Country Name: South Africa
Author: Chief Ngangomblaba Matanzima

Chief Ngangomhlaba Matanzima recently addressed the East and Southern Africa Katoomba Group in Cape Town, South Africa. The Ecosystem Marketplace hears what he had to say.



I come from the deep rural areas of the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. When I was approached the first time to talk about payments for ecosystem services, I was somewhat concerned. I asked myself what does payments for ecosystem services mean? Scientists very often assume that people know what they talk about when they use all these scientific terms. However, before I decided to give the speech I had to find out what the term really means. To my surprise I realized it deals with a topic very close to my heart.

As you might have seen in my resume, I'm from the Eastern part of the Eastern Cape called Transkei, one of the homeland areas in apartheid South Africa. As a result of the racial policies of the time there were simply too many people on too little land in the Transkei. This led to massive degradation of natural resources in my beloved Eastern Cape region. Erosion dongas formed all over and we were in a downward spiral of degradation. Not because we didn't know better, but simply because there was nowhere to go. This has since changed and we are looking for opportunities to correct the wrongs of the past. Now I would like to come to your conference theme of how payments for ecosystem services can contribute to natural resource restoration and maintenance. From the outset I should stress that my speech will focus on rural areas. As Chairperson of the Provincial House of Traditional leaders in my province I have the responsibility to look after the interests of people in communal areas whose livelihoods largely depend on the use of natural resources.

When I then consider payments for ecosystem services from that context, I need to do it in a pro-poor manner. The benefits should therefore be broad-based and the poorest of the poor must be able to participate. Furthermore, one should consider it within the context of the unemployment rate in these rural areas. My province is one of the poorest in the country and unemployment, which is above the national average, is a major challenge.

The question therefore is: Can Payments for Ecosystem Services contribute to the livelihood options of these rural communities while at the same time restoring and ensuring the sustainable management and use of our natural resources?

To answer this question I would like to discuss it under the following headings. Firstly:

Water

Water Quality: The management of our river systems and catchment areas (or what our American colleagues would call watersheds) is critical to the sustainability of our rural areas. If we can give people living in the upper reaches of rivers an incentive to protect and maintain our watercourses and mountain catchment areas (or watersheds), society as a whole can benefit. My question is therefore: is there a way in which upstream communities can be remunerated for actively conserving our water resources by restoring and cleaning up riparian areas and mountain catchments?

Soil erosion: Near where I come from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is at this very moment busy with the dredging of siltation from a large storage reservoir. This costs water users millions of rands. This siltation took place as a result of the over population that I've referred to earlier. However re-vegetating these dongas cost money. It's not because of the actions of the current generation that these dongas formed. Therefore, can we expect them to restore the donga/correct the wrongs of the past, without being given the credit for it, in whatever form? By restoring these dongas we'll be improving the yield and increasing the lifespan of the reservoir.

If we therefore consider paying deep rural communities for these kinds of ecosystem services we will improve the livelihood options in these areas not only through the creation of some employment opportunities in the restoration and maintenance process but we will also improve the productive potential of the land which in turn will contribute to the livelihood options. It makes perfect economic sense doesn't it?

Water Quantity: I think the best example of payments for ecosystem services when it comes to water quantity (at least in South Africa) is most probably our well-known Working for Water Programme. I'm told that invasive alien trees like Eucalyptus (Blue Gums) and Pine trees in riparian areas use between 5,000 and 11,000 cubic meters (a thousand litres) of water per hectare per year. This water can be used for other purposes such as mining etc. I believe a presentation on this topic will be given at the conference. Working for Water has already created the platform, it just needs to be developed further.

Water Retention: Another opportunity lies in the restoration of wetlands (marshlands). This ecosystem service in my opinion is very closely linked to the erosion that I've discussed earlier. These wetlands slow down our high flows and allow water to seep in only to be released later during the dry season. Again South Africa has established the Working for Wetlands programme. However these programmes must be extended to include not only restoration but also long-term maintenance and protection. Again, water is "worth" much more during the dry than the wet season. We need to protect our water resources and again the question arises - who's responsible? Downstream water users benefit, but the upstream land users/communities are tasked to protect the areas. It can be done but then these upstream communities must benefit from the actions. This is where "your payments for ecosystem services come in."

To conclude then I'm somewhat concerned about the potential for the development of a market for water related ecosystem services in Africa. South Africa has a relatively well-developed economy, but some of our neighbours don't have the novelty of a well-developed industrial sector etc. In their case, who is going to buy these services in order to improve the livelihoods of our rural communities? Lesotho might be lucky; the bulk of the water used in the Gauteng economic centre comes from the Maluti-Drakensberg. To a smaller extent it also applies to Swaziland, but what about our downstream in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia?

Now I'm entering a field that is not that well known to me.

The Carbon Market

I'm told that big international companies are prepared to pay for carbon sequestration by restoring woodlands and forests. Again paying people to restore forest areas won't only hold benefits to the buyer of the service, but to the communities themselves. Firstly it will increase the productive potential of the forest but in my opinion more importantly it will reduce the risks of fires. As you know large parts of Africa are fire prone, from the Fynbos in the Western Cape, to the highveld and mountain grasslands to the savannahs. However healthy forests don't burn as easily as the other veld types. But, once forests become degraded grass patches start forming and soon your forest starts burning. As I've said, by restoring these forests we don't only store carbon we also reduce fires and the risks it holds for rural livelihoods.

What I am a bit concerned about is the transaction costs of all these payments for ecosystem services. We've got to be so careful not to give pro-poor payments lip service while the rich capitalize on the market through transactions costs etc.

I want to stay with carbon and pose the question. Are we not able to store carbon by protecting grasslands through the reduction of fires? Should research not be done in this field to see if we cannot improve veld and forest fire management in our rural areas? I would like to challenge the meeting to look into the possibility. It will not only have a positive effect on the climate in the long-term but will also improve the productive potential of grazing, reduce erosion and improve natural diversity.

We also need to deal with bush encroachment. How does bush encroachment influence ecosystem services. It increases carbon, while it decreases productive (grazing) potential of the land. Can the restoration of encroached areas possibly contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity? I believe it can. Can it possibly be used in a clean development/carbon neutral project? It is for groups like Katoomba to advise decision makers on issues like these.

Biodiversity

I would like to suggest that I use a simpler term for biodiversity. Allow me to call it natural diversity. If you think about it, it's pretty much the same thing. For the purposes of natural resource management in deep rural areas I think we can focus on the variety of ecosystem processes as well as a variety of species, as they influence rural people directly.

Allow me to refer to the impact of fire again. To me it is the most destructive ecosystem process that has its benefits, but also has the potential to be incredibly destructive. Can payments for ecosystem services contribute to improved fire management regimes in Africa and other parts of the world? Changing the way our people graze the land and use fire management can improve the species diversity substantially. There is no doubt in my mind that it will improve biodiversity. Does a change in land management practices qualify for payments for ecosystem services?

Obviously, if the natural diversity of an area improves it will enhance the natural beauty and attractiveness of the area. The question then arises: who would be prepared to pay for such a service? What springs to mind immediately is the tourism industry. Every night we stay in hotels in South Africa a small tourism levy is being added to our bill. Therefore, is there not a possibility that we can generate funds through such payments and create a biodiversity trust that will pay rural communities for the restoration and maintenance of our natural resources? An added benefit of such an approach is the fact that it will instill an understanding, appreciation and value of biodiversity amongst rural communities. This will enhance sustainability of natural resource management in rural areas because communities will understand the value of it.

I've asked more questions than I've given answers, but if we can answer these questions I definitely think there is potential for the development of a water, carbon and biodiversity market while improving the livelihood options for rural people substantially. I would like to invite you to engage with rural communities around these issues but come with an open and transparent agenda, and we will only be too happy to facilitate the processes.

In closing my contribution, may I quote a Swahili proverb, "Do not borrow off the earth for the earth will require its own back with interest."

Time is a luxury we do not possess.

Thank You.

First published: November 28, 2006

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.