Mabibi baseline report | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Mabibibaseline

March-April2024

1.1OVERVIEW

Mabibiis a community of around 111 households, tucked into the coastal grasslands between

the northern edge of Lake Sibaya and the coastalduneforests. The community is divided

between the kwaZibi and kwaTembe Traditional Authorities and indunas for both TAs’ are

resident in the village.

It is accessible by road fromMbazwana andSodwana Bay. Mabibiresemblesvillagesoutside

the iSimangaliso WetlandParkmore closely, having access to a similar level of development

including electricity for the whole community, yard taps from a communal water scheme for

95% of households, a clinic and community hall. All households have sanitation arrangements

in the form of pit latrines and all households also practise rainwater harvesting, either by using

drums or roof harvesting into JoJo tanks. Most ofthe household yards are fenced and gardens

and ﬁelds are more prevalent and more extensive. There is no communal garden or cropping

area. A substantial number of livestock are in evidence(poultry, goats and cattle).

Touris miswell establishe d,int heMabib icampsite andtheTh ongalodge bothofwh ichhave

been in operation for long time, as well as a couple of homestay arrangements through

iSimangaliso and more recently the Wild Trust.

Fishing, coastal harvestingand use of reeds for building and craftis undertaken by around 50%

of the households. Around 80% ofhouseholds use the local forests for ﬁrewood (in addition to

having electricity) and building materials.

Unemployment, while still high is not as evident as in the northern villages inside the park.

Some community members are employed in the tourism industry, others undertake ﬁshing for

income generation (41%), remittances from family members arealso more evident(54%)and

around 41% of the community also undertake small businesses.Sale of farm produce for

income generation is undertaken by around 22% of the community. Employment is provided

through short term contracts primarily for youth by both iSimangaliso (EPWP and internships)

and the Wildtrust (internships and youth employment programmes) and has provided some

ﬁnancial support to roughly40households in the village. The ‘missing middle’ of adults

between theages of 38-60 years, who do not receive any grants makes up a signiﬁcant

proportion of this village(47% of adults).

Community members feel that the rules enforced by iSimangaliso are oppressive andunhappy

with the restrictions imposed on natural resource use and farming. Participants also voiced a

need to be consulted before decisions are made that a\ect them. They have requested

improvements in road infrastructure, more employment and a library in the community.

1.2SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

In the baseline survey undertaken by MDF and the WIldtrust hub sta\ and interns, 22 of the 111

households in the community were interviewed betweenMarch- April2024.

DEMOGRAPHICS

There is a larger percentage of female headed households (59%) than thenational average for

2022 of 45,7% female headed households in rural KZN. (StatsSA, 2022).The average household

size for the village is 5.5, compared to the national average of 3.4, with households ranging from

between 1-13 individuals. Large households are common in the village. All the households have

more adults than children, something that is quite unusual in rural KZN settings. Only around

10% of the population in the village arepensioners.

!"#$%&'(#)*#+,%-#$.%#/)/01+$2)"#2"#3+4242#2(#5%&6#(2'21+&#$)#$.%#+5%&+,%#7%'),&+/.28(#)*#

&0&+1#/)/01+$2)"(#2"#9)0$.#:*&28+;

Age group in years

StasSA %

kwaDapha %

0 -14

28,8

15-34

35,1

35-59

27,1

>60

The population of Mabibiis roughly610individuals living in 111households. There is also a

small but signiﬁcant group of individuals in the village su\ering from physical disability (around

30individuals)and mental disability (~5 individuals). Thesehouseholds live well below the

poverty line and are extremely vulnerable. Extra costs in terms of care and transport have to be

internalised by the households themselves, as a very small proportion of these households

actually receive disability grants.

1.3INCOMES AND LIVELIHOODS

<*#$.%#==#.)0(%.)17(#2"$%&52%>%7#?@#.)0(%.)17(#ABCDE#*+11#4%1)>#$.%#"+$2)"+1#/)5%&$6#12"%#

AF?@@CG')"$.G8+/2$+#2"8)'%E;#Percapita incomes range from R420 – R7 300 per month.

Percapita income

Percentageofhouseholds

<R1558/month

68%

<R800/month

45%

R800-R1100/ month

18%

R1200-R3000/month

23%

R3100-R7300/month

14%

Female headedhousehold average

R1 530

Male headed household average

R1 870

In Mabibi, unlike the more northern hub villages in the park, the average per capita income for

both female and male headed households are around or above the national poverty line with

male headed households earning around 18% higher incomes. 32% of the households in this

village earn a per capita income that is higher than the poverty line – which is signiﬁcantly

di\erent from the other two hub villages, where only 5% for Nkovukeni and 8% for kwaDapha fall

into this category.

In Mabibi the impact of the short term youth job creation processes on the household income is

lower due to alternative income streams for these households Only 1 of the households

interviewed relied solely on this income in addition to social grants for their livelihood. All other

households are engaged in some form of income generation (ﬁshing, farming, small businesses,

craft and remittances).

Sources of income are the following:

Source of income in order of frequency

Source of income in order of

importance/amount

Child grants

Employment

Remittances

Wildtrust contracts

iSimangaliso contracts

Pensions

Fishing

Small businesses

Fishing

Remittances

Reeds/craft

Pensions

Local farm produce

Reeds/craft

Wildtrust contracts

Local farm produce

Employment

Child grants

Income generation from use of natural resources such as ﬁshing and coastal harvesting (41%) is

common in the village.Those involved in contract ﬁshing and the tourism industry earn

signiﬁcantly higher incomes than those ﬁshing for food and ad hoc sale of surplus.Harvesting of

reeds and grass and making of craft is undertaken by around 36% of the households. In Mabibi

41% of the households also undertake a range of small businesses and local income generation

activities not related to natural resource use, unlike the two northern hub villages where

reliance on the natural resources for livelihoods is extremelyhigh.

H))7#(.)&$+,%(#+&%#&%+()"+416#8)'')"#2"#$.%#8)''0"2$6-#>2$.#@@D#)*#.)0(%.)17(#

(0I%&2",#*&)'#(%+()"+1#(.)&$+,%(#*)&#=JK#')"$.(#)*#$.%#6%+&;#Here around 14% of

households do not experience food shortages at all and no households indicated chronic food

shortages.

1.4AGRICULTURE

A reasonably wide rangeofagriculturalactivitiesareundertaken,includingdrylandcropping

within the household boundaries,gardening,fruit production,some poultry and goat husbandry

and cattle.

Activity

% of HH

Units

Comments

Household

dryland cropping

27%

200m2/household

Crops include mainly cassava, peanuts and sweet

potatoes, and gourds/pumpkins, as well as maize and

beans

Household

vegetable

production

18%

200m2/per

households

Crops include green peppers, onions, tomatoes, spinach,

beetroot and lettuce.

Fruit production

64%

1-4 trees per

household

Treesinclude mangoes,lemons, avocados, oranges,

guavasand some indigenous fruit including indigenous

fruit trees.

Poultry

41%

7 chickenson ave

Some households have a few traditional chickens, but

other have reasonably large ﬂocks of between 20-40

chickens, including a few layers and broilers.

Goats

4 goats

Goats roam freely, some homesteads have kraals but not

all.

Livestock

5 cattle

Cattle roam freely. Herders are employed. It is likely that

cattle ownership is in fact a lot higher than reported. It was

also mentioned that people from outside the village bring

their livestock to the area to graze, bolstering numbers

further.

Generally, more traditional, low external input farming practices are employed in the village.

Burning and ploughing are still undertaken, although at household level small patches of land

are cleared by hand to plant crops. Householders use small amounts of manure (cattle, goat

and chicken) to fertilize their soils. They irrigate by hand from available household water, and/or

individual boreholes, which tend to be quite salty.

Figure 1: Above clockwise. Two examples of homestead production layout, with self-constructed fences, patches of

crops such as green peppers and onions and fruit and indigenous trees dotted around. Also visible in the 1stpicture

are some poles for building resting against a tree, harvested locally as well as 200l drums for watering crops. The

picture above right shows also mangoes and orange trees- the latter showing signs of drought and lack of nutrients.

Destruction of crops and fruit harvests by wildlife is not common in this village. Constraints in

production are from lack of water, heat and extremely infertile soils.

1.5INFRASTRUCTURE

The table below summarises infrastructural considerations in Mabibivillage.

Infrastructure

type

Description

% HH

Comment

Fencing

Self-

constructed,

makeshift

77%

Fencing for household boundaries common in the village and those who

did not report fencing, did in fact have makeshift arrangements, but not

‘proper’ fencing.This is typical of rural communities with high numbers

of livestock.

Dwellings

Brick and

cement

100%

Usually between 1 and 3 times 2-4 room structures per homestead

Reed

14%

Usually 1-3 times 1-2 room structures per homestead. Some

homesteads only have reed dwellings(24%). Poorer households are

more likely to have the reed structures.

Energy

Electricity

100%

All households have Eskom electricity.

Solar, gas

candles

There is very little evidence of solar, gas or use of candles in this village.

Firewood

77%

Collected from forest patches nearest to each homestead. There are no

restrictions imposed by the community.Households still predominantly

use ﬁrewood for cooking, even with electricity supplied to their homes.

Sanitation

Pit latrines

100%

All households have pit latrines, some constructed by the households

themselves but most supplied through their local municipality.

Water

RWH-200l

drums

55%

Households generally have 200l drums and basins for RWH, - some

rooves are thatched and not easily conducive to rainwater harvesting

RWH 2400l

Jo-Jos

73%

Many households have at least on JoJo tank. 36% of households have

between 2-3 JoJo tanks.

Communal

borehole

100%

Peoplewith accesstothecommunalsystemhavetapsin theiryards,

with unrestricted access to water.

Own

borehole

Interviewees did not report having own boreholes, but it is expected that

at least a few households in the village have these.

Access

Roads

There are unpaved access roads, through neighbouring villages from

Sodwana.

Mabibi has seen a much higher level of infrastructure and services support from the local

government structures than the 2 other hub-site villages inside iSimangaliso WetlandPark,

evidenced through 100% coverage in terms of electricity, sanitation and household water

provision, as well as in the presence of a clinic, primary school, community hall and a number

of local shops/spazas in the village. Villagers are still concerned about the condition of their

access road, which is a very sandy track and not suitable for all vehicles.

Housing consists of both brick and reed dwellings, with the latter dominating in the poorer

homesteads. For these dwellings provision of gutters for rainwater harvesting would require

structural support.

1.6SOCIAL ORGANISATION

There is a local church group which provides a social safety net support to its members to which

around 16% of the community belongs and a local funeral insurance group (38%). A few

individuals have funeral policies with more formal institutions in Manguzi. A number of

individauls have also received training from a range of institutions in the past – including

conservation and ﬁsheries management, agricultural training and small business training.

1.7NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Due to the larger population in the area and reasonably high level of use of land-based natural

resources, environmental degradation in the area isevident. All households use ﬁrewood from

their local forest patches extensively. There is some erosion of pathways due to heavy livestock

tra\ic. A further assessment of stocking rates and livestock management would need to be

undertaken. The habit of burning to clear land is still common but can be managed through

information sharing and discussions. The marine and lake resources are however overused,

through extensive ﬁshing by the community, commercial ﬁshing concerns and the tourist

industry. Community members are aware of the reduction in ﬁsh stock as well as the reduction

in size of ﬁsh being caught.

Community members have an understanding of their impact on the environment. 64% of

respondentshowever, felt that their use of resources had no negative impact on their

environment. Despite this, 78% of respondents felt that nature needs to be protected to be able

to continue to provide resources and services for themselves and their children. This clearly

indicates an innate understanding of resources conservation and protection among the

community.They have felt the impact of climate change in the form of increased heat, more

heatwaves and weather variability, with more frequent and intense storms. Rainfall has been

similar, but more variable.

Relationships with the iSimangaliso MPA are strained. A recurring comment from community

members was that the rules imposed are restrictive and abusive and that control has been

heavy handed in the past. Throughout, a call for discussion with the iSimangaliso authorities

and better information provision from them was heard. Community members on the one hand

appreciate the protection of the natural environment, and on the other feel that nature is seen

as more important than people and that they are unable to make a living given the restrictions

on resource use. They appreciate the short -term job opportunities and food parcels as these

have been crucial given the constraints on other land use options in the area. Requests for

support have included more job-opportunities not just for youth, improvedroad access,RDP

houses anda library. There was also a request to lift the restrictions on Agriculture to allow

people to make a living from farming.

1.8RECOMMENDATIONS

Job opportunities for the age groups of 35-59 years need to be given priority as this is

also the group most reliant on natural resources in the area to survive and the main

breadwinners in these households.

Focus on improved agricultural practices for intensiﬁcation of household food

production is important.

Diversiﬁcation of agricultural activities to improve synergy between soil, water, plants

and animals in this system, to improve production and productivity

Signiﬁcant support with rainwater harvesting is crucial, especially for those households

which do not already have JoJo tanks.

Systems for improved water management and grey water management can relieve some

of water shortages at household level.

Takingthepressureo\theﬁshingandcoastalresourcesisapriority.

iSimangaliso to engage more constructively with the community in terms of information

provision, outlining rules and regulations and appreciation for the livelihoods’

constraints of the community members.