The contribution of non-timber forest products to rural livelihoods and their price determination in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa

• Main Author: Mugido, Worship
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Rhodes University 2017
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/5176

A large number of studies have been conducted on the contribution of different types of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) to rural livelihoods. However, not many of these have considered the context in which these contributions are made, especially agro-ecological potential. Similarly, there are few studies that focus on the price setting of NTFPs in different settings as most are based on a single or relatively few sites. Thus, there is no indication of the prevalence of the different factors within a uniform macro context, nor how they might vary between different types of NTFPs. Therefore, the aim of this thesis was to establish the contribution of NTFPs to rural livelihoods and their price determination in areas of varying agro-ecological potential of South Africa. The study used data from 1 200 randomly selected households across four agro-ecological zones of South Africa to quantify the contribution of NTFP income to total household income, the proportion of households selling at least a single NTFP and the nature and extent of use of NTFPs as safety nets in areas of varying agro-ecological potential. In addition, 300 sellers of NTFPs in 15 towns across South Africa were interviewed to assess the factors they take into account when setting prices. The findings of this study support the argument that the level of dependence on NFTPs varies with agro-ecological conditions. This was supported by the significant difference between the NTFP incomes of the following pairs of agro-ecological classes: very low and low, medium and high. About 6.4 % households reported selling one or more NTFPs for various reasons, with many (39 %) citing the need to earn cash income and limited employment opportunities (16.9 %). Income from trading NTFPs is undoubtedly an important source of cash income for many rural households. Thus, 300 sellers, selling either at home or in town, were interviewed and the majority (79.3 %) of the sellers reported that selling NTFPs was their main source of cash household income, with only 8 % and 5.7 % receiving their main cash household income from state child grants and state pension grants, respectively. The pricing factors considered by sellers when setting the prices of NTFPs tended to vary with the type of NTFP being sold, type of market (home markets or urban markets) and the method used by the seller to procure the stock. However, overall, transport costs (29 %), stock price (18.4 %), profit margin (12.7 %), time taken to collect or produce the product (7.3 %) and the market price (6.4 %) were the widely used factors to determine prices for NTFPs. The reported various pricing factors showed that there was no formal or certain price mechanism that was used by the sellers of NTFPs to establish the market prices of NTFPs. The study found that about 79 % of the total households interviewed experienced at least one shock of some magnitude in the previous 12 months. The most common shocks were illness (43 %), death (42 %), crop failure (29 %) and hunger (22 %). The households employed various coping strategies (21) in response to different types of shocks, with the three widely used strategies being assistance from friends and relatives (60.1 %), using cash savings (37.9%) and using NTFPs (35.6 %). Shocks, hunger or food shortage and crop failure were significantly and positively related to the usage of NTFPs as safety nets. Therefore, households who experienced hunger or food shortage and crop failure were likely to use NTFPs to cope with these shocks. The study concluded that NTFPs are an integral part of the rural livelihoods, especially for the households living close to the survival line.