The social and economic impact of mopane worm harvesting in the KNP Louise Swemmer, Patience Mdungasi, Stephen Mitzi, Tony Swemmer with Witness Mmatho, Ilse Aucamp, Wayne Twine, Jackie Crafford Science Networking Meeting, Skukuza, March 2011
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
SANParks Mission Biodiversity Objectives People Objectives Benefit sharing Objective Constituency Building Objective Benefits from direct Indirect benefits from Build awareness and ecosystem services ecosystem services patronage Objective (2.1) Objective Objective Environmental Provisioning Services Education Objective (2.2) Capacity building for local Objective (eg. NRU) communities Objective Local economic Regulating Services empowerment Objective Community relationship Objective (eg. climate Objective (2.3) regulation) Ecotourism Objective Ameliorate negative Supporting Services effects Objective (2.4) Objective (NPP, soil formation) “any positive consequence that stems from Cultural Services a direct or indirect interaction or engagement as a result Objective (eg. of the natural environment found in and around SANParks” heritage, tourist experience)
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 outbreak 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) Economic Benefits Objective (1) Ecological Social Impact Objective (3) Integrity/sustainability Objective To provide and enhance access to To be aware of and mitigate where (2) *economic benefits derived from possible any negative social impacts mopane worm harvesting To mitigate/rectify/ that mopane worm harvesting may *Def. Economic Benefits i… prevent/minimise any *negative have on multiple stakeholders ecological impact that mopane worm harvesting may have on the biodiversity environment *Def. Negative Ecological Impact Harvesting Non-harvesting Visiting Tourist Broader refers to any ……... local local Objective (3.3) Constituency community community Objective (3.4) Ecological To be aware of Harvesting objective (3.1) Objective (3.2) Monitoring and mitigate To be aware of Strategy Objective (2.2) To be aware of To be aware of where possible and mitigate Objective and mitigate and mitigate any negative where possible, To monitor and (2.1) where possible where possible impacts that any negative research the To develop any negative any negative mopane worm impacts that the relevant ecological and social impacts social impacts harvesting may harvesting of components of the implement an that mopane that mopane have on the mpoane worms system to detect ecologically worm worm harvesting visiting tourist's may have on any potential sustainable harvesting may may have on the experience, or the broader negative harvesting have on the non-harvesting constituency (including consequences of strategy for harvesting local community towards international) the Mopane worm Mopane community SANParks non-visiting harvesting worms SANParks strategy constituency Swemmer et al. 2010 Sithole 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 Tangible benefits neighbours Negative social impacts?
Predictions/potential impacts Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Negative social impacts, Participating Non- jealousies and animosity local participating Conflict neighbours local neighbours
Predictions/potential impacts Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Visual disturbance Tourist experience and Participating Non- constituency Visiting local participating tourists neighbours local neighbours
Predictions/potential impacts Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Media release SANParks constituency Participating Non- Visiting Non-visiting local participating tourists tourists neighbours local neighbours
Predictions/potential impacts Mopane worm harvesting inside KNP Objective Cost/benefit constituency Participating Non- Visiting Non-visiting local participating SANParks tourists tourists neighbours local neighbours
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 Volumes of worms harvested from Kruger per village cancelled 350 300 • Shangoni – harvested 6 days 250 V o lu m e s o f w o r m s ( lit r e s ) 29 Dec – 6 Jan 2011 200 150 • 6 villages (from 8) + forum, 62 100 50 people, 1520 litres, 174 964 0 Lombard Plange Mashobye Mninginisi Magona Altein Hlanganani Forum worms Village
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 16% No fixed income – R1606.67 (6% ad hoc) • Livestock 58% Social grants • Crops • Electricity and 26% Social grants and cooking fixed employment • Gender of Hh head
Household profiles of participants Chickens 32.2% • Household income • Livestock Cattle 12.9% – 29% sell Goats 9.7% • Crops • Electricity and Donkeys 3.2% cooking • Gender of Hh head Pigs 3.2% None 48%
Household profiles of participants • Household income At home 26% • Livestock At home 58% • Crops and in – 26% sell communal • Electricity and gardens cooking Communal 16% • Gender of Hh head gardens
Household profiles of participants • Household income Hh with electricity 87% • Livestock Hh use wood as 97% • Crops primary cooking • Electricity and source cooking 450 y = 0.0146x + 35.885 2 = 0.6893 R • Gender of Hh head 400 350 300 Electricity spend 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Income
Household profiles of participants • Household income Percentage of female versus male headed households per village 120 • Livestock 100 • Crops 80 P e rc e n t a g e • Electricity and Female 60 Male cooking 40 • Gender of Hh head 20 0 Lombard Maseke Mninginisi Plange Village
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
Recommend
More recommend
