Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation

Rachel Wynberg 61

One of the main effects of CITES has been a decline in market demand,

but it has also given renewed impetus to domestication and cultivation efforts,

stemming from the perceptions created of an endangered resource. Although

Appendix II allows for ‘controlled trade’ in a species rather than imposing an

outright ban, successful listing will undoubtedly affect trade from the wild—and

thus the livelihoods of thousands of harvesters dependent on the resource for

income. Including Harpagophytum on Appendix II, it is argued, will shift the

market towards preferring a cultivated product over one that is wild harvested,

and thus an environment that favours agribusiness and commercial farmers

over and above marginalised small farmers and local livelihoods (CRIAA SA-DC

2000a). A major concern in this regard is the role played by South Africa in

successfully cultivating Harpagophytum and its potential, as a highly developed

agricultural economy, to completely usurp production of devil’s claw in the

region and make wild harvesting redundant (Cole and du Plessis 2001). Planned

cultivation projects outside of range states present a similar threat for harvesting

communities and national economies in southern Africa.

What are the inputs required for cultivation and how might these restrict

the involvement of small farmers and marginalized people in these activities?

Although specific information is difficult to come by, irrigation is an essential

requirement for devil’s claw cultivation, estimated by some to be 6 liters of

water per plant per week (Powell and Moolman 1999). Such requirements are

clearly an impediment for marginalized communities in remote settlements,

few of which have access to potable water let alone sufficient quantities for

irrigation. Also pertinent is the question of the willingness and ability of

communities to engage in devil’s claw cultivation and the importance of (often

nonexistent) extension services to support such activities (Matlhare 1994). The

reality of the situation, borne out by the majority of experiences and by the

stated interest of commercial farmers, is that cultivation of devil’s claw is most

likely to be pursued by economically privileged farmers with ready access to

water, land, transport and knowledge.

This notwithstanding, many of those engaged in the devil’s claw trade in

southern Africa see cultivation as an inevitability that should be controlled and

turned to their best advantage, rather than an activity that should be prohibited

on the basis of its social impacts. The issue is obviously not cut and dry, nor the

potential impacts. Although often touted as a solution to unsustainable use,

Harpagophytum cultivation brings with it its own set of environmental problems,

notably those associated with soil erosion, land clearing, increased salinity and

genetic uniformity. Strict controls on cultivation, such as those introduced

recently by the Namibian government, clearly require widespread monitoring,

adherence and application throughout the region.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF DEVIL’S CLAW PRODUCTION

Devil’s claw production in southern Africa takes place in some of the most

inhospitable and arid parts of the region, considered marginal for conventional

agricultural production and suitable mostly for grazing. Livelihood options are

thus extremely limited, and devil’s claw extraction is a highly important survival

strategy for the poor. Indeed, the 9,000 or so devil’s claw harvesters represent

04devilcslaw.P65 61 22/12/2004, 11:04