INCO-DC Project No. ERBIC18CT970162

Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa: Resource Variability, Access and Use in Relation to Rural Livelihoods and Welfare

 

Project Partners:

Centre for Arid Zone Studies, Wales (CAZS)
National Botanical Institute, South Africa (NBI)
National University of Lesotho (NUL)
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway (NINA)
Pyrenean Institute of Ecology, Spain (IPE)
University of Botswana (UB)

 

Visit Report

Dr W Ian Robinson, BSc, PhD

February, 1999

CONTENTS

Introduction

Terms of Reference

Progress made on Terms of Reference

3.1 Visit to Lesotho

3.2 Visit to Botswana

4. Issues and Concerns

Annex 1: Itinerary
Annex 2: List of Farmers interviewed/approached in Botswana
Annex 3: Weekly Recording Schemes, Botswana.

1. Introduction

1.1 During the first year of the project, self-recording schemes were identified as a methodology to adopt in order to characterise the agropastoral systems extant in the selected project sites.

1.2 It was understood that self-recording schemes would provide:

(a) a full description of the inputs and outputs at household level, including the range of performance within the population involved

(b) a management information service for farmers which would assist in improving decision-making and identifying future interventions.

1.3 Following a visit in March, 1998 by the Consultant, the recording format used by NBI in Paulshoek, South Africa, was adjusted to include inputs and a wider range of outputs. Such adjustments have been made, and monthly records have been collected.

1.4 Last year’s visit by the Consultant to Lesotho identified the theoretical possibility of recording. However, progress was thought to be unlikely due to financial constraints. Since the visit, support funds from the British High Commission have been granted, and fieldwork has begun in other directions.

1.5 Team support for self-recording in the Matsheng villages in Botswana has grown over the past year. In consequence, the University of Botswana team prepared a recording format and invited the Consultant to assist in its refinement and introduction through a field visit early in 1999.

1.6 The Consultant, therefore, made a second visit to Lesotho and Botswana field sites in February 1999. This report summarises the findings of the visits made.

 

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 Visit the team in Lesotho and discuss further the introduction of the self-recording system in the project area.

2.2 Visit the team in Botswana and conduct appropriate field investigations in order to:

(i) refine the recording instrument prepared by UB
(ii) identify possible adherents
(iii) discuss protocols and support with the Agricultural and Livestock district offices and their staff.

 

3. Progress made on Terms of Reference

3.1 Visit to Lesotho

3.1.1 Prior to a field trip to the chosen rangeland management area (RMA) in Pelaneng–Bokong, a round-table discussion was held with the University of Lesotho team to clarify the true purpose and practicalities of self-recording in the Lesotho context.

3.1.2 During discussion it was agreed that the respective roles of farmer and herd boy in management needed to be taken into consideration if recording was to be a) practical and b) effective.

3.1.3 It was also observed that the PRA exercise planned for the week after the Consultant’s visit, to be conducted by the entire team, would be an appropriate time to determine some responsibilities.

3.1.4 The Consultant and the Lesotho Project Coordinator undertook a field visit to the site to meet farmers and obtain the opinion of key informants regarding implementation.

3.1.5 Attempts were made to hold meetings with the RMA officials at Hai Pudi and Hai Lejone (villages within the project area).

3.1.6 Successful contact was made in Hai Lejone. The semi-structured interview conducted confirmed:

(i) adequate level of literacy of farmers

(ii) probable adequate literacy of 50% of herd boys

iii) importance of arable farming in the RMA, viz, maize, wheat and potatoes.

3.1.7 Recording formats to be developed by the Lesotho team should, therefore, include input/output information for arable crops as well as for the pastoral system.

 

3.2 Visit to Botswana

3.2.1 Upon arrival, the Consultant travelled to Hukuntsi with the intention of conducting semi-structured interviews with agropastoralists in the villages of Tshane and Ngwatle.

3.2.2 The Consultant was accompanied by a) a newly recruited Research Assistant, b) two established team members who would conduct general PRAs in the two villages.

3.2.3 Following initial contact with the new District Agricultural Officer, the field team went to Tshane where explanatory discussions were held with the Agricultural Demonstrator (extension) and the Livestock Advisory Assistant.

3.2.4 Twenty-two potential participants were identified and over a period of two days, twenty individual semi-structured interviews were conducted by the Consultant and the Research Assistant.

3.2.5 The intention of the interviews was to determine the levels of interest, final content of recording sheets and the approach/protocol to be adopted. A list of the interviewees and their main agricultural activities is provided in Annex 2.

3.2.6 The interviews revealed a wide spectrum of management practices in the pastoralist sector alone, ranging from :

(i) laissez-faire grazing involving little more than remote ownership of stock, which were allowed to wander freely in the village grazing area 24 hours per day

(ii) cattle-post herding 30 km from the village with day-time coralling, supplementary feeding, herd-boy management and night-time grazing.

3.2.7 This high level of variation should, logically, lead to equally wide ranges in output and efficiency. Regular recording should reveal this range of performance.

3.2.8 Following the interviews, 19 farmers agreed to record their inputs and outputs on a weekly basis on forms to be supplied by UB. The agreed final format is included in Annex 3.

3.2.9 The Agricultural Demonstrator and the Livestock Advisory Assistant agreed to assist the UB Research Assistant in the introduction of the system.

3.2.10 The protocol to be followed is presented below:

(i) 1-day training of participants
(ii) Follow-up meetings with each family to confirm understanding immediately after training
(iii) Monthly visit from the Research Assistant to each participant to copy out information on to the monthly summary sheets for entry into UB database
(iv) Monthly analysis of inputs/outputs and events
(v) Preparation of monthly farm returns (individual) showing performance and ranking within groups for discussion with farmers during monthly visits
(vi)Preparation of seasonal returns including seasonal analyses for discussion with farmers and use in project reports
(vii) Preparation of annual returns including full enterprise analyses (technical and financial) and ranking of performance indicators
(viii) Discussions with farmers based on annual returns.

NB: It is important that each farmer retains his own weekly forms to establish a sense of ownership over the data. The farmers will also be able to use their forms for future reference. Each participating farmer should be presented with a hard-back file and plastic pockets to protect and preserve their forms and the returns provided by UB.

3.2.11 Once confidence in the management system has been established at individual level, it is hoped that the information obtained could be used as a basis for group discussions as well as forming the basis for individual farm improvements.

3.2.12 The interviews conducted by the Consultant and the PRA conducted simultaneously suggest that gathering of wild foods is of limited significance to food security (snacking) in Tshane.

3.2.13 Under the new wildlife management, hunting is banned in the Tshane area and the villagers have yet to negotiate access in other localities.

3.2.14 During the visit to Ngwatle, a series of seven interviews conducted with the Muswara (Bushman) inhabitants identified the following characteristics:

(i) Level of literacy was universally low among adults suggesting a need for a visual recording system
(ii) Interest in progressing to literacy was evident
(iii) Production systems included Arable Farmer farming and goat keeping
(iv) Performance of goats varied considerably from herd to herd which suggests a range of husbandry expertise
(v) Grazing was generally restricted to the village area
(vi) Gathering of wild foods is likely to provide an important contribution to variation in diet with at least 5 foods featuring prominently.
(vii) Hunting, though permitted, is now only allowed on a communal basis. There are no longer individual licenses, only community licenses that are administered by the KDI Wild Life Trust.

3.2.15 The farmers interviewed are listed in Annex 2.

3.2.16 To accommodate illliterate farm families, a visual recording system to be used either alone or in conjunction with weekly recording sheets was derived.

3.2.17 The system is based on a series of containers representing herd status, activities, inputs and outputs.

3.2.18 In essence, the system involves the transfer or addition of tokens (physical symbols of resources) from container to container.

3.2.19 Each container is identified by a picture representing its function. These are placed in a series on a board, reminiscent of the bean/stone game played in a series of hollows in the earth or in wood which allow the transfer of stones from one to the other in rapid succession. The game is commonly played throughout the African continent and in Asia. It was well known to the Musurawa of Ngwatle.

3.2.20 A suggested visual recording format is presented in Annex 3, following discussion with the farmers interviewed. However, refinement of containers and tokens will be necessary. Farmers should be involved in this refinement exercise to be undertaken during the next field visit by the Research Assistant and other team members.

3.2.21 Training in the use of the containers should be conducted initially as a group activity but with close follow-up with each family at the homestead level.

3.2.22 It is also recommended that the weekly record sheets, derived for Tshane, are also presented at the same time so that farmers will recognise the connection, and will use the system most suitable for them. It is hoped that the illiterate farmers will be transferred onto weekly record sheets in due course. In this regard, close contact with the adult literacy programme in the Matsheng villages is recommended.

 

4. Issues and Concerns

4.1 Much remains to be done at the Lesotho site before recording begins. The Consultant was unable to make contact with many farmers; therefore the onus of responsibility for sensitizing, recording form development, and introduction remains with the local team. The Lesotho team may benefit from the development of both the written and visual Botswana formats.

4.2 Adherence to the routine recording will be greatly enhanced if the farmers can identify advantages. In this regard, monthly returns, with attention to detail, are likely to be very important. Support from local government agencies in Tshane seems to be strong; however, Ngwatle does not have the benefit of resident agricultural/livestock officers. This suggests that there may need to be support from Hukuntsi. This may be more problematical, particularly as the families may not all understand the relevance of the activity. Strategic support from the shopkeeper in Ngwatle may be required to encourage the other recorders.

Annex 1

Itinerary

 

Date	Activity	Persons
17 Feb	Depart Bangor for Lesotho	W I Robinson
18 Feb	Discussion, Livestock Department, MoA, LesothoDiscussion with Project CoordinatorDiscussion group regarding recording	Mrs Thebo   Dr Moeketse Majoro Dr None Mokitimi Dr Makoala Marake Dr Emmanuel Ruambali
19 Feb	Field visit to Hai Pudi and Lejone	Mr Lephetesang LatokDr Moeketse Majoro
20 Feb	Depart Maseru for Botswana	W I Robinson
21 Feb	Team from UB Depart Gaborone for Hukuntsi	Dr Raban Chanda Ms Lapologang Magole Mr Ezekiel Chimbombi
22 Feb	Visit to District Agricultural OfficeField work in Tshane	Mr Moatlhodi Moatlhodi
23 Feb	Field work in TshaneVisit to District Livestock Office	Mr T Moswelu
24 Feb	Depart for Ngwatle	Team
25 Feb	Field work Ngwatle	Team
26 Feb	Depart for Hukuntsi	Team
27 Feb	Meeting with Project Coordinator	Dr J Arntzen
28 Feb	Depart for Bangor	W I Robinson

Annex 2

Farmers interviewed/approached in Tshane, Botswana

NAME	ACTIVITY	SEEN
Mrs Anna Bok	Arable Farmer Farmers	Yes
Mr William Bok	Pastoralist	No
Mr Mutante Lampeyo	Pastoralist	Yes
Mr Rax Tubuje	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr France Molosiwa	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr Mountain Kalenthe	Pastoralist	No
Mr Willi Solomon	Arable Farmer	Yes
Mr Clarke Moses	Arable Farmer	Yes
Mr Ramothibi Mothibi	Agropastoralist	Yes
*Mr Mankosi Mothibi	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr Goitsemang Motate	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mrs Marea Dipolo	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr White Mosianele	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr Moeti Mosianele	Arable Farmer	Yes
Mrs Mai Morobise	Arable Farmer	Yes
Mrs Serepina Moeni	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mr L Leberu	Pastoralist	Yes
**Mr Amos Mansho	Pastoralist	Yes
Mr Morobise Morobine	Agropastoralist	No
Mrs Kereemang Motoshoze	Agropastoralist	No
Mr Dick Motishane	Pastoralist	No
Mrs Segometse Motshose	Not farming now	Yes

* Refused to participate
* Outside of area but interested

Farmers interviewed in Ngwatle, Botswana

 

Mrs Galepalelwe Dira	Agropastoralist	Yes
Mrs Tshipe Tshipe	Pastoralist	Yes
Mr Stobele Barogole	Veld products	Yes
Mrs Omalu Matlakalch	Arable Farmer	Yes
Mr Mangwe Moretsane	Pastoralist	Yes
Mr Tshumo Lesete	Pastoralist	Yes

Annex 3

Weekly Livestock Recording Sheet

FARMER_________________________________
Cattle Post/Location____________________________
Date______/_________/________

INPUTS

	GREEN YOUNG	GREEN OLD	DRY	DAY OR NIGHT	Hrs GRAZING	HERDER
GRAZING

 

MOLASSES MEAL

DROUGHT CAKE

SALT / BONEMEAL

BLOCKS

BUNDLES STRAW

BUNDLES HAY

FEED SUPPLEMENT Buckets/Kg

Bags

Price

Bags

Price

Bags

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

 

	PAN	WELL	BOREHOLE	OTHER
WATER Hours access

 

DOSES

DIPS

SPRAYS

VACCINES

ANTIBIOTIC

OTHER

VET/MED Head of Stock

No.

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

No.

Price

 

	BIRTHS	DEATHS	PREDATORS/ THEFT		PURCHASES		MATING	CASTRATION		WEANING
HUSBANDRY Head of Stock					No.	Price

 

 

	FAMILY			NON FAMILY
	MEN	WOMEN	CHILDREN	MEN	WOMEN	CHILDREN
LABOUR Hours/day

 

OUTPUTS

 

	FRESH MILK		SOUR MILK		SALES OF STOCK			DRAUGHT USE
SALES/USE	Litres	Price	Litres	Price		Litres	Price		M2	Hours	Price

 

CONDITION	POOR	FAIR	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT
SCORE Head of stock

 

NB: One form for cattle, one for goats/donkeys

Weekly Arable Recording Sheet
Tshane:
Week No.:
Farmer:
Location:
Date:

CROPS

Area m2

Plough*

Secondary Cultivation

Sowing

Seed Source

Weeding

Fertiliser

Chemicals

Harvest

Thresh ing

Yield

Sales

T, H or A

Hrs

T, H or A

Hrs

Hrs

Kgs

F or P

Price

M/Days

Kgs

Price

Kgs or Litres

Price

M/Days

M/Days

Bags or Kgs

Bags

Price

Maize

Sorghum

Cowpeas

Water Melons

Millet

Ground-nuts

Others

* Specify by tractor (T), hand (H) or animal traction (A)

** Farmer has used own seed source (F) or has purchased seed (P)

M/Days = Man Days