|
Summary
The concept of livelihoods is not new in Lesotho, whose people have been pursuing multiple livelihood
strategies for a century or more. Since the 1970s, analysts have increasingly appreciated the diversity and
interdependence of these strategies, and the ways in which the economic, social, cultural and political
dimensions of life in Lesotho are linked. Nevertheless, the emerging paradigm of livelihoods as a framework
for development understanding and action can usefully sharpen our perspective on the challenges that
Basotho face, and the ways in which outsiders can help them to tackle those challenges.
Following the two seminal poverty mapping studies undertaken by Sechaba Consultants earlier in the 1990s,
CARE Lesotho therefore worked with Sechaba to undertake a national survey of poverty and livelihoods in Lesotho in 1999-2000. Phase I, undertaken by Sechaba, was intended as a successor to the 1991 and 1994
poverty studies. Phase II, designed by CARE and executed jointly by CARE and Sechaba, was intended to
explore and explain the character and prospects of livelihoods in Lesotho. This synthesis report outlines the
findings of both phases with regard to Basotho livelihoods.
The study is guided by another emerging view of life in Lesotho. As in many other countries, it has been
conventional to see Basotho as victims of poverty who need outsiders’ support in trying to better their lot. A
more accurate view is that Basotho are ingenious and resilient and have achieved a substantial amount in
raising their standard of living despite doubling their population since independence in 1966. These
achievements are impressive in view of the deteriorating regional economic climate and the parlous state of
the nation’s natural resource base. The participatory approach of the livelihoods paradigm gives the lead to
local people in analysing and explaining their circumstances, and facilitates their choices about how to
enhance them. It resonates well with this more assertive view of Basotho’s capabilities and achievements.
Two key imperatives guide the structure of this report. First, that, it should give prominence
to the views of Basotho themselves about their livelihoods.
Secondly, that it should focus on the practical concerns of
policy for the sustainable development of Lesotho.
The report is therefore divided into two parts.
After an introductory outline of the livelihoods perspective (section 2), Part I focuses on the
key content of a study of livelihoods in Lesotho. First, it outlines how Basotho see livelihoods
(section 3), drawing on the many statements by local people that were recorded
during Phases I and II of the survey. Secondly, in section 4, it places these perspectives
on Lesotho livelihoods in the broader national context, by outlining a number of key issues
and trends in economy and society. Thirdly (section 5), it identifies the key policy implications
and recommendations that arise from this study. Those with no time to read further will gain a
full view of the survey’s key findings and recommendations from Part I of the report.
HIV/AIDS now poses a very grave threat to Basotho livelihoods. Over the coming decades it will
dangerously weaken the social and economic fabric of the nation. The AIDS catastrophe is one reason why
the traditional equity and social interdependence of Basotho livelihoods are now at risk. The ratio between
those who must exploit these social networks and those who are able to provide support to them may tilt
catastrophically into deficit.
Meanwhile, Basotho’s outlines and analyses of their livelihoods continue to give more emphasis to
agriculture than is warranted by the economic facts. The only way to farm economically is with minimum
external inputs and with minimal, but sometimes positive, net returns. It is a long time since agriculture was
truly the backbone of Lesotho. But it still plays an important role in the livelihoods of the poor. Better off
Basotho still seem to assert the importance of the land in their livelihoods by investing in farm inputs and
implements – and generally losing money in the process.
Much of the burgeoning small enterprise sector in Lesotho operates on the margins of legality and/or
morality. In addition to street vending, small workshops and other such enterprises, Basotho are
exploiting the cash economy vigorously through the brewing and sale of alcohol, the widespread production and
marketing of dagga (marijuana) and casual and professional sex work. But although these are some of the
ways in which Basotho have managed to keep their livelihoods afloat, they also contribute directly to the
weakening of the national social fabric and to the steady rise in social pathologies such as violent crime and
the abuse of women and children. While stock theft is an ancient tradition in southern Africa, it has reached
crisis proportions in Lesotho, devastating many rural livelihoods overnight. Bringing it under control is a
national priority. These social pathologies are also often linked to HIV/AIDS. Bringing that under control is
the most urgent priority of all.
Like the preceding poverty studies, this study shows the continuing concentration of
deep poverty in the remote mountain areas, where conditions contrast sharply with the
growing economic vibrancy of the lowlands, the foothills and above all the urban areas.
Much development support should continue to focus on helping Basotho assure basic livelihood
needs in the remote mountains. Indeed, the overarching paradigm for development strategy in Lesotho
should be the dual one of directly strengthening safety nets in these poorest regions while
focusing on the indirect enhancement of enabling frameworks for Basotho enterprise
in the more promising areas.
Unlike the preceding studies, however, this review emphasises a new kind of poverty in Lesotho.
On many indicators, this is now the worst poverty of all. It is the poverty of those at the bottom
of the livelihoods
profile in urban areas. Much more needs to be done to understand the plight of the poorest Basotho
in and around the towns, and to find ways of helping them achieve an acceptable economic and social standard of
living. Basotho have rarely known economic or social destitution. But it threatens some of them now in the
rapidly expanding urban areas.
The livelihood problems revealed by this study reflect the vulnerability context of Basotho livelihoods.
Overall, these are the problems of livelihoods in which good health cannot yet be taken for granted, owing to
the prevalent standard of living and level of health services. They are the problems of livelihoods that are
seeking to engage with and depend upon the formal sector economy, but are very poorly equipped to do so.
Moreover, it is a highly competitive economy with far too few opportunities for the number of Basotho
seeking to exploit them. Many households are dangerously dependent on a single breadwinner, whose death
or retrenchment may be a blow from which they cannot recover. These are also the problems of a society
beset by increasing criminality. Finally, they are the problems of livelihoods that continue to depend in part
on agriculture and a natural resource base whose condition is deteriorating. The inadequacy of a farming
livelihood is particularly notable among the very poor, who commonly lack the means of agricultural
production but have few economic alternatives.
In the rural areas, agriculture remains a prominent livelihood strategy across all economic strata. But many
of the very poor must engage in sharecropping their own or others’ land, or (typically in the case of old
widows) rent out their land to economically stronger households. At the other end of the scale, we find the
better off households commonly involved in the sale of crops, wool and mohair. Some are also able to make
money by renting out their agricultural equipment. The most lucrative cash crop of all, dagga, shows up in
the livelihood strategies of the whole spectrum of rural households. Legalisation of the herb in South Africa
could be catastrophic for Lesotho livelihoods.
Urban participants in this survey seemed to be able to name very few livelihood strategies for the very
poor. By contrast, the very poor in rural areas can engage in a number of livelihood strategies that will
usually preserve them from complete destitution. Many of these strategies exploit the social capital and
networks that still reinforce Lesotho society. Their sustainability depends on the continuing integrity of
Lesotho’s social fabric – which is far from assured.
Basotho who participated in this study ranked female headed households in the poorer livelihood categories
much more often than the overall average. But the livelihood status of female headed Basotho households is
mixed. Those headed de facto by women actually show a higher cash income per member than male headed
households. This is because so many of these households can profit from the wage income of absent
husbands. On the contrary, households headed de jure by women form the poorest class of livelihoods in
Lesotho. These are usually households headed by ageing widows who have lost many of the human and
material assets that they enjoyed in their younger days and who may find it hard to secure any cash income at
all. In the rural areas, these are often the households that suffer the deepest poverty. The question for the de
facto female headed households is whether their current comparative prosperity, usually grounded in the
wage earnings of absent husbands, will be sustainable in the changing livelihood context of the coming
decades.
Overall, Basotho are now able to assure little of their household food security from their own agricultural
production. The proportion of households who can reach FAO cereal self sufficiency standards is now very
small. Female headed households are less assured of food security than male headed ones, but the differences
between them are modest.
Poor health remains one of the principal stresses on the livelihoods of the poor. The reported incidence of
disease is the same in the lowlands and foothills as it is in urban areas, but is somewhat higher in the
mountains. The poor report more illness than the better off, with the gradient particularly steep in the urban
areas. There have been significant improvements in water and sanitation conditions during the 1990s, but
one fifth of Basotho households must still use unsafe water sources and over half still have no kind of toilet.
De jure female headed households are the worst provided with sanitation facilities.
Basotho have managed to increase their exposure to education during the 1990s. But the poorest households
have achieved the smallest increase in their levels of educational contact. Male headed households have been
considerably more successful in getting their children to school then female headed households, particularly
those with de facto female heads.
Reflecting on the multifaceted character of Basotho livelihoods, it is tempting to propose recommendations
that are equally multifaceted, covering virtually all known sectors as well as the broader macro-economic
and political issues that shape the context in which people live. The report on Phase I of this study took such
an approach. Rather than repeating the arguments made in the Phase I report - as valid as they may be – we
choose in this synthesis report to take a more strategic view. We suggest that the sets of
recommendations in the Phase I report and in this report be treated as complementary.
Lesotho’s highest social and development priority must be achieving a coordinated and effective
response to HIV/AIDS. All the recommendations we make below must assume that this highest priority is
being addressed.
Our strategic view of livelihoods in Lesotho identifies several key areas of intervention. The first
concerns democracy, governance and rights. Secondly, and still centrally important in Basotho’s view of
their livelihoods, is the rural natural resource sector, and the livelihood activities it comprises. Thirdly,
policy needs to find ways to help Basotho optimise the flexibility, creativity and responsiveness of their
multiple livelihood strategies, often linking back into agriculture but spreading into many different income-
generating sub sectors – many in the urban and peri-urban areas. A fourth, related area of intervention
concerns facilitation of mutually beneficial livelihood links with the South African economy. Finally, our
strategic view proposes a different kind of policy imperative: the provision of safety nets, or livelihood
protection, for the significant sector of Basotho society who are so crippled by poverty or other
circumstances that they have no prospect of getting ahead.
Based on this strategic view of livelihoods, we go on to propose a strategic vision to guide the design of
development policy in Lesotho. This vision combines two forms of support. For much of the nation, the
best mode of support is facilitation of Basotho’s own efforts to enhance their livelihoods in a number of
spheres. Secondly, it remains important to provide safety nets as more direct livelihood protection for those
who are afflicted by deep poverty, whose vulnerability context is overwhelming, or whose broader livelihood
context is predominantly hostile. Transcending most of the areas of development facilitation that we identify
is a primary strategic thrust: helping Basotho to redefine ‘work’ and successful livelihoods.
While most development projects over the decades have had little or no success in contributing to sustainable
development in Lesotho, Basotho have been getting ahead in whatever way they could. They will continue to
do so. But there are many ways in which their path can be made smoother, by the removal of obstacles and
constraints and by the development of human resources. Our strategic view suggests key areas in which
such targeted facilitation is needed: in the fields of governance; agriculture and natural resources;
enhanced interaction with South Africa; and the overall promotion of capability and flexibility in the
pursuit of multiple livelihood strategies. In the lowlands of Lesotho, and in the urban and peri-urban areas
that are so rapidly spreading across them, Basotho do not need much conventional development help from
outside. Instead, they need facilitation, to enhance the legal, economic, social and institutional frameworks
within which they try to better their lives.
A special kind of facilitation concerns the redefinition of ‘work’ and successful livelihoods. Basotho need
to be helped in abandoning concepts of formal sector wage employment as the necessary foundation of a
viable livelihood. There are many signs of change in this direction, as this study shows. But the survey also
reveals how much Basotho continue to look to wage employment and the provision of outside assistance as
the most likely ways out of poverty. Strategic areas of facilitation that we recommend in this regard
include fundamental changes to educational value systems, curricula and institutions; the enhancement
of access to credit and essential services such as electricity and water; and intensified efforts to ease
marketing constraints.
We also identify a number of more direct, safety net interventions. These include a targeted pension
scheme; programmes to support those affected or infected by HIV/AIDS, in particular AIDS orphans;
support for NGOs working with the destitute; programmes to address the energy needs of the poor; the
facilitation of sharecropping; continued efforts to enhance infrastructure and services in the most
impoverished areas; renewed attention to the basics of sustainable and profitable crop and livestock
production; school feeding programmes; and the maintenance and upgrading of health and nutritional
surveillance systems.
The report urges caution with regard to adjustments to Lesotho’s land tenure system. Great care must be
taken to preserve the equity of access which households currently enjoy. Where it is not possible to provide
land for crop production, efforts should concentrate on stimulating or facilitating sharecropping
arrangements that are beneficial to the poor.
The facilitation of sustainable agricultural development efforts by Basotho must remain central to
development strategies in this country. Support for basic food production, in particular in home gardens, has
an important role to play in safety net strategies too.
There can be no quick fix for agriculture in this country, but a number of technical ideas would reward more
committed attention in government and donor programmes. Some work has already been done on all of
them. They include the integration of soil and water conservation with enhanced crop production; the
reclamation of limited areas of degraded land, such as dongas, for intensive food production; zero
grazing systems; and mixed and low external input cropping practices, in particular the indigenous
Machobane farming system.
Overarching these technical ideas for agriculture are three strategic considerations. The first is that things
are likely to get worse in the Lesotho economy before they get better. It is therefore essential that the nation
maintain the advisory services and infrastructure necessary to support a likely future revival of interest in
agriculture; and that it facilitate the creative agricultural experimentation already being undertaken by some
Basotho. Although much of the future of Lesotho is urban and peri-urban, Basotho will need all the
agricultural and horticultural ideas they can get in the years to come.
The second strategic consideration concerns another kind of redefining. We have spoken of the need to
redefine work. Linked to this, as we have pointed out, is the need to redefine learning. In agriculture, this
means the adoption of radically different extension strategies, such as the experiential learning methods
being promoted by CARE. These strategies facilitate creative experimentation and the sharing of ideas by
and among Basotho, rather than the conventional transfer of technical knowledge from extension worker to
farmer.
Thirdly, there is an urgent need to assess the likely impacts of HIV/AIDS on Lesotho agriculture. How far
will current or alternative production practices remain feasible as people are incapacitated and die?
As with agriculture, there is considerable policy and donor fatigue with regard to local government in
Lesotho. But effective local government – and thus effective natural resource management – remain
critically important for stronger and sustainable livelihoods in this country. Our strategic recommendation is
that government, NGOs and external agencies all commit themselves afresh to providing the capacity
building and logistical support that local institutions need to perform effectively.
Only if local institutions are reinforced and developed in this way will there be a prospect of sustainable,
community-based natural resource management in Lesotho. We recommend an integrated effort by the
Ministries of Agriculture and Local Government to empower Village Development Councils (or the bodies
that may succeed them under the Local Government Act, 1997) for their central role in coordinating range
management, forest management, land administration and local land use planning. To be effective, such
measures must be linked to the enhancement of rural security.
We go on to make more detailed strategic recommendations for the urban and rural sectors in Lesotho.
We conclude our recommendations by looking at regional policy for Lesotho, taking into account:
- the increasingly urban or peri-urban character of many Lesotho livelihoods;
- the continuing gravity of poverty in the remoter mountain areas;
- a new kind of poverty that is emerging in the (peri) urban areas. On many indicators used in this study, the poorest livelihood category in these areas is worse off than any other group in the country.
This poses new challenges for welfare support and development policy;
- the decreasing relevance of the conventional division of Lesotho into four agro-ecological zones.
In addition to the lowlands/foothills and the mountains, the third major zone of the country is now
the urban and peri-urban sector.
The strategic regional vision proposed in this study builds on the established recognition of severe poverty
in remote mountain areas, but proposes a slightly more differentiated spatial view of development challenges
and strategies:
- much of the safety net work that the nation needs should continue to be focused in the remote mountains;
- a new kind of safety net provision also needs to be designed and delivered in the urban areas, particularly Maseru;
- broadly speaking, facilitation strategies (including those for land, agriculture and natural resources) should focus on the western and northern lowlands and foothills, from Quthing to Butha-Buthe;
- however, nodes and regions of growth should also be identified and promoted in mountain areas. These include zones affected by the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (which ironically also need some specialised safety net provision) and mountain growth points like Semonkong,
Mapholaneng and Mphaki. These nodes and regions should be the targets of the rural livelihood facilitation initiatives that the study identifies.
|
|
- 945Kb ~ 5 min (115 pages)
