Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Years
2019 2020 2021 2024
Previous Archive
02 December 2019 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Solomon read more
Poverty in the Thabo Mofutsanyana District (the poorest district in the Free State province) has implications for both the mountain environment and the people in the area. Pictured here is Prof Geofrey Mukwada, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography on the UFS Qwaqwa Campus, also affiliated to the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU).

Poverty, defined by Statistics South Africa as earning less than R300 a month, is a reality that many mountain communities struggle with.

Prof Geofrey Mukwada, Associate Professor in the Department of Geography on the UFS Qwaqwa Campus, also affiliated to the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU), published a number of articles on the mountain population in the Thabo Mofutsanyana District (the poorest district in the Free State province). In a research paper with postgraduate student Solomon Zondo, he specifically focuses on the value-chain analysis of the Witsieshoek conservation area and its environment. 

They looked at the inter-relationship between nature and the rural population and how the environment has changed as a result. For this largely poor community, the income generated from natural resources is an important source of livelihood. 

To earn a living, the community is pursuing several ways to generate an income. This has implications for both the mountain environment and the people in the area. 

Impacting the environment

Whether it is mining for sandstone, herding cattle or selling medicinal plants, all these activities have an ecological and socio-economic impact. 

A large percentage of the population in the Witsieshoek Community Conservation Area derives their income from livestock grazing. Cattle herding often leads to overgrazing – which results in soil erosion in the long term, preventing water from draining into the ground and depriving plants from much-needed moisture. Connected to the excessive removal of indigenous plants, is the spread of invasive species. As invasive trees and vegetation gulp up water, the severe impact of drought in the area is increasing.

Harvesting and selling medicinal plants to generate income for a sustainable livelihood also affect the surrounding environment. The mostly elderly ladies harvest and sell, among others, Arum lily and Pineapple lily for their medicinal properties and ornamental use. Harvesting these plants adds to the spread of invasive species, as they push away indigenous plants.

Small sandstone mining operations are another means to earn a living. Neither the customer, locally or outside the Witsieshoek area, nor the supplier, usually from Witsieshoek, is held accountable for the degradation of the environment. Careless mining not only results in a decline in ecosystem health, with scree from sandstone cutting littering the rangelands and the finer particles causing silt in rivers and dams (damaging any equipment used to extract water from rivers and dams); it also spoils pastures which locals depend on for their livelihood. 

Even with the 15% increase in tourism (2016), a living through the holiday industry is not always keeping the wolf from the door. According to Prof Mukwada, many literature sources have shown that tourism may fail to reduce poverty. During a study, respondents interviewed in the Clarens area indicated that they only receive wages during the busy months of the year (approximately 4–6 months). Many of the workers in Clarens and the Golden Gate Highlands National Park do not have easy access to chain stores, but only to small grocery stores where goods are much more expensive. Travelling to a town where they will pay less for groceries is costly, making it difficult to have the same standard of living as workers elsewhere.

“With the current situation, water insecurity is likely to worsen,” says Prof Mukwada.

Coming up with solutions

Is it possible to look for alternative livelihood sources? It is not easy to come up with simple solutions to the challenges. As Prof Mukwada explained, what might be a solution to one problem could have negative implications on another front. “One needs an integrated approach,” he says. 

In terms of tourism, one could consider training the locals in tourism-related skills, adequately equipping them with skills to increase their value. “Develop tourism that is inclusive and will benefit low-income earners who cannot invest in hotels and restaurants,” Prof Mukwada adds. 

And with a large number of people earning their income from herding, one can suggest that nearby, flatter land is made available to resettle communities, thus providing an alternative area for grazing. In flatter areas there is also less erosion. It is, however, key to determine whether the communities would be prepared to move to a new area.

Having a voice

He also believes that good relationships between industry, government, and the community are important to make a positive difference in the area. A platform is needed where the people’s limited voice will be heard in policy making. 

“The most effective way to find a solution is to listen to the people in the community. Give people the information and find out from them which of these options are possible within their local context. And do not prescribe. One needs to understand the community and its values,” he adds.

When there is understanding between the different role players and when the community has a voice, the park resources, if managed properly, have a chance to provide long-term sustainable benefits to the people of the area. 

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept