WRC-CCA Final Report

Download PDF
Cover page
ii
Climate Change Adaptation for
Smallholder farmers in South
Africa: An implementation and
decisionsupport guide
E Kruger, MC Dlamini, T Mathebula, P Ngcobo, BT Maimela & L Sisitka
Report to the
Water Research Commission
by
Mahlathini Development Foundation
Report is submitted as one of a set for “Climate Change Adaptation for Smallholder farmers
in South Africa: An implementation and decision support guide
WRC Report No. TT(WRC will insert)
WRC Set No.
(ISBN (WRC will insert)
October2020
iii
Obtainable from
Water Research Commission
Private Bag X03
Gezina, 0031
orders@wrc.org.zaor download from www.wrc.org.za
The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled Collaborative knowledge
creation and mediation strategies for the dissemination of Water and Soil Conservation
practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems (WRC Project No.
K5/2719/4)
ISBN: (WRC will insert)
ISBN Set No: (WRC will insert)
Printed in the Republic of South Africa
© WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
productsconstitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
iv
Acknowledgements
The following individuals and organisations deserve acknowledgement for their invaluable
contributions and support to this project:
Chris Stimie(Rural Integrated Engineering RIEng)
Dr Brigid Lettyand Jon McCosh (Institute of Natural Resources INR)
Nqe Dlamini (StratAct)
Catherine van den Hoof (Researcher)
Dr Sharon Pollard, Ancois de Villiers, Bigboy Mkabela and Derick du Toit (Association for Water and
Rural Development)
Hendrik Smith (GrainSA)
Marna de Lange (Socio-Technical Interfacing)
Matthew Evans (Web developer)
MDF internsand students: Khethiwe Mthethwa, Samukhelisiwe Mkhize, Sylvester Selala, Palesa
Motaung and Sanelise Tafa
MDF board members: Timothy Houghton and Desiree Manicom
PROJECT FUNDED BY:
REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS
Prof S MpandeliWater Research Commission
Dr S Hlophe-Ginindza Water Research Commission
Dr L NhamoWater Research Commission
Dr O CrespoUniversity of Cape Town
Dr A MansonKZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Prof S WalkerAgricultural Research Council
Prof CJ RautenbachPreviously of WeatherSA
Prof RE SchulzeUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal
COLLABORATING ORGANISATIONS
https://inr.org.zahttps://award.org.za/https://amanziforfood.co.za/
https://foodtunnel.co.za/http://www.rieng.co.za/
v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AEZAgroecological zone
CAConservation agriculture
CCClimate change
CCAClimate change adaptation
CoPCommunity of practice
CSAClimate smart agriculture
CSOCivil society organisation
CRAClimate resilient agriculture
DEADepartment of Environmental Affairs
DSSDecisionsupport system
OCOrganic carbon
PIAParticipatory impact assessment
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Climate change (CC) is the biggest threat of our time, with far-reaching consequences and
devastating impacts on people, the environment and the economy. The adverse effects of climate
change are already being felt. Besides mitigation, there is a growing need to adapt. South Africa is
especially vulnerable to CC impacts, particularly in respect of waterand food security, as well as
impacts on health, human settlements, infrastructure and ecosystem services. Arapid adaptation
response is necessary.
It is predicted that changesin climate willexacerbate these challenges, affecting food security and
health, threatening water resources, and impacting on development. These impacts willbe especially
felt by the poor, as they will be more exposed to them and have fewer resources and financial
recovery instruments to cope. Climate change is therefore predicted to result in further widening of the
gap between the rich and poor (Ziervogel G, New M, van Garderen E, Midgely G and Chikulo BC,
2014).
Adaptation to climate change presents South Africa with an opportunity to transform the economy,
strengthen the socialand spatial fabric, and become more competitive in the global marketplace.
(https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/session2_draftnational_adaptationstrat
egy.pdf).
Despite national programmes, directives and commitments, local authorities, communities and
smallholder farmers remain largely unaware and uninformed aboutCC, adaptive strategies and
potential actions. They have received little to no direct support through government-led initiatives and
there is a distinct lack of coherent programming and activities to support rural dwellers to improve
their livelihoods and resilience to CC. Implementation that is taking place, primarily under the
auspices of CSOs, is somewhat disparate and project-based, with a still limited understanding of the
potential impact of these projects on CC resilience.There is a strong need for a coherent and more
integrated approach which will incorporate the voiceless poor in participationprocesses and accessto
information and decision-making in transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory ways which will
provide for their involvement in each step of the project cycle (from identification, formulation,
implementationand monitoring to evaluation)(NDRC, 2020).
Agriculture remains vital to the economy in South Africa andagriculturaldevelopment has significant
implications for food security and poverty reduction. Although improvement of food security and
improved nutrition as well as the promotion of sustainable agriculture and sustainable water
management strategies are national policypriorities, strategies and implementation processes for the
millions of impoverished rural dwellers are sorely lacking. Attemptsto increase agricultural productivity
for the smallholder sector havemainly focussed on commercialisation strategiesand conventional
farming practices, with very little change in production techniques and limited improvement in yields
(Rusere, et al., 2019).
Land tenure insecurity for millions of smallholder farmers(including women), declining soil fertility,
severely restricted access to water, degraded ecosystems, poor market access,inadequate funding
and inadequate infrastructure development continue to hinder agricultural development for
smallholder farmers. These challenges are expected to be further exacerbated by climate change and
developing adaptation mechanisms is a high priority(NDRC, 2020).
Economic development and agricultural expansion are often achieved at the expense of
environmentally sustainable practices. Ecosystem functions, including biodiversity and water services,
are key to increasing resource efficiency and productivity and ensuring resilience. Ecosystem-Based
Adaptation (EBA)-driven agriculture linked to viable supply- and demand-side value chains has an
important role to play in developing an agricultural sector that is well integrated into the broader
landscape, is climate resilient and environmentally and socially sustainable(DEA and SANBI, 2016).
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) promotes increases in productivity and adaptation to climate change
that encompass socially andenvironmentally responsibleagriculture. Numerous approaches,
technologies and practices to support CSA are already available. CSA includes both traditional and
vii
innovative agricultural practices and technologies that promote agricultural productivity and generate
income, while boosting resilience to climate change(FAO, 2013).
The ideal combination of CSA actions varies from location to location. For this reason, site specific
assessments are critical aspects of CSA implementation, identifying the most suitable actions for
each agroecologicaland socioeconomic context.Severaldecisionsupport systems and tools have
been developed, mainly by international and national research-based organisations for this purpose,
but similar systems and knowledge-mediation processes appropriate to our smallholder context are,
however, still lacking(UNFCCC, 1999). These decision supportsystems and prioritisation frameworks
must characterise CSA practices, prioritise locally appropriate actions, assess costs and benefits, link
national and local planning mechanisms and, most importantly, must be built on community-based
criteria, indicators and priorities(Care International, 2009).
Concrete actions must be taken to enhance the evidence base to underpin strategic choices, promote
and facilitate wider adoption of appropriate technologies by smallholder farmers and develop
institutional arrangements to support, apply and scaleout CSA in the smallholder farming systems.
Actions are required from a broad range of stakeholders from government and the publicsector,
private sector, academia and research, NGOs and CBOs, among others.
The CSA decision supportplatform aims to improve regional and local planning by providing a
coherent process for directing climate change and agriculture adaptation investments and
programmes. With transparency and participation at the heart ofthis process, local knowledge and
scientific evidence can work together to establish realistic pathways for increasing CSA adoption.
Sustainable soil, water and natural resource-use options and practices effect increased productivity,
food security and wellbeing for a range of smallholder farmersfrom subsistence through to semi-
commercial.
Defined research objectives were:
1.To evaluate and identify best practice options for CSA and Soil and Water Conservation
(SWC) in smallholder farming systems in two bioclimatic regions in South Africa.
2.To amplify collaborative knowledge creation of CSA practices with smallholder farmers in
South Africa.
3.To test and adapt existing CSA decisionsupport systems (DSS) for the South African
smallholder context.
4.To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identified through the DSS by piloting
interventionsin smallholder farmer systems, considering water productivity, social
acceptability and farm-scale resilience.
5.To test visual and proxy indicators appropriate for an incentive-basedfinancingmodel at
community level for local assessment of progress and tested against field and laboratory
analysis of soil physical and chemical propertiesand water productivity.
The design of the decisionsupport system (DSS) is regarded asan ongoing process divided into
three distinct parts:
ØPractices:Collation, review, testing, and finalisation of those CRA practices to be included.
This allows for new ideas and local practicesto be included over time. This also includes
linkages and reference to external sources of technical information around climate change,
soils, water management, etc. and how this will be done, as well as modelling of the DSS.
ØProcess:Through which climate smart/resilient agricultural practices are implemented at
smallholder farmer level. This also includes the facilitation component, communities of
practice (CoPs), communication strategies and capacity building.
ØMonitoring and evaluation:Local and visual assessment protocols for assessing
implementation and impact of practices as well as processes used. This also includes site
selection and quantitative measurements undertaken to support the visual assessment
protocols and developmentof visual and proxy indicators for future use in incentive-based
support schemes for smallholder farmers.
viii
Outputs of the development phase of this research process include the smallholder decision support
platform, a series of facilitation and implementation manuals, stakeholder platforms for continued
support (post-project) and lessons learned from the pilot implementation processes. Each subsequent
use of the platform will produce investment portfolios and linked outputs for scaling out CSA, which
will both create real action on the ground and provide feedback for improving the platform and
establishing further best practice options.
Innovations for this four-year research process included the development of CCA smallholder
decisionsupport processesforindividuals (an online platformwww.mahlathini/dss/) and groups (a
community-based facilitated process), community-level experimentation with 18 prioritised Climate
Resilient Agriculture (CRA)practicesin three different agroecological zones for improved soil and
water management and productivity, and a methodology for assessment of the impact of the
implementation of these practices on community-level climate resilience. Both qualitative and
quantitative indicators weredeveloped for this purpose. Innovation in CRA included the introduction of
severalnew practices into the smallholder farming system, including, for example, small-dam
construction, spring protection using slotted pipes for seepage collection, shadecloth tunnel and
bucket drip kits, cover crops and livestock integration intoConservation Agriculture (CA) andorganic
mango production. Social innovationincluded building social agency through learning groups
organised to focus on environmental and water management, sharing of learning and practices, value
chain development and microfinance options for the rural poor.
Capacity building at community level wasintensive, with CRA implementation processesfacilitated
across three provincesLimpopo (Mametjaand Sekororo), KZN (Bergville, Midlands and SKZN) and
the Eastern Cape(King Williams Town), across 19 villages, with 250 participants. All participated in
the innovation development process that included an improved understanding of CC, an analysis of
CC impacts, exploration of CCA strategies, prioritisation of adaptive strategies, development of
adaptation plans, experimentation with CRA practices, review of the impact of the practices on CC
resilience and planning for expanded implementation.Capacity building atan institutional level took
severalforms: learning and mentoring for facilitators in six CSOs, knowledge sharing in learning
networks (the Adaptation network, the Agroecology network and the Imvotho Bubomi learning
network), information sharing in conferences, seminars and policy development structures and
assistance in programmatic planning for organisations related specifically to indicator development
and climate resilience.Capacity development for postgraduates included the completion of one BSc
Honours degree (University of KwaZulu-NatalRural Resource Management) and two MSc degrees
(Fort Hare UniversityAgricultural Economics, University of PretoriaSoil Science), as wellas the
initiationof an MPhil (University of Western CapePLAAS).
Thisreport is structured around the outcomes andoutputs of the research process, touching only
briefly on methods and results, as these were covered in detail in the 11deliverable reports for this
process.The overallreport is divided into foursections:
1.Research methodology, which includes a research process outline and summary and a
loose-standing CCA facilitation manual, inclusive of the DSSand the resilience impact
assessments.
2.Climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers in South Africa, which includes an
introduction and three loose-standing implementation reports:
a.Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide:Intensive
homestead food production practices.
b.Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Local, group-
based access to water for household food production.
c.Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementationand support guide: Field cropping
and livestock integration practices.
3.Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials forsmallholder farmers, which includes a
brief introduction and fourloose-standing learning manuals in four languages (English,
siPedi, IsiZulu, isiXhosa):
a.Soil management.
b.Water management.
ix
c.Crop management.
d.Livestock integration.
4.Summary of Learning and Recommendations.
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project funded by:..................................................................................................................................iv
Reference group members....................................................................................................................iv
Collaborating Organisations...................................................................................................................iv
Abbreviations and acronyms..................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................vi
1Research process and methodology............................................................................................... i
1.1Research summary................................................................................................................. i
1.2Community climate Change Adaptation facilitation: A manual for facilitation of climate
resilient agriculture for smallholder farmers (65 pages).....................................................................4
1.2.1Contents.............................................................................................................................4
2Results: Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA) implementation........................................................5
2.1Introduction............................................................................................................................5
2.2Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Intensive homestead
food production practices (47 pages)................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1Contents.............................................................................................................................5
2.3Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Local, group-based
access to water for household food production (22 pages)................................................................6
2.3.1Contents.............................................................................................................................6
2.4CRA Implementation. An implementation and support guide: Field cropping and livestock
integration practices (45 pages).........................................................................................................7
2.4.1Contents.............................................................................................................................7
3Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers.......................................7
3.1Climate resilient agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers (English, isiZulu,
siPedi)7
3.1.1Water management (12 pages).........................................................................................8
3.1.2Soil management (14 pages).............................................................................................8
3.1.3Crop management (12 pages)...........................................................................................8
3.1.4Livestock integration (5 pages)..........................................................................................8
4Summary of Learning and recommendations.................................................................................8
5References...................................................................................................................................10
1 RESEARCH PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
1.1RESEARCH SUMMARY
The initialtitle of the research process, Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies for
the dissemination of Water and Soil Conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in
smallholder farming systemsslowly morphed from this unwieldy wording to become Climate Change
Adaptation for Smallholder farmers in South Africa: An implementation and decision support guide, as
grappling with the concepts and processes provided a clearer direction over time. In addition, CSA
was replaced by CRA as the latterdefinition more clearly represents the content and intent of the
work done.
Climate Resilient Agriculture canbe defined as agriculture that reduces poverty and hunger in the
face of climate change, improving the resources it depends on for future generations” ( (Christian Aid,
2018). Climate Resilient Agriculture aimsto transform the current systems and has a wider
perspective than increased production only. It supports food production systems at local, regional and
global levels that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Climate Smart
Agriculture is definedas an approach that guides actions needed to transform and reorient
agricultural systems to effectively support development andensure food security in a changing
climate(Christian Aid, 2018). It aims to tacklethree main objectives: sustainably increasing
agriculturalproductivity and incomes, adapting and building resilience toclimate change, and
reducing and/or removing greenhousegas emissions, where possible(FAO, 2020). Maincriticisms
regardingthe concept of Climate Smart Agriculture are thatit also includes large-scale, high external
input foodproductionwithout properly accounting for social and environmental aspects, such as
inclusion of small-scale producers and anecosystem management focus(IFAD, 2016).
The research consisted of four parallel processes: the exploration of CRA practices appropriate for
localised smallholder farming systems, the development of an individual and group-based DSS, the
design and development of community-based facilitation and implementationprocesses for CCA
and the development of qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess the impact of practices on
resilience to CC.
Forty-fourpractices wereincluded in the final decisionsupport system. These werebased on:
ØPractices tried out, adapted and assessed for impact during this research process, and
ØPractices not tried outbut selected by smallholder farmer participants as prioritised options
within their farming systems.
Severalpractices that were included in the initial database wereremoved, not because they didnot
have value in building climate resilient agriculture systems, but because they required high levels of
skill and resources or were not considered appropriate by smallholder farmer participants. Some
examples include pitting (high mechanisation requirement), bioturbation (too generic as a “practice”
and included in other practices), push-pull technology (resource requirements), gabions (high skill and
resource requirements) and woodlots and hedgerows (not chosen by participant smallholders).
A few practices were included during the process due to specific interest from participating
smallholders. These included, for example, water access (spring protection and water reticulationfor
household gardening irrigation), livestock fodder production and supplementation, organic mango
production and small dams.
A document with one-page summaries of each practice is available on the webplatform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-cca-practices/.
The final input parameters for the online decisionsupport system(DSS)are summarised in the two
tables below. The original excel database is available on the web platform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/. Criteria used in the DSS and described in detail in the
Facilitation Manual(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-cca-facilitation-manual/) are:
proxies for the physical environment, farming system, farmer typology, resources and management
strategies and facilitator scores.These were developed and coded as 0 or 1 in an excel format,to
ii
make subsequent additions andchanges easyto manage. Basically, each practice was compared
with each of the above-mentioned criteria and then scored (adding the number of 1s together), to
provide a prioritised listing in the DSS according to the criteria chosen by the particular individual.
The proxies for the physical environment are open source external databases linked to this excel
sheet to geographically identify the individual’s agroecological zone (AEZ), soil texture, soilorganic
carbon (OC) and slope.
The Agroecological zone dataset used is: HarvestChoice; International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), 2015, "Agro-Ecological Zones for Africa South of the Sahara",https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/M7XIUB/,
Harvard Dataverse, V3.
South Africa covers 12 differentAEZs. The sites currently covered in this study are located in three of
these 12 AEZs: Tropics semi-arid warm, sub-tropics semi-arid warm, and subtropics sub-humid
cool. Semi-arid regions in South Africa are characterised by mean annual precipitation between 200
mm and 400mm, and the sub-humid regions by mean precipitation between 400mm and 1100mm.
The geographical distribution of these AEZ wasdelineated based on the average climate between
1961 and 1990, using the data from the Climate Research Unit(CRU) at the University of East Anglia
and the data from VASClimO (Variability Analysis of Surface Climate Observations), a joint climate
research project of the German Weather Service (Global Precipitation Climatology Centre GPCC)
and the Johann Wolfgang Goethe!University in Frankfurt (Institute for Atmosphere and Environment
Working Group for Climatology). Thedata canbe accessed from the http://gaez.fao.org/ website.
Slope gradient data at around 1km resolutionhave also been made available onthis website.
The four soil textureclasses weredefined based on the clay silt and sand fraction taken from the
AfSoilGrids 250m soil database (https://www.isric.online/projects/soil-property-maps-africa-250-m-
resolution/) and further regrouped as follows:
ØSandy soils: sand, loamy sand.
ØSilty soils: silt.
ØClayey soils: clay, sandy clay and silty clay.
ØLoamy soils: silty clay loam, clay loam, loam, silty loam, sandy clay loam, sandy loam.
This dataset also provides values for the soil organic carbon.
For the farming system category, the individual choseone or more of the categories of field cropping,
vegetable gardening, livestock and trees and other natural resources.
The farmer typology was based on an individual’s responses related to severalsocio-economic
criteria: gender, dependency ratio, level of education,access to water and electricity, employment
status, total income, market access, farming purposeand farm sizeand depending on the answers,
placed the individual in typology A, B or C. See Table 1, below.
In addition, eachCCApractice wasgiven a resource management ratingbased on four resources,
namely: waterin particular, quantity (1); soilin particular, fertility (2); crops (3); and livestock (4)
in particular efficiency and resistancefor both. Efficiency refers to the conversion of water, nutrients or
land into the required output, such as biomass per unit area of land cultivation or seed generation of
the plant itself. Resistance relates to crops or livestock that are, for example, better adapted to
drought or heat conditions or better protected against diseases, etc.
The final step in the prioritisation process was the provision ofan expert score for how well each
practice couldfulfil the management criteria chosen, on a scale of 0 to 3. This expert score was
developed by the research team. See Table 2 below.
Table 1: Categories and rating for the individual DSS
Criteria for confining the selected practices based on farmer’s typology, physical
environment and farming system (if practice not constrained =1), based on Table 5 of
report
Proxies for physical environment
Typology
AEZ
Soil texture
Soil OC
Slope
Practice
Images (PPT-
CA practices)
Description
Tropics semi-
arid
warm
Subtropics semi-
arid warm
Subtropics sub-
humid cool
Sandy soils
Loamy soils
Clayey soils
Silty soils
<0.5%
0.5-2%
>2%
<5%
5-15%
>15%
Field cropping
Vegetable
gardening
Livestock
Tree and other nat.
resources
A
B
C
Drip irrigation
None
Also called trickle or micro irrigation, applying water
slowly and directly to the roots of plants through small
plastic pipes and flow control devices. Emitters are
integral to the functioning where turbulent flow
prevents clogging to a large degree.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bucket drip kits
Bucketdripkits
20L bucket drip system for a 1 m x 5 m bed, with two
dripper lines.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Furrows and
ridges/furrow
irrigation
Furrowsand
ridges
Furrow irrigation is a method of applying water at a
specific rate of flow into shallow, evenly spaced, u-
shaped channels from the top end of the furrow. Flow
occurs because of gravity and the amount of water
applied is dependent on soil type, gradient, flow rate,
evenness and the number of previous applications.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Greywater
management
Greywater
management
Irrigation practices involving greywater, including pre-
treatment with ash or using sand filters. Specific bed
designs for greywater include tower gardens and
keyhole beds.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Shade cloth
tunnels
Shadecloth
tunnels
Shade cloth structures (40% grey) assist in managing
water through reduced evaporation, temperature and
pest incidence.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mulching
mulching
Soil cover refers to vegetation, including crops and
crop residues on the surface of the soil, ideally
covering the projected surface area of crop roots.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diversion ditches
Diversion
ditches
Channel or furrow made across the main slope with
its ridge on the downhill side. Part of infield RWH.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Grass waterways
Grass
waterways
Shaped or graded channels with suitable vegetation,
designed to intermittently carry surface water runoff at
non-erosive velocities to stable outlets. Part of infield
RWH.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Infiltration
pits/banana circles
Infiltrationpits
0.7m-1.5m deep pits/basins dug in water flow lines
to control water movement and filled with organic
matter for improved soil fertility. Various planting
regimes including bananas.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Zai pits
Zaipits
Hand-dug 0.6m diameter and 0.3m deep circular
holes that collect and store water for crop use.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rainwater
harvesting storage
Rainwater
harvesting
storage, 1
The collection of runofffrom rain, roof and other
surfaces for productive use in and outside the field.
Both infield and storage options are available.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tied ridges
Tiedridges
Increases thewater availability by collecting rainfall
from an unplanted sloping basin and catching it with a
furrow and ridge. Planting takes placeon either side
of the furrow where the water has infiltrated.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Halfmoon basins
Halfmoon
basins
These are small, semi-circular earth bunds for
catching water flowing down a slope.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Small dams
Smalldams
2 m-5 m-deep pond constructed to catch water during
the rainy seasonwith a clay core, a wall (for larger
earth dams) and a spillwayto release excess water.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Contours; layout
and planting
Contours 1,
contours 2
Ploughing and or planting along the contours of the
land to minimise soil erosion. Can use line levels, A-
frames, dumpy levels, etc. to mark contours.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Organic mango
production
Organic mango
production
Practices for management of mango trees and
orchards in an organic system.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fruit production
Fruitproduction
Propagation and growth of a range of fruit types for
production throughout the year, using agroecological
and organic methods.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stone bunds
Stonebunds
Used along contour lines to slow down, filter and
spread out runoff water, thus increasing infiltration
and reducing soil erosion.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Check dams
Checkdams
These are smalldams constructed across a drainage
ditch, or waterway to counteract erosion by reducing
water flow velocity and allowing sedimentation of silt.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cut-off
drains/swales
Cutoffdrains
Swales are ditches and bunds constructed on contour
to manage water flow and sedimentation. Mulching
and planting occur in both the ditch and on the bunds.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Terraces
Terraces
A terrace is a level strip of soil built along the contour
of a slope and supported by an earth or stone bund,
or rows of old tyres, for example.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Strip cropping
Stripcropping
Strip cropping is a strategy for subdividing single
fields on slopes into strips that follow contours. Where
different crops are planted, a mixture of annual and
perennial crops is usually used.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Water Access
Wateraccess
Securing and developing local water sources for
household-level water use and irrigation.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Targeted
application of
small quantities of
fertilizer, lime, etc.
Targeted
application
fertilizer, lime
Use of site-specific fertilizer recommendation and
more efficientuse of fertilizer (using the right source,
at right time, at right place and applying the right
rate), liming to manage soil acidity (surface liming and
incorporation).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liquid manures
Liquidmanure
Brews are made of animal and plant matter as liquid
supplements to soil fertility.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Agri-silvopastoral
practices
Agri
silvopastoral
practices
Combining crops, pastures and trees to maximise soil
improvement and productivity benefits.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Conservation
Agriculture
Conservation
agriculture
Three main principles of minimal soil disturbance (no
ploughing), soil cover (stover, mulching and cropping
patterns) and diversity (inter-cropping, relay cropping
and cover crops) upheld in the field cropping system.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planting legumes,
manure, green
manures
Planting
legumes
Use of legumes, manures (improved) and green
manures in specific combinations to improve soil
fertility and soil health.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mixed cropping
Mixedcropping
Managing soil health and pest and disease incidence
through crop combinations: mixed cropping, inter-
cropping, crop rotation.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Herbs and
multifunctional
plants
Plantingherbs
Managing soil health and pest and disease incidence
through crop combinations: using herbs and
multifunctional plants -including windbreaks, trap
cropping, pest deterrents, bee fodder, etc.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Agroforestry
Agroforestry
options
Land use management system in which trees or
shrubs are grown around or among crops or
pastureland.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trench
beds/shallow
trenches/eco
circles
Trenchesand
shallow
trenches, eco-
circles,
Intensive beds dug out and filled with a range of
organic matter (dry/wet manure, bones, ash, etc.) to
provide for highly fertile beds with high water holding
capacity e.g. trench beds, shallow trenches, eco-
circles.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Improved organic
matter
Improved
organic matter
Improving organic matter content of soils for
increased productivity for vegetables, fruit and field
crops.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nurseries and
propagation
Nurseries and
propagation
Propagation by seed, cuttings and grafting of a range
of vegetable, herb and fruit crops, for increased
diversity and continuity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Natural pest and
disease control
Naturalpest
anddisease
control,1
This is an ecologically based approach to managing
pests and diseases including chemical, biological and
other regulatory means.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Integrated weed
management
Integrated
weed
management
The use of a combination of weed control practices,
thus reducing dependency on any one type of control.
This includes practices such as close spacing, late
season weeding, soil health management (structure
and porosity), composting, etc.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
Improved crop
varieties
Improved
varieties
Improved varieties can be more productive, grow in
drier years and potentially make better use of
nutrients (early maturing, drought tolerant, improved
nutrients).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Seed saving/
production/storing
Seeds, seeds1,
seeds 2
The practice of saving seeds or other reproductive
material(e.g. tubers)from vegetables, grain, herbs
and flowers for use from year to year for annuals.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crop rotation
Croprotation
A series of different crops planted in the same field
following a defined order to improve soil health and to
prevent the build-up of soil-related diseases.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stall feeding and
haymaking
Stallfeeding
Feedinganimals in stalls to reduce energy
requirementsofseeking out grazing; links to
agroforestry systems, fallows and improved pastures.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Creep feeding and
supplementation
Creepfeeding
In cases where young livestock do not have adequate
access to fodder orare bulliedby older animals,
enclosures that are only accessible to younger
animals (i.e. small entrances) can be built. High
quality fodder is placed in the enclosure that younger
animals can feed on.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rotational grazing
Rotational
grazing
A system of resting veld to ensure grazing quality for
livestock.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tower gardens
Tower gardens
Above-ground beds, builtwith netting and poles
consisting of soilenriched with compost and ash with
a central filtration column for addition of greywater.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Keyhole beds
Keyholebeds
Above-ground beds, built with stones consisting of
soil enriched with compost and ash with a central
filtration column for addition of greywater.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 2: Further criteria for rating in the DSSresources to manage and the facilitator/expert scores
Criteria for selecting practices based on the resources to manage and related strategies
(=1)
Resources and management strategies
Score by facilitator
Water (quantity)
Soil
(fertility)
Crop resistance and
efficiency
Livestock resistance and
efficiency
Resources
Practice
Harvesting
Retention
Use
efficiency
Conservatio
n
Improvement
Water
Heat
Nutrient
Disease
Water
Heat
Nutrient
Disease
Water
Soil
Crop
Livestock
CSA
Drip irrigation
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
Bucket drip kits
1
1
3
0
2
0
1
5
Furrows and ridges/furrow irrigation
1
1
1
3
2
2
0
0
Greywater management
1
1
3
0
2
0
0
Shade cloth tunnels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
Mulching
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
Diversion ditches
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
Grass waterways
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
Infiltration pits/banana circles
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
Zai pits
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
Rainwater harvesting storage
1
3
2
2
1
1
Tied ridges
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
Halfmoon basins
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
Small dams
1
3
2
2
1
1
Contours, layout and planting
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
Organic mango production
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
0
2
Fruit production
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
0
2
Stone bunds
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
Check dams
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
Cut off drains/swales
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
Terraces
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
Strip cropping
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
Water access
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
2
Targeted application of small
quantities of fertilizer, lime, etc.
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
Liquid manures
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Agri-silvopastoral practices
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
Conservation agriculture
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
Planting legumes, manure, green
manures
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
Mixed cropping
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
Herbs and multifunctional plants
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
Agroforestry
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
Trench beds/shallow trenches/eco
circles
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
Improved organic matter
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
3
Nurseries and propagation
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
3
1
2
6
Natural pest and disease control
1
1
1
3
1
1
Integrated weed management
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Improved crop varieties (early
maturing,drought tolerant, improved
nutrients)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Seed saving/production/storing
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Crop rotation
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
Stall feeding and haymaking
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Creep feeding and supplementation
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Rotational grazing
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
Tower gardens
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
Keyhole beds
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
The development of the community-based facilitation and implementation processwas based on the
methodological underpinnings of socio-ecological systems and innovation system developmentand
are defined and discussed in the Facilitation Manual (https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-
cca-facilitation-manual/).
To engage in exploring the change infarming systems happening due to climate change andthinking
into the kinds of changes required to consciously adapt to these changes requires both the process of
learning (including new ideas and information into the mix) and the process of doing (how to
implement and farm differently).Contemporary theories of learning and change(Lotz-Sisitka &
Pesanayi, 2019)indicate that for knowledge or information to become meaningful 1) the information
needs to be related to the situation and experience of the user, 2) the information must be mediated in
context, and 3) new knowledge or information mustexpand existing knowledge and/or practice.
In this research process these ideas were embedded in communities of practice (CoPs). Actions for
the CoP were based on the premises of inquiry, design, activities, communication, interaction,
learning, knowledge sharing, collaboration, roles and social structures, and piloting and roll out of the
processes. Examples of CoPs are learning groups, innovation platforms, forums, networks, and
research and implementation teams.
Innovation systems developmentis an approach to learning and innovation that is used in
international developmentas part of projects and programmes relating tosustainable agriculture. The
approach involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural
problems and testing of alternative farming practices.It is a process in which farmers and other
stakeholders engage in joint exploration and experimentation leading to new technologies or socio-
institutional arrangements for more sustainable livelihoods.
The CoP process started with an introductory workshop with each of the learning groups, to discuss
climate change,impacts on their livelihoods and farming and potential adaptive measures. These
workshops also provided a space to introduce concepts and potential practices and discuss inclusion
of these into their present farming systems, followed by practical demonstrations and setting up the
farmer-level experimentation trial plots. Detailed outlines of the workshop agendas and processes are
provided in the Facilitation Manual (https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-cca-facilitation-
manual/). This was essentially a group-based decisionsupport process and all the aspects and
criteria involved in the individual DSS werecovered during the CCA facilitation process.
Several farmers ineachlearninggroup(CoP)volunteeredto undertake on-farm experimentation,
which created an environment where the whole group learnedthroughout the season through
observations and reflections on the implementation and results of the chosen trials. Farmers
compared various treatments with their standard practices, which wereplanted as control plots.
The groupassessed and reviewedthe CRA practices each season and based on their observations
and learning, made decisions regarding the followingseason’s implementation and experimentation.
In this way, the farming system wascontinually improved and adapted. These learning groups/CoPs
also undertookother joint or collaborative activities important to them such as exploring options for
improved access to water, local marketing options and the like.
Farmer-level experimentation and demonstration of practices wereundertaken for three consecutive
seasons within this research process. Sites werechosen to be representative of different
agroecological conditions within South Africa.
The table below summarises the sites, number of participants and farmer-level experimentation
undertaken with each village learning group, over a period of three years.
Table 3: Summary of farmer experimentation sites for this study
2
Detailedimplementationreports on the outcomes of the experimentation and learning processes for
intensive homestead food production, field cropping and livestock integration and wateraccess were
produced (https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/).
The development of qualitative and quantitative indicatorswasundertaken on severallevels:
ØFor assessment of community-based and individualvulnerability and resilience to CC.
ØFor assessment of the impact of specific CRA practices on the sustainability/resilience of the
farming system.
ØFor specific measurement ofchanges in biophysical and agricultural conditions and outputs
such as crop growth, yields, runoff, water productivity, soil health, soil organic carbon, etc.
Indicators linked to outputs and impact of CRA practices are included in the specific implementation
reports (https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/).
A specificmonitoringframework to assessimpact ofthe CRA practices on livelihoods and
vulnerability was required to assess increased resilience. This framework workedalongside the entire
monitoring and evaluation processand included activity, output and outcome indicators.
For this process, the Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) framework wasused to outline the
indicators used at community level and provide for a qualitative assessment of increased resilience by
community members. Impact indicators measure changes that occur in people’s lives and can be
qualitative or quantitative. These indicators look at the resultof project activities on people’s lives.
Ideally, they measure the fundamental assets, resources and feelings of people affected by the
project.
As impact measures change, there needs to be a starting point,or baseline from which the changes
can be assessed. There are different types of indicators in a socio-ecological system, but all need to
be measurable in some way.
Below is an example of a set of indicators which wasdesigned for this research process, which shows
the linkage between the vulnerability and impact indicators.
Table 4: Comparison of socio-ecological indicators used for vulnerability and resilience assessments
VULNERABILITY
RESILIENCE
Socio-economic indicators
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
Harvesting
Retention
Useefficiency
Conservation
Improvement
Crop
diversification
Mixed cropping
Drought and heat
tolarant crops
Integrated weed
and pest
management
Fodderand
supplementation
Livestock
integration
Mam etja,
Limpopo
Sedawa, Turkey,
Willows, Botshabelo,
Santeng
108 7865xxxx x x xxxx
Bergville,
KwaZulu-
Natal
Ezibomvini, Stulwane,
Eqeleni, Mhlwazini,
65 6850xx x x x xxxx
Southern
KwaZulu-
Natal
Madzikane, Ofafa,
Spring Valley
32 2522xx x x x xxxx
Midlands ,
KwaZulu-
Natal
Gobizembe,
Mayizekanye, Ozwathini
27 2841xx x x x xxxx
Eastern
Cape
Xumbu, Berlin, Qhuzini,
Dimbaza
18 1545xx xx
Village
Area
* This is a simplified categorisation of pratices, as most contribute to
several objectives
Livestock
resilience
Number of
participants
Water
Soil
Crop/ tree resilience
Climate Resilient Agriculture practices tried*
3
Economic: income (types, amounts), savings (types,
amounts), markets (formal/informal)
Economic: income (types, amounts), savings (types,
amounts), markets (formal/informal), access and sales
Social: gender, household head, social organisations
Social: social organisations
Human: education level, access to information
Human: access to information (sources), knowledge and
skills
Physical: access to water, electricity, equipment, farming
(gardens, fields, livestock)
Accessto resources
Resources and infrastructure: access to water, electricity,
equipment
Resources and infrastructure:improved access to water,
improved access to equipment, equipment
Productivity
Farming activities: gardens, fields, livestock, food
provisioning
Increased farming activities: continuity, increased
productivity, increased food provisioning, increased water
use efficiency (RWH, access, availability, efficiency), soil
fertility and soil health
The resilience impact monitoring and assessment process has two components:
ØA focus-group-based participatory impact assessment process, and
ØA questionnaire-based individual interview process. These are called Resilience Snapshots,
as they are considered a measurement of change at a certain time (e.g. seasonally,
annually), but are not considered an endpointas adaptation and building adaptive capacity is
an ongoing process.
The monitoring and evaluation process, with forms, formats and facilitation approaches is
summarised in the Facilitation Manual (https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-cca-facilitation-
manual/).
Quantitative indicators werebased on a set of measurements undertaken for specific farmer-level
experiments in both gardening and fieldcropping. These are outlined in the two small tables below.
Table 5: Quantitative indicators measured for gardening experiments
Parameter
Instruments
Dates
Evapotranspiration (Et0)
Davis weather station
Ongoing
Soil moisture
Chameleon water sensors
Ongoing
Amount of water applied
Measuring cylinder
Ongoing
Rainfall
Rain gauge
Ongoing
Weighing of the harvest
Weighing scale
Ongoing
Rand value of the harvest
Local market price
At harvest
The above indicators wereused primarily for the calculation of water productivity, which in this case
wasused as a proxy for improved resilience. Practices included were shade cloth tunnels, mulching,
mixed cropping, trench beds and irrigation scheduling. Detailsare provided in the intensive
homestead food production implementation report on the web platform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/wrc-cca-final-report-cra-implementation-intensive-homestead-
food-production/.
Table 6: Quantitative indicators measured for field cropping experiments
Parameter
Instruments
Dates
Evapotranspiration (Et0)
Davis weather station
Ongoing
Soil moisture
Gravimetric soil water samples
4 timesin growing season
Bulk density
Sampling
Once towards the end of growing
season
Soil fertility
Sampling for analysis at CEDARA soil lab
End of growing season
Soil health
Sampling for analysis by Soil Health Solutions
End of growing season
Rainfall
Rain gauges installed in 5 sites
Ongoing
4
Infiltration
Single and double ring infiltrometers
Once during the season
Runoff
Runoff plots installed in 3 sites
Ongoing
Weighing of harvest
Weighing scale, including grain and biomass
(lab analysis)
End of growing season, for maize
only
Rand value of harvest
Local market price
At harvest
The above indicators wereused for calculation of runoff,infiltration,soil fertility, soil health and water
productivity for a range of practices within conservation agriculture, including, for example,
intercropping withlegumes, multi-species cover crop options and crop rotation. Details are provided in
the field cropping and livestock integration implementation report on the web platform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/wrc-cca-final-report-cra-implementation-field-croppind-and-
livestock-integration/.
1.2COMMUNITY CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FACILITATION:AMANUAL FOR FACILITATION
OF CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS(65PAGES)
This document is a loose-standing report available on the web platform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/resources/wrc-cca-facilitation-manual/. The table of contents is shown
below.
1.2.1
Contents
Section 1: Bringing together the methodological elements....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Learning and Change............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Social learning, knowledge mediation................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Agency...............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Social engagement.............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Communities of Practice........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Innovation systems................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participatory Innovation Development (PID)......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Adding the elements together: coactive governance in a chancing climateError! Bookmark not
defined.
Section 2: Climate change.....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Climate change adaptation....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Climate smart/resilient agriculture..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Concepts of vulnerability and resilience.............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Smallholder farming in South Africa and CRA...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Smallholder farming systems..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Local and traditional knowledge in CRA.............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 3: Decisionsupport processes..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
What goes into the CRA small scale farmer decisionsupport system...Error! Bookmark not defined.
How does the facilitator-farmer DSS work?...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
How to facilitate the facilitator-farmer DSS............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Baseline survey..................................................................................Error! Bookmarknot defined.
5
The baseline survey questionnaire.................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Example of a baseline survey.........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Community-level climate change adaptation analysisoutline of the 3 workshopsError! Bookmark
not defined.
CCA workshop 1: Climate change analysis impact and adaptive measuresError! Bookmark not
defined.
Household visits..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Example of a CCA workshop1 process..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CCA workshop 2: Prioritisation of adaptation strategies and practicesError! Bookmark not
defined.
Outline of CCA workshop 2............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Example of CCA workshop 2..........................................................Error! Bookmark notdefined.
Seasonal weather predictions.........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Farmer experimentation..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Small scale experimentation plan...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 4: Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA)................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Background.....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
PIA workshop outline..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Resilience snapshots.........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
The individual climate change resilience questionnaire..................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Example of a resilience snaphshotassesment for 12 participants in Bergville, KZN April 2019
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Section 5: References............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2 RESULTS:CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE (CRA)IMPLEMENTATION
2.1INTRODUCTION
Outputs andoutcomes of the CRA implementation processes in the three different sites (EC, KZN
and Limpopo) have been written up as three loose-standing reports available on the web platform
https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/, for intensive homestead food production (including soil and
water conservation practices, vegetable and fruit production and seed saving), water access
(including group-based processes for spring protection, drilling of boreholes and waterreticulation to
households) and field cropping and livestock integration (including conservation agriculture, fodder
production, hay making and fodder supplementation).
The sections below provide the tables of contents for each of these reports.
2.2CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE.AN IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT GUIDE:INTENSIVE
HOMESTEAD FOODPRODUCTION PRACTICES (41PAGES)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/wrc-cca-final-report-cra-implementation-intensive-homestead-
food-production/).
2.2.1
Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Error! Bookmark not defined.
1Background and introduction..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1Climate resilient intensive homestead food production practicesError! Bookmark
not defined.
1.1.1The present situation..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2Sites and participantsError! Bookmark not defined.
6
1.2.1Innovation system process.................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3CRA practicesError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1Bed design.........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1.1Trench bedsError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1.2Furrows and ridgesError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1.3Shallow trenchesError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2Composting........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3Liquid Manure....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4Shade cloth tunnels............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4.1Water ProductivityError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4.2Cost-benefit analysisError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.5Mulching.............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.6Eco-circles..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.7Greywater management.....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.7.1Tower gardensError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.8Mixed cropping, crop diversification...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.9Natural pest and disease control........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.10Seed Saving.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.11Fruit Production..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.11.1Banana basinsError! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.11.2Organic mango productionError! Bookmarknot defined.
1.3.12Stone bunds and check dams............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.13Infiltration ditches (run-on ditches, diversion ditches)........Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.14Rainwater harvesting (RWH).............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.15Small dams........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE.AN IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT GUIDE:LOCAL,
GROUP-BASED ACCESS TO WATER FOR HOUSEHOLD FOOD PRODUCTION (17PAGES)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/reports/wrc-cca-final-report-cra-implementation-water-access/)
2.3.1
Contents
Project funded by:..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Reference group members....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Collaborating Organisations...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Abbreviations and acronyms..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1Background and introduction..........................................................Error! Bookmark notdefined.
1.1Improving water access for intensive homestead food production practicesError!
Bookmark not defined.
1.1.1The present situation..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1.2Group-based access to water sources...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2Spring protection and reticulation in Ezibomvini, Bergville (KZN)Error! Bookmark
not defined.
1.3Borehole installation and water reticulation in Sedawa and turkey (limpopo)Error!
Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1Introduction........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2Possiblelocations and borehole survey.............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
7
1.3.3Choosing location for borehole drilling by participants.......Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4Designing and mapping the mainline pipelines..................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.5Decision-making with MDF and the participants................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.6Continuing with installation of pumps and header tanks....Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.7Planning the digging of the main pipeline trenches............Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.8Laying the pipes from the header tanks to the homesteads.............Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1.3.9Connection of pipes in Turkey............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.10Connection of pipes in Sedawa..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4CRAIMPLEMENTATION.AN IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT GUIDE:FIELD CROPPING AND
LIVESTOCK INTEGRATION PRACTICES (39PAGES)
2.4.1
Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1Background and introduction..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1Climate resilient field cropping practices................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2Sites and participants.............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2.1Innovation system process.................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3Current status of field cropping..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1Limpopo.............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2KwaZulu - Natal..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3Farmers comments regarding CC impacts on field croppingError! Bookmark not
defined.
2CRA implementation: Field cropping..............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1Results: Limpopo...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.12017-2018..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.22018-2019..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.32019-2020..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2Results: KwaZulu Natal (KZN)...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1Rainfall and runoff summaries for 2019-2020 season.......Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2Soil health considerations..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3Yield considerations...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.4Bulk density........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.5Water productivity..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.6Examples of farmer level experimentation in Bergville......Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3Livestock integration..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.1Cover crop mixes...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2Winter fodder supplementation experimentation................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3Strip cropping with perennial fodder species.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3Learning and best practice options.................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1Learning methodology............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2Practical demonstrations........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.1No till planters....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.2Facilitators’ reflection on the CA learning process.............Error! Bookmark not defined.
4References.....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
8
3 CLIMATE RESILIENTAGRICULTURE LEARNING MATERIALSFOR SMALLHOLDER
FARMERS
3.1CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE LEARNING MATERIALS FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS
(ENGLISH,ISIZULU,SIPEDI)
Farmer-level learning materials/handouts wereproduced in four languages under the themes of
water, soil crop and livestock management and are available on the web platforms below.
These handouts have been designed to provide learning support for CRA practicesand providebrief
descriptions and examples of implementation of these practices.
3.1.1
Water management(12 pages)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/handouts/wrc-cca-water-management/)
3.1.2
Soil management(14 pages)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/handouts/wrc-cca-soil-management/)
3.1.3
Crop management(12 pages)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/handouts/wrc-cca-crop-management/)
3.1.4
Livestock integration (5 pages)
(https://www.mahlathini.org/dss/handouts/wrc-cca-livestock-integration/)
4 SUMMARY OF LEARNING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The key success of this process wasthe use of a social learning approach (learning groupsor CoPs,
local facilitators and individual experimentation) for promotion and implementation of a range of CCA
responses. Participants learnt a lot about analysis of climate change impacts and analysis of the
impact of their activities and improved their decision-making capacity; both individually and jointly.
The key challengeswere:
ØLack of positive engagement of the authorities and government officials.
ØLocal droughts linked to lack of water provision in these communities.
ØLack of funding support for the smallholder farmers.
ØInternal conflicts related to competition for resources and local political instabilities.
In general, however, these communities showedgreatfortitude in the face of their almost
overwhelming problems and this, more than anything, led to them embracing and working with the
concepts and approaches introduced.
Many of the learnings for the farmers themselves are woven into the body of thereports – relating to
their farming, their personal motivations and understanding and their societies. Learning was
supported by the strong participatory nature of this process as well as the innovation systems
concepts where learning happens through cycles of practice, observation and analysis. Local
facilitators played an important role in the continued motivation and participation of the learning group
participants. Participants felt that learning in the groups vastly outweighedwhat they could have
learnedon their own and have organised so that they can continuetowork together.
Learning within the supporting organisationsMDFand other NGOs such as AWARD, INR, Lima
RDF, Seeds of Light, K2C and Hoedspruit Hubwassubstantial for the fieldworkers and interns
involved, where they had to internalise and work with a lot of new information aboutfarming practices
and resource management, local conditions and societies, and effective facilitation in a social learning
environment.
9
Some advances were also made through working with other NGOs active in the project areas
stakeholder interaction resulted in collaboration and some limitedsharing of implementation budgets.
Cementing the process around climate changeandadaptation assisted stakeholders to more clearly
understand the need for this cooperation.
The attitudes of stakeholders and staff slightly more removed from the process, however, (mostly
government and municipal structures), was a lot more difficult to assess, where responsesranged
from somewhat incredulous to (in most cases) openly sceptical. Many came to this process with
preconceived ideas and concepts, which reduced their ability to engage positively. These
misunderstandings wereunderpinned by linear and contradictory thought patterns aboutwhat
development and resilience means and not so much a productof ignorance as a product of our
institutional paradigms. There is generally very little respect or empathy for smallholdersand their
survival imperatives, with most stakeholders engaging inthe process from a perspective of personal
gain, rather than from a perspective of what would be best for people and the environment they live
in.
With respect to the CRA practices identified and tested, it became clear over the four years of
implementation that the greatest impact on resilience lies in the synergies developed through
implementing multiple practices within a system perspective and that designing ways in which
complex systems with multiple variables can be tested is a crucial aspect of thiswork. It is important
also to appreciate the inherentlimitations of specific practices and the need for local and contextual
adjustments in implementation of CRA. Practices that clearly address a felt need in a particular
locality and build on what participants already know and are doing are the most likely to be
incorporatedinto that farming system. Essentially,it is a process of shifting paradigms and building
new habits and patterns, which takes a concerted effort, over time.
Farmer-level record keeping for measurement of specific variables and to increase the in-depth
observation of practices is an important element of learning and implementation. It needs to be well-
managed and information gleaned needs to be clearly incorporated into the farmer learning process
to have much meaning.This process is complicatedconsiderably by the low levels of literacy in the
villages, which means that people are not used to keeping records or writing down information.
Generally, farmers are willing to do the record keeping,but regard this as something that they are
doing for the research processand for the facilitators, rather than something they are doing for
themselves.
The development and use of visual proxies for some of the soil- and water-related indicators was
restricted both by the lack of enthusiasm for record keeping by farmers and by high levels of variability
due to climatic conditions. This high variability in and between seasons often meant that the changes
in the indicators were more likely relatedto changes in weather than changes in farming practices. As
a result, students and interns were brought on board to monitor these indicators more closely. In their
case, their lack of experience hampered the reliability of theirrecords as many of the indicators,
although visual, required practical knowledge of soils and water movement. Seasonal field-based
learning workshops were thus conducted for both farmers and students to ensure ongoing and
reliable monitoring.
In summary, the key learnings:
ØWorking with learning groupswithin a sociallearningprocess and using farmer-level
experimentation to promote and cement implementation of new ideas wasvery successfulin
shifting participants’ implementation towards climate resilient agriculture practices.
ØSocial agency increased and developed within these groups, allowing participants to tackle
some of the intractable problems and issues in their villages; notably access to water, sharing
of information and resources, and joint marketing initiatives.
ØThe ongoing learning and mentoring approach also assisted staff and other stakeholders
involved in this process to internalise best practice options in climate resilient agriculture as
well as facilitation imperatives for such highly participatory processes.
10
This has been an extremely valuable learning exercise and lessons learntare considered widely
adaptable to other rural situations and for scaling up interventions in community-based CCA. We now
have a successful working model for how implementation can go forward. We believe this process is
applicable fornational implementation and can be used as a basis forimplementation by the relevant
institutional role players.
We wouldstrongly suggest further support bythe WRC for further implementation and scaling of this
approach and for exploration of ways to access institutional support and develop appropriate and
sufficient financing mechanisms.
Our recommendations for future implementation include:
ØFurther development of the DSS to fully incorporate all agroecological zones in South Africa.
ØMore experimentation and resilience assessment of longer-term CRA practice options, such
as agroforestry, rangeland management, landscape rehabilitation and erosion control.
ØParticipatory analysis and learning around climate change impacts and potential adaptive
strategies and practices is crucial for allowing local-level agendas in climate change
adaptation to develop and matureand need to be included in regional and national CCA
implementation strategies and processes.
ØLearning groups, working within a social learning and innovations systems methodological
approach are a powerful avenue for building motivation and effecting positive change at a
local leveland need to be incorporated into CCA implementation approaches more broadly.
ØWithin this context, focussing the actualimplementationof climate resilient agriculture
practices on individuals is important.
ØCollaborative activitiesamong participants are an emergentproperty of this approach; with
the added advantages that they are not externally motivated and introduced and participation
is entirelyvoluntary.
ØImplementationof climate resilient agriculturaland land management practices provides fora
significant improvement in adaptation capacity and resilience; butonly if implemented
coherently.
ØIntroduction of a suite of options for adaptation is important; to allow participants to
experiment with and implement a range of options across soil, water, crop,livestock and
natural resource management. It is the combined effect that allows for the change, rather than
any one particular practice.
ØWorking with a smallholder farmer-level decisionsupport process for implementation of
baskets of Climate Resilient Agriculture practice options works extremely wellin terms of
learning and adoption.
ØA focus on soil and water conservation, microclimate management (e.g. shade house
structuresand Conservation Agriculture), soil organic matter and rainwater harvesting is
crucial in underpinning improved productivity and production. Attempting to expand on
conventional agricultural practices in this context is not feasible, given the already extreme
conditions and intense competition for dwindling water resources in these types of catchment.
5 REFERENCES
Care International, 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook.. [Online]
Available at: Available at: <http://careclimatechange.org/tool-kits/cvca/>
Christian Aid, 2018. briefing: time fo climate justice. [Online]
Available at:https://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/about-us/time-climate-justice
[Accessed 20 August 2020].
DEA and SANBI, 2016.Strategic Framework and Overarching Implementation Plan for Ecosystem-
Based Adaptation (EbA) in South Africa 2016-2021., s.l.: Department of Environmental Affairs,
Pretoria, South Africa..
11
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2013. Climate Change Sector Plan for Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries (CCSP), s.l.: s.n.
FAO, 2013. Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book. Rome,Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations.
FAO, 2020. Climate smart agriculture. [Online]
Available at:http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/
[Accessed 20 August 2020].
IFAD, 2016. Climate resilient agricuture development: Scaling up note. [Online]
Available at:https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/40264252/climate_sun.pdf/15655fe0-d06f-
434e-b4ea-df9017c93ef2
[Accessed 20 August 2020].
Lotz-Sisitka, H. & Pesanayi, T., 2019. Mediation Processes to support systems approaches to
knowledge flow in Water for Food Social Learning Networks. Rhodes University, South Africa.,
Pretoria, South Africa: WRCProject No K5/2713/4. Project Title: Amanzi [water] for Food': Developing
a social learning network approach to knowledge dissemination and uptake in the agricultural learning
system.
NDRC, 2020. Climate Change and Agriculture: Imprve climate resilience an soil health. [Online]
Available at:https://www.nrdc.org/issues/improve-climate-resilience-and-soil-health
Rusere, F., Mkuhlani, S., Crespo, O. & Dicks, L., 2019. Developing pathways to improve smallholder
agricultural productivity through ecological intensification technologies in semi-arid Limpopo, South
Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Volume 11(Issue 5), pp.
543-553.
UNFCCC, 1999. Compendium of Decision Tools to Evaluate Strategies for Adaptation to Climate
Change. s.l.:s.n.
Ziervogel, G. et al., 2014. Climate change impacts and adaptation in South Africa. WIRE's Clim
change.