The social and economic impact of mopane worm harvesting in the KNP - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Louise Swemmer, Patience Mdungasi, Stephen Mitzi, Tony Swemmer

with Witness Mmatho, Ilse Aucamp, Wayne Twine, Jackie Crafford

Science Networking Meeting, Skukuza, March 2011

The social and economic impact of mopane worm harvesting in the KNP

Background to NRU projects

• SANParks drive to

promote benefit sharing for local neighbours through extractive resource use

– SANParks mandate – Historically – benefits not shared all stakeholders – Legislation – Wildlife management – Illegal harvesting

• Promotion of alternatives

Build awareness and patronage Objective (2.1) Environmental Education Objective (2.2) Community relationship Objective (2.3) Ameliorate negative effects Objective (2.4) SANParks Mission People Objectives Biodiversity Objectives Benefit sharing Objective Constituency Building Objective Benefits from direct ecosystem services Objective Indirect benefits from ecosystem services Objective Provisioning Services Objective (eg. NRU) Supporting Services Objective (NPP, soil formation) Cultural Services Objective (eg. heritage, tourist experience) Regulating Services Objective (eg. climate regulation) Local economic empowerment Objective Capacity building for local communities Objective Ecotourism Objective

“any positive consequence that stems from a direct or indirect interaction or engagement as a result

• f the natural environment found in and around SANParks”

Why mopane worms?

• Flagship projects in

various parks – existing, new?

• Mopane worms in KNP

– ongoing (staff), informal (2l coke bottle per day) – Formalise this as a pilot study in KNP – Beneficiaries - neighbours

Background

• Emperor moth -

Imbrassia belina

• Important species in

Mopane veld – consuming and producing more dry matter than elephants

• Pupae and worms NB

food source – people, birds and animals

• Over-harvested across its

range – disappearing from some areas

Important considerations

• Financial implications

– NB in rural SA’can economy – 1 cup = R7-R10, R70 per kg – 20l bucket (1 days work) – 10 l dry worms (R250-R350 per day) – limited season

• Time to harvest

– Empty stomachs just before move to ground (don’t need to squeeze) – 1-2 week period

• Ecological constraints

– Unpredictable eruption sizes - difficult to predict

• utbreak size, predict

sustainable harvesting rates – Second hatching – smaller, limit harvesting to first

The Kruger Park Mopane Worm Harvesting Programme Objective To promote and facilitate access to and the sustainable extractive use of Mopane Worms in the Kruger National Park, for the benefit of multiple stakeholders (including both SANParks and local communities) without compromising the SANParks conservation philosophy (Xref. SANParks People Objectives Hierarchy

• Objective 1.1.1.1, SANParks Extractive Resource Use Programme Objective)

Social Impact Objective (3) To be aware of and mitigate where possible any negative social impacts that mopane worm harvesting may have on multiple stakeholders Ecological Integrity/sustainability Objective (2) To mitigate/rectify/ prevent/minimise any *negative ecological impact that mopane worm harvesting may have on the biodiversity environment *Def. Negative Ecological Impact refers to any ……... Economic Benefits Objective (1) To provide and enhance access to *economic benefits derived from mopane worm harvesting *Def. Economic Benefits i… Harvesting Strategy Objective (2.1) To develop and implement an ecologically sustainable harvesting strategy for Mopane worms Ecological Monitoring Objective (2.2) To monitor and research the relevant ecological components of the system to detect any potential negative consequences of the Mopane worm harvesting strategy Non-harvesting local community Objective (3.2) To be aware of and mitigate where possible any negative social impacts that mopane worm harvesting may have on the non-harvesting local community Harvesting local community

• bjective (3.1)

To be aware of and mitigate where possible any negative social impacts that mopane worm harvesting may have on the harvesting community Visiting Tourist Objective (3.3) To be aware of and mitigate where possible any negative impacts that mopane worm harvesting may have on the visiting tourist's experience, or constituency towards SANParks Broader Constituency Objective (3.4) To be aware of and mitigate where possible, any negative impacts that the harvesting of mpoane worms may have on the broader (including international) non-visiting SANParks constituency

Sithole et al. 2010 Swemmer et al. 2010

Research project aim

Main aim: To evaluate the social and economic impacts of the harvesting of mopane worms from inside the Kruger National Park on major stakeholder groups

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Participating local neighbours Tangible benefits Negative social impacts?

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Participating local neighbours Non- participating local neighbours Negative social impacts, jealousies and animosity Conflict

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Participating local neighbours Non- participating local neighbours Visiting tourists Visual disturbance Tourist experience and constituency

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Participating local neighbours Non- participating local neighbours Visiting tourists Non-visiting tourists Media release SANParks constituency

Predictions/potential impacts

Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Participating local neighbours Non- participating local neighbours Visiting tourists Non-visiting tourists SANParks Objective Cost/benefit constituency

Methods

• Group specific:

–qualitative and quantitative data, formal and informal interviews, focus group sessions, discussions –official reports –Tourists, website

Implementation

• Pilot, small outbreak – low key

: 3 sections, 4-6 villages, 10 people each, one day per village – submit names

– Tribal Auth. Poorest of poor

• Early Dec. Punda cancelled
• Mid-late Dec. Phalaborwa

cancelled

• Shangoni – harvested 6 days

29 Dec – 6 Jan 2011

• 6 villages (from 8) + forum, 62

people, 1520 litres, 174 964 worms

Social & economic assessments

• Began field work – Feb

and March, social economic assessments

• Ideally – Social Impact

Assessment (SIA) pre- harvesting

– Changes that occur in:

• Peoples way of life (how

people live, work, play, community cohesion, social

• Culture (shared beliefs,

customs and values)

• Community (it’s cohesion,

stability, character, services and facilities)

• Demand?

Is there a demand for KNP worms?

• Most respondents use

mopane worms

– Don’t eat them - relig. groups – Sishebo, salads, medicine, snack, selling

• Healthy, tasty, high in

protein, free, NB winter

• Availability – between areas

– travel far distances to harvest, cost

• Competition – not enough
• Perception less worms
• Big problem if no more

worms

Household profiles of participants

• Household income

– R2393.55 – R1606.67

• Livestock
• Crops
• Electricity and

cooking

• Gender of Hh head

16% No fixed income (6% ad hoc) 58% Social grants 26% Social grants and fixed employment

Household profiles of participants

• Household income
• Livestock

– 29% sell

• Crops
• Electricity and

cooking

• Gender of Hh head

Chickens 32.2% Cattle 12.9% Goats 9.7% Donkeys 3.2% Pigs 3.2% None 48%

Household profiles of participants

• Household income
• Livestock
• Crops

– 26% sell

• Electricity and

cooking

• Gender of Hh head

At home 26% At home and in communal gardens 58% Communal gardens 16%

Household profiles of participants

• Household income
• Livestock
• Crops
• Electricity and

cooking

• Gender of Hh head

Hh with electricity 87% Hh use wood as primary cooking source 97%

y = 0.0146x + 35.885 R

2 = 0.6893

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Income Electricity spend

Household profiles of participants

• Household income
• Livestock
• Crops
• Electricity and

cooking

• Gender of Hh head

Percentage of female versus male headed households per village 20 40 60 80 100 120 Lombard Maseke Mninginisi Plange Village P e rc e n t a g e Female Male

Contribution of Mopane worms?

• 56% also harvested

worms outside of Kruger

– Availability in local area (veg type) – Cost of transport (2 litres cleaned worms/R20)

• 19% sold worms,

collected >40 litres

– R1000 for 50 kg – R800 for 25 kg – R120 for 5 kg – R500 for 9 kg

Impact on Harvesters

• Cost to participate – R30- R50 for

transport

• Between 5 and 40 liters worms per

person

• Missed out on?

– Nothing – Ploughing – Gone elsewhere to collect – Done temp or piece work

• Negotiation process – 100% happy
• 100% would like to participate

again

– “many more worms than we would have got outside” – “loved to go into KNP” – 90% first visit – “happy to go somewhere with permission – usually go into private reserves no permission”

Impact on non-harvesters

• Animosity
• “They said I can go but if I die, its my own problem”
• “They told me there were huge snakes in KNP that would eat

me and I wouldn’t come back”

• “They said they didn’t want to go but I must go if I wanted to”
• Jealousy
• “They were jealous, and said that the people that did the

choosing were not fair”

• Misconceptions
• “They thought we were getting paid a salary for collecting the

worms for KNP”

Impact on tourists

• Visiting – not applicable
• Non-visiting – SANParks forum website

“After reading the headlines I noticed the shocking news that locals are invited to harvest Mopani Worms in the Park. I have no problem with communities benefiting from the Parks and Reserves, BUT, please don’t take it to far....this is becoming a matter of "lets give all we can give to the peviously disadvantaged regardless of the ecological impact or long term consequences". “are we going to invite the harvesters into the Park for the Marula Season and we can just as well send an invitation to the communities for the Impala Season when the babies arrive” “Surely this can't be true - SANParks????????” “My wife needs Porcupine quills and Guineafowl feathers for use on clothing that she is making, do you think we could collect some in our free time in the park?” “I think I have been mislead about fund raising for Counter poaching of Rhinos – what will I be hoodwinked into raising funds for next?? Perhaps vehicles to transport the Pickers?” “Is this a joke???????” , “I cannot believe this!! , “KNP is losing focus here in a big way... “ , “No No SANParks this is NOT on”

• Harvesters

– “we feel that relations with KNP have improved” – “previously when we were collecting firewood and we heard the parks vehicle, we would hide, but now we feel more confident”

• Non-harvesters

– Disappointment and confusion – “currently the relationship is not strong, but we hope it will improve”

• Non-visiting tourists

– Negative – constituency and support

• Financial cost – small
• HR cost – few days, poaching

Impact on SANParks

Recommendations from harvesters

• Extend the time frame – 4 hours very

short

• More rangers – tied down not being

able to move (felt safe) – slowly, wait for everyone, couldn’t collect as many as would have liked (suggested 2 rangers for 10 pp)

• Taken to a place where there had

already been harvesting – each group new area

• Allowed to camp to save on travel
• Clean on site – spikes more painful

when dead

• Same people again - brave

Relevant outcomes

• Differences between villages ito interest/value in

KNP worms: vegetation, proximity to mopane veld, economics, perception of animal threats

– Choice of villages for next season – strategic – map mopane veld – General differences between villages:

• How used worms – household or selling,

economic status and number of worms

• Selection processes – NB non-participants

– Transparent - drew out a hat, (Plange) versus elected by Nduna (Maseke) – jealousies amongst those that didn’t get onto list.

• Demand for mopane worms – KNP
• Worms NB role in household livelihood

strategies, buffering in winter months protein

• NRU – build constituency (participants),

break constituency (non-visiting tourists)

• URGENT NEED FOR EARLY

PREDICTION OF OUTBREAK SIZE!!!!