 in this case). These loses were found to be disproportionally smaller in magnitude to those incurred by applying a ‘liberal’ stocking rate and 40 encountering a ‘dry' year. Thus a high, or ‘liberal', stocking rate would produce greater changes in net returns (see the equation above) in GAP years, and thus affect QOL more acutely. “If one adds to this the fact that the frequency distribution of rainfall is positively skewed, then farmers are benefited financially by applying conservative stocking rates" (ibid.). stock Number! In Rdntatl 1971-1998 °§§§§§§§§ “M0” Your Figure 3-3 Rainfall in Springbok and Stocking Density (SD) in Paulshoek (Source: NBI, 1999) Figure 3.3 above shows the relationship between SD in Paulshoek and rainfall (represented by the bar chart) measured in Springbok-the nearest site where long term rainfall data are available). Drops in net returns as rainfall decreases can be principally attributed to decrease in animal output (through decreases in lambing and weaning percentages) and increased deaths. The positive relationship between rainfall and stocking density have been established 41 by a number of reports (for in semi-arid regions of South Africa see Dean and Macdonald, 1994 and Van den Berg, 1983). Decreases in stock inventory in poor veld condition years are supported by data collected for this study (see annual farm budgets in Appendix B). The data collected for this study indicates a strong positive relationship between productivity and veld condition. 3.3.2 ECONOMIC vs ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY The purpose of this study is to relate productivity (as measured by net returns per animal) to SD under climate variability. Danckwerts (1984) assigns ‘veld condition scores’ to GAP separate veld areas, and suggests a decreasing stocking rate for successively lower veld qualities. Data from this study supports the concept of a, climate dependant, variable economic carrying capacity. Aside from being more practical for measurement, micro-scale communal land enclosures, agroecological factors, and the objectives of farmers requires the use of economic carrying capacity (see this section and 3.3.3). Todd and Hoffman (1999b) found that SD in Paulshoek, is at or close to, ecological canying capacity, and state that, “if this were not the case, stocking rates would not track rainfall, as there would be enough residual forage to maintain stocking rates through short drought periods”. This study will determine the level of profitability for the current SD (which may be close to the ecological carrying capacity) for the scale level of Paulshoek. Scale is an important determinant that has often been overlooked in 42 analysis of carrying capacity of livestock. Turner (1993) writes, “Environmental analyses that focuses solely on stocking rates, no matter what their spatial scale, oversimplify the biophysical aspect of vegetative response to grazing.” Results from this study may be applicable to the other reserve areas that have a similar are to Paulshoek, but caution should be used when applying the findings to larger spatial scales. An argument for the basis of using economic carrying capacity is given after a synopsis of the ‘ecological carrying capacity’ concept using the paper "Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland Management in Africa” by Behnke and Scoones (1991). According to Behnke and Scoones, the concept of carrying capacity is fluid and that grazing systems are not and cannot be at a static equilibrium. They note that traditional concepts of equilibrium are based on livestock numbers being controlled by forage availability, and the amount of forage being controlled by livestock numbers. This negative feedback mechanism will necessarily lead to a stable equilibrium of livestock numbers and forage levels as the two check each other to reach ‘ecological carrying capacity.‘ They argue that climate and other variability create chaos which effectively makes a static carrying capacity incompatible with climatic perturbations. They also state that the notion of an ’economic canying capacity‘ is based on the objectives of commercial beef ranch-farming for marketing, and is the point where livestock attain the point of highest off-take and thus optimal live- weight for marketing. They assert that many African pastoral and communal 43 livestock systems are perceived as overstocked and overg razed because of a misplaced application of this economic carrying capacity concept. Behnke and Scoones maintain that carrying capacity should be determined according to the objectives of a particular farming system. In the case of extensive communal livestock systems this would not be at a conservative economic carrying capacity, but close to ecological carrying capacity. They propose ‘opportunistic management’ which is predicated on the movement of livestock (as historically practiced by pastoral herders in Africa) that mimics amplitudes in climatic change; moving to better vegetation and thus to an area of higher carrying capacity. The premise of opportunistic management is captured in the idea that the overall carrying capacity of a landscape is determined by the highest accessible and available ’patch’ comprising a sub-landscape. Thus, if movement is permitted, degraded patches affected by seasonal drought could be avoided, and livestock can move to exploit ‘greener pastures’ (if such lands are available and accessible) elsewhere-thereby increasing the overall carrying capacity of the entire landscape, and allowing for the long-run regeneration of the degraded patch. Variable carrying capacities exist due to climatic variation, and also because of social, political, and economic forces that converge to form fragmented landscapes as is the case in and around former ‘reserves' and 'homelands' of South Africa and Namibia. Behnke and Scoones observe that current tenure arrangements may need to change to create the flexibility needed for opportunistic management. "Livestock movement is a second means to adjust to local imbalances in stock numbers and forage availability. Opportunistic management would seek to maintain mobility as a production strategy and to adapt this characteristic feature of pastoral nomadism to changing economic and institutional conditions. A new approach to pastoral land tenure would need to be a critical component of this effort." This study attempts to relate SD to productivity by making profitability comparisons between communal and commercial farmers’, or assessing the net return to livestock farming with climate induced variations to veld. Assessing the profitability of communal and commercial SD implies the use of economic canying capacity which is determined to be an appropriate measure for the following reasons: 1) Survey responses indicate that communal and commercial farmers do not differ in their objectives (profit seeking) for engaging in livestock enterprises. The communal farmers and the commercial farmer invariably cited ‘income’ as the primary reason for keeping livestock (see Appendix A). Therefore, the profit maximizing objective is found to be the same on communal and commercial LFS, but the rate of stock liquidation, or sales, on communal farms slower, perhaps due to the lack of a rural banking system”. 2) Nama-speaking Khoi pastoralists are no longer found in Namaqualand. Communal and commercial residents of Namaqualand are now sedentary, and share the same mother language, Afrikaans. They are both participants and competitors in the agricultural economy that is now attempting to reform past 45 forms of duality (see Lipton et al, 1996; Lipton and Lipton, 1993). Dual agricultural policies have ended, and the South African economy is moving toward equal effective input costs, market prices, and the level of government services provided (e.g. agricultural extension service). 3) In the context of relative and absolute poverty found in the former reserves of Namaqualand, standard economic benchmarks and productivity ratings are needed to assess the benefits associated with livestock farming in the semi-arid karoo. Economic carrying capacity directly addresses the pressing question of poverty in the former ‘reserves’ since it assess how income is related to a SD decision on the primary form of livelihood found in the succulent karoo. High SD results in stock numbers tracking rainfall in Paulshoek. This happens through changes in livestock productivity which results from changes in inventory (is. decreased output) and increased deaths. This suggests that Paulshoek is at ecological carrying capacity, on a micro-scale, where income and QOL are acutely affected. Is it equitable, efficient and sustainable for a communal livestock farmer to loose half his herd and incur negative net returns in a poor veld condition year? How does this affect his position of relative and absolute poverty“? 4) There are fewer options for opportunistic movement on the micro-scale and/or ecological carrying capacity has been reached in Paulshoek. To be sure, micro-scale seasonal movement occurs across altitude in Paulshoek; during the winter growing season the lowlands are grazed more, but the highlands are utilized more during the dry summer months as moisture availability increases 46 with altitude (Todd and Hoffman, 1999b). The result is the lowlands becoming heavily degraded as they are grazed during the growing season. Also boreholes are located in the low lands which causes clustering around them, and thus increased degradation due to increased grazing and trampling. 5) Within the context of the dual livestock farming economy, static farm boundaries as they are in place today, are assumed for this study. Movement is a prerequisite for opportunistic management (Behnke and Scoones, 1990; Sanford, 1983) but movement is severely restricted (on the Paulshoek scale) because of the ‘camp’ nature of the former ‘reserves’. Economic carrying capacity may be a crude indicator of an ecological carrying capacity since economic and ecological canying capacity may not differ by much when there is less opportunity to exploit ‘patchiness’ or sub-landscapes of varying carrying capacities. 6) As a practical matter, determining ecological carrying capacity on a medium or large-scale is not feasible in Namaqualand because of fences that divide private, government, and communal lands“. Grazing outside of current stock-posts and farm boundaries are needed to achieve the broader view (i.e. on a larger, transhumance scale) of ecological carrying capacity. Large increases in communal land that eliminate landscape fragmentation are not foreseen to occur in the near term because current market based land reform are not radical (see Eicher and Rukuni, 1996; Binswanger and Deininger, 1993; Levin and Weiner, 1996) in the sense that land acquisitions for the land reform program are 47 purchases of individual commercial farms to expand communal lands, and do not at all represent large scale land transfers to communal area residents. 3.3.3 STOCKING DENSITY MODEL FOR PROFIT MAXIMIZATION ‘Income’ is given as the primary response to why livestock are kept by all farmers in this study, so it is appropriate to examine SD through a model of profit maximization. The fact that communal farmers have open access to the veld makes it economically sensible for them to stock at (relatively liberal) SDp instead of profit maximizing (conservative) SDc in Figure 3.4. Grazing-land within Paulshoek is a non-exclusive rival good, so the short-term benefits, but not the veld costs, are shared by the livestock farmer. Thus there is no incentive for any one farmer to reduce stock if other farmers are not required to do the same. This results in the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin, 1968) as overstocking takes place since there is no price mechanism to indicate the scarcity of veld. The rival feature of the communal LFS encourages farmers to stock at higher levels than the use-capacity for a given veld condition year. This reduces productivity since SD is beyond the economic carrying capacity, or intensive margin at particular veld condition year. There is a wealth of literature which take a different view and argues the merits of high stocking rates on communal farms (see Cousins, 1996b; Scoones, 1992; Boonzaier et al, 1990; Behnke 1985). These studies emphasize the use- value of livestock; their social function which includes reciprocity among neighbors and the form of social/financial security they represent. While these 48 social functions are important, this study focuses on the specific effects that relatively high SD has on productivity (measured by net returns per animal) and how this affects QOL. > \ O C MAXl'I R A N D TRc S P e r TRP m.'..IZ SDC SDp-Reform SDP STOCKING DENSITY (small-stock per ha) Figure 34 Profit Maximization and Stocking Density The point where the vertical distance between Total Revenue (TR) and Total Cost (TC) is the largest represents the SD that yields maximum profit. At this point the slopes of the TR line and the TC line are the same, and the distance between them is not increasing nor decreasing. This represents the point where MR and MC are equal, and the point of optimal input use for a given use-capacity (a point along line A-B in figures 3.1 and 3.2). The commercial farmer’s SD is at point 800 where the vertical distance between TCc and TRc is 49 the greatest. T00 is greater than TCp because it includes land cost. TRc is greater than TRp because land degradation and poor management practices decreases revenue in the communal LFS. Paulshoek farmers’ stock at SDp since they do not pay for land; veld is an open access resource in the absence of any institutional cooperation. This forces the Paulshoek LFS to be at SDp, where TR=TC, and there is zero profit. Communal open access veld in Paulshoek is analogous to the model of an open access fishery where fish, like veld, is free. Since profits are net TC, and TC is close to zero, the promise of revenue with almost zero cost encourages over- extraction of fish, veld, and diverse open access resources alike. The race to catch the greatest number of fish, without cooperation among fishermen, results in a greater number of fishing nets utilized as individual fishermen attempt to maximize their individual profit. This occurs as 1) new entrants (fishermen) increase, and 2) as more nets are used by existing fishermen. The Paulshoek LFS similarly attracts more livestock farmers, and encourages the increase in stock numbers by existing farmers. SD increases, and a ‘tragedy of the commons’ result when all the profit is essentially competed away. SD only stops increasing at SDp, this occurs when TR falls far enough to equal TC (Gordon, 1954; Hardin, 1968; Berkes, 1989; van Kooten, 1993). Even if farmers cooperate to reduce SD by creating entry barriers and limiting stock size, TRp remains lower than TRc in the short run, and will not change in the long-run without active veld restoration and improved management practice. So communal farmers accept a lower MR than the commercial farmer 50 from every additional animal per ha”. Thus MC and MR are equal at ‘SDp- Reforrn’, but not as high as SDc, which results in lower profit, and ‘SDp-Reform’ still being to the right of SDc. TCp does not change under cooperation since land cost is still zero. It is emphasized that veld degradation and poor management practice has shifted TRc down to TRp, so the communal LFS is expected to attain lower profits even with cooperative reform (section 5.2.3 discusses internalizing veld cost using an animal head tax). In poor veld condition years, use-capacity decreases, and the relative overstocking becomes more acute in terms of the pressure on the veld since stocking is beyond the intensive margin. This is expected to cause MR to fall below MC. A dynamic graph would shift SDp and SDc in Figure 3.4 to the right under good veld conditions, and a poor veld condition year would shift SDp and SDc to the left. TR and TC would, of course, also shift. 3.4 METHODS OF COMPARISON The dependent variable, productivity (F PA) measured in net returns per head) are related to the independent variable, SD, under climate dependant (GAP) changes in use-capacity. The focus of this analysis is a comparison between communal and commercial farmers‘ productivity, and how productivity changes as veld condition varies. Changes in productivity are revealed by analyzing changes in net returns of communal and commercial farmers in hypothetical GAP veld condition years. This is done by calculating the following in GAP veld condition years: 51 o Lambing and Weaning Percentages17 0 Effective Factor Productivity of Animals (F PA)=Net Returns/Head - Effective Factor Productivity of Land (F PL)=Net Retums/Hectare 0 Effective Total Factor Productivity (T FP)=Total Net Returns TFP is a measure of the overall productivity of the two LFS. One must remember that communal and commercial farms face (differing) farm-specific production costs as a result of the different production methods that characterize the two LFS (for information on farm specific input costs see Berry and Cline 1979; Ellis 1993). For example, communal farmers do not incur a land-lease cost that the commercial farmer does. The opposite is true with respect to labor costs, which communal farmers incur, and commercial farmers do not. Communal farmers obviously do not pay for land, and commercial farmers do not pay for labor since they practice rotational grazing in camps, so they do not hire a herder“. The two LFS also differ in their mobility of herds; the commercial farmer moves from one fenced camp to another while the communal farmers move stockpost location. 3.5 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE The survey questionnaire for the 8 case studies consists of 21 questions with various sections to each question (see Appendix A). The questions were asked in Afrikaans (for the communal farmers) with the assistance of an 52 interpreter”. The commercial farmer answered in English sometimes with the assistance of his wife (their first language is also Afrikaans). The interviews were done on the sixth field trip by the author to the Paulshoek area. The first visit occurred in July of 1998, and the remaining five visits (two approximately a week long, two-a daylong, and one-two days long) occurred between February and May of 1999”. These visits allowed the author an opportunity to be familiarized with the farmers and their livestock operations, and to prepare the survey”. The first and only visit with the commercial farmer occurred during the sixth, and last field trip. Follow-up questions for both commercial and communal farmers were done by telephone in subsequent months. The communal farmers herd their animals by following them in the veld (usually with the assistance of hired herder) so every attempt was made to make the survey as short as possible in order not to take the farmer away from tending to his animals. Sometimes it was necessary to do the surveys in the very early morning, or late evening for this reason. The questionnaire focused primarily on an inventory of inputs and outputs in historically recalled GAP veld condition years. This was done in order to analyze changes in productivity as climate changes, and relate it to SD and the carrying capacity of the veld. Questions that attempted to gain a qualitative description of the LFS are numbers: 1, 2, 16, and 19—21 (see Appendix A). The input/output focus of the thesis, and the time constraints of farmers and the interpreter did not permit for an extensive Farming Systems Research (FSR). This was addressed in two ways; a discussion with one communal farmer 53 and an interview of the author's interpreter. The informal discussion between the author and one communal farmer focused on ‘why’ people farm livestock on the reserves. Its duration was approximately one hour, and occurred during a drive to Kharkams (another communal area in Leliefontein) with the assistance of the interpreter. In addition, an interview with the author’s interpreter answered some questions that would have been pertinent to all the farmers in Paulshoek. The information gained from this centered on common livestock farming practices, market condition, and prices (which permitted the author to spend time on idiosyncratic data collection from the farmers). The interpreter also answered questions that were thought to be too sensitive, such as how much herders are paid and who gets a pension in the community. Christensen (Devereux and Hoddinott, 1992) was referred to as a guide for collecting sensitive livestock farming data. The commercial farmer and his wife explained their LFS including some general information on the farming enterprises of other commercial farmers in Namaqualand, and gave commentary on communal and commercial LFS. 3.5.1 SAMPLE POPULATION The communal farmers were classified according to large, small and medium herd owner. A selection of seven farmers ranging in herd size from 33 animals to 182 small-stock were chosen for the case—study surveys. The criteria for selection included availability, willingness to cooperate, and their proximity to Paulshoek’s center and campsite where the author stayed (see section 4.1). Two farmers resided away from Paulshoek’s center, so bicycles were used to reach them. Figure 3.5 displays the percentage of total small-stock in Paulshoek the sampled farmers owned in May and October 1996, March and October 1997, and February 1998 to March 1999 (except April 1998). There are no large differences in the percent of small-stock holdings which indicate that farmers follow a predictable pattern of livestock management. Therefore responses to the survey questionnaire are presumed to reflect non-deviant, general, management practices during varying annual veld conditions in Paulshoek. Farmer No.1002 worked on a commercial farm until 1997, so he has no animal data until March 1997. SIRVEYEDFARIIERS’VoOFSTOCKI-DLDINGSIN PAULSI-DB( 12% 10% 4- “ +M1m4 --I--M).1w3 +M1M M‘X—‘MIM —-M).1III7 +M1m1 ,, +M1W§ FIGURE 3.5 55 3.6 GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (GAP) ANNUAL FARM BUDGETS Cash values for the farm budgets were estimated based on responses 'to the survey questions, and also based on the author’s knowledge of the area’s livestock market. The survey identified the farmers who utilize family labor and those who hire labor, and the monthly labor price were gained from the interpreters feedback. All data come from the survey questionnaire found in Appendix A. A pertinent reference for comparative studies of LF S is "Measuring the Benefits of Subsistence Versus Commercial Livestock Production in Africa” by Behnke (1985). The paper presents various approaches to valuing rangeland products for which there is no market price. Three methods for measuring the productivity of livestock farmers, and the QOL associated with commercial and subsistence, sometimes communal, LFS are discussed. 1) Biological measures of herd number and quality, 2) assigning cash values to in-kind produce, and 3) the nutrition level of human populations engaged in commercial and subsistence livestock production. This study uses the first of these methods, and the second to a limited extent. 3.6.1 OUTPUT DATA Cash values for sheep and goats are based on typical market prices. The communal farmers face the following prices for sheep and goats: R100 in a poor veld condition year, R200 in an average year, R250 in a good year. The commercial farmer reported getting the same price per animal, R250, across 56 GAP veld condition years. This information is counter to what would be expected to happen, but the commercial LFS mitigates weight loss in poor veld condition years better than the communal LFS. The survey responses to the amount of LOCAL SALES” (animals sold within Paulshoek), MARKET SALES, and SLAUGHTER were multiplied by these prices. The low price received by communal farmers could partly be a result of a low price quote from speculators who know that farmers sell for immediate cash needs. This is especially true in years of poor veld because of increased input demands coupled with increased animal losses and decreased animal products. The aggregated small-stock monetary values comprised of LOCAL SALES, MARKET SALES, and SLAUGHTER yield the TOTAL OUTPUT number for each farmer. GROSS INCOME was then calculated by adding any changes in livestock inventory to TOTAL OUTPUT. Inventory change was calculated using the following method [Births - Deaths -Sales - Slaughter]. So gross income is [Births-Deaths]. Analyzing the INVENTORY CHANGE section of the farm budget allows for identification of areas where losses or gains are occurring as a result of changes in veld condition. Milk and skins are not valued for the following reasons. 1) It was difficult for farmers to recall information on the annual number of skins sold and liters milked, and how these numbers changed according to veld condition. 2) While helpful for a more complete understanding of the LFS, it is not essential for this study because the emphasis of this study is on carrying capacity and livestock production as it relates to GAP veld condition years. 3) Both are also extremely 57 minimal contributions to farmers’ income although milk has another social value (it is usually given to neighbors/friends or in exchange for labor). Past comparative studies have underestimated the contribution of non- commercial products of communal farmers such as goat milk, draught power, and manure for fertilizer (Barrett 1992; Behnke 1985). In terms of output, communal farmers in Namaqualand differ from commercial farmers only in their production of goat milk. The amount of goat milk produced by communal farmers is small, for example between August and April 1999 (a poor veld condition year), NBI data indicate that the average communal farmer milked between zero and two liters of milk. During the same period, communal farmers generally sold none to a few skins, and the most sold by a single farmer, from the entire population of livestock farmers, was 10 skins at a market price at R3-6 (price gained from question 9 of the survey). Skins are even sometimes thrown away because of currently depressed market prices. A Willingness To Pay (WT P) survey on goat milk (question No.8) was included in the survey to understand the value of milk since there is no market for milk; it was found to be minimal (on average R33 per liter) and thus milk is not valued. This study stops short of including these quantitative values for milk and skins in the annual farm budgets. Providing a detailed analysis on the role of goat milk and other use-values of livestock is beyond the scope and objectives of this study. 58 3.6.2 VARIABLE INPUT DATA All input data are from the survey questionnaire and are based on annual amounts except for forage costs (question No.10). The cost of feed was asked on monthly basis for the communal farmer and then multiplied by 12 in the annual farm budget. The commercial farmer expressed forage cost on an annual basis. Variable costs include forage (feed) costs, veterinary, and the cost of moving stockpost locations (for communal farmers). Purchase of animals is also a cost, but only one farmer (No.1001) does it regularly. These animals are assumed to be purchased at the price farmers expect to sell their animals. The stubble that remains after harvesting crops is also minimal because of minimal crop acreage; it is grazed however (in poor veld condition years there is usually no harvest and thus no stubble). Stubble is not valued in the farm budget because it is difficult to accurately estimate its cost, and because it is a positive extemality without other use-values (there is only a minimal nutrient increase in soil fertility from not grazing it). Also, this study focuses on productivity related to SD on the veld; crops are grown on separate cropping areas in rangeland. 3.6.2.1 FORAGE Data on forage come from survey No.10. This question began by asking what forage costs were in GAP veld condition years, but the communal farmers had difficulty recalling annual forage costs, so the question was changed to 59 monthly estimates of forage costs. The commercial farmer expressed forage costs on an annual basis. 3.6.2.2 VETERINARY COST The veterinary costs associated with keeping livestock were determined for each farmer by survey question No.12. Veterinary costs per year appear to be inversely related to veld condition year. 3.6.2.3 MOVES Moves are a variable of veld condition and other variables; in years of poor veld condition livestock farmers move their stockposts more often in search of better grazing areas. Moves cost between R30-R50, so an average of R40 was multiplied times the number of moves. The commercial farmer does not ‘move’, he practices rotational grazing in camps. He opens the gate to the part of the farm, or camp, he wants his animals to graze on, so he has no move costs (rotational grazing is discussed in section 2.3.2). 3.6.3 FIXED INPUT DATA Breeding rams, labor, and the commercial fanner’s land-lease cost (to the commercial farmer) are considered fixed costs. The annual cost of a fixed durable inputs (in this case rams) is calculated by dividing the difference between the purchase price and the salvage value at the end of use by the number of years of expected use. 60 3.6.3.1 MAINTENANCE AND LIVESTOCK FARM-IMPLEMENTS Only one communal farmer bought any tam-implements cost during the past year, and none had a regularly reoccurring fixed fawn-implement costs, so fixed investments costs are assumed to be zero for all communal farmers. The . commercial farmer has a reoccurring investment cost for maintaining his farm machinery (he estimated this to be R1000 per year). 3.6.3.2 LABOR The communal farmers use family and hired labor in livestock production. The commercial farmer practices rotational grazing on his 5200 acre farm that is subdivided with fences; he manages all the operations on his farm, so he does not hire a herder or use full-time family labor. Hired labor and full-time family labor value (on communal farms in this case) is the sum of salary and benefits. The market rate of monthly labor is approximately R200, and the benefits can be values at another R200, so the annual cost is R4800/year. The work involved can be functionally described as that a shepherd or herder would do. All communal farmers generally use the assistance of one herder (in passing, note the low pay and poor working condition of herders). Benefits include food (usually flour for bread), and very basic shelter (corrugated steel structures or maikeshuts). The herders also get shoes and tobacco. Three of the surveyed communal farmers use family labor. The shadow price for family labor is proposed to be R300 per month, or R3600 per year. This figure arises from adding the ‘in-cash’ portion of hired labor (R200) to the portion 61 of ‘in-kind’ labor cost that is additional, due to herding, to what is already consumed in the household (for example shoes that need to be replaced more often due to herding). This is estimated to be R100 per month. 3.6.3.3 RAMS Ram costs were gained from survey responses. All the communal farmers bought breeding rams from commercial farmers except for one farmer who uses his own breeding stock, and one other who buys rams from other farmers in Paulshoek; their ram costs are estimated to be R250 based on the market rate of a locally bred rams. For farmers who kept both sheep and goats, the annual cost of sheep and goat rams were averaged. At the end of a ram’s use period it is added to inventory (sold, slaughtered, or castrated and incorporated into the stock). The residual value of a ram is assumed to be R200 for the communal farmer who buys them from commercial farmers. R400 is the residual value assigned to the commercial farrner’s rams which are bought from a ram breeder for between R800 to R1000 (R900 was used as a cost price). 3.6.3.4 LAND LEASE The commercial farmer leases 3400 ha of his 5200 ha farm (he inherited 1800 ha). The farmer stated that the lease cost per year is between R20000 and R18000, so R19000 was used. 62 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 4.1 STOCK HOLDINGS The sampled farmers’ stock holdings as of March 1999 are represented by Figure 4.1. The largest farmer (No.1008) is the commercial farmer. He keeps 363 sheep and 18 goats. The same sequence, moving left to right (smallest to largest herd owner) is maintained for the analysis that follows in this chapter. The first farmer (No.1007) keeps only goats; he is representative of a small farmer in Paulshoek (to compare his and other surveyed farmers’ stock holdings to the entire livestock farming population in Paulshoek see Appendix C). Images in this thesis are presented in color. Stock Holdings Stock SIze oa§§§§§§§§ 33:1007 54:1004 5521115 56:1m2 $11113 166:1” 18211111 381:1” Wold StockSIzsfl-imsrfb. FIGURE 4-1 63 The commercial farmer markets only sheep; he keeps a few goats around for home goat milk consumption, and for (sheep) lambs to suckle in case that some twins are born and there is increased demand for milk. Farmers 1004, 1006, 1002, and 1003 have between 54 and 66 small-stock and are considered average size communal farmers. Farmers 1005 and 1001 represent large stock farmers with 166 and 182 animals respectively. 4.2 LAMBING PERCENTAGE The first measure of productivity analyzed is lambing percentage. The birth rate of lambs or kids is an objective rating of herd performance. Percentages of births and deaths do not reveal the quality of the herd, only the quantity and proportion to the number of ewes that are dropped. Subjective (quality) differences are partly revealed by the prices received per animal. Price per head can vary by as much as 150% between poor and good veld condition years for the communally bred animals, but does not vary for animals reared by the commercial farmer in this study (see section 3.6.1). Goats are compared first and then sheep (note that the commercial farmer does not keep goats). Lambing percentage is the number of kids or lambs dropped divided by the number of ewes in the herd. The number can run over two hundred percent, particularly in good veld condition years for goats since goats generally drop twins and sometimes triplets. Sheep ewes usually drop one lamb at time, but may have twins, on occasion. These data are taken from question No. 3 of the survey questionnaire found in Appendix A, and analyzed using the farm budgets found in Appendix B. Goat Lamblng Percentage i i 3 Lamblng Rats 33:1007 54:1004 55:1ooe 56:1002 ssz1ooa 1se;1oos 132:1001 StockSIzs:Farmsr No. Figure 4-2 Lambing percentage is calculated in Good, Average. and Poor (GAP) veld condition years and the differences are expressed below for goats and then for sheep. The change in lambing percentage between good and poor veld condition years is at least a decrease of one hundred percentage points for all farmers. The two largest communal farmers (Nos.1005 and 1001) and the smallest farmer performed better than the rest. The commercial farmer‘s stock of goats is minimal and he does not monitor their breeding so no data are available for farmer No.1008. Smaller farmers are affected more acutely by large drops in lambing and weaning percentages since a greater percent of their wealth (represented by 65 animals) is affected. Low lambing and weaning percentages pushes stock numbers down as happens in years of poor veld condition. The lambing percentage of sheep is represented below. Sheep Lambing Percenhge 120% . (\ 100% ,L A Q Q I C t 3 cox «e 1 :‘GW " g c . l. Average; 3 M“: I . ZLEQqam. .o g; 5 40% ii 20% i “ r-_a...- _-- ... w .-u...:-r--..-. .. - : ....- i4 ,‘ , .m._,,,..._.. , i -7.--..._..... 54th 55:1008 56:1002 68:1003 168:1005 182:1001 381:1008 Coru'nerdd Stock Slas : Farmer No. Figure 4-3 The sheep lambing percentage difference across veld condition years is smaller than the goat lambing percentage difference. Goats usually drop twins so their lambing percentage is expected to be double that of sheep. Therefore there are proportionally more lambs at risk with poor veld condition (note the y-axis scale difference between figure 4.2 and figure 4.3). This variation is also explained by the physiology of goats; the fetus is less attached to the uterus than for sheep. This causes the goat ewe to abort, especially 6 weeks prior to lambing, (a problem partly caused by a deficiency in vitamin E). 66 The commercial farmer has the highest average lambing percentage and he is the farmer with the least change between GAP veld condition years (there is effectively no change between average and good years). Farmer No.1001’s lambing percentage performance is a close second to the commercial farrner’s, but averaging all veld condition years, the commercial farrner’s herd achieved a higher overall lambing percentage. The communal farmers get close to the lambing percentage of the commercial farmer as veld condition improves, but they are far lower in poor veld condition years indicating that they have surpassed ecological carrying capacity. 4.3 WEANING PERCENTAGES Weaning percentage is an indicator of mortality. Like lambing percentage, weaning is also an objective measure; either a kid or lamb dies or lives past four months. It is measured by dividing the number of lambs or kids that survive beyond four months by the number born. Figure 4.4 displays the variations in weaning percentage for goats in GAP veld condition years (note again that the commercial farmer does not keep goats). Farmer 1007’s and 1001’s (the smallest and the largest communal farmers) have the lowest changes in mortality rate across veld condition years. All farmers except 1007 and 1001 have relatively high rates of change in weaning percentage across veld condition years. 67 Goat Weanlng Percentage § 3 Weanlng Rate as: as 3311007 54:1004 5521006 56:1002 66:1003 166:1005 182:1001 StockSIss:annero. Figure 44 Farmer 1005, whose herd performed relatively well in ‘Iambing' across all veld condition years, has a high rate of change in weaning percentage. Not surprisingly, he spends the least on inputs of any other farmer (total input cost per animal per annum in GAP veld condition years are R29, R32, R40 respectively). Farmer 1005 is the second largest communal farmer, but he relies most heavily on the natural veld as an input, reducing his cost of purchased inputs. 68 Farmer 1005 is an interesting subject to study to determine how net returns are affected by veld quality and indirectly SD. His lambing and weaning percentages are relatively high in average and good years, but his herds perform marginally in a poor veld condition year which indicates that animal productivity is strongly related to veld quality; a function of (GAP) annual veld condition in the short-run. Changes in the weaning percentages of sheep between GAP veld condition years are expressed below. Sheep Weanlng Percentage 1 ' “Good 7: .mtl . , l 1 a 30% 9 Most- l\ j I g 00% . § 40% 3 20% l 0% kg , 5:. - as; 4., 54:1004 55:1006 50:1002 66:1003 10021005 182:1001 3131:1000 Commercial Stock Size : Farmer No. Figure 4-5 The most noticeable difference between the weaning percentage of goats and sheep is the fact that four of the seven farmers’ herds attained percentages close to fifty percent and higher during poor veld condition years. Weaning 69 percentages were far lower for goats, under similar veld conditions, probably due to differences in physiology. As expected, the commercial farmer had the least difference across years, but this does not directly translate to better overall herd performance. The large communal farmers (Nos. 1005 and 1001) had slightly lower weaning percentages than the commercial farmer in poor years, but their herds performed better in good years, so the difference in herd productivity between GAP veld condition years is greater. Farmer 1002 (one of the seven communal farmers surveyed) is an anomaly; his herd weaned better in an average year than in a good year. The difference is small but could be attributed to an error in recalling herd performance, or perhaps he did not understand the question as it was posed to him, or there was a mistake in asking question. In any case his data should not be used to arrive at overall conclusions about the communal livestock farmers’ productivity. 4.4 FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF ANIMALS (FPA) Factor productivity of animals, or net returns per head, is attained by simply dividing the net returns to a farrner’s livestock enterprise by the number of animals in his herd. The results are expressed below in figure 4.6. All farmers earned economic profits, or positive net returns, in good veld condition years. The communal farmers earned more profit per head than the commercial farmer did because of the fact that their lower biomass cover (from relatively higher SD) 70 is mitigated by unusually good veld. The commercial farmer attains lower returns in good veld condition years because of the relatively high variable input levels (R10 per head). NetReturnsPerI-leed 300 200 IGood DAverage 100 lPoor 3 o -100 ..;§'zv+«11 . 56:1002 a: 1 003 r ' ._ - it"? .. .‘xvé‘n :1 v 33:1W7 54:1004 55:1” 1‘11“ 1321W1 ”1:10“ Common“ ”:11”:th Figure 4-6 Also, a key point is that the rotational grazing method employed by the commercial farmer allows him to be more productive in the medium term (when averaged across all annual climate induced veld conditions). His method restricts animals from grazing lush veld outside an enclosed camp for a set period of time. His communal neighbors enjoy the improved veld while it lasts, in a free-for-all, and at higher stocking rates. The commercial farrner’s method allows for the long-term regeneration of veld, and thus higher returns per head in poor and average years. 71 Farmer’s with the three smallest herds, and farmer 1003 earned negative returns per animal in average veld condition years. Farmer No. 1002 achieves higher returns in an average veld condition year than his counterparts with similar stock size, but his data may not be that accurate since his responses produced higher sheep weaning percentages in an average years compared to good years. From figure 4.6 it is clear that the two large communal farmers’ productivity of animals in average years are positive (but half of the commercial farmer’s productivity), their good year returns are the highest, and their losses in poor years are lower than the small and medium size farmers. All communal farmers earned negative profits in a poor veld condition year, but the commercial farmer achieved the least loss and almost ‘breaks even’ in the worst (poor) veld condition year. This would imply that he is closer (than the communal farmers) are to the use-capacity a poor year will support in terms of animal inputs on veld. Sustainability was defined earlier as earning at least zero economic profit in the worst expected climatic conditions; the commercial farmer has the most sustainable LFS using this definition. Implications for the relationship between the dependent variable, productivity, measured here in net returns per animal, and the independent variable SD, under veld condition variability, can be gleaned by observing the differences in net returns per animal between GAP veld condition years. Figure 4. 7 below show the general difference in net return per animal (between good and poor veld condition years) is greatest on the small and average size 72 communal herds. The commercial farmer hedges against losses in a poor veld condition year by stocking less densely; he had the least change between good and poor years (less than half of the change experienced by some communal farmers). Good (-) Poor Net Returns Per Head 500 400 .. 0 . g 200 g 100 a“ 0 . 1'. ~ .- 6 3311007 5421004 55:1006 56:1002 6621003 166:1005 182:1001 381:1008 Commercial Stock Size : Farmer No. Figure +7 4.5 FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF LAND (FPL) There is inverse relationship between productivity per animal and productivity per land (Behnke, 1985). The highest productivity per animal is attained when there are few animals per hectare, whereas high net returns per hectare are gained when SD is relatively high. When animals per hectare are increased, productivity per animals begins to decline as the livestock compete for veld. “At the same time, productivity per hectare continues to increase since per capita reductions in animal productivity have been more than offset by the 73 increasing number of animals” Behnke (1985). This study confirms the inverse relationship to some degree; while communal F P1. are not clearly higher in all (GAP) years, they are closer to the commercial FPL than communal F PA is to commercial FPA. Behnke uses an adaptation taken from Mott (1960) to show this phenomenon in figure 4.8. Stocking rate A is where productivity per animal begins to decline while productivity per hectare is increasing; this study shows SDc is around this point. Stocking rate B is where both productivity per animal and hectare decline this occurs in years of poor veld condition. gets/sells» (k. .) /”’ v- 1 e / 8 / v I” s v ‘0’! E ‘7 \ I E 3”! 6 z [a I I STOCKING RATE Figure 4-8 Weight Gain Per Animal and Hectare (Source: Behnke, 1985) Communal farmers have equal and open access to the approximately 22,000 ha area of Paulshoek. Larger herd owners benefit disproportionately more than small her owners since they have more animals to access the free veld, and turn it into meat which is sold for cash or slaughtered for home 74 consumption. So calculating net returns per hectare, the amount of land used by each communal farmer was taken in proportion to his number of animals. Communal farmers received higher returns per hectare than the commercial farmer only in good veld condition years. In average and poor veld condition years, the commercial farmer attained higher returns per acre. In poor veld condition years all the communal farmers attained large negative returns per hectare (between -R5.9 and -R23.6) while the commercial farmer almost broke even at a negative 0.1 Rands returns per hectare (see farm budgets in Appendix B). A veld condition probability weighted average in section 4.7 reveals that the commercial farmer generally has higher net returns per hectare despite stocking at half the density of communal farmers. This is indicative of the disparity in productivity and veld cover between the two LFS. Net Retums Per Hectare Factor Productlvlty of Land (FPL) 3321007 5411004 55:1006 5611002 6621003 16511005 18231001 381:1000 WI Stock She :Fsrmsr No. Figure 4-9 Net Returns Per Hectare 75 The implications of negative communal net returns per animal and negative communal net returns per hectare in poor veld condition years is significant for determining the economic sustainability of current communal SD (see figures 4.6 and 4.9) 23. From figure 4.8 it is evident that point B, where negative weight gain per animal combines with negative weight gain per hectare is the threshold of sustainable stocking density. Behnke (1985) describes this point where both weight gain per animal and weight gain per hectare are dropping as the ‘breaking point’ where, “the pasture resource is badly overtaxed and everything collapses-the range is degraded and yield both per animal and per hectare declines.” The negative numbers in this study are net cash returns, not weight, but the two are related since decreasing weight per animal and hectare reduce net returns. Poor veld condition years decrease the weight gain of animals. Resultant decreases in lambing and weaning percentages also lower aggregate weight gain per hectare. 4.6TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY (T F P) As expected effective total factor productivity (T F P), or total net returns, were higher in all years on the less densely stocked commercial farm (see figure 4.10 below). The commercial farmer experiences only a minimal difference in returns between average and good veld condition years, but he experiences a large drop in returns during poor veld condition years. 76 So even the commercial farrner’s relatively low SD may not be low enough for him to earn an economic profit in a poor veld condition year. What is interesting is that he is close to breaking even, or producing at the point where TR is equal to TC in poor veld condition years, by every effective measure of productivity (FPA, FPL, and TFP). Net Returns Total Factor Productlvlty (TFP) 00000 n :- 5'. ., .. lPoor some 3 20000 .-. '1‘" 0 7‘ j ' .' ~. “- I -20000 001:1000 Commucld 33:1007 04:1004 0021000 0021002 00:1000 10021005 102:1001 Stock Slze :Farrner No. Figure 4-1 0 Small and medium communal farmers are only profitable in good veld condition years. This is when the extensive margin, referred to figure 3.1, is increased to a good veld condition year level (where their relatively high SD is capable of making a profit) 2‘. The two large communal farmers are able to attain positive net returns in average and good veld condition years, but not in poor veld condition years. 77 4.7 VELD CONDITION PROBABILITY WEIGHTED FPA and TFP Finally, the differences in net returns are calculated across all veld condition years. Taking a consensus of farmer responses, poor veld conditions are thought to occur once in five years, and the same is true for unusually good veld conditions, so average veld can be expected 3 out of 5 years”. A weighted average using these probabilities was used to predict the medium-term annual average net returns per animal, or F PA. for each farmer in this study (figure 4- 1 1). The commercial farmer is expected to earn R111 per animal and the two large communal farmers, R85 and R61 per head. Figure 4-12 uses the same method for determining total net returns to livestock farming across all veld condition years. These last two figures indicate that the small and medium size communal farmers are practicing a subsistence level of livestock farming. Good, Average, Poor (GAP) Welghted Net Returns Per Head 150 ., .f, 100 g 50 0 , -50 -100 ., . 33:1007 54:1004 5521000 50:1002 00:1003 100:1005 132:1001 301:1000 Oomrclal Stock Slze :Fermer No. Figure 4-11 78 Good, Average, Poor (GAP) Weighted Total Average Net Retums 45M . 40000 33:1007 5421004 55:1” 56:1002 0&1003 1011:1005 1021001 301:1” Gum-dd StockSIasaFarmerNo. Figure 4-12 4.8 DOES COMMUNAL HERD SIZE MATTER? The two largest farmers are able to reduce losses more effectively in poor veld condition years than smaller farmers. They also achieve relatively higher net returns per animal in average and good veld condition years also. Figure 4.11 and 4.12 show that this translates to higher per head and total net returns when averaged by the probability of GAP veld conditions. Why are large communal farmers more productive? Livestock experts that work in Namaqualand have suggested that large herd are intrinsically more effective at covering areas of superior veld cover. Others, meanwhile. adhere to the institutional and socio-economic explanations. Large communal farmers have better access to markets, come from families that 79 are better ‘connected’, and have better access to information on livestock farming practices which give them various advantages over smaller farmers. Still some others maintain that the fiscal advantage large communal farmers have. These farmers usually have additional outside income (for example one of the large farmers in this study is also a herbalist) to purchase inputs and animals, and sometimes have their own transportation (not in the case of farmer 1001 and 1005 in this study) to haul animals and inputs. It is also possible that large size farmers benefit from being able to spread their costs over more animals. This final possibility is explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter. 4.8.1 LABOR COST ADVANTAGE For all communal farmers, labor is consistently over half of all input costs, and close to 100 percent in good veld condition years for some farmers. Labor is an indivisible (fixed) input that may explain the higher productivity of large herd owners. 80 Communal Net Returns Per Head (-) Labor Cost 400 300 200 100 I Good EIAverage I Poor Rands -100 -200 3321007 5421004 5521006 56:1002 66:1003 166:1005 18221001 Stock Size : Farmer No. Figure 4-13 To determine the extent to which this input is a determinant of higher productivity in larger herds, labor cost is subtracted from GAP annual farm budgets. Figure 4.13 shows a relatively high percent increases in net returns per head accrue to small and average size communal herds when this is done. The two large communal farmers’ net return per animal fell in all three (GAP) years as a result of this adjustment, but when averaging across all three veld condition years, their returns remain higher than that of smaller communal farmers”. Thus labor use efficiency is a contributing factor as to why large herds are more productive. 81 4.8.2 TRANSPORTATION ADVANTAGE Long distances between urban hubs in Namaqualand translate to high transportation costs. Like labor costs, this may favor larger stock farmers who could spread their costs over more animals when hauling their stock or feed. It is less of a factor when marketing animals since all communal farmers in the study stated that they rely on a speculator (who picks up the animals) for marketing and transporting their animal. Large farmers sometimes own their own vehicle so they do not have to pay a premium for transportation. A weakness in this study is the lack of accounting for transportation costs. Transportation cost was not valued because it is sporadic, sometimes free and highly unpredictable by the farmer. 4.8.3 ALLOCATION OF INPUTS In many cases larger herd owners have outside sources of income, so the assumption is that they purchase a higher level of inputs for their livestock enterprises than smaller farmers. Figure 4.14 tests this assumption by comparing the amount of variable costs (FORAGE, VET, and MOVE costs)27 invested per animal in GAP veld condition years. It is evident that large communal farmers actually spend less per animal than smaller farmers. The smaller communal farmers invest more per animal than the larger communal farmers, and even more than the commercial farmer in poor veld condition years. Large farmer No. 1005 consistently spends less than the other large size farmer (No.1001) yet he is more productive (see figure 4.11). 82 Variable Input Cost Per Head 120 100 3311007 5421004 5521000 5021002 00:1003 10021005 10221001 30121000 COWGIII Stock Slze :Farlner No. Figure 4-14 Assuming forage and medicines are give to the animals properly, this could indicate that veld has become overgrazed to the point that forage inputs make little difference to animal health, or that these inputs are ‘too much, too late’. All communal farmers have the same SD since the communal SD is taken in aggregate, so it is not possible to make any conclusions on how SD affects productivity between the communal farmers. However, the findings indicate that a lower SD benefits the commercial farmer, since he invests a small amount on veterinary and purchased feed in proportion to his relatively high net returns per animal. Thus SD (half of the communal rate) is a likely factor that leads to a relatively higher level of productivity on the commercial farm. The commercial farmer is notably more productive than the small communal farmers, yet four small communal farmers invested more in poor years (per animal) than commercial farmer (No.1008). The commercial farmer is 83 also 46% more productive than the two large communal farmer across GAP veld condition years (see figure 5.1 for various production data). The commercial farmer‘s low SD gives him a distinct advantage in poor years. All communal farmers attained negative gross income (as much as -R40 per head-except for farmer No.1007 who had a gross income of R12 per head) even while some of them invested heavily on variable inputs. The commercial farmer meanwhile attained a positive R82 per head gross income in a poor veld condition year; this is the prime productivity difference between the two LFS. Large size farmer (No. 1005) invested a relatively small amount on purchased inputs compared to all other farmers, yet he achieved higher net returns. Similarly, farmer No. 1001 is out-spent on variable inputs, per animal in all (GAP) years, by all the small herd farmers (except by farmer 1007 in a good year, and 1004 in average and good years), yet he achieves higher overall FPA. Fixed Input Costs Per Head 3321007 5421004 5521006 5621002 6621003 16621005 18221001 38111006 001mm .. StockSIae:FannerNo. Figure 4-15 Fixed cost inputs per head are presented in figure 4.15. Note that the fixed costs do not change with GAP veld condition years. Note also that commercial farmer incurs a minimal maintenance cost that communal farmers do not, and a high land lease cost that the communal farmers do not incur either. Fixed inputs are shared, or divided, across more animals so there is an inverse relationship between the cost of fixed inputs per animal and herd size. It may be possible that variable inputs are affected in a similar way since feed and medicines are purchased in bulk (some critical mass amount may be a factor) which may be distributed more sparingly, before diminishing returns, and thus allocated more efficiently by larger farmers. Based on visual observations, discussions with farmers, and responses to the qualitative sections of the survey questionnaire, the most plausible reason why communal farmers do not receive the benefits of high input use is their pattern of application. They do not time the application of inputs based on climate and lambing cycles; feed and medicines are given on an ad hoc and emergency basis to the worse-off animals. Farther empirical study is needed to confirm the general supposition that larger farmers use inputs more efficiently. While this was not studied, this study’s data does not exclude it as the mechanism responsible for higher productivity of large herds. Therefore, a topic for future study(s) could test the hypothesis of large sheep and goat enterprises in the succulent karoo AEZ attaining relatively high levels of productivity because of a superior allocative efficiency in the application of inputs. 85 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study has been to show the causal relationship between Stocking Density (SD) and productivity in the short term (annual) and medium term, across Good, Average, and Poor (GAP) veld condition years. This was done within the framework of a comparative analysis of communal and commercial Livestock Farming Systems (LFS) using a case study approach. According to Snyman (1998), the short term productivity of rangelands is a function of 1) climate variation, 2) soil characteristics, 3) stocking rate, 4) management systems, and 4) type of animal farmed. This study focused on the effects on productivity arising from 1 and 3, climate variation and stocking rate. To capture the heterogeneity of the farmers, seven communal farmers were studied and compared independently while only one commercial farmer was made available for survey. The commercial LFS analysis is less representative than that of the communal since only one farmer was surveyed. To overcome this problem, qualitative questions about other commercial farmers were posed to the surveyed commercial farmer. Productivity findings reveal that there are three distinct clusters of farmers, 1) small and average size communal farmers, 2) two large communal farmers (Nos. 1005 & 1001), and 3) the commercial farmer. A typology of the two LFS resource endowments and productivity based on the case studies for this thesis are presented in the table below. 86 hectares Livestock Farrnlng per Number of Sheep 8 Hectare per Sheep & Probability Weighted Average NR R 111.22 Probability Weighted Average NR Probability Weighted R 42,373 R 12,633 Figure 5-1 f‘ .2.2 " ' Quantitative Comparison Table 87 Data indicate that in years of good veld all farmers’ SD is at a level within their intensive margin of production-where they realize positive net returns. In poor and average veld condition years small and average size communal farmers generally do not make any economic profit. The two large communal farmers in this study attain positive net returns in average veld condition years, but run a losing enterprise in poor veld condition years. The communal farmers experience large productivity loses in poor veld condition years even with a high level of variable (i.e. feed and veterinary) input use. This indicates that SD is beyond the use-capacity of the succulent karoo agroecological zone (AEZ) given the level of climate variability. The commercial farm is able to make positive returns in average and good veld condition years, and he just about breaks-even in poor veld condition years. The relatively small change in productivity between Good and Average veld condition years, and his generally positive net returns indicate that commercial farrner’s SD in closer to the use-capacity for the worse condition year than the communal farmers. Even the commercial farmer stocks beyond the intensive margin of production for the worse, ‘poor’, use-capacity year for his given combination of other inputs. However, by breaking even in the worse years, figure 4.12 shows that he is able to maximize profits over the medium term (across GAP years). Average, unweighted, profitability of communal and commercial livestock farming, on a per animal basis in GAP veld condition years are compared graphically by figure 5.2. 88 The area represented by the area ABCFG is below the commercial line of productivity, and above the communal. It is the net return per animal the communal farmers forgo from not adopting a commercial LFS system. The triangle CDE is the relative benefit of the communal system with high SD. This higher productivity in a good year is partly a function of lower communal input use in good years, and also a result of high animal density on communal farmers that utilize the increased veld cover more rapidly. Conversely, the commercial farmer has relatively higher inputs in good years, and has a low SD overall. Lower SD sub-utilizes the veld in a good year, but this also prevents overutilization in poor and average years, and allows for higher productivity in the long term. Communal 8. Commercial Net Returns Per Head C P , ' E O 2 g —x— Commercial + Paulshoek Poor Average Good Veld Condition FIGURE 5-2 89 The area difference between ABCFG and CDE is the difference in average (unweighted) net return per animal between the two LFS in GAP years, and it is also symbolic of the difference in the Quality of Life (QOL-defined as income, land quality and quality) between the two groups. The disparity between the two LF S is more acute when considering that the triangle area CDE occurs only 2 out of 10 years. Subsequent sections discuss some scenarios on how to close the QOL gap between the two LFS. Relatively higher productivity is attained by larger herd size communal farmers, and by commercial farmers (who farms with half the SD of communal farmers and with relatively large herds). The findings in chapter 4 displays the total net returns of each farmer, the returns on a per animal and per hectare basis, and also evaluate the level of input use per animal. There is no evidence which indicates that high variable inputs per animal yields higher productivity on communal farms, in fact the opposite is true in poor veld condition years. The measures of productivity analyzed are combined with relative differences in productivity as a function of GAP veld condition years. Veld is the primary resource for extensive livestock taming enterprises found in Namaqualand, so differences in returns across veld condition years may be used as an indicator of sustainably meeting the veld requirements of animals. The large change in net returns across GAP years indicates that it is not possible to maintain the current level of SD and improve the welfare of communal residents. This is because the veld is utilized beyond what it can produce positive net returns (use-capacity) under the expected level of climate 90 variability. The communal stocking rate compared in their proximity to economic carrying capacity, or their intensive-margin of animal inputs, for a given annual veld condition are too high. Essentially, the commercial farmer makes a SD decision by ‘erring on the side of caution’ and hedges against negative returns in a poor year. The two large size communal farmers are relatively profitable compared to the small and average size farmers in the study. Small and average size communal farmers continue to invest in livestock enterprises even when net returns are negative in all but good veld condition years. SD reduction is one of the necessary conditions for QOL to increase in Paulshoek. Why then do communal residents in Namaqualand continue to invest in livestock? The reasons include 1) low input cost (i.e. free land and inexpensive labor costs), 2) livestock produce for use-value (inexpensive meat and milk) and also for income from sales, 3) a form of social security and savings particularly with the insecurity of employment in the mining sector, 4) social and cultural reasons (a livestock farmer is seen as someone who is doing ‘something’ despite the limited opportunities in an isolated semi-desert environment), 5) attachment to the history of livestock farming in the region, and 6) lack of any other livelihood alternatives. Two general conclusions are that extemality costs to communal taming are high, and large herd size is a prerequisite for increasing productivity. In terms of the specific research question, SD is found to be inversely related to productivity. SD in Paulshoek is beyond the use—capacity of a poor veld condition 91 year which results in large negative returns, and possibly reduces income in average and good veld condition years in the long-run. Productivity is directly related to income, which, along with land quantity and quality define QOL. Thus continued high SD on communal lands that comprise the former ‘reserves’ will not alleviate the low QOL of its residents, and in fact functions to preserve the status quo. SD can be controlled and planned to meet long-term policy objectives. In the short-term, management of herds is a key determinant of productivity since larger herds are found to be more productive. 5.1.1 STOCK SIZE AND PRODUCTIVITY It can be concluded that large herd size is a prerequisite to achieving high productivity because the two largest communal farmers in this study have relatively higher net returns per animal in poor and average years, and when averaged according to the probability of GAP veld conditions. Exactly how large is unknown. There is a gap of 100 animals between the largest average size herd and the smallest large size herd. Some Paulshoek residents own less than ten sheep or goats, so they group their animals into larger herds. Also, it done as a matter of convenience because the livestock owner is usually away working as a migrant laborer, typically at the copper and diamond mines, so it is not possible for him to herd his own animals. It is possible, but not likely that these large farmers reinvested their profits from their relatively efficient livestock enterprises back into livestock-thus 92 efficiency and high stock size are observed today. If this were the case, there would be more variation in the productivity of the small and medium size farmers. One of the large communal farmers runs a lucrative herbalist business, proceeds of which could have been used to invest in livestock. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Many changes to the livestock management system could improve productivity of the LFS in Namaqualand. This section focuses on policy measures that aim to decrease the SD of communal lands and increase productivity and QOL. Four specific topics of intervention are discussed: 1) Land reform 2) Pooling of herds 3) Animal head tax 4) Extension services Biologic measures such as the planting of certain restoration plants, resting of veld areas, increasing watering points, genetic improvement of stock are not addressed, but discussed if related to the four subjects above. The recommendations are conservative in the sense that long-term structural changes to the LFS are not made. Introduction of banking service/culture to reduce reliance on livestock is an example of a long-term, demand-side, structural change that would decrease SD and possibly increase QOL. 93 5.2.1 LAND REFORM A discussion on recommendations for reforming the communal LFS is inherently grounded in the land question. As Steyn and Krohne (1990) state: “(In Namaqualand) There is one thing the people in the reserves feel strongly about: that they have been dispossessed of their land. If exploitation of the soil is discussed, then the residents emphasis that one of the reasons why there is overgrazing is because they have been dispossessed of their land.” Dunne (1988) reports that 74 percent of land in Namaqualand was reserved for the minority white population during the apartheid period. Results from this study show that the communal residents have access to 157 hectares per family (when Paulshoek is divided by the number of families present), and commercial farmer’s family lives on 5,200 hectares. The 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act created the legal framework and institutions for South Africa’s land reform program. A minimal amount of commercial farms have been bought by the state (shown in figure 5.3) as part of the land reform program, and are in the process of being incorporated into the communal areas. In Leliefontein, a commercial farm on the southern border of Rooifontein (north of Paulshoek) is in the process of being distributed to communal farmers. Levin and Weiner (1996) discuss the institutional and political dynamics that have slowed the pace of land reform. Communal farmers in Namaqualand are capital, land and information constrained. Increasing land area for livestock will address this problem. 94 Although a tenure reform discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, a cursory discussion of tenure topics as it relates to livestock management is provided. It should be emphasized that most productivity-based arguments for land reform cite an inverse relationship between farm size and productivity. Small farms in crop agriculture are more intensely utilized than large farms, and there is no ‘moral hazard’ with labor use (since family farms typically use family labor), so they are generally more productive. The findings for this study suggest that more intensely grazed communal areas are not as productive because SD surpasses use—capacity climate variability in the semi-arid succulent karoo AEZ. This results in low off-take and, over time, leads to veld degradation. Poor livestock management practices aggravate these factors. Increasing land area that will decrease SD to recommended levels is expected to increase productivity particularly in poor and average veld condition years. In the short-term, increasing land-transfers to communal residents is only a partial solution to reducing SD. Concurrent property rights and economic policy measures must also be in place to keep SD at a level that would maximize communal farmer incomes and elevate their relatively dismal QOL. The author is aware of only scant attention being paid to the former CRAs and their unique agroecological and tenure system in the national land reform debate. There is hardly any mention of these communal areas in the White Paper on Land Reform, nor in subsequent comments submitted to the government. Communal areas in former black ‘homelands’ have received much more attention in the national debate (for example see Christodoulou, 1990). 95 Lipton and Lipton (1993) argue that the ‘tragedy of the commons’ perspective is a fallacy since there is usually sufficient community oversight for communal area management. While there are clear community restrictions on outsiders bringing their stock to graze in Paulshoek, there is no limit on stock size. In the mid 1990’s, Paulshoek experienced the breakdown of the skikkingslyn (the principle where all livestock farmers agree on which veld to rest and agree not to graze there), and there is no evidence of community organized management of grazing now. A vacuum has been created with the demise of the Read, which oversaw the reserves in the past. May et al (1997) find that the older generation of farmers of stock farmers are more open to community control of grazing in Paulshoek than the younger generation who have no experience of living under any effective administration in the communal areas. It can be argued that current communal management structures, or lack thereof, have not sustainably managed livestock enterprises. Apartheid policy imposition of privatizing Namaqualand’s communal areas into ‘economic units’ proved to be a failure (see Archer et al, 1989). Thus the solution is probably a combination of communal principles coupled with policies that promotes equitable and efficient use of rangelands, and that account for spatial, temporal, and climate variability. The unique history of the Namaqualand ‘reserves’ and the dual LFS requires equally unique solutions to address the rural poverty found here. 96 5.2.1.1 MARKET LED INITIATIVES Tenure reform that complements the current framework of a nation-wide market-led land reform (see Deininger, 1999; de Klerk 1990) that South Africa is currently pursuing may be part of the solution to address equity, efficiency and ecological concerns in Namaqualand. Implementation of this reform has not met the intended targets, but is continuing with the re-election of the ANC in 1999 (see the land transfers for Namaqualand in figure 5.3).28 Markets for land and labor in Namaqualand have been in existence since bywonership agreements of the 1800's. These agreements may have served to stabilizing veld conditions and smoothen out discrepancies in resource use and incomes in the past. Currently, ’good neighbor' arrangements allow a limited number of communal farmers to provide labor in exchange for access to grazing commercial areas. This is an example of how communal areas can adopt regulations for long term sustainability (Lipton et al, 1993). However, because of the current pattern of land and other resource endowments, these partnerships are inherently exploitive. So there is a need for government intervention to enhance and balance such informal market initiatives. 5.2.1.1.1 LAND-LEASE The experience of countries who have attempted to redistribute land during this century show that a land reform is usually doomed if not successful within the first five years of implementation (Riedinger, 1995). As is the case in South Africa, a new approach is needed. 97 Land (Reform) Transfers since 1994 Original Communal Areas Richtersveld til , . _ All n A Steinkopf '_?‘ w ' Pella oncordia *Spfingbok omaggas Atlantic Ocean Lel'efonteln 100 km 0km 100 km 200 km Figure 5-3 Namaqualand showing Communal Areas and Land Transfers 98 On marginal karoo lands, where access is perhaps more important (and affordable) than title, state enhanced leasing of commercial land that permit mobility may be a potential route to simultaneously increase QOL and reduce SD. Cousins (1995) advances the need for institutional innovation that "combine elements of traditional or customary set with newer, more formal arrangements initiated by the state," and cites Lawry's work (1990) on co- management of common pool resources by community and the state. Environmental externalities exist together with economic externalities. In this case there is no effective market for grazing-land. There is no mutual gains from trade between communal and commercial farms, and thus no consumer or producer surplus. Physical, social, and political barriers that prevented such transactions from occurring in the past have created these economic trade barriers. This has also restricting the movement of livestock which would allow for ‘opportunistic management’. Trade, in the form of an affordable land market, could improve the productivity of communal herds, and aid in the restoration of degraded areas, but would have to be coupled with a progressive and targeted tax policy for equity and QOL concerns to be addressed. One hypothesis is lease grazing commercial lands to overcome physical barriers and allow for opportunistic management of livestock enterprises. For example, lease grazing is common in the western United States and in Canada (see chapter 15 of van Kooten, 1993 for a discussion on the economic aspects of this). Physical barriers have taken the form of boreholes that encourage 99 sedentarization, some restrictions within communal areas, and common boundaries drawn between communal and commercial lands. Land Evaluation (LE) theory supports this approach which aims to take advantage of heterogeneous land qualities by exploiting land which has the greatest unrealized production potential (i.e. least stocked lands, or stocked below use- capacity) which are the commercial lands. (FAO, 1984). One of the survey questions aims to determine the viability of communal farmers grazing animals on commercial veld by asking a Willingness To Pay (WT P) question for a commercial land-lease. This question also tested the socially acceptability of grazing outside of traditional stock-posts and on previously restricted land. The findings also serendipitously reflect on what animal head tax (for internalizing the cost of veld and reducing SD) the communal farmers might be willing to accept without revolt. A WTP question for communal land, which is free now, would have probably resulted in ‘zero’ Rands as a response. The results reveal commercial land leasing occurs on an ad-hoc basis, but few farmers engage into these agreements. It must be noted that surveyed farmers were chosen for survey based partly on their willingness to cooperate, so this sample is a more liberal group than the general communal population. One communal farmer put the market rate at R7 per] head / month, and the commercial farmer said the rate is R5. All but two communal farmers are open to the idea of grazing on commercially held lands. Farmer No.1007 said he would never do it; when asked 100 if he would do it if it were free he responded ‘maybe’. Farmer No.1003 said ‘no’, but would pay R2 / head I month in an absolute emergency. When asked why he does not graze on commercial land now, he said the R7 I month I animal is too expensive. Communal farmers generally expressed this figure in a lump-sum amount per month. When divided by the number of livestock they own, per head amounts ranged between less than one Rand to R3.6 with an average of about R2. Thus the gap between communal farmers’ WTP for commercial land, and the high-end estimation of the market rate of such an arrangement is approximately R5 I animal I month. In years of poor and average veld condition, paying to graze on commercial lands would appear feasible (particularly when veld demand is high according to lambing and climatic cycles). Thus in theory, a subsidy of R5 I animal l month could allow degraded communal veld to rest while the livestock graze higher veld biomass on commercial farms. The commercial farmer said he would allow communal farmers access to his lands if he ‘had space’. Relative to the communal farmers’ SD, he does have space, so this is obviously a subjective measure. Farmer No.1008 said he would charge R50 for 100 sheep per month (R 5 / animal 1 month). He is not doing it now, but expressed that he tried what can be described as a sharecropping arrangement. He said he let one communal farmer graze 40 animals in exchange for labor, but this did not work because, according to him, the communal farmer did not provide the labor. 101 In the commercial fanner’s opinion, one needs a minimum of 800 animals (and 8000 hectares at recommended stocking levels) to be ‘economically viable” in Namaqualand. What criteria he used to come up with this number was not explored in detail and it seems too large especially considering he had only 381 sheep at the time. Fanner No.1008 generally tries to adhere to the recommended 10 ha per animal SD for the succulent karoo, but he currently has about 14 ha per animal. He sold an usually high number of stock for increased income in this past year, and lost more than the usual number of animals since the winter rains of 1998 were poor. It appears that there is an informal system of lease grazing, and some communal farmers are aware of it, but they state that it is too expensive to graze this way. Social barriers from past segregation and dual agricultural policy also contribute to the underutilization of this option. The commercial farmer in this study, who has relatively good relations with communal neighbors when compared to other commercial farmers, expressed that he was willing to reduce his grazing fee to less that one Rand per month per animal ‘subject to availability’. So there are future potentials for cooperative agreements if mechanisms that facilitate and normalize land-lease transactions were instituted. Aerial photos, soil data, and vegetation species-count can be done to identify areas of superior veld. These can also be combined with ground-truthed information from interviews. This information, combined with studies on the community organization dynamics of Leliefontein and other reserves, can assist 102 with formulating policies and pilot projects that restore degraded areas and increase QOL by providing access to previously restricted land. 5.2.2 INCREASE HERD SIZE BY POOLING HERDS A comprehensive rural livelihood survey conducted in Paulshoek by the Surplus People Project (May at al, 1997) study found that most livestock owners supplement their income from other sources. The percentage of the 37 livestock owners29 in 1995 who received income solely from livestock is 21.6%. The majority of livestock owners supplement their income with pension and welfare (35%), permanent income (24%) and self employment (13.5%) (farmer Nos.1002, 1003, and 1004 in this study receive pensions or benefit from a disability fund). Recent reductions in employment in mining sector is a major cause for concern since SD in communal areas is foreseen to increase as residents move back to the reserves and invest in livestock. As a result of diversified income sources, herds of various persons are often grouped together. A policy objective should be to build on this and encourage a higher level of stock aggregation since productivity is found to be greater in larger herds. More research is needed to confirm this and ascertain the reasons. The average net returns per head of the two largest communal farmers in this study is almost R100 more than the average net returns per head of the small and average size herd. A majority of herd aggregation (5 of the 6 identified cooperative pooling networks) in Paulshoek was found to run along kinship lines (May et al, 1997). 103 Thus farther aggregation would have to identify and exploit positive social relations between these kinship lines in order to create partnerships that can realize higher incomes. Cooperation is enhanced by improving "the flow of information for monitoring and the ability to enforce rules, for instance through the formation of sub-coalitions, improved leadership, or enhanced social norms and social capital” (McCarthy et al, 1998). Preserving the social networks is important since the cooperation of large herd owners are needed for them not to sabotage efforts to enhance the welfare of smaller farmers who might be perceived a new competitors. There is empirical evident that shows when there is heterogeneity in production efficiency among communal livestock farmers, the more efficient (large herd owners) benefit less, and may even lose, when cooperating to reduce overall grazing level (ibid). 5.2.3 INTRODUCE ANIMAL HEAD TAX An animal head tax would internalize the cost of veld degradation, reduce the number of animals and SD-allowing farmers to realize higher profits. Dalton and Masters (1998) model an optimum ‘pasture tax’ and show how it could raise farmers’ QOL and at the same time “offset herders’ incentives to overuse open- access resources” in Mali. This policy counters the previous recommendation of having fewer and larger herds, so a reduction of this tax must be considered when farmers pool animals under a single management scheme. An optimal level of head tax would bring the SD to a level where the communal farmers are stocking at the intensive 104 margin with the policy objective of making at least zero economic profit in a poor veld condition year. A head tax would not automatically shift the farmers input choice in favor of purchased feed since they could graze in unlimited amounts once the head tax is paid. An additional tax based on the amount of time spent grazing would increase the amount of purchased feed relative to natural grazing. The transaction cost involved with monitoring this would probably make this option unfeasible. A head tax would reduce deaths, increase lambing and weaning percentages, and increases weight gain. It is expected that farmers will earn more with fewer animals as productivity increases per animals. The underlying assumption behind this recommendation is that increasing herd numbers will involve paying more taxes, so the farmer keep fewer animals, and thus reduce SD. Normally, such economic policy initiatives aims to ‘weed-out’ inefficient fanners/businesses (i.e. those that are not efficient enough to afford a tax and still maintain their businesses). In Paulshoek the average age of a livestock farmer was found to be 57 years (May et al, ”1997). When some of these farmers drop out (smaller herds) they would effectively have no other livelihood option other than pension; this is one consequence of a head tax that should be anticipated and mitigated. The head tax should at least be enough to prevent existing farmers from increasing stock (perhaps based on responses to question 19 of the survey questionnaire-the WTP for leasing commercial land). 105 This tax should be higher for new entrants to livestock farming, so only more efficient, large (preferably grouped herds-for equity reasons) would farm livestock. When the elasticity of demand for animals, with a tax imposition, is known, then the optimal tax that would maximize profit and reduce SD to recommend levels could be better estimated. Van Kooten (1993) suggests a procedure to determine the level of permissible grazing by, "estimating the total forage yield, allow 45 percent carry- over to avoid damage to the range, and divide the remaining forage by the requirements of one Animal Unit Month (AUM).3°” In other areas of the world areas where farmers have a higher disposable income than on former CRAs, a market determined head tax, or grazing permit, is found to be more efficient than an administrative tax (ibid). 5.2.3.1 TAX-SUBSIDY Imposition of fees on an already marginalized population would work against equity concerns, principally for the small herd farmers, so redistributing the tax would address this. There would be a resistance to a tax that would have to be offset by redistributing the revenue. To compensate for the tax, the farmer would have to be convinced that a higher utility is gained from paying the tax. A government subsidy would be required since the cost of the subsidy will conceivably be higher than the tax collected, but the social benefits may justify a subsidy. According to van Kooten (1993), “reforestation of denuded public forestland is often uneconomical if based solely on commercial timber values, 106 but when non-market or external values are taken into account, it may be possible to justify such investment. The same is true for rangeland investments." Higher long-term income from a head tax would be a ‘hard-sell’, so farmers must realize some short-run benefit from a tax, so they should be compensated in order for them to cooperate. A demand driven development approach to development (as a reward to the farmer for paying a tax) is a highly desirable options for rural development projects to be successful (de Janvry, 1997) Question 20 of the survey questionnaire addressed this by asking what the one change to livestock farming practices farmers would do (if capital and land constraints were not a factor). lnvariably, the communal farmers wanted better rams. High quality rams increase herd productivity which allow the farmer to attain higher returns with less stock, thereby reducing SD. A ‘carrot and stick’ approach to decrease SD and increase productivity could be used to get the farmer to do what he doesn’t want to do (pay a head tax) if he is lured by the prospect of something he wants. For example this could be a good ram that he currently cannot afford and desires. The ‘carrot’ could possibly be a good breeding rams possibly bundled with feed and livestock extension education. Future studies could determine the feasibility of this. 5.2.4 LIVESTOCK EXTENSION SERVICE Livestock extension education service would help to improve the management practices of the communal farmers. Inefficient application of inputs 107 is one reason communal farmers have relatively low productivity. Present day communal farmers have suffered ever since the Agricultural Development Acts of 1904, and 1907 which sought to provide cheap credit and marketing assistance to commercial (European) farmers. Extension services to the communal area would help alleviate the differences in the two LFS that have arisen out of a dual agricultural policy. For example, these services could include instructions on the most opportune times to service ewes (around December for better health and also for marketing), and the timing of providing feed inputs (before servicing ewes, six weeks before lambing, and as soon as the lamb or kid is born). Extension services could also strengthen existing communal cooperatives that are involved with procuring feed and marketing animals. Simple changes to management techniques can result in higher returns for relatively little additional input cost. An area where extension services would make an impact is by providing market and technical information. This is discemibly lacking on the communal farms. Sanford (1976) found uncomplicated changes to marketing, administration of veterinary services, and transportation strategies can greatly increase farmers‘ incomes with minimal cost. Based on research in Zimbabwe, Mehretu (1995) states that, "solutions to redress spatial mismatch and relieve land use pressure in the small-holder sector must be found in a comprehensive and integrated strategy that is not limited to search for ‘new lands’ but also include stewardship of existing land resources, diffusion of technology and social infrastructure.” An example of 108 social infrastructure that needs capacity building is the livestock auctions that are not currently inclusive of communal farmers. These farmers still do not attend livestock auction that they were prohibited from in the past, so extension services could provide information that would get the communal farmers to market their animals. Binswanger and Deininger (1993) sum up commission reports on the ‘land question’ in Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe done as early as the 1950’s by stating, “any lasting solution must at least eliminate constraints limiting access of African farmers to output markets and land outside reserves ..... simply eliminating restrictions on access to output markets, in response to the Swynnerton Plan (in Kenya) of 1954, evoked considerable response from smallholders." Deninger (1999) reiterates the need for marketing and technical assistance for small-scale agriculture in South Africa. McCarthy et al (1998) emphasis targeted assistance through “boosting the efficiency of the less efficient (farmers) through technical assistance and relaxing constraints on stocking due to selective lack of access to credit.” May et al (1997) finds that less efficient Paulshoek farmers who have a high average animal age perceive marketing problems to be the cause. 5.3 AFT ERWORD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Many farming settlements with dual livestock farming characteristics can be found in Namibia and South Africa.31 In Namaqualand alone, six communal areas constitute 25% of the districts’ area, and represent 70% of the 24 former 'reserves’ land area (see figure 5.3). Thus, information gained from this study in 109 Paulshoek may prove to be beneficial to other communal areas. An immediate follow-up to this study should focus on identifying best management practices, and on why large communal farmers are more productive. Snyman (1998) states that in Southern Africa, “The ecologically sensitive arid and semi-arid climatic regions require specialized expertise in effective rainfall utilization with short and long term financial benefits for the farmer.” This can be accomplished by reducing or increasing stock numbers in anticipation of climatic conditions; an Early Warning System (EWS) that assess the factors that affect veld condition and recommends changes in stock numbers is a possibility for future research and pilot projects. Follow-up studies could include the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to identify communal areas in a similar AEZ and apply a yield model based on this and other studies. These future studies could check GAP qualitative veld condition descriptions with quantitative historical climate and stock number data. Unemployment in Namaqualand is likely to increase with the depletion of mineral resources in the next decade (UNCTAD, 1998). Migrant farmers returning to the communal areas to farm livestock will negate any policy recommendations to decrease SD. Those who do not farm livestock and cannot find other means of survival will migrate to urban areas. This would increase already high urban poverty and crime, leading to political instability. Eicher and Rukuni (1996) find inequitable land holdings and rural poverty are leading to urban in-migration which lead to “tension and crime in urban areas”. Lipton and 110 Lipton (1993) find urbanization (particularly in cases of high intrarural poverty-as found in Paulshoek) is a legitimate threat to the political stability of South Africa. An unemployed and landless rural population should be avoided prima facie. It is also a threat to the growth of the region, and specifically to the commercial farmers who continue to occupy most land in Namaqualand and South Africa in general. Just around Paulshoek, several commercial farmers have sold their farms and moved to Australia and the United States, partly because of this perceived threat. The slow rate of land reform and lack of employment opportunities is of particular concern in Namaqualand with the eminent reduction of mineworkers as diamond deposits become depleted. The lack of diversified livelihood sources in Namaqualand presents both a problem and an opportunity. There are potentials to develop alternative forms of livelihoods, both new and those that compliment livestock farming, with backward and fonlvard linkages. Machethe et al (1997) find that expansion of farm and non-farm economy linkages is a highly desirable rural growth plan for South Africa. The communal areas have been part of the dual economy that insulated them from information, education, and technology. As such, the off- take of information diffusion, technology adoption, and creation of linkages are potentially higher than in the predominantly white commercial economy that has already adopted these practices and technologies. Backward linkages already exist with the growing of feed for livestock. An expanded agricultural extension service to the communal areas would facilitate such linkages. 111 Some examples of alternatives to livestock taming are given in the report, “Alternative and Sustainable Systems of Production and Livelihood in Marginal Lands” (UNCED, 1990). There is no empirical evidence to support the feasibility of the suggested alternative livelihood options for Namaqualand, but they are worth mentioning as examples of successful projects in areas outside of Namaqualand. The curing and tanning of leather has been done on a relatively small scale in communities that produce hides. Despite some environmental concerns, this benefits the workers through wages, and secures economic multipliers (by increasing effective demand) remain in the region. A large-scale forward linkage in the livestock sector could be a cooperative abattoir to process and market a ready supply of meat from communal areas. Some of these examples need a high level of community participation, so the creation of new institutions, or increasing the capacity of existing ones is required. This needs a high level of cooperation on all scales, namely from famers, government, entrepreneurs, and NGOs Livestock faming in the karoo has generally been regarded as a mismatch between land capability and actual land use. A key recommendation for future study is the initiation of systematic LE with FSR approach (to understand the complex social factors in communal societies). A LE could aid in identifying new source of livelihoods by comparing actual and alternative land use options (FAO, 1983). Typically, this is based on biophysical, social, economic, labor and capital constraints of alternative agricultural enterprises 112 (e.g. cropping of high value arid fruits/herbs, or game/ostrich faming), and non- agricultural enterprises (e.g. tourism, or developing medicines from the existing herbalist culture). Sivakumar and Valentin (Greenland et al, 1998) describe such an approach, based on relevant temporal and spatial scales, which could be integrated by a GIS or other spatial (yield) modeling techniques. They point out southern Africa as a ‘bright spot” for holistic range management using these LE techniques. Similar arid winter rainfall regions in the Middle East and North Africa have diversified by growing feed for livestock, and arid fruits and nuts such as olive and pistachio (ibid.). Figure 5.4 provides a ‘mind-map’ of the dual LFS found in Namaqualand and wider karoo. Y Rural Residents in r.__.’ Nmmmlend and A 1 We“ live in fir Communal & W L Commercial Areas Government institutions r m H Qualityof Life é A because I 1 Unmstained Policy Resources Access 7 Resume Use Recommendation ”m” j primanrly 1 . . Land Tenure - I I 8" l courses * * Land Evaluation - 'th FSR implevrInt "“d Deg-00am Tipping}, affects qfi'ecrs ‘ ed . ’ income ne Improved Land Reform WM! Maw System A and » Figure 5-4 Karoo LFS Problems and Intervention Schematic 113 1 There were 24 CRAs designated during apartheid for persons of mixed racial descent. The seven CRAs in Namaqualand, represent 70 percent of all CRA lands and 25.3 percent of the total land area of Namaqualand. They are also referred to as ‘reserves’ or communal areas. 2 The terms ‘communal’ and ‘commercial‘ are terms of convenience used to describe the Livestock Faming Systems (LFS). It is not an a priori editorial on the relative efficiency of the individual famers in this study. The terms are also used euphemistically for ‘coloured’ and white famers. 3 May et al (1997) found that 45% of Paulshoek’s residents live in brick houses, 40% in corrugated iron houses, and 15% in ‘other’ types of structures. ‘ There is one female livestock famer in Paulshoek, but she has dropped out and does not currently own any animals. 5 A ‘ticket of occupation’ was issued for Leliefontein in 1854. ° lnfomation for the remainder of section 1.3, and for 1.4 is taken from discussions with Mr. David Makin-Taylor", livestock expert at the Land Development Unit (LDU)-an NGO that works in Namaqualand. 7 Those who did settle in urban areas faced the Illegal Squatting Act of 1976 that prevented them from being employed without approved housing. ° Detailed lnfomation on this feeding regime were gained from discussions with Mr. Christof Smith, a livestock extension officer at the Department of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Land Reform based in Springbok. 9 Social prices are the opportunity cost of a resource to the wider economy. 1° Commercial famers refer to a livestock purchaser as an ‘agent’ , while communal famers use the tem ‘speculator‘. 1‘ The negative correlation between SD and welfare (QOL) can be made between commercial and communal LFS. It is not possible to assess this relationship among communal famers because SD is taken in aggregate and therefore the same for all communal famers. ‘2 SD lines are symbolically not mathematically placed in figure 3.2. ‘3 lnfomation on the commercial aspects of communal livestock taming were gained from discussions with Dr. Mohammed Karaan a professor at the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Stellenbosch. 1‘ These questions are particularly relevant with the contraction of the mining sector. ‘5 More than 80% of greater karoo lands are privately owned (Anon, 1986 cited in Dean and Milton, 1999). 1° For example the commercial famer in this study pays R19,000 to lease part of his farm while the communal famers do not have pay for land. ‘7 Lambing percentage is the number lambs or kids dropped divided by the number of ewes. Weaning percentage is the number of lambs or kids that survive beyond four months divided by the number dropped. 114 1' Factor market imperfections exist since commercial famers are land and capital intensive in an area where labor is abundant and a majority of residents are land constrained (see Ellis, 1993). 1" Mervin Cloete collects monthly stock data for the EU Global Change and Subsistence Rangeland in Southern Africa Project. He assisted in translating the survey questionnaire and famers’ responses for this study. 2° The author’s academic advisor participated in one of these field trips. 2‘ Field trips to Paulshoek were facilitated by NBI who provided transportation courtesy of the Mazda Wildlife Fund. 22 Capitalized text indicates title of spreadsheet entry (Appendix B). 23 Economic sustainability is defined here as making at least zero profit in a poor veld condition year. 2‘ This is based on a static ‘snap-shot’ of SD in a given annual veld condition year. Stock numbers do rise and fall through changes in lambing and weaning percentages with changes in veld condition (these changes are found to be greater on the more densely stocked communal fams). 2‘ Veld condition is detemined by many climatic factors; the low but relatively predictable nature of rainfall in the succulent karoo has been documented by Cowling et al. (1999) and Desmet and Cowling (Dean and Milton, 1999) which support the 60% probability of average veld conditions. 2° A discussion on minimum herd size follows in chapter 5. 27 Move costs apply only to communal famers, note also that famer No.1001 had a variable cost of animal PURCHASES. 2‘ The department of Land Affairs acknowledged that it could not meet its goal of redistributing land to approximately 25 million citizens by 1999. Since 1994 only 400,00 citizens, just 0.6% of the target number, have been resettled. South Africa Mail & Guardian, 21 January 1999. 29 The number of livestock owners is greater than the number of livestock famers since livestock famers often manage animals of friends and family in their herds. 3° The same source estimates the feed requirements of one AUM to be 300 kg (660 lb), and small-stock are equivalent to between .20 and .25 AUMs. 3‘ It is estimated that 87 percent of land in South Africa is not suitable for arable crop production and better fits the use-requirements of extensive taming systems (Scholes, 1994 cited in Cousins, 1995). 115 APPENDICES APPENDIX A—Survey Questionnaire ................................................... 117 APPENDIX B—Good, Average, Poor, (GAP) Annual Farm Budget .............. 141 APPENDIX C—Three Year Small Stock Data for Paulshoek and Two Neighboring Commercial Famers .................................. 149 116 Appendix A Name: Number: 1001 Question Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 9:55 Time End: 10:42 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 26 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? “Life is the livestock” and primarily for income. He would look for work outside the village if LF was not an option. Q 2 a) At what age do you sell and why? 6 mo-1yr blc that they are younger and will fetch a higher price b) What time of the year & why? November blc animals are in best condition c) When do you service your ewes? February Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=65 S=68 G=65 =68 G=65 S=68 Lambs 100 70 75 68 30 50 Lambs 0 0 1 0 1 5 16 20 Dead Q 4-7 Total Total Total Total Total Total S G=90 S=92 G=90 S=90 G=92 =92 Sales 30 30 20 15 0 0 Market Sales 4 6 4 7 8 0 Local Slaughter 12 7 8 5 6 4 Deaths 0 0 8 10 20 30 Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N c) Do you trade it? N d) Do you give/share it? Y e) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R2 f) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred 117 Name: Number: 1001 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 9:55 Time End: 10:42 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? Goat R2 Sheep R3 c) What do you do with them when you don’t sell them? Throw it away Notes: Sells it locally Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage 0 100 300 Cost/Mo Notes: Started to give forage last year & is still giving blc there is no rain and nothing to graze. Generally he gives feed Feb to rains. Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? Goats 4 hrs/day; Sheep 10 hrs/day c) During which months? Dec-Jan Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Cost! Year 500 600 800 Notes: Gives every year (Jan, March, April, June, Nov) & whenever the animals are sick. Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 1 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? Fencing = R285 for 15 yards Cement = 8-50 kg bags @ R18 each Notes: The fencing is for the kraal. The community members who have vehicles help him w/ transportation to Garies about every other month. Q 15 Good Average Poor Movesl 1 3 4 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Sell to speculator Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? Y b) How many? 5 d) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? 5 Notes: Started buying in 3 years ago. Just buys when people come around wanting to sell. 5 ewes a year is an estimate from these 3 years. 118 Name: Number: 1001 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 9:55 Time End: 10:42 Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 every 3 years 1 every 3 years Purchase Frequency? & use of b) Cost ? R300 R300 rams c) From? Commercial famer Commercial tamer d) Disposal ? Castrates Castrates Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? Y b) How much are you willing to pay? R50/mo Q20 What change would you make to LF? Buy better rams Q 21 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: Did it before but didn’t give feed before servicing. Gave feed 6 weeks before lambing and after. Doesn’t do it now b/c it’s too expensive he says. He gave it to his pregnant ewes. 119 APPENDIX A . Name: Number: 1002 3:33" Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 14:00 Time End: 15:00 Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 40 years working for a commercial famer & 3 years on communal b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? Income Q 2 a) At what age do you sell and why? Sheep at 7 mo; Goats at 9 mo blc get a good price at that age. b) What time of the year & why? August— January 0) When do you service your ewes? February Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=20 S=33 G=20 S=33 G=20 S=33 Lambs 40 33 25 30 10 9 Lambs 7 6 4 3 10 9 Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =20 =36 20= =36 =20 =36 Sales 8 15 8 0 0 0 Market Sales 0 5 0 0 0 0 Local Slaughter 0 5 2 3 2 4 Deaths 4 3 3 4 18 4 Notes: Usually doesn’t sell locally blc price is not good. Markets in god years blc there is more to sell & in good condition. Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N 0) Do you trade it? N d) Do you give/share it? Y a) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R7 f) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred 120 Name: Number: 1002 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 14:00 Time End: 15:00 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R5 c) What do you do with them when you don’t sell them? Throws it away Notes: He used to get R40, so he is resentful to sell at R5, so he is not sure if he will sell at this price. Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage o o 300 Cost/Mo Notes: Usually gives feed Aug-March if he has money & in poor years. Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? N b) For how long? NIA c) During which months? NIA Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year 200 400 600 Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 0 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? Nothing Q 15 Good Average Poor MOVeS/ 2 3 5 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Sells to speculator Q 17 3) Have you bought animals in the last year? N b) How many? NIA c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 eve 3 rs 1 every 3 yrs Purchase Frequency? ry y & use of b) Cost ? R600 R500 rams _ , c) From? Commercral Commercral d) Disposal ? Sells to other farmers Sells to other farmers 121 Name: Number: 1002 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 14:00 Time End: 15:00 Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? Y b) How much are you willing to pay? R 200lmo Q20 What change would you make to your LF? Better rams Q 21 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: He would do it if he had the money, but now it is too expensive. 122 APPENDIX A Name: Number: 1003 Guam" Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 11:40 Time End: 12:45 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 17 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? Primarily for income, but also blc of tradition and blc of his unemployment. Q 2 c) At what age do you sell and why? 6 mo old blc better price. d) What time of the year & why? Nov-Feb blc better condition 9) When do you service your ewes? Feb Notes: Did not specify if it was better to sell prelpost Dec, when asked he said that it did not matter, yet when pushed he acknowledged that pre Dec goats get better price although his response indicates that the speculator does not pass through these price changes. Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=32 S=28 G=32 S=28 G=32 S=28 Lambs 65 28 37 14 10 9 Lambs 15 8 18 4 10 9 Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =32 =34 =32 =34 =32 =34 Sales 12 6 8 4 5 5 Market Sales 0 NR 6 NR 0 NR Local Slaughter 7 8 3 6 4 7 Deaths 5 5 3 4 6 4 Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N 0) Do you trade it? N 0 Do you give/share it? Y 9) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R3 h) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred 123 Name: Number: 1003 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 11:40 Time End: 12:45 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R5 c) What do you do with them when you don ’t sell them? Throws it away Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage o 50 200 Cost/Mo Notes: Usually Feb-rains in poor and average years. Says that blc of winter rainfall pattern veld gets very bad in Feb; although in any given years it will at least rain once during the season. Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? 2 hrs/day c) During which months? Jan-Feb Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year R175 R300 R400 + Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 0 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? Nothing Q 15 Good Average Poor MOVGSI 2 3 4 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Speculator Q 17 3) Have you bought animals in the last year? N b) How many? NIA c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep a) Frequency? 1 every 2 years 1 every 2 years Purchase & use of b) Cost? R300 R275 rams . . c) From? Commercral Commercral d) Disposal ? Slaughter Castrates Notes: Slaughters sheep while selling goat ram blc goat ram is of higher quality and better to sell. 124 Name: Number: 1003 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 11:40 Time End: 12:45 Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? N b) How much are you willing to pay? R2 in an absolute emergency Notes: Not prepared blc currently it costs R7Iheadlmo. He would “always” do it if it was free. Q20 What change would you make to your LF? Better rams Q 21 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: He is not doing it blc it is too expensive; he gives feed only when veld is bad. He knows about it blc the commercial farmers do it. He thinks it would cost about R900 125 APPENDIX A Name: Number: 1004 Qu°3fi°n Date: 3 May 99 Time Begin: 19:30 Time End: 21:00 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 28 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? Income from sales. Used to be income from sheep wool, but no more Q 2 c) At what age do you sell and why? 1 year blc of good price d) What time of the year & why? Oct-Dec blc of good price 6) When do you service your ewes? Jan-Feb Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=20 S=15 G=20 S=15 G=20 S=15 Lambs 50 15 30 1 5 6 8 Lambs 0 0 20 8 6 4 Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =30 =24 =30 =24 =30 =24 Sales 6 0 10 0 0 0 Market Sales 10 0 6 0 0 0 Local Slaughter 4 2 1 2 0 0 Deaths 0 4 3 6 7 8 Notes: Says he needs approx. 40 sheep for him to be able to market, and doesn’t sell in poor years blc price is bad. Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N 0) Do you trade it? N 0 Do you give/share it? Y a) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R2 f) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred 126 Name: Number: 1004 Date: 3 May 99 Time Begin: 19:30 Time End: 21:00 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R6 0) What do you do with them when you don’t sell them? Uses them for the home Notes: Used to get R30 for skins Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage o o 100 Cost/Mo Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? 2-3 hrs/day 0) During which months? One month (Dec or Jan) One month (Dec or Jan) Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year R80 R100 R250 Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 1 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? Bought 2 maikes mates for R20 each Q 15 Good Average Poor MOVES, 0 o 2 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Doesn't market directly regularly, but sometimes loads about 10 animals takes them to Garies (transportation costs R150) Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? N b) How many? NIA c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 every 2 years 1 every 2 years Purchase Frequency? & use of b) Cost ? R300 R100 rams , c) From? Commercial Commercral d) Disposal ? Castrates/Slaughters Castrates/Slaughters Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? Y b) How much are you willing to pay? R150/mo Q20 What change would you make to your LF? Better rams 127 Name: Number: 1004 Date: 3 May 99 Time Begin: 19:30 Time End: 21:00 021 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: Says feed costs are too high 128 APPENDIX A _ Name: Number: 1005 Guam" Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 15:00 Time End: 15:40 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 17 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? For income through marketing and for slaugher Q 2 c) At what age do you sell and why? 1 year blc growth & condition better d) What time of the year & why? Sept-Oct blc animals are in best condition then e) When do you service your ewes? Feb Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=79 S=52 G=79 S=52 G=79 S=52 Lambs 120 52 85 40 27 27 Lambs 5 0 12 5 27 14 Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =97 =69 =97 =69 =97 =69 Sales 25 1 5 1 5 1 5 0 0 Market Sales 6 6 5 5 10 10 Local Slaughter 6 6 6 6 6 6 Deaths 0 0 4 5 20 20 Notes: Says he slaughters & sells the same amount of sheep/goats Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N 0) Do you trade it? N 0 Do you give/share it? Y 9) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R2 h) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred 129 Name: Number: 1005 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 15:00 Time End: 15:40 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R5 0) What do you do with them when you don ’t sell them? Throws away Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage 0 0 R100 Cost/Mo Notes: Gives from March to July Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? 4 hours (2 hrs in morning; 2 hrs in evening) 0) During which months? Nov & Dec Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year R300 R300 R400 Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 1 Q 14 What investments have you made to LF and how much have you paid? None Q 15 Good Average Poor Movesl 2 3 5 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Speculator Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? N b) How many? NIA c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 every 2 years 1 every 2 years Purchase Frequency? & use of b) Cost ? R400 R400 rams . c) From? Commercial Commercral d) Disposal ? Sell to other farmers Sell to other farmers Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? Y b) How much are you willing to pay? R200-R300lmo 130 T Name: Number: 1005 Date: 4 May 99 Time Begin: 15:00 Time End: 15:40 Q20 What change would you make to your LF? Better rams Q 21 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: Thinks it would cost too much, but when asked how much he said R200 131 APPENDIX A Name: Number: 1006 33:32:" Date: 6 May 99 Time Begin: 19:50 Time End: 20:45 Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 12 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? Since there is now work here, he says “livestock farming is the only option.” Q 2 0) At what age do you sell and why? 2-3 years blc of better price d) What time of the year & why? Oct-Nov blc of good condition 9) When do you service your ewes? Jan-Feb Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=30 S=17 G=30 S=17 G=30 S=17 Lambs 55 17 30 10 1 5 Lambs 4 1 1 0 5 1 5 Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total 8 Total G Total S Total G Total S =35 =20 =35 =20 =35 =20 Sales 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 Market Sales 4 0 4 0 5 0 Local Slaughter 6 4 6 4 6 3 Deaths 1 4 5 6 1 5 7 Notes: He says there is not much difference in sales & slaughter blw average & bad years blc there is not much difference in price Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N c) Do you trade it? N f) Do you give/share it? Y 9) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? R0 h) How do you compare it to shop milk? NIA Notes: He will not buy it blc he does not like the taste of goat’s milk. Says that he cannot compare wlshop milk blc he doesn’t drink it either 132 Name: Number: 1006 Date: 6 May 99 Time Begin: 19:50 Time End: 20:45 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R5 c) What do you do with them when you don ’t sell them? Th rows away Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage 0 R35 R200 Cost/Mo Notes: He gives feed after lambing (in June) Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? 10 hours/day c) During which months? Nov & Dec Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year R150 R250 R500 Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 0 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? None Q 15 Good Average Poor MOVES] 5 7 1 0 Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Speculator Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? Y b) How many? I goat for R165 c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? 0 Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 every 2 years 1 every 2 years Purchase Frequency? & use of b) Cost ? R250 R250 rams c) From? Self Self d) Disposal ? Castrates Castrates Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? Y b) How much are you willing to pay? R200/mo Q20 What change would you make to your LF? In good years would not change anything. In bad years he would like to sell sheep & retain his goats blc a goat, he says is a better animal to farm in bad years. He doesn’t do it now blc sheep are in OK condition. 133 Name: Number: 1006 Date: 6 May 99 Time Begin: 19:50 Time End: 20:45 021 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes Notes: Says it is too expensive, but when asked for an estimate he says it would cost around R200 134 APPENDIX A . Name: Number: 1007 Quoshon Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 8:15 Time End: 9:15 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 20 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? For income & blc there is no other option. Says "’it’s my life.” Q 2 c) At what age do you sell and why? 2 years blc condition is good d) What time of the year & why? Oct-Dec 9) When do you service your ewes? April; waits for rains Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe S=0 Ewe Ewe S=0 Ewe Ewe S=0 G=29 G=29 G=29 Lambs 40 NIA 28 NIA 15 NIA Lambs 0 NIA 7 NIA 5 NIA Dead Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =33 =33 =33 =33 =33 =33 Sales 6 N/A . 0 NIA 0 NIA Market Sales 3 N/A 1 NIA 0 NIA Local Slaughter 1 N/A 0 NIA 0 MA Deaths 0 NIA 2 NIA 6 NIA Notes: He says he lives alone so that is why he doesn’t slaughter much Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N c) Do you trade it? N 0 Do you give/share it? Y 9) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s mi k? R7 h) How do you compare it to shop milk? Preferred Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? N b) How much do skins sell for now? R3 c) What do you do with them when you don’t sell them? Cleans it and keeps it for home use. Notes: Says doesn’t sell blc price is too low, especially goat skin prices & goats are all he keeps. 135 Name: Number: 1007 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 8:15 Time End: 9:15 Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage 0 1 50 250 Cost/Mo Notes: Says he gets feed from Garies or Freedendal. Usually gets a 50 kg bag and “some luceme.” The trip to Garies costs him R150. He feeds from March until it rains. Unlike other farmers he lives feed to all his animals, not just weak or pregnant ones. Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? 4 hrs/day 0) During which months? December Q 12 Good Average Poor Vet Costl Year 50 100 150 Notes: Says that he likes to give medicines Aug-Sept Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 0 Q 14 What investments have you made to LF and how much have you paid? None Q 15 Good Average Poor Movesl 0 0 0 Year Notes: He never moves blc he believes the goats know the veld well where he is & therefore can survive better Q 16 How do you market your animals? Speculator Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? N b) How many? N/A c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep a) 1 every year NIA Purchase Frequency? 8: use of b) Cost ? R250 NIA rams c) From? Local Farmers NIA d) Disposal ? Castrates NIA Q 19 a) Are you willing to graze on commercial farms? N b) How much are you willing to pay? Nothing Notes: He will not lease commercial lands for grazing, when asked why he had no reason. When asked if it was free he said “maybe” he would do it 136 020 Name: Number: 1007 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 8:15 Time End: 9:15 What change would you make to your LF? Better ram 021 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea when there is not enough forage b) Would you be willing to do this? Y Notes: It is too expensive for him to do, but when asked how much it would cost he estimated around R200. 137 APPENDIX A Name: Number: 1008 0“”60" Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 17:15 Time End: 18:43 Number Survey Response Q 1 a) How long have you kept livestock? 21 years b) Why do you keep sheep and goats? For income & that is the only thing to farm in Namqualand Notes: He grew up on the farm which he has inherited from his father. He has 1 brother & 1 sister, but Q 2 c) At what age do you sell and why? 3 mo in good years; 4-5 mo in bad years blc of good price d) What time of the year & why? Sept-Jan blc he lambs (May- June) in accordance w/rainfall (May—Aug) 9) When do you service your ewes? Dec-Jan Q 3 Good Average Poor Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe Ewe G=14 S=325 G=14 S=325 G=14 S=325 Lambs N/A 1 10% = WA 1 10%= NIA 80%= 357 357 260 Lambs N/A 10% = 35 NIA 10% = 35 NIA 40%= Dead 104 Q 4-7 Total G Total S Total G Total S Total G Total S =18 =363 =18 =363 =18 =363 Sales NIA 300 NIA 300 NIA 300 Market Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Slaughter NIA 12 NIA 12 NIA 12 Deaths MA 10 MA 10 NIA 30 Q 8 a) Do you milk your animals? Y b) Do you sell the milk? N 0) Do you trade it? N 0 Do you give/share it? Y Q) How much would you pay for a liter of goat’s milk? 0 h) How do you compare it to shop milk? Worse Notes: He thinks goat’s milk smells at certain times of the year and doesn’t like it 138 Name: Number: 1008 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 17:15 Time End: 18:43 Q 9 a) Do you typically sell skins? Y b) How much do skins sell for now? R15 for wetskin; R5 for dryskin c) What do you do with them when you don ’t sell them? Keeps them until prices improve Q 10 Good Average Poor Forage R3000 R4000 R10000 Cost/Year Notes: Gives feed Jan-rains. In a good year doesn't buy much fodder as he uses what he can grow ( barley & oats) on 30 ha. Good years only buys “power food” that he mixes wlmillies. l bag sows 1.5 ha. It takes 25 (50kg) bags @ R40 each for 30 ha. Good years= x10-12, Ave=x8, Bad=0. Two (2) years in 10 is a bad year Q 11 a) Do your animals graze off crop-land stubble? Y b) For how long? c) During which months? Dec-Feb Q 12 Good Average Poor :22?“ R800 R1000 R2000 Q 13 How many herders do you hire? 0 Q 14 What investments have you made to LP and how much have you paid? Bought windmill spares R300. Q 15 Good Average Poor MOVE“ NIA NlA NIA Year Q 16 How do you market your animals? Agent comes around to colllect animals; pays R11/head for this. Q 17 a) Have you bought animals in the last year? No b) How many? NIA c) How many sheep & goats do you typically buy in a year? None Q 18 Goat Sheep 8) NIA 1 ram in 3 years Purchase Frequency? 8 use of b) Cost ? NIA R800-R1000 rams c) From? NIA Ram auction/private ram breeders d) Disposal ? NIA Ram auction/private ram breeders 139 019 Name: Number: 1008 Date: 5 May 99 Time Begin: 17:15 Time End: 18:43 a) Are you willing to grazing on your commercial farms? Y, if there is space b How much would you charge? R50/100 sheep/mo Notes: The market rate is R5/headlmo. In one experience he allowed a communal farmer to graze 40 animals on his farm in exchange the communal farmer would provide 1-2 days of labor; but problems arose from this arrangement and it was ended. 020 What change would you make to your LF? More camps & more jackle-proof 021 a) It would reduce deaths if you fed your animals at 3 critical periods (the 3 are explained) what is your opinion of this intervention? Good idea b) Would you be willing to do this? Yes, does something like this Notes: He says he makes sure that the ram is in good condition before sending it to the ewes in Dec; meanwhile he makes sure that the ewes are as fat as possible in Dec-Jan. He does not give extra feed 6 weeks before lambing, but does it in bad years. 140 APPENDIX B 141 APPENDIX B 142 APPENDIX B 143 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B 145 APPENDIX B 146 APPENDIX B 147 APPENDIX B 148 APPENDIX C Three-Year Small Stockfiau for Paulshoek and Two Commerclal Farmers Thesis Case Study Respondents In Bold I J COMMUNAL May-96 Oct-96 Mar-97 Oct-97 Feb-96 Mar-98 May-98 Jun-98' No. 1009 83 97 60 74 95 96 78 89 No. 1010 193 244 229 264 228 210 141 166 No.1004 127 120 1 18 99 57 65 57 54 No. 1011 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 No.1003 151 203 178 261 296 150 115 165 No.1012 89 85 88 126 155 120 113 100 No. 1013 285 250 198 331 274 230 233 228 No. 1014 27 59 43 36 0 0 0 0 No. 1015 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No.1016 150 350 180 259 0 106 96 103 No.1002 0 0 165 205 180 178 141 117 No.1006 47 56 28 30 65 74 69 74 No. 1017 65 85 55 68 88 76 0 0 No. 1018 238 185 192 289 249 256 242 200 No. 1019 20 31 22 36 32 30 30 28 No. 1020 0 0 0 1 18 1 19 91 64 54 No.1021 173 134 185 336 180 199 190 169 No. 1022 65 58 42 76 59 59 57 50 No.1023 232 171 158 229 161 161 112 104 NO. 1024 54 74 60 79 70 68 64 55 NO. 1025 0 0 0 0 O 34 29 32 No.1007 40 52 47 65 56 50 47 47 No.1026 217 205 143 270 328 164 157 153 No. 1027 0 0 0 0 0 53 54 52 No.1001 365 350 319 385 306 310 234 262 No. 1028 40 67 60 80 85 60 75 75 No.1005 210 183 166 321 215 210 191 177 No.1029 133 124 95 119 91 80 69 62 No. 1030 83 175 81 99 0 64 84 83 No. 1031 45 0 23 0 37 39 37 93 No. 1032 240 249 226 335 206 199 149 149 No.1033 89 97 57 65 36 51 51 50 No. 1034 36 42 59 44 44 37 0 No. 1035 289 326 266 433 359 355 337 334 Total 3812 4072 3543 5154 4071 3915 3315 3345 Nedlan 83.0 149 APPENDIX C Three-Year Smell Sherbet: for Wilshoek and Two Commerclsl Farmers Thesis Case Study Respondents In Bold COMMUNAL Jul-98 Aug-98 Sap-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 No.1009 91 85 83 88 70 74 30 17 No.1010 143 120 123 120 120 101 101 95 110.1004 53 66 69 64 69 62 62 57 110.1011 0 0 o o 0 54 53 53 110.1003 149 132 126 120 116 73 73 67 No.1012 100 110 99 100 107 99 99 99 No.1013 218 215 217 221 206 201 199 152 No.1014 12 17 17 17 15 15 15 14 No. 1015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No.1018 95 115 115 113 113 111 111 91 No.1002 115 102 96 91 87 73 62 69 110.1006 72 76 66 64 62 66 66 66 110.1017 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 No.1018 191 183 176 175 172 166 166 162 110.1019 28 30 29 29 30 25 25 25 110.1020 51 87 55 61 58 0 0 0 No.1021 159 212 215 213 210 152 152 142 No. 1022 50 53 63 60 56 56 59 18 No.1023 101 106 108 108 108 91 91 85 110.1024 48 49 50 49 48 43 39 35 110.1025 0 0 57 64 64 66 66 66 110.1007 41 46 44 44 44 36 36 311 110.1026 293 311 271 276 260 236 236 232 110.1027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110.1001 263 266 270 274 276 239 226 207 No.1028 71 82 80 74 73 66 66 61 No.1005 166 176 269 185 163 173 170 166 110.1029 82 71 92 88 66 83 80 66 No. 1030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No.1031 80 71 75 73 66 66 59 46 1101032 140 151 146 134 119 100 100 70 110.1033 45 49 47 39 39 40 40 20 110.1034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 110.1035 274 291 267 262 254 227 203 173 70601 3140 3262 3316 3206 3116 2766 2661 2427 111.6100 76.0 76.6 77.5 73.6 69.6 66.0 52.0 66.6 COMMERCIAL No.1036 110 DATA 715 719 594 NO DATA 546 NO DATA 110 DATA No.1009 110 0414 533 616 462 606 430 417 406 Source: NBI Referenced in Figures 3.3, 3.5, and Dean and Milton (1999) 150 REFERENCES 151 Acocks, J. Veld Types of South Africa. Botanical Research Institute, Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. Third Edition (1988). AIISOpp. N. Soil Change Associated with Small Stock Production and Cultivation in the Paulshoek Communal Area, Leliefontein, Namaqualand. Range and Forage Institute, University of Western Cape (1997). Allsopp, N. Effects of Grazing and Cultivation on Soil Patterns and Processes in the Paulshoek area of Namaqualand. Plant Ecology Vol. 142 (1999). Archer, F. et al. How Economic are the Farming Units of Leliefontein, Namaqualand. Joumal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa (1990). Barrett, J. The Economic Role of Cattle in Communal Farming Systems in Zimbabwe. Pastoral Development Network, 32b. Overseas Development Institute (1992). Barlowe, R. Land Resource Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA (1 986). Behnke, R. Measuring the Benefits of Subsistence Verses Commercial Livestock Production in Africa. Agricultural Systems Vol. 16 (1985) p 109-135. Behnke, R. and Scoones, I. Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland Management in Africa. Commonwealth Secretariat, Overseas Development Institute and International Institute for Environment and Development. London, 1991. Berkes, F. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press (1989) Berry, R. and Cline, W. Agrarian Structure and Productivity In Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1979). Binswanger, H. and Deininger, K. South African Land Policy: The Legacy of History and Current Policy. World Development Vol. 21(9) 1993. Blaikie P. and Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society. Methuen & Co. London. Boonzaier, E. et al. Communal Land Use and the “Tragedy of the Commons”: Some Problems and Development Perspectives with Specific Reference to Semi-Arid Regions of Southern Africa. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa (1990). 152 Christodoulou, N. The Potential For Black Smallholder Farmers Participation in the South African Agriculture Economy. Development Bank of Southern Africa (1 990). Cousins, B. Range Management and Land Reform Policy in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Program for Land and Agrarian Studies. School of Government, University of Western Cape. An Occasional Paper Series No.2 (1996a). Cousins, B. Livestock Production and Common Property Struggles in South Africa’s Agrarian Reform. Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 23 No.2/3 (1996b). Cousins, B. A Role for Common Property Institutions in Land Redistribution Programs in South Africa. lntemational Institute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper series No. 53 (1995). Collinson, M. Farming Systems Research in Eastern Africa: The Experience of CIMMYT and Some National Agricultural Research Services, 1976-81. Michigan State University lntemational Development Paper No. 3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University (1982). Cowling, R et al. Namaqualand, South Africa-An Overview of a Unique Winter- Rainfall Desert Ecosystem. Plant Ecology Vol. 142 (1999). Crawford, E. Farming Systems Research and Agricultural Economics. Michigan State University Farming Systems Research Group Working Paper No.1 (1981). Dalton, T. and Masters, W. Pasture Taxes and Agricultural Intensification in Southern Mali. Agricultural Economics 19 (1998). Danckwerts, J. Conservative Stocking of Maximum Profit: A Grazing Management Dilemma? Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 1 Vol.4 (1 984). de Janvry, A. et al. Endogenous Provision and Appropriation in the Commons. University of California, Berkeley (1998). de Janvry, A. Seven Theses in Support of Successful Rural Development. Workshop on Approaches to Rural Poverty Alleviation in SADC Countries, Cape Town, South Africa. 12-22 February (1996). Dean, W. and Milton, S. The Karoo: Ecological Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press (1999). Dean, W. et al. Desertification in the Semi-Arid Karoo, South Africa: Review and Reassessment. Journal of Arid Environments 30 (1995). 153 Dean, W. and Macdonald, I. Historical Changes in Stocking Rates of Domestic Livestock as a Measure of Semi-Arid and Arid Rangeland Degradation in the Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments Vol. 26 (1994). Deininger, K. Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Columbia, Brazil, and South Africa. World Development Vol.27 (4) 1999. Devereux, S and Hoddinott, J. Fieldwork in Developing Countries Harvester Wheatsheaf , Hertfordshire, UK (1992). Dahl, G. and Hjort, A. Having Herds. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm (1976). De Klerk, M. Marketed Based Options for Land Reform. Transformations 12 (1990). Dunne, J. Towards a Regional Development Strategy for Namaqualand. Saldru Working Paper No. 75. Cape Town, (1988). Eicher, C and Rukumi, M. Reflections on Agrarian Reform and Capacity Building in South Africa. Michigan State Univeristy, Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 96-3 (1996). Ellis, F. Peasant Economics. Cambridge University Press (1993). Ellis, J. and Swift, D. Stability of African Pastoral Ecosystems: Alternate Paradigms and Implications for Development. Journal of Range Management 41 (6) 1988. Ely, R. And Wehrwein G. Land Economics. University of Wisconsin Press (1964). F airhead, J. and Leach M. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge University Press. African Studies Series No.90 (1996). FAO Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Rainfed Agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 52. FAO, Rome (1983). FAO Yearbook 1989. Volume 43 of FAO Statistical Series No. 94. FAO, Rome (1990). Gittinger, J. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press (1982). 154 Geenland D. et al. Land Resources: On the Edge of the Malthusian Precipice. The Royal Society and CAB lntemational (1998). Gordon, H. The Economic Theory of Common Property Resources. Journal of Political Economy (1 954). Hardin, G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science Vol. 162 (1968). Kellner, K and Van der Merwe, J. Database and Expert Systems for Rangeland Restoration: A Community Participation Approach. Department of Plant and Soil Science, Potchefstroom University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (1998). Kleynhans, T. Contributions from Social Systems Thinking to Farming Systems Research and Extension. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension. Vol.6, No.2 (1996). Krohne, H and Steyn, L. Land Use in Namaqualand. Surplus People Project (1990) Levin, R and Weiner D. The Politics of Land Reform in South Africa after Apartheid: Prospectives, Problems, Prospects. Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 23 (2/3) 1996. Leibbrandt, M. And Woolard, l. A Comparison of Poverty in South Africa’s Nine Provinces. Development Southern Africa Vol. 19(1) 1999. Lipton, M and Lipton, M. Creating Rural Livelhoods: Some Lessons for South Africa From Experience Elsewhere. World Development Vol. 21(9) 1993. Lipton, M. et al. Land, Labour, and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa. Vol. 1. Edited by Western Cape. Indicator Press. South Africa (1996). Machethe, C. et al. Promoting FamilNon-Farm Linkages for Employment of the Poor in South Africa: A Research Agenda Focused on Small-Scale Farms and Agroindustry. Development Southern Africa 14 (3) 1997. McCarthy, N. Common Property Resource Appropriation under Costly Cooperation. ILCA, ILRl, University of California, Berkeley (1998). NBI. Presentation at the Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa Conference. Kamieskroon (Namaqualand), South Africa 7-12 March (1999). May. H. et al. Rural Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa: Leliefontein Reserve, Namaqualand. Surplus People Project. Athlone, South Africa (1997). 155 Mehretu, A. Spatial Mismatch Between Population Density and Land Potential: The Case of Zimbabwe. Africa Development Vol.20 (1) 1995. Panayotou, T. Economic Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development. lntemational Environmental Program, Harvard Institute for lntemational Development (1995). Portillo, E., Weaver, 0., and Motsamai, 8. Planning For Management of Communal Natural Resources Affected by Livestock: Proceedings from a Workshop for SADCC Countries held in Mohale's Hoek on May 28-June 1, 1990. Ministry of Agriculture, Lesotho. Riedinger, J. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines: Democratic Transitions and Redistributive Reforms. Stanford University Press (1995). Salter, L. The Content of Land Economics. Journal of Farm Economics Vol. 24 (1942). Sanford, S. Management of Pastoral Development in the Third Worid. John Wiley and Sons (1983). Sanford, S. Pastoralism Under Pressure. Overseas Development Institute (1976). Schultink, G. et al. User’s Guide to the Comprehensive Resource Inventory and Evaluation System (CRIES) Agra-Economic Information System Yield Model. Resource Development Occasional Paper No. RDOP-CRIES-87-1, Michigan State University (1987). Scoones, I. The Economic Value of Livestock in Communal Areas of Southern Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems Vol. 39 (1992). Shackleton, C. Are the Communal Grazing Lands in Need of Saving? Development Southern Africa Vol. 10 (1) 1993. Sharp, J. & West, M. Controls and Constraints: Land, Labour, and Mobility in Namaqualand. Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa (paper no. 71), Cape Town (1984). Sharp, J. Rural Development Schemes and the Struggle against lmpoverishment in the Namaqualand Reserves. Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa (paper no. 69), Cape Town (1984). Shearing, D. Kama. South Africa Wild Flower Guides No. 6. Botanical Society of South Africa in collaboration with NBI, South Africa (1994). 156 Shillhom van Veen, T. Livestock Systems and Animal Health. Michigan State University Farming Systems Research Group Working Paper No.3 (1981). Simpson, J. The Economics of Livestock Systems in Developing Countries: Farm and Project Level Analysis. Westview Press (1988). Sithole, B. Rethinking Sustainable Land Management in Southern Africa: The Role of Institutions. Proceedings of the SCOPE Workshop, Senegal (1993). Smith, H. Struggles of Namaqualand Communities in a Harsh Environment in South Africa in Transition: Urban and Rural Perspectives on Squatting and Informal Settlement in Environmental Context. Environmental Law Series No.1, Environmental Law Division, University of South Africa (1992). Solomon, A. The Use and Valuation of Natural Fuelwood Resources in Paulshoek, Namaqualand, and the Ecological Impact of Fuelwood Collection. Masters Thesis, University of Cape Town (1999). Snyman, H. Dynamics and Sustainable Utilization of Rangeland Ecosystems in Arid and Semi-Arid Climates of Southern Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 39 (1998). Swallow, B. Property Rights, Risk and Livestock Development . ILRI, Nairobi. IFPRI, Washington DC. Gottingen University, Germany (1999). Tiffen, M. et al. More People Less Erosion. Overseas Development Institute. John Wiley and Sons (1994). Todd, S. and Hoffman, M. Fence-line Contrast Reveals Effects of Heavy Grazing on Plant Diversity and Community Composition in Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecology 142 (1999a). Todd, S. and Hoffman M. Determinants of Stocking Rate and Overgrazing in the Leliefontein Communal Reserve, Central Namaqualand. National Botanical Institute, Claremont, Cape Town (1999b). Turner, M. Overstocking the Range: A Critical Analysis of the Environmental Science of Sahelian Pastoralism. Economic Geography (1993). UN Interim Secretary of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). Down to Earth: A Simplified Guide to the CCD (1998). UNCED I UN Sudano-Sahelian Office. Alternative and Sustainable Systems of Production and Livelihoods in Marginal Lands (1990). 157 UNCTAD, Socio-economic Consequences of the Restructuring and Privatization of the Alexkor Diamond Mine (1998). UNDP, Development of Desertification Indicators for Field Level Implementation: Collaboration with UNDP. (DRAFT) 17 March 1995 from meeting on Desertification at UNDP in New York. Van den Berg, J. The Relationship Between the Long Term Average Rainfall and Grazing Capacity of Natural Veld in the Dry Areas of South Africa. Proceedings of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa Vol. 18 (1983). van Kooten, C. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies and the Common Good. University of British Columbia Press (1993). Westoby, M. et aI. Opportunistic Management for Rangelands not at Equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42 (4) 1989. 158 I'IICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES llllllillllllllllllilillllliIlllllllilllllllllillllllil 31293020741 199