|
Art 8
|
|
AFRICAN IDENTITIES OF A RURAL COMMUNITY IN SOUTH AFRICA Geyer A C, King B R, Perret S, Carstens J. 1. ABSTRACT Allan Waters is a communal area near Queenstown in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Households were surveyed using questionnaires which focused on the current socio-economic situations and farming systems. To define household typologies, factors such as land, source of income, modes of farming and composition of the family were used. Six typology categories were identified after the data had been collected.
South Africa has always been an important country for providing agricultural opportunities and food. Since the introduction of the integrated livestock and farming systems Land Care Project of the Eastern Cape Province, the socio economic environment featured as a major factor. Problems such as rural poverty, inadequate innovative agricultural skills, insufficient agricultural practices, poor or absent agricultural value-adding and agricultural marketing were some of the main factors which needed to be addressed. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the six typology categories that were identified in the survey area, representing the typical African identities found in the rural areas of Southern Africa.
3.1 Survey area The Allan Waters communal area is situated in the former Ciskei of the Eastern Cape Province at 26.47°E and 32.40°S. It is approximately 50 km southwest of Queenstown. It comprises 1800 ha with an annual rainfall of 505 mm. 3.2 Typology technique All the households (63) in the village were surveyed by means of an interviewed questionnaire. In order to improve the livelihood of the households and to secure food production and food security, a situation analysis of the rural farmers were carried out using typology as a research tool. The term ‘typology’ designates both (a) the procedures that lead to the building of types, designed to help analysis of a complex reality and to order objects which, although different, are of one kind (household for instance) and (b) the system of types resulting from this procedure (Landais’ 1998; Perret, 1999(a); Perret & Carstens, 1999). A typology is an attempt to group activity units according to their main modes of operation and their common characteristics (Low, 1986; Perret, 1999a). Typologies are built in order to analyze the diversity of production units (farms) or households (agricultural households). For agriculture, the previous preoccupations of land lead to the construction of farm typologies (or household typologies), which are based on identification of groups of farms that represent similar characteristics (Perret, 1999a).
Statistical analyses were performed using the GLM procedures of SAS (Little et al.1991).
Six types were identified, mainly with reference to scope of farming activities and different types of income activities that make up the household income. These types can be divided into two main groups comprising (a) livestock farming and (b) non-livestock farming or very little farming activities. The six groups are as follows (Table 1):
5. DISCUSSION Table 1 illustrates the demographic information and number of livestock owned by the different typology types.
1,2,3,4,5,6 > Types differ (P<0.05) from those in the superscript within rows.Type 1 includes 12,7% of the participants in the survey. Type 2 is the smallest of all groups and represents only 6,3 % of the households. Households type 3 and 4 can be identified as the same type due to the fact that they both rely mainly on pensions, but were not grouped together because type 4 households are involved in subsistence farming. The households in type 3 own no or very little livestock and produce maize and vegetables for household needs only. The family size per household is also much larger in the last three types. Type 5 represents the largest number of households (27,0%). This group’s males and females are either working in the nearby towns during weekdays or are involved in their own small village businesses. They are the traditional part-time farmers. Taking into account the number of animals owned by the different types, that there are significant differences (P<0.05) between types 4,5 and 6 and types 1, 2 and 3. This can be attributed to the fact that groups 4, 5 and 6 are more involved in farming activities. Type 6 owns the largest number of livestock per household and are full-time farmers. Type 5 owns the largest total number of livestock and are part-time farmers. The different sources of income are illustrated in Table 2. TABLE 2: Sources of income (%)
All the types, except for the poverty-stricken households and the full-time farmer types, receive pensions. Pension, remittance and welfare make up the income for the groups which practise very little farming activity (type 1, 2 and 3). For types 4, 5 and 6 the income from farming plays a major role in the household income for these families. In Table 3, the different modes of farming are represented.
TABLE 3: Existing farming systems.
From Table 3, it is evident that types 1, 2 and 3 are involved in little farming activity and the households are only involved in crop production, vegetable gardening and poultry. Types 4, 5 and 6 have a number of different modes of farming. The most interactive mode of farming for household types 4, 5 and 6 are a combination of vegetable gardening, poultry, dry land crops, cattle, sheep and goats. 6. CONCLUSION A typology gives a picture at a particular time period. There are links and exchanges between types and there is also the possibility of a shift from one type to another. There is no reason why it should stay in the same frame. New types can emerge and some types might even disappear (Perret, 1999(b)). The same principle applies to the Allan Waters typology types. It is of critical importance that the present situation of type 1 (poverty - stricken) and type 2 (newly arrived households) be improved. Strategies must be established, put into action and controlled by the appropriate organizations to help improve the quality of life of the people. 7. REFERENCES Landais, E. 1998. Modeling farm diversity: new approach to typology building in France. Agricultural Systems, 58(4): 505-527. Littell, R C. Freud, R J & Spector, P C. 1991. SAS system for linear models. Third edition.Cary,NC.:SAS Institute Inc. Low, A. 1986. On farm research and household economics. In : Understanding Africa’s rural households and farming systems. Moock, J L edit., Westview Press, Boulder. Perret, S. 1999(a). Typological techniques. Applied to rural household and farming systems. Principles, procedure and case studies. A user’s guide for rural development operators and managers. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural development . University of Pretoria. Working paper 99/2. p1-35. Perret, S. 1999(b). Guidelines to build a typology for an analysis of the diversity of rural households in the Eastern Cape Province areas. p 1-12. Perret, S. & Cartstens J. 1999. Progress report on Socio-Economic Evaluation of Targeted Communities. Land Care Programme/Eastern Cape. p2-12. |