SELECTED LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES

4.5.3.1 On-Farm Livelihood Diversification Strategies

Although Hereford Irrigation Scheme was often associated with crop production, findings by the study were that there was a growing trend towards diversification of farming to include livestock. While levels of livestock ownership were relatively low, livestock contributed to food security and income for livestock-owning households. In one of the households, a single dairy cow provided milk for self-sustenance and for sale to other households within the scheme. The income generated from milk sales contributed towards purchase of a miscellaneous range of day-to-day requirements for the household.

For another household, which occupied one of the smallest plots (1.94ha) on the scheme, livestock farming took precedence over crop farming (Box 4). This particular smallholder concentrated on sheep, pig and poultry farming, and supplemented the limited grazing on his plot with stock-feed. The elderly (76 years old) smallholder and his wife both owned 40 sheep, 10 pigs and 8 chickens. They also practiced intensive vegetable production on a portion of land just under 1 ha in extent, which was approximately half of the relatively small plot. The total household income derived from the couple's combined monthly pension of R1480 and sale and consumption of surplus livestock and vegetables. On average Molapisi sold between three and four sheep per month at R500 to R550 each, thus earning a monthly income of between R1500 and R2200 from sheep sales. In some months, he sold 4 pigs at R2000 each, thus earning R8000.

175

Although the couple shared all farming responsibilities, there were clear gender divisions of labour and decision-making pertaining to specific assets. For example, chickens were for household consumption and were slaughtered whenever Molapisi's wife, who controls their use, decided to do so. Molapisi controlled decisions over the larger livestock, which brought in monetary income, although the couple shared responsibility for tending all livestock. The Molapisis employed two male workers at a salary of R550 per month, plus a month’s supply of mealie-meal, a share of food crops and additional bonus payments after the sale of produce. Given that the smallholder and his wife eked out livelihoods from a relatively small plot, the diversification strategy, combined with intensification of production, had made significant contributions to household income and food security. The strategy also contributed to enhancing incomes and food security for farm workers employed by Molapisi.

To a large extent, it appeared that the smallholder’s control of the entire production enterprise gave him a high degree of freedom to adopt strategies that he deemed appropriate for his particular context. For example, when he realized that his plot size was

Box 4 An example of diversified farming and livestock contributions to household income, 2004 Freddy Molapisi is a 75-year old male, married plot-holder residing on Plot IH. He was born in Bushbuckridge. He worked as a religious minister in Lydenburg, Burgersfort, Groblersdal and Hammanskraal before retiring and settling in Motetema in 1994. Both his wife and he support three unemployed adult children and three grand children. Molapisi rears 40 sheep, 10 pigs and 8 chickens on his 1.94ha plot. He also grows vegetables mainly for household consumption in a garden of less than 1ha.

The household income derives from the couple's combined monthly pension of R1480 and the sale and consumption of livestock and surplus vegetables. Molapisi sells between 3 and 4 sheep per month at R500 to R550 each, earning a monthly income of between R1500 and R2200. In one month, he sold 4 pigs at R2000 each, thus earning R8000. Chickens are for household consumption and are slaughtered whenever Molapisi's wife, who controls their use, decides to do so. Molapisi controls the larger livestock, which bring in monetary income, and the couple shares the tending of all livestock. The Molapisis employ 2 male workers at a salary of R550 per month, mealie-meal, a share of food crops and additional money after the sale of produce. Livestock therefore makes a significant contribution to household income and food security. Livestock also contribute to the incomes and food security of the farm workers employed by Molapisi.

From an initial flock of 5 sheep in 1998, Molapisi now has an average of 40 sheep at any given time. For him, the Hereford Irrigation Scheme is ideal for intensive livestock rearing in that water and fodder, in the form of scrap vegetables from local commercial farmers, are abundant. In 2001, he obtained a loan of R10 000 from the land bank to grow vegetables. He has since settled this loan and decided to scale down vegetable production in favour livestock rearing. A realization that his plot size is too small, the water too limited and the risks too great to sustain commercial vegetable production has informed his decision.

176 too small, the water too limited and risks too great to sustain commercial vegetable production using borrowed funds, he settled his bank loan and took a decision to scale down vegetable production in favour livestock rearing.

Examples such as described above seem to have encouraged Hereford Farmers Association and individual smallholders to review their singular focus on crop farming. The leadership of Hereford Farmers Association began to proactively solicit assistance from external agencies regarding initiation of a livestock rearing project that would be compatible with commercial crop irrigation.

4.5.3.2 Debts

At the time of the survey, the majority (71 per cent) of households had debts ranging from R120 to between R10 000 and R50 000, with a third (33.3 per cent) of the households having between two and four sources of debt. Many (41.9 per cent) of the larger debts were incurred mainly to finance the acquisition of commercially productive assets, such as tractors, which were owned by nearly a third (30.3 per cent) of the households. Other debts were incurred to pay school fees (16.1 per cent), buy food (9.7 per cent) and set up Small- Medium- and Micro-Enterprises (SMMEs) (9.7 per cent).

More than half (57.6 per cent) of the households involved in a tobacco joint venture showed the greatest concern over debts. For such households, "debts" ranged from R6 449.80 to R22 328.82. The debts related to a deficit in the repayment of loans advanced to cover direct production costs. The debts were not linked to costs of renovating dilapidated cottages, as some respondents among the smallholders assumed. The latter cost was funded through a ‘social responsibility’ donation by British American Tobacco (BAT) South Africa).

Water account arrears for Hereford Irrigation Scheme amounted to R281 165.00 in 2003.

The arrears constituted a major source of collective debt for Hereford smallholders.

Although Mpumalanga provincial Department of Agriculture and Land Administration (DALA²⁸) settled the 2003 water account, farmers continued to appeal to government for

28DALA has since become Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Administration

177 assistance with the settling water-related costs. In 2006, the smallholders benefited from a government subsidy worth approximately R2.2 million, which was provided through the DWAF Policy on the Financial Assistance to Resource Poor Irrigation Farmers²⁹. The subsidy was meant to ensure that water prices remained constant despite upgrading of agricultural infrastructure, thereby ensuring that smallholders continued to have access to water without incurring large water-related debts.

Although the subsidy grant cushioned smallholders against the negative effects of debts, such assistance did not seem sustainable in the longer term given that the debts, which had largely been due to production of capital intensive crops within joint venture contracts, were likely to persist so long as such arrangements and the requirement for users to pay for water at its economic value existed. In the event that smallholders became independent of joint ventures and strategic partnerships, it seemed debatable whether they would be able to sustain profitable productive water use without government subsidies. Such possibility seemed as if it migh pressurize smallholders to produce high value crops using water-efficient methods in an attempt to off-set water prices and bank loans, or else to trade away their water allocations.

4.5.3.3 Vulnerability

Vulnerability, according to questionnaire responses by Hereford smallholders, was mainly associated with lack of clean water to drink (100 per cent), natural disasters such as floods, drought, frost and strong winds (87.9 per cent), loss of possessions and theft (36.4 per cent), serious accidents (12.1 per cent), serious illness in the household (21.2 per cent) and violence in the community (3 per cent).

Shortage of clean drinking water was perceived by all respondents to be a major constraint to well-being in Hereford Irrigation Scheme. Although the Groblersdal Water Purification Works were situated a ‘stone’s throw’ away, directly across the R33 Stoffberg road on the northern boundary of the scheme, smallholders used raw irrigation water diverted from the Hereford canal for drinking and other domestic purposes. A water purification plant that was installed in 1997 had since broken down. Since then, Hereford Irrigation Board had

29Interviews with DWAF official, Mr Tshilidzi Mathobo, 20 February 2007.

178 constructed sluice gates and storage tanks along the line portion of Hereford canal to provide smallholders with access to raw water for domestic purposes (Figure 14). This was a temporary measure to tide smallholders until a more acceptable and permanent solution was found. Despite this, the threat of water-borne disease remained a common concern for all the households. Smallholders had yet to submit to Greater Groblersdal Local Municipality an application for potable water supply services.

A significant proportion (87.9 per cent) of smallholders considered natural disasters, such as floods, drought, frost and strong winds, to be contributing factors to livelihood vulnerability.

A flood event that all respondents alluded to was when in 2000 the Olifants/Lepelle River overflowed and inundated low-lying areas along the banks. In Hereford Irrigation Scheme, flooding resulted in extensive damage to crops and infrastructure and in deepening feelings of insecurity. By contrast, reference to droughts related mainly to the low rainfall received in some of the years following smallholders’ occupation of the irrigation scaheme in 1997.

Frosts and strong winds were said to be less common but nonetheless had negative impacts, particularly on vegetable crops produced.

Crime was mainly associated with theft of possessions. More than a third of households had been exposed to such crime. Some women expressed their anxiety about having to commute between the irrigation scheme and homesteads in Tafelkop and Motetema, since absence from either homestead left property exposed to possible theft. Straddling therefore created difficulties in securing household material assets.

FIGURE 14 HEREFORD: ABSTRACTION POINT AND CANVAS-PROTECTED TANKS FOR