Invasive plants – friends or foes? Contribution of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) to livelihoods in Makana Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa

Abstract

The negative impacts of invasive alien species on the environment are well documented. However, despite the predominantly negative perceptions associated with invasive species, it is evident that a number of these plants have been part of the landscape for generations and have numerous commercial and non-market uses. Consequently, there is a need for research that considers the impact of invasive species on the livelihoods and well-being of local communities. The authors investigated the contribution that the trade in prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica), an invasive alien species, makes to the household income streams of poor trading households. The research highlights the apparent conflict of interests and trade-offs that exists between local traders, for whom the sale of the prickly pear provides a livelihood source, and the South African Government, who are actively seeking to remove the plant from the landscape.

Keywords:

• poverty
• livelihoods
• local trade
• invasive species
• Opuntia
• prickly pear

1. Introduction

The negative impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on the environment have been widely recognised for decades (Mooney, 2005). According to the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, 2005), invasive alien plants use approximately 7% of South Africa's water resources, intensify flooding and fires, cause erosion, destroy rivers and lead to siltation of dams and estuaries. The net effect of these changes is the local extinction of indigenous fauna and flora and a reduction in important regulating and provisioning services. Globally, the costs associated with such impacts of IAS have been put at US$1.4 trillion per year – approximately 5% of global Gross Domestic Product (Pimentel et al., 1999).

The consequences of IAS for ecosystem services in South Africa and the economic costs associated with their impact have been similarly evaluated (e.g. De Wit et al., 2001; Le Maitre et al., 2004; Richardson & Van Wilgen, 2004). Such studies are generally undertaken at national scale, focusing primarily on impacts on the environment and the formal economy. In all instances, the costs of IAS to the country have been shown to be considerable. For example, in the Western Cape Province invasions have allegedly reduced the value of Fynbos (Western Cape Mediterranean scrub vegetation) ecosystems by over US$11.75 billion, with the total cost of invasion on the Agulhas Plain alone amounting to US$3.2 billion (Van Wilgen et al., 2004). The costs associated with black wattle invasions across the country have been estimated at US$1.4 billion, while the cost to clear the alien plant invasions in South Africa is put at around US$1.2 billion (Van Wilgen et al., 2004).

In contrast, little work has been undertaken at the local level to explore the role, both negative and positive, of IAS in livelihoods and informal economic activities (exceptions include Geesing et al., 2002; Kaufmann, 2004; De Neergaard et al., 2005; Siges et al., 2005). This gap is of particular concern to researchers working on household livelihoods systems (e.g. Shackleton et al., 2007), since with increasing awareness of the negative impacts of IAS there is greater effort to control them. However, some of these species are widely used by poor communities; indeed, local communities have been shown to adapt to biodiversity change, including the establishment of non-indigenous species, such that these species become integrated into their way of life (Pfeiffer & Voeks, 2008).

By definition, IAS do not naturally occur within an area (Mooney, 2005). Thus, it is not surprising that many countries, including South Africa, have implemented legislation advocating their removal or control (Mooney, 2005; Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [DEAT], 2009). In South Africa, the Working for Water Programme has taken the initiative to rid the country of invasive plants and has made considerable progress since its inception (Zimmerman & Klein, 2000).

However, despite the predominantly negative consequences associated with IAS, many of these species have multiple commercial and non-market uses (Shackleton et al., 2007). According to Macdonald et al. (1986), approximately 20 of the 50 most prominent invasive plants in South Africa were deliberate introductions, comprising agroforestry and fodder plants, dune stabilisers, fruit and hedge plants, and ornamentals. Thus, a relatively large proportion of IAS in the country has an inherent ‘use value’. Indeed, IAS are essentially an anthropogenic phenomenon, introduced and retained by people through both direct and indirect means (Pfeiffer & Voeks, 2008).

If one looks at indigenous species, a wealth of research has shown that such resources often play a vital role in the livelihoods of economically vulnerable groups (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2004, 2006). Likewise, many IAS perform a similar function (Shackleton et al., 2007). In fact, local people often do not perceive these species as a separate category, but as an integral component of their landscape (Pfeiffer & Voeks, 2008). While the knowledge base concerning indigenous resources and their contribution to livelihoods is growing, there is a paucity of data on the contribution of IAS to the income streams and well-being of poor communities (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2004). In South Africa many non-indigenous leafy plants are important for food security and contribute significantly to dietary diversity (Shackleton et al., 1998), while the IAS Aruajia sericifera (common moth vine) is actively managed as a medicinal plant (Keirungi & Fabricius, 2005). This suggests that not all IAS are detrimental to landscapes or people and may have roles beyond their consequences for the environment. Accordingly, there is a need to broaden understanding of the beneficial impacts of useful invasive plants on poverty and human well-being at the local level and on the cultural practices of communities (Pfeiffer & Voeks, 2008).

Prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) is an exotic cactus species originating from Mexico and parts of neighbouring middle-America and was introduced to the Graaff-Reinet area in South Africa by white settlers in the eighteenth century (Van Stittert, 2002). The plant was spread initially because it was a valued resource, with its uses transcending spatial, racial and class boundaries (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003, in press ). However, by the mid-1850s an increase in human and animal traffic in the region had left the ground denuded, allowing for an invasion of prickly pear (Van Stittert, 2002). The plant began to spread prolifically, infesting about 900 000 ha of mostly Eastern Cape thicket and Karoo landscape by the early 1900s (Van Stittert, 2002; Zimmerman et al., 2004). Efforts to remove the plant from the landscape failed until in 1913 a biological control programme was implemented, using the cochineal beetle (Dactylopius coccus) (Zimmerman et al., 2004) and the cactus pear moth (Cactoblastis cactorum). This project proved effective and reduced the abundance of the plant significantly. It is estimated that dense populations of prickly pear currently occupy less than 100 000 ha and are largely confined to the coastal areas of the Eastern Cape and isolated pockets in the Karoo and in Gauteng Province, and that these populations are now more or less stable (Zimmerman & Moran, 1991; Brutsch, 2000). However, although this species no longer poses a threat, according to the latest list of invasive plant species published in the Government Gazette,1 Opuntia ficus-indica (Species No. 218), excluding spineless cactus pear cultivars and selections, is a category 1b invasive.2 These are invasive species controlled through control programmes, and include other Opuntia species such as the jointed cactus (Opuntia aurantiaca) and Opuntia stricta, which are considered dangerous because of their effect on the health of livestock and wildlife (Hoffmann et al., 1998).

Past research has shown that prickly pear has many uses, both commercial and non-market (Shackleton et al., 2007). Prickly pear products such as jams, syrups, beer, medicine and the fruit itself have been sold and used domestically by Eastern Cape communities for generations (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003; Beinart 2008). In the past, African households sold prickly pear jam in local markets and used it on home-made breads, but this use has decreased because of the availability of manufactured jams (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003, in press). Prickly pear beer is also brewed, although in recent years, possibly because of lack of access to fruits and the increased availability of bottled beer, brewing for sale has declined (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003). That said, in 2002/03 in the Fort Beaufort area, local brewers were earning R1000 per month from the sale of prickly pear beer (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003). Traditional medicines are a further by-product of this species. For example, by combining the cladodes (leaf-like branches or ‘pads’ that are actually flattened stems) with Cape aloe, it is possible to make a potent stomach medicine or laxative. This is both used domestically and sold, with bottles of the mixture fetching between R10 and R15 in parts of the Eastern Cape (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003). Prickly pear fruits are also a source of income and nutrition for many local communities. In 2002, a five-litre bucket of the fruit was sold for between R5 and R10, and individual fruits were sold at supermarkets for between R0.50 and R1 each (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003). The income from these sales was an important economic injection into poor communities (Beinart, 2008). More recently, Shackleton et al. (2007) found that 99% of households in the communal areas surrounding the village of Tidbury in the Eastern Cape used prickly pear for a variety of purposes, as mentioned above, and saw this plant as a key resource. Collecting trips took on average about three hours, with collectors bringing home some 15 litres of fruit three times per month during the season. Prickly pear and spineless cactus cladodes have also long been used as livestock fodder. While some commercial farmers have expressed doubt about the nutritional value of this species, small farmers nevertheless harvest the cladodes, singe them to remove the spines and feed them to livestock, particularly during low rainfall years (Shackleton et al., 2007; Beinart, 2008).

South Africa is not the only place where invasive populations of prickly pear have been put to good use by local populations. In the Tigray region of Ethiopia both the spiny and spineless varieties of this species are a critical source of fodder for livestock, and are also used for live fencing, windbreaks, erosion control, bee forage, fuel, and fruit for household use and sale (Barbera, 1995; Musimba & Bariagabre, 2003). Many farmers and householders grow this species in close proximity to their homesteads. The dependence on this species is perceived to be particularly high among poor and landless people. But, as is the case in South Africa, the importance of this plant for local livelihoods has been poorly documented, with the result that the potential of prickly pear for enhancing livelihood security goes largely unrealised (Brutsch, 2000). In Madagascar in the early 1900s, attention drawn to the importance of Opuntia for rural livelihoods provoked a major debate about the wisdom of biological control of this species (Kaufman, 2001). Loss of this IAS had severe impacts on the livelihoods and well-being of people in the dry south of the island.

Given the paucity of knowledge about the contribution of IAS to livelihoods and the evident usefulness of prickly pear, the present study sought to broaden the knowledge base pertaining to the importance of IAS for economically marginalised people. The study focused on the prickly pear trade in and around Makana Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The objectives of the study were to 1) characterise the socioeconomic status of traders and their households, thereby obtaining information on who is using the resource and its importance for these users, 2) characterise the trade and assess the benefits and income accrued to trading households, 3) determine whether the trade is sustainable given the status of the plant as an IAS, and 4) establish whether an argument can be made for retaining such species in the landscape given the potential benefits they deliver, or, at least, whether provision can be made for careful consideration of the pros and cons of eradicating such species in areas where they have long been a key element of local life. This last point is particularly important in the case of prickly pear, given the evidence that it is under control and that it is ‘feasible to reverse the status of the plant from that of weed to an economic plant’ (Brutsch & Zimmermann, 1995, Beinart & Wotshela, in press).

2. Study area

The research was carried out mainly within the borders of Makana Municipality, although a few interviews with roadside sellers took place slightly outside the municipal border. Makana Municipality (26°31'60"E; 33°33'60"S) is located towards the southeast of the Eastern Cape Province, with the Great Fish River forming its southeastern border (DEAT, 1999). At the time of the study its population was estimated to be 74 540 people living in an area of 4221 km² (Municipal Demarcation Board [MDB], 2003).

The area is semi-arid with a mean annual rainfall of approximately 500–600 mm, although this can be as low as 300–500 mm in the north (DEAT, 1999). It has three vegetation types: Xeric Succulent Thicket,3 Grassy Fynbos and Valley Bushveld Thicket. Prickly pear occurs throughout these, with density increasing closer to the coast (Zimmerman & Moran, 1991).

The Eastern Cape is the poorest and least developed province of South Africa. Unemployment rates in Makana Municipality match those for the province at 49% (MDB, 2003). Mean household incomes range between R4800 and R19 000 per year (MDB, 2003), with 49 437 households reporting no income. In Grahamstown, the primary site for this study, unemployed township residents often turn to trading in natural resources such as Aloe ferox, restio brooms (made from the Cape reed or rush), wild flowers (proteas and arum lilies), firewood and prickly pear for income generation (Davenport, 2009).

3. Methods

Data concerning the prickly pear trade were collected via an interview schedule between February and mid-March 2005, the fruiting season for this species. Selling sites in the study area were identified prior to data collection, and 36 traders at these sites were subsequently interviewed, 17 of them selling door to door in Joza Township (Grahamstown's largest township), 11 along the roadside, six from home in Joza, and two in Grahamstown and Fort Beaufort. On the basis of observations made in the course of the research, it is estimated that the sample included approximately 40% of the traders in the study area. The questionnaire, administered in the traders' mother tongue (isiXhosa) through an interpreter, sought to gather information on the socioeconomic characteristics of traders and their households, production history and features of the trade, market organisational issues, traders' harvesting and selling patterns, income from trading, availability of and access to the resource, and problems and constraints.

Mean monthly household cash incomes were obtained by adding together all wages (from both formally employed and self-employed resident and non-resident household members), pensions and grants received by households. Traders were also asked to state the income class (per month) that they felt the household fell into, and these two sources provided an estimate of household income. Income from selling prickly pear was calculated as the product of average sales per day, number of selling days per week, and the number of weeks over which fruit was sold.

To get some sense of the supply of prickly pear in the municipality, information from the interviews with traders was used to locate and visit three of the most popular harvesting sites. At each site the size class structure (based on the height of plants) of the prickly pear population was assessed. Since prickly pear tends to grow in clumps, only areas with several clumps were sampled on a random basis. From this it was possible to make some broad deductions about resource supply and the potential sustainability of the trade.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Socioeconomic profile of traders and their households

The majority of traders interviewed were female (25, or 70%). Both male and female traders cited unemployment and shortage of money as reasons for taking up the trade. Their ages ranged from 15 years to 87 years, with a mean of 46 years. The youngest was a girl who sold prickly pear and other items for her mother, while the oldest was a woman who was the head of her household and supported four children. Just over two-thirds of the traders were between the ages of 30 and 50 years and therefore at a stage in their lives when they were most likely to be supporting a family (Table 1).

Table 1: Socioeconomic characteristics of prickly pear traders and their households (n = 36)

Variable	Values*
Distribution of trader ages (years)	Proportion of traders (%)
<30	6
31–40	22
41–50	47
51–60	8
>60	17
Position of trader in household	Proportion of traders (%)
Head	47
Wife	25
Dependent single	6
Child	22
Highest education levels of trader	Proportion of traders (%)
None	8
Primary school (Grades 1–7)	67
Secondary school (Grades 8–10)	25
Household composition	Number of individuals (mean ± SE)
Average household size	4.9 ± 0.4
Number of adults	2.5 ± 0.2
Number of children	2.3 ± 0.3
Head of household	Proportion of traders (%)
Married male	55
Single female	42
Divorced male	3
Sources of income within trader's household	Proportion of traders (%)
At least one job	33
At least one pension	47
At least one child grant	47
At least one disability grant	11
No regular source of income	33
Household income class	Proportion of traders (%)
<R500 per month	8
R500–R1 000 per month	39
R1000–R2 000 per month	53
Occupation prior to commencing prickly pear trade	Proportion of traders (%)
Unemployed	31
Formal job	52
Self employed/trading	14
Attending school	3
*Some of the percentages in this table are not mutually exclusive and therefore add up to more than 100%.

Traders' education levels were generally low, with two-thirds (24 traders, or 67%) having attended primary school and only one-quarter (nine traders) secondary school. The remaining three traders (8%) had no education. Of those who had attended secondary school, none had obtained their school leaver's certificate. This low level of education is one of the legacies of apartheid (Fedderke et al., 2000) and can prevent the age group typified by the traders in this study from competing in the job market against a better educated younger generation. According to Baden & Milward (1995), gender strongly determines one's vulnerability to poverty, with women being more susceptible to falling into poverty and remaining entrapped in it. That a greater proportion of women turn to the prickly pear trade is therefore not surprising. Since most traders were women over 30, with relatively low levels of education and a family to care for, one can assume that they face numerous constraints associated with finding waged employment. The prickly pear trade (like several other petty trading activities) offers a chance to earn income in a way that requires relatively little skill and capital, and so is an attractive opportunity for this demographic group.

Almost half of the traders (17, or 47%) headed their households, while one-quarter (nine traders) were women married to the household head (Table 1). Of the former, just under half (15 traders or 42%) were single females. Traders were thus, in most cases, fulfilling a senior role in the household and had a number of dependants relying on them (Table 1). According to Glewwe & Hall (1998), female-headed households are often more likely to be economically unstable than male-headed ones. The fact that a large proportion of trading households fell into this vulnerable group suggests the importance of the trade to such marginalised groups.

Two-thirds of the trading households had some form of regular income. Approximately half of the traders (17, or 47%) received at least one pension per month, with the significance of these pensions highlighted by the fact that all households receiving a pension listed this as their most important income source (Table 1). This is typical for the Eastern Cape as one of South Africa's poorest provinces. Only a third of the households had members with formal jobs, indicating that unemployment was higher among the trading households in our sample (two-thirds of them unemployed) than the average for Makana of 49%. Of the households with jobs, only half stated that the job was the most important source of income, indicating that often the jobs that were available did not provide adequate income. A fairly high proportion (21, or 58%) of households received child (R170) or disability (R780) grants (Table 1). It is evident that social grants, as is the case for many in the province, are extremely important for this group of people. The prickly pear trade was seen as the most important source of income for only three respondents, with these households experiencing a high degree of income uncertainty. The trade can therefore be seen as a supplementary source of income for households with relatively few other sources of cash, as would be expected for such a seasonal resource.

Half of the trading households (53%) earned between R1000 and R2000 per month, with slightly fewer households (nine, or 39%) estimating their monthly income at R500 to R1000, and a minority earning less than R500 per month (Table 1). The mean total annual income of prickly pear trading households was R11 437 ± 822, falling roughly in the middle of the average income range for Makana (MDB, 2003). The mean monthly income of trading households (mean size 4.8 ± 0.4 individuals) fell below the minimum living level of R1871 for a household of 4.7 people (Bureau of Market Research, 2003).

The overriding reason for entering the trade was unemployment and the resultant increase in the financial pressures placed on the household. Prior to entering the trade, 19 of the traders (52%) had been involved in steady employment, including domestic, construction, gardening, municipal and farm work, while about a third (31%) had been unemployed (Table 1). The majority (30, or 83%) were without work at the time of entering the trade. Only a small number (five, or 14%) had traded other items prior to including prickly pear in their inventory. Ten of the respondents (275) enjoyed being self-employed, but would have preferred to sell goods that are easier to come by, because of the seasonal nature of prickly pear and the harsh conditions associated with collecting the resource. Five of them (14%) said that this was a good earning option, as the fruits were free. The remaining 21 (59%) would have preferred a regular job.

4.2 Characteristics of the prickly pear trade from harvesting to sales

4.2.1 Access to the resource

Fruit was collected from a number of sites in Makana Municipality and a few in the Fort Beaufort area. About two-thirds of the traders (24) traders harvested from private farms. The municipal farm, Tempe, was also an important harvesting site, with eight of the traders (28%) harvesting there. Other commonage areas were of minor importance, with only five (14%) collecting from these. Interestingly, traders living near Peddie and Fort Beaufort travelled to collect from sites either in or around Grahamstown – approximately one hour's travelling time – because of the abundance of harvesting sites in the area.

Given the high proportion of traders harvesting on private land, it is not surprising that almost half of the traders (13, or 47%) experienced some restrictions. Private farm owners often permit harvesting to take place only at certain times and on certain days. Collection fees are also often charged, with just over two-thirds (25, or 69%) of the traders paying fees. Despite this, most traders (32, or 89%) felt that access was not an issue and that if one paid the fee and abided by farm rules there were few problems. The four (11%) who felt access was difficult listed insufficient fruit and the unaccommodating attitude of farmers as constraints.

4.2.2 Harvesting procedures and patterns

All traders interviewed were involved in the collection and sale of the resource. Most of them (32, or 89%) collected in groups either with family members, friends and neighbours or other traders, to reduce transport costs and collection time. They collect the fruits by knocking them to the ground with a long stick with a wire hook on the end. They then sweep them clean of the tiny spines using a leafy branch and place them in 25-litre containers each holding approximately 20 kg of fruit. Collection is arduous, with several respondents mentioning that the spines were a problem, and in addition there was the danger of snakes. Six of the traders (21%) collected only green fruits, one collected only ripe fruits, and most of them (28, or 78%) collected both green and ripe fruits, to suit both types of customer preference. Traders commented that the quality (sweetness) of fruit was cyclical and depended on the amount of rain prior to the fruiting season.

The frequency and duration of collecting trips varied considerably (Table 2). Traders' collection patterns depended largely on where they lived. In this study they were therefore disaggregated into two groups, those who ‘harvested on selling days’ and those who ‘harvested on alternate days to selling’ (Table 2). These two groups were further disaggregated into those selling from town and those selling along the roadside. Roadside sellers collecting on selling days would usually collect for a few hours in the morning and sell for the remainder of the day, whereas those collecting on alternate days would spend the entire day collecting fruits and the next day selling. Township traders collecting on selling days would collect from the early morning until about midday when they would return and sell until as late as 20:00 hours, while those collecting on alternate days would spend most of one day collecting, and then sell for a portion of the next day. It became apparent that many door-to-door sellers preferred to sell in the evening when their customers were at home. This variability in labour time was compounded by the fact that some traders were more serious than others, with some selling only once a week, while others sold daily. This led to considerable variation in hours invested in the trade over the season (Table 3), the lowest being 30 hours and the highest being over 800 hours. This in turn resulted in highly variable incomes.

Table 2: Differences in collection and selling characteristics of traders selling in town and those selling alongside the road (mean ± SE)

Location	Hours spent selling per day (hours)	Duration of collecting trip (hours)	Frequency of collection per week (days)	Quantity of fruit collected (litres)
Roadside
Collect on selling days	7 ± 0.5	2 ± 0.3	4 ± 1.0	24 ± 4
Collect on alternate days to selling	7 ± 0.6	9 ± 0.9	1 ± 0.2	76 ± 9
Town
Collect on selling days	4 ± 0.9	7 ± 0.7	5 ± 0.8	29 ± 3
Collect on alternate days to selling	5 ± 0.4	7 ± 0.4	3 ± 0.1	91 ± 8

Table 3: Mean estimated gross and net incomes of traders and labour time spent trading prickly pear (mean ± SE)

Variable	Values
Incomes
Number of weeks spent selling per trader	9.7 ± 3.3
Gross income (R) per season per trader	1 469 ± 153
Costs (R) per season (transport, lunch, bags) per trader	675 ± 103
Net cash income (R) per season per trader	794 ± 83
Labour inputs per season per trader (hours)
Fruit collection	182 ± 27
Selling fruit	224 ± 19

4.2.3 Marketing

Prickly pear fruits are sold in a variety of settings including from home (six of the traders), door to door (17 traders), the roadside (nine traders) and in informal markets (two traders). As no formal markets exist, the place where traders choose to sell is determined largely by availability of customers and distance from home. There was no evidence of any kind of organisation among traders, which is possibly the reason why, at the time of the research, roadside sellers were disgruntled with the increase in the number of traders, which threatened their incomes.

Fruits are sold from January to mid-March, allowing traders about 11 weeks to trade. Selling prices are determined through discussion, with prices varying from group to group. At the time of the study, door-to-door sellers in Joza were charging between R5 and R6 for a five-litre container.4 Roadside sellers were flexible in their prices, with some charging R5, R10 or R15 for a similar sized container. Those who lived towards Peddie stated that they needed to charge more as their transport and collection costs were higher. Prickly pears are most often sold in plastic bags, using five-litre buckets to standardise amounts. These buckets weigh 3.4 kg when filled with fruit, each fruit weighing approximately 85 g. The average price per bucket was R6.20, giving a price per kilogram of R1.80.

Seventeen of the traders (47%) sold other items as well as prickly pear, such as firewood, other fruit, wild flowers and traditional medicines. Of those selling additional goods, most (23, or 63%) sold pineapple as the fruiting seasons for the two plants coincide. A couple living and working on a private farm along the road to Peddie sold protea flowers along with prickly pear. Of those who sold other items, 59% (21) did so over the entire year, with many being full-time hawkers. Three of the traders sold other items only after the prickly pear season had ended and 10 of them (29%) sold these only during the season.

4.3 What contribution is prickly pear making to livelihoods?

4.3.1 Costs incurred

Most costs incurred by traders were during harvesting and included collection fees (between R5 and R10), transport fees (on average R30 per trip) for those living beyond walking distance from harvesting sites, and plastic bags (30 cents). While some traders for various reasons had no costs (free access, ‘stealing’ fruits, living within walking distance of harvesting sites), others incurred high costs. Access to reasonably priced and reliable transport was a problem mentioned by about two-thirds of the traders (25, or 69%), with transport expenses accounting for the highest cost experienced by traders. A woman living and trading close to Fort Beaufort had costs exceeding R1700 for the season, largely because she harvested from a Grahamstown farm. Several traders mentioned that it would help considerably if the municipality could sponsor a vehicle to aid in harvesting. The average cost incurred was R675 ± 103 per trader, about 46% of income earned (Table 3).

4.3.2 Household incomes earned through trading

Incomes earned over the season from the sale of prickly pear were highly variable (Table 3), ranging from as little as R40 to as much as R3773 (Figure 1). This was related to the varying degrees of earnestness with which traders undertook the trade. A measure of this was the number of hours they were prepared to spend and, accordingly, those who devoted more hours to the trade earned more money (r ² = 0.23; p < 0.05). On average traders earned a net income of R844 ± 83 over the season (Table 3). Mean gross income per trader was R1467 ± 153. This contributed an average of 9.2% of total income, ranging from 0.22% to 32%. The trade contributed significantly more to lower income households as there was a negative correlation between the percentage contribution of the trade and mean annual household income (r = –0.62; p < 0.01). Thus, it would appear that poorer trading households have a greater need for the trade as they are more likely to have a shortage of other sources of cash. This corroborates the results from several studies which indicate that it is most often the poorest groups who accrue the greatest benefit from the use of natural resources (Byron & Arnold, 1999; Shackleton & Shackleton, 2006).

Figure 1: Distribution of net seasonal incomes (rands) earned by individual traders over the entire selling season

Although only three of the trading households listed the prickly pear trade as their most important source of income, the rest said that income generated from the trade was either important or very important to them. Approximately half of them said they used the income to buy food. Households with a regular source of income said the money helped when pensions or wages ran out, while those without regular income said this was all they had. A third of the households paid school fees and covered other school-related expenses from the sale of prickly pear. As Shackleton (2004) noted in a study on the livelihood benefits from marula (Sclerocarya birrea) beer sales, it is the time of year when trading occurs that gives the income elevated importance. Trading takes place immediately after the festive season and coincides with the beginning of a new school year – a time of increased financial pressure. The additional income, however small, eases this financial pressure.

Apart from the financial rewards, prickly pear provides a source of nutrition for trading households. All traders interviewed used prickly pear at home, using on average 1.5 litres of fruit a day. The fruits were mainly eaten fresh, although a quarter of the respondents made jam. A third of them had used the fruit to make beer in the past, although this practice appeared to be more prevalent in the Fort Beaufort area (Beinart & Wotshela, 2003). Other uses mentioned included for fodder and medicine, although none of the respondents had used the resource for these purposes. Traders believed that three-quarters of the households in the communities where they lived used prickly pear in some way, which indicates the popularity of the fruit and its nutritional benefits. It also became apparent that a form of cultural identity was attached to the prickly pear as rural people had grown up eating the fruits.

Thus, while incomes from prickly pear are modest and available only for a limited period, this activity does help a particularly vulnerable group of households to supplement their income at a time of year when the help is most needed. Collecting prickly pear is physically challenging (tiring, hot and unpleasant because of the tiny spines that easily become lodged in one's flesh); therefore the fact that people do it suggests that the cash must be sufficient incentive. Without this opportunity the trading households would be worse off.

4.3.3 Balancing the benefits of the trade with impacts at a higher scale

While individual households are benefiting from selling prickly pears, can these benefits at municipal and higher levels outweigh the costs associated with the negative environmental and economic impacts of such an IAS? While we were unsure of the precise number of traders in Makana Municipality, we estimated it to be about 90 to 100 (out of some 74 540 in total). At an average income of R1496 per household from trading this amounts to some R150 000 for the sector (this excludes many people involved in the neighbouring Fort Beaufort area – Beinart, 2008). This is a relatively insignificant amount in the bigger scheme of things, and is unlikely to outweigh the costs associated with prickly pear at district or national scale. However, when dealing with vulnerability and poverty there are moral as well as economic and ecological arguments at stake. Can we ignore the fact that a desperately poor group of people are obtaining supplementary cash, however small, from an IAS that is reportedly mainly under control and which, with some innovation, could potentially contribute more to income? This argument does not even begin to consider the contribution prickly pear makes to diet or the cultural value this species holds. We consider this issue further in the next two sections.

4.4 Resource availability and perceptions of sustainability

The majority of the traders perceived there to be an adequate supply of prickly pear. However, despite this perception, several findings from this study indicate potential hurdles to both the availability of and access to the resource in the future.

South African legislation, as discussed previously, requires the removal or control of IAS in the landscape (DEAT, 2009). Given that about two-thirds of the harvesting sites around Grahamstown are on private farmland and about a third on the municipal owned farm Tempe, and that these landowners are legally bound to control invasive species, the future availability of the resource remains uncertain. Furthermore, prickly pear population data collected from three harvesting sites in Makana Municipality shows that there were relatively few young plants at these sites (Figure 2). Given the relatively low number of juvenile plants, one would expect a gradual decline in the population of the plant over time (Bowers, 2005). A study by Bowers (2005) on the influence of climatic variability on the population dynamics of Opuntia engelmannii showed similar low levels of seedling recruitment (i.e. seedling growth), because of unfavourable climatic conditions, and noted that the ability of the species to reproduce vegetatively helped to maintain plant populations until favourable climatic conditions returned. While the influence of climate on prickly pear populations at the three surveyed sites cannot be ascertained from this study, it is highly probable that the impact of continuous fruit harvesting and biological control are contributing to a reduced level of recruitment. Thus, while the ability of prickly pear to reproduce vegetatively is likely to have a sustaining influence, the pressures presented by continuous harvesting and biological control could reduce plant numbers in the future (Griffith, 2004). This is supported by a study near Tidbury village, where three-quarters of interviewees believed that the abundance of prickly pear had decreased over the past 10 years as a result of biological control, while one-quarter perceived it to have remained static (Shackleton et al., 2007).

Figure 2: Size-class structure of populations of Opuntia ficus-indica at three harvesting sites within Makana Municipality

The possibility of cultivating prickly pear (should its legal status change – at present no species appearing on the invasive plant species may be propagated or grown) was mentioned to traders, but this was not met with a positive reaction. Only one of the respondents had attempted cultivation, with several commenting that they would not waste the land that they owned on prickly pear and that they worried about safety because of the plant's spines. Only eight of the respondents (28%) were aware of others in their area who had planted this species. As far as they could tell, these attempts at cultivation had been largely successful.

5. Conclusions

The contribution prickly pear makes to the livelihoods of trading households is highly variable and in most cases depends on the need for the income in the household and the degree of effort by traders. Lower income households were accruing the greatest benefits, largely because they had no other source of income. However, in most cases the income from the prickly pear trade made a supplementary contribution to annual household income, with the absolute monetary benefits being relatively modest. The importance of the trade to trader livelihoods should not, however, be undervalued, as it is evident that the income generated provides another option in a multiple livelihood portfolio that often includes government grants and other forms of self-employment. Thus, while the income from the trade is highly seasonal and marginal, its contribution to the livelihoods of trading households in most cases does relieve cash flow problems. Given the arduous nature of the harvesting, people would not undertake this activity unless it was worth their while.

With regard to the future of the trade, while the majority of traders perceived there to be adequate access to and availability of the resource, it is apparent from the study that access and availability could become a problem in the future. Since a large proportion of the favoured harvesting sites are on private land, access to the resource on these lands lies in the hands of the landowners and some, for security reasons, are becoming reluctant to let strangers onto their land. Furthermore, given the current legislation pertaining to the removal and control of IAS, these private landowners may be required by law to control the prickly pear plants on their land. The combination of these factors and the related bio-control programme makes future availability of the resource uncertain.

The fact that economically vulnerable people are using IAS to supplement their livelihoods demonstrates that such species can, in some cases, be a valuable commodity or at least play a role in poverty alleviation. In South Africa, a country that is aggressively seeking to remove all IAS from the landscape, this finding raises a number of ethical concerns (as outlined above). These concerns often relate to a specific context and species of invasive plant and cannot necessarily be generalised across all areas affected by IAS. However, the prickly pear story outlined here is just one example of an IAS that people are using to meet their livelihood needs; there are numerous others (Shackleton et al., 2007). The situation is thus clearly one in which not all IAS can be seen as uniformly ‘bad’, and one model does not fit all contexts (Pejchar & Mooney, 2009). Moreover, we need to be cautious about the political ecology of eradication and about who wins and who loses in the process (Beinart, 2008).

Evidence from the study described in this paper suggests that policy makers need to address these concerns and attempt to find a balance between removal of IAS because of their negative impacts on ecosystem services and the need to keep them, particularly where invasions are not expanding, because of their value as a resource and their role in reducing vulnerability. This presents an argument for a more nuanced approach that permits local exceptions, under specific conditions and in a carefully monitored environment, to national policy and regulations. Perhaps what is needed is greater flexibility in regulations to allow certain categories of IAS to be retained in situations where they have a contribution to make to local livelihoods, although, of course, this would need to be evaluated against any risks associated with not eradicating the species. Finding a balance between the benefits and disadvantages of IAS is complex (Pejchar & Mooney, 2009) and dependent on the characteristics of the species, the densities and extent of invasion, and local socioeconomic and cultural circumstances. Moreover, the direct benefits at one scale (local) must be assessed against the indirect impacts at higher scales (national). There will always be trade-offs, and all factors mentioned here would need careful consideration before decisions are taken. Certainly, more case studies that deal with the benefits of useful IAS at a local level and from a sociocultural perspective are required; it is incorrect to assume that harmful effects on ecosystem services automatically translate into universally negative effects on human well-being (Pejchar & Mooney, 2009; Beinart & Wotshela, in press).

Regarding the prickly pear trade in Makana, the first step forward would have to be taken at the municipal level. Communication between traders and the municipality needs to be promoted so that measures can be taken to ensure that there is a future for the prickly pear trade. Once this connection is made, Makana Municipality could act as a facilitator, possibly organising a ‘Prickly Pear Traders’ Committee' to work towards a further solution to the apparent conflict of interests and to promote new opportunities. At present, the use of prickly pear by communities in and around Makana is at a fairly basic level, with fruits harvested and sold in informal markets. The potential to expand the trade and further uplift the lives of traders is evident, with lack of organisation and capacity among traders, poor diversification of products, and limited external and municipal support being the main hurdles at present.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Rhodes University Joint Research Committee for funding and the traders for their cooperation during the study.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Kirby

now Consultant Ecologist at Mouchel Group Plc

Notes

¹No. 32090, 3 April 2009.

²See Section 70 of National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10. 2004.

³‘Xeric’ means adapted to arid conditions.

⁴2009/10 prices were R10 per bucket.