The relative roles of ecosystem services and disservices in rural livelihoods in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report there has been a marked increase in research into various aspects of ecosystem services (ES). While ES are essential to human wellbeing, the literature has overlooked that some ecosystem goods and services also undermine human wellbeing. These are known as Ecosystem Disservices (EDS). This study aims to counter this imbalance in research, specifically in the context of rural livelihoods which are frequently dependent on local ES but often ill-equipped to manage EDS. The objectives of this study, conducted in three rural villages along a gradient of habitat diversity, were to identify a range of ES and EDS, determine their perceived contributions to or effects on the wellbeing of respondents, and identify modifications in livelihood strategies in response to EDS. The research made use of household surveys in conjunction with participatory learning and action techniques, such as focus group discussions in which ranking and trendline exercises, timelines, and participatory mapping were conducted. Findings indicated that although numerous participants were involved in the harvest of multiple ES, such as Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), livestock outputs, crops and marine wildlife, they simultaneously experienced losses from EDS, such as ticks, unpalatable grass species, monkeys, and Lantana camara invasion which undermined livelihoods to varying degrees. The role of ES and EDS in livelihoods was expressed in economic terms, representing a common framework with which to illustrate the magnitude of their contribution or loss. For example, the average value of livestock goods and services, amongst those who owned and used outputs, was highest in the least biodiverse village at R9 753 per annum, while the corresponding value of potential livestock goods and services lost due to EDS, despite active implementation of prevention measures, totalled R22 426. Further, the average value of cultivated plots in the most biodiverse village could have totalled approximately R20 958, but because of EDS, represented less than 20% of this value. Further, the findings highlighted that the most biodiverse village also had the highest number of EDS, supporting Dunn (2010) who hypothesised that the number of EDS increases with the number of ES. Based on these findings, I propose that a comprehensive framework which systematically contextualises both the positive and negative contributions of ES is needed to grasp the full picture of how local people conceive and engage with nature to facilitate an understanding of the resulting practices and processes