Art 8
Home ] Up ] Alt L-T Experiences ] Alt Assessment ] Course Programme ] Lunch Hours 2006 ] Workshops 2006 ] Grids & Rubrics ] Problem Solving Techniques ] OLESP ] NQF&SAQA ] Learning Programme Development ] Teaching Portfolio ] Article Writing ] Workshop Programme ] New Lecurer Sem 2003 ] Assessor Training ] ProTechnida ] CTP Documments ]

 

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.

2. INTRODUCTION

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. METHODOLOGY

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).

3.3 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the GLM procedures of SAS (Little et al.1991).

4. RESULTS

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):

4.1 Type 1: Poverty–stricken households

4.2 Type 2: Newly arrived households

4.3 Type 3: Households depending on old age pension

4.4 Type 4: Household’s main income from old age pension and supported by subsistence farming

4.5 Type 5: Household revenue generated from business, wages and farming

4.6 Type 6: Full-time farming

5. DISCUSSION

Table 1 illustrates the demographic information and number of livestock owned by the different typology types.

TABLE 1: Demographic information and the number of livestock owned for the different typologies

TYPES

TYPE 1

TYPE 2

TYPE 3

TYPE 4

TYPE 5

TYPE 6

Number of households

8

4

15

9

17

10

Total family size

35

14

58

47

112

61

Gender of head % (male)

33

75

26

66

82

80

Age of head

33-64

43-89

57-87

64-88

32-65

38-65

Access to pension

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Number of animals owned:

         

Cattle

456

2456

11456

1e+05

164123

140123

Sheep

6

6

56

229

5153

514123

Goats

456

46

25456

1631,2,3

22313

206123

Poultry

46 5,6

456

11856

1302

345123

187123

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 (%)

TYPES

TYPE1

TYPE 2

TYPE 3

TYPE 4

TYPE 5

TYPE 6

Welfare

44

0

0

0

0

0

Pension

0

75

99

62

1

0

Remittances

44

25

0

1

9

15

Farming

12

0

1

37

42

77

Farming services rendered

0

0

0

0

3

8

External income

0

0

0

0

3

0

Casual local jobs

0

0

0

0

18

0

Business

0

0

0

0

24

0

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.

Mode of farming

Type1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

Type 5

Type 6

Cattle

25.0%

Poultry-dry land crop production

25.0%

 

6.7%

     

Poultry-dry land crop-cattle-goat

   

6.7%

     

Poultry-dry land crop-cattle-sheep

       

5.9%

 

Poultry-dry land crop-cattle-sheep-goat

     

11.1%

 

10.0%

Dry land crop production

12.5%

 

20.0%

     

Garden-cattle

6.7%

Garden-poultry-dry land crop production

50.0%

 

20.0%

 

5.9%

 

Garden-dry land crop production

12.5%

         

Garden-dry land crop –cattle

   

6.7%

 

11.1%

 

   

Garden- poultry –dry land crop – goat

   

6.6%

 

5.9%

 

Garden- poultry dry land crop – cattle

   

6.6%

11.1%

   

Garden- poultry –dry land crop – cattle-sheep

       

5.9%

 

Garden (vegetables)

50.0%

Garden- poultry –dry land crop – cattle-sheep-goat

     

55.6%

35.3%

40.0%

Garden- poultry –dry land crop – cattle-goat

   

20.0%

11.1%

17.6%

 

Garden- poultry –dry land-irrigation crop – cattle-sheep

       

17.6%

 

Garden- poultry –dry land-irrigation crop – cattle-goat

       

5.9%

10.0%

Garden- poultry- dry land-irrigation crop-cattle-sheep-goat

         

20.0%

Garden-poultry -irrigation crop-cattle-sheep-goat

         

10.0%

Garden- poultry -irrigation crop – cattle—goat

           

Garden-poultry-irrigation

         

10.0%

No land-no garden

25.0%

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.