October 2022
CbCCA in central Drakensberg improves resilienceof
smallholder farmers
E Kruger, M Toucher, RHenriksson (MDF, SAEON, UKZN-CWRR)
Smallholder CCA decision support system: individual and facilitated
Activities and
processes
Local good practice
Climate Change dialogues
Farmer level experimentation to
test practices
CoPs and innovation
platforms
Best practise options
Impacts of CC
Introduction of new practices
and ideas to try
Benchmarking for visual
indicators
Stakeholder engagements
Adaptive strategies
Learning and mentoring
CRA learning groups
Materials and information
Prioritized practices
Assessment of outcomes and
impacts
Internet based platform
CRA best practice
Cyclical, iterative learning and
implementation
Facilitator-FarmerDecision Support System
Researchareasandprocess
•Bergville: 5 villages. 120 farmers
•Midlands: 7 villages. 76 farmers
•SKZN: 3 villages. 94 farmers
PROCESS:
ØVillage level CRA learning groups
ØImplement a range of prioritized CRA
activities/practices
ØAnd undertake farmer led experimentation for
measurement of results and impact
Øgroups do cyclical planning and reviews and
engage in further actions and multistakeholder
processes
Climate Resilient Agriculture learning groups
Climate Change Impacts in Bergville area
Above Left: Phumelele Hlongwane’s (Ezibomvini) crop growth in mid
January 2017 compared to Right ; growth in mid January 2019. The
extreme heatanddroughtatthebeginning of the seasonreduced her
crop growth considerably, even in her Conservation Agriculture plots.
Climate change impacts on livelihoods and farming (KZN)
Water
Less water in the landscape; streams and springs drying up, boreholes
running dry, soils dry out quickly after rain
Dams dry up
Municipal watersupplybecoming more unreliable
Soil
More erosion
Soils becoming more compacted and infertile
Cropping
Timing for planting has changed
-later
Heat damage to crops
Reduced germination and growth
Seeding of legumes becoming unreliable
Lower yields (~40% yield reduction for 2018
-2019 cropping season )
More pests and diseases
Loss of indigenous seed stocks
Livestock
Less grazing; not enough to see cattle through winter
More disease in cattle and heat stress symptoms
Fewer calves
More deaths
Natural
resources
Fewer trees; too much cutting for firewood
Decrease in wild animals and indigenous plants
Increased crop damage from wild animals such as birds and monkeys
Availability of indigenous vegetables has decreased
Social
More diseases
Increased poverty and hunger
Increased crime and reduced job opportunities
The smallholder farming system
Smallholder
farming
system
Dryland cropping of
staples on small
patches of available
land (0,1-1ha)
Extensive
grazing of
livestock on
stover and veld
Intensive
homestead food
production;
vegetables, fruit,
small livestock
Feed
biomass
mulch
Manure
mulch
Fodder
manure
stover
Cover
crops,
non
staples
OM and
soil
fertility
Little to no
soil cover
350 participants
across 18 villages
•Conservation Agriculture: Quantitative research support to the Smallholder
FarmerInnovationProgramme: Intercropping, crop rotation, cover crops, fodder
production
•Livestock integration: Winter fodder supplementation, hay baling, conservation
agreements, local livestock auctions
•Intensive homestead food production: Agroecology: Micro-tunnels, trench beds,
mixed cropping, mulching, greywater management, fruit production, crop
diversification
•Community owned local water access: Watercommittees:Spring protection,
boreholes, water reticulation, pipes and tanks athomestead level
•Village savings and loanassociations: Village based savings groups for savings
and small loans for productive activities
•Local marketing and food systems: Monthly produce market stalls, organised
per village, exploration of further marketing options, small mills for maize
•Soil and water conservation: village-based learning groups in Climate change
adaptation undertake resource conservation activities
CRA activities
Assess impact with
measurement of
quantitative and
qualitative indicators
Measurements
-Overall rainfall for 2020/21 almost double that of 2019/20
-Rainfall this season (1497,4mm) was even higher than in 2020/21 (1271mm)
-Periodicity is different: For 2020/21 and 2021/22 much more rainfall later in the season
-For 2021/22 rainfall early in the season even lower than theprevious 2 years.
-Late season rainfall (March-April) affected bean yields and caused increased fungal load in maize grain
Rainfall -SAEON
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
Rainfall 2019/20 (mm)131 172,6143,599,1 86,1 49,2 17,7699,2
Rainfall 2020/21(mm)103,4 207 204,7 409,2 197,1 101,648 1271
Rainfall 2021/22 (mm)88,196,2229,4 349,9 211,3 256,4 266,11497,4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
mm rainfall
Monthly rainfall averages 2019-2022
•Rainfall in the last 8 to 9
years has been lower
than the long-term
average more often than
higher.
(The grey line is the sum of
deviations over time)
•The trend in the line is
mostly downwards
indicating drier than
average conditions for a
sustained period of time.
•There are two relatively
stable periods for the line
where conditions indicate
rainfall similar to the
historical average.
Measurements Rainfall – Long term averages
•Averageannual
temperature in the last
10 years has been
consistently higher
than the long-term
average
•And for 6 of those years
the average is higher
than any temperatures
coming before.
•An average
temperature change of
>1,5ᵒC has been
measured
Measurements Temperature– Long term averages
-Run-off averages across all CA trial plots almost
30-50% lower than runoff in the control plots
(CA control maize- mono cropped)
-Between 2%-5% of total rainfall is saved
through reduced runoff in the CA trial plots
Right and far
right:
Installation of
run-off pans
in control and
CA trial plots,
respectively.
Right: Signs of
run-off in a CA
control M plot in
Bergville
69 Liter /m2 now in the soil. That is
694 000 L/ha per year, more water
in the soil and available to crops
Measurements Runoff – Pans in CA experimental and control plots in cropping fields
% Rainfall conversion to
runoff
(6 participants across 4
villages)
Runoff CA
trial plot
(L)
Runoff CA
control
plot (L)
2019
/2020
4
%
7
%
2020
/2021
6
%
11
%
2021
/2022
5
%
7
%
Average
5
%
8
%
Measurements and resultsWater productivity field cropping
Cropping
options
WP (kg/
m
3)
WP (kg/
m
3)
WP
(kg/m
3)
Ave
WP (
3
yrs
)
2021
/22
(n=
7)
2020
/21
(n=
11)
2019
/20
(n=
9)
CA
–Maize (M)
2
,64
2
,28
1
,11
2
,0
CA
-Maize, bean intercrop (M+B)
3
,07
2
,50
1
,21
2
,3
CA
-Maize cowpea intercrop (M+CP)
2
,84
1
,43
2
,1
CA
-Maize control (M-CA control)
1
,42
1
,1
0
,8
1
,1
Conventionally
tilled maize (M-
Conv
Control)
0
,75
0
,36
0
,6
•Water productivity for CA maize
grown as an intercrop with beans or
cowpeas is higher than single
cropped CA maize and
•Water productivity for CA plotsis
significantly higher than
conventionally tilled plots.
•Despite annual differences in water
productivity, these trends remained
the same across three seasons for all
three areas within KZN.
•The close spacing used in the CA trial
plots provides extra WPbenefits
when compared to the ‘normal’
spacing used in these villagesWP for maize grown in a multi-
cropping rotation CA system is
much higher (x2) than CA mono-
cropped maize or conventionally
tilled maize (x3)
Measurements and results
Volumetric water benefit field cropping
CA trial (inter
cropping and
crop rotation)
CA control
(mono
cropped M)
Conv
control
(mono
cropped M)
kg/m3 (WP)
2,3
1,1
0,6
Difference (CA trial
-CA
control
-Conv control)
1,2
0,5
Volumetricwaterdifference
(l/kg)
1 200
500
Yield (t/ha)
5,11
2,87
VWB (l/ha)
6
132 000
1
435 000
Volumetricwaterbenefitfor
intercropped and rotated CAplots is
~6 million litres/ha more than
conventional tillage and for mono-
cropped CA plots is ~1million
litres/ha more.
CA control
CA trial
INR, Wildlands Trust, WWF visit
•Averageyieldsfor maize
planted in intercropped
plots (M+B , M+Pumpkin)
are much higher than the
yields in maize only plots
•Averageyieldsfor the CA
trial plots (intercropped
and maize only averaged)
are much higher than
maize yields in the CA
control plots (planted to
maize only in consecutive
years)
•For 2021/22 yields were
on average 1-2 t/ha lower
than the previous season.
Yield advantages for
maize through
intercropping and crop
rotation are evident after
a continuous CA
implementation cycle of
4 or more years
Ave yield M-intercrop:
5,22t/ha,
Ave yield M-monocrop:
4,18 t/ha
Ave yield M-control:
2,87t/ha
MM+B M+P
CA 4,60 4,81 3,58
CA-Strip 3,74 7,15 5,60
Control 2,87
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
t/ha
Yields of maize in CMTs (18) Bergville 2021/22
Maximum yields have increased
from 6,7 t/ha to 13,6 t/ha
between 2014 and 2021, for high
performing smallholder farmers.
A yield gain of ~1 t/ha per annum
is possible under CA cropping
systems despite difficult climatic
conditions
Measurements and resultsYields of maizeinCA trials - Bergville
WeighingofmaizeyieldsperplotinCA
trials
•Waterproductivityforvegetablesgrowninsidethetunnels
is between 140%-250% more than outside the tunnels
Measurements Water productivity vegetable production
Plot
Crop
Simple
scientific method (ETc)
Yield
per
plot
(5
x1m) (kg)
Water use
(m
3)
WP
(kg/m
3)
Trench
bed inside tunnel
Chinese
cabbage
60
,5
0,
5
122
Trench
bed outside tunnel
Chinese
cabbage
34
,7
0,
5
72
,1
Trench
bed inside tunnel
Green pepper
30
,1
0,
7
46
,5
Trench
bed outside tunnel
Green pepper
24
,6
0,
7
34
,5
Trench
bed inside tunnel
Spinach
49
0,
7
73
,7
Trench
bed outside tunnel
Spinach
19
,6
0,
7
29
,1
Waterproductivitycalculatedforarangeofvegetablecropsfor
Phumelele Hlongwane (Ezibomvini), Feb 2019-March 2020
This means that on
average you will save500-
1 250 liters of water for
every kg of vegetables
produced.
This equates 36 000-92 000l
/tunnel/ annum of water
saved
Measurements
~R382 /
farmer/
market
Marketing –summary of sales on market days
Summary
of market incomes for Market stalls:April
2021-
August
2022
Date
No
farmers
Village
s
Amount
Market
Produce
2021
/04/10
11
2
R2
419,00
Emmaus
VEGETABLES
:Broccoli, cauliflower,
cabbage,
kale,
chinese cabbage, mustard
spinach,
leeks,
onions, lettuce, carrots,
beetroot,
green
peppers, chilies, brinjals, green
maize,
green
beans, tomatoes,
HERBS
:coriander, parsley, fennel,
FIELD
CROPS:Maize, dry beans,
sweet
potatoes,
amadumbe,pumpkins, butternut
FRUIT
:Bananas, avocadoes,
naartjies,
lemons
MEAT
:Pork, broilers, chicken pieces, eggs
PROCESSED
FOOD:Bottled chilies,
mealie
bread
vetkooek
OTHER
:incema,seed potatoes,
pinafores,
grass
brooms ,mats, beads, art work
Combo
packs -via social media
in
Pietermaritbrug
:Potatoes, carrots,
eggs,
chillies,
onions, cabbage (half and
chopped),
green
beans, beetroot, avocado,
brinjals,
green
peppers, chopped mixed veg.
Ave
income per participant: R382
per
market
day (R100-R1,600)
2021
/05/09
16
3
R1
580,00
Emmaus
2021
/06/09
18
4
R5
072,00
Emmaus,
Stulwane
2021
/07/10
16
4
R3
415,00
Emmaus,
Stulwane
2021
/08/07
9
3
R2
379,00
Emmaus
2021
/09/09
18
4
R3
745,00
Emmaus
2021
/10/08
8
4
R845
,00
Bergville
market
2021
/06/04
16
4
R11
527,50
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/08/04
8
4
R3
866,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/09/03,06,07
12
5
R5
448,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/10/05,06
12
5
R3
354,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/11/03,04
9
4
R2
964,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/10/11
3
2
R19
800,00
Sale
to shops in Bergville:
Boxer
and
Saverite
2022
/03/02
19
4
R1
310,00
UEDA
–Emmaus Hall
2021
/12/02,03
10
4
R2
964,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2021
/12/03
10
4
R1
400,00
Ozwathini
-social media
2022
/01/05,06
6
3
R2
610,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2022
/02/05,12,19
8
4
R3
010,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2022
/03/11
6
4
R1
216,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2022
/05/03,04
7
3
R2
565,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2022
/06/02,03,04
7
4
R4
782,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
2022
/07/05
11
3
R2
500,00
Bergville
town market stall
2022
/08/03
17
6
R4823
,00
Bergville
town market stall
with
FSG
farmers
2022
/08/04,05,06
7
3
R4248
,00
Bamshela
-Ozwathini
11
4
R96
626,
50
INCOME
: ~ R6
901
800
/month
Collapse of market
stalls after social
unrest. Seasonality
of vegetable
production
Bergville market stall
Bamshela market stall
Monitoring toolsIncome and livelihoods
Commodity
(n=100)
Average
monthly
income
per
participant
Annual income
potential
Broilers
R
1024,50
R
12 294,00
Layers
(eggs)
R
641,00
R
7692,00
Field
crops:
Maize
Beans
R
209,41
R
237,50
R
3713,00
R
2850,00
Vegetables
R
247,00
R
2964,00
Average
monthly value
of
food
per participant
All
commodities:This
is
an
estimate only
(further
corroborated
in
resilience
snapshots)*
R
700,00
R
8400,00
Commodity
for
a
selection
of
participants
only
Average
monthly
income
per
participant
Annual income
potential
Green
Maize
R
1300,00
R
15 600,00 (up
to
R
24 000)
Stall
fed calves
R
750,00
R
9000,00 (up
to
R
50 000)
Total
value of
production
(incl
all commodities
but
excl
the selection)
R
3059,41
R
36 712,92
Calves fedoncover crops, or stall fed in cut and carry system
Micro poultry units of layers and broilers
~Average increased
value of livelihood
is ~R3000/ month
per participant
Social agency
2013 2020
Valuechain
2013 2020
Productivity
2013
2020
No of female farmers
89% 75%
Saving for inputs
0% 28%
Intercropping
–maize and
beans
0% 92%
No of participants involved
41 487
Reduced labour in CA plots
0% 78%
Intercropping maize and
other legumes
0% 17%
Learning groups (No)
431
Reduced weeding in CA plots
0% 39%
Crop rotation
0% 20%
Months of food provisioning:
10
-12
7
-9
4
-6
1
-3
-
-
-
100%
15%
38%
39%
8%
Use of planters:
Hand hoes
Hand planters
Animal drawn planters
Tractordrawnplanters
97%
3%
26%
69%
5%
5%
Cover crops; summer mix
–
sunflower, millet,
Sunhemp
,
sorghum
0% 26%
VSLAs (Village Saving and Loan
Associations)
-% of participants
involved
0% 79%
Local financing of
infrastructure
Threshers
Mills
Spring protection
0
1
1
2
Cover crops; winter mix
relay cropping
– Saia oats,
fodder rye, fodder radish
0% 31%
Sale of crops locally (maize, beans,
cowpeas, sunflowers)
0% 15%
Farmercentres
02
Fodder: provisioning of
livestock through cut and
carry
0% 10%
Innovation platforms; including
external stakeholders
03
Ave maize yield (t/ha)
3,7 6,4
Seed saving
0% 11%
Monitoring toolsCA Innovation system monitoring dashboard 2013-2020
Resilience indicators
Increase for
Drakensberg
Comment
Increase in size of farming activities
Gardening > 18%
Field cropping > 63%
Livestock > 31%
Cropping areas measured, no of livestock assessed
Dryland cropping has reduced significantly due to drought conditions and infertile
soil
Increased no of farming activities
No
All involved in gardening, field cropping and livestock management
Increased season
Yes
For field cropping and gardening
-autumn and winter options
Increased crop diversity
Crops: 12 new crops
Practices: 8 new practices
Management options include; drip irrigation, tunnels, no
-till planters, JoJo tanks,
RWH drums,
Increased productivity
Gardening > 72%
Field cropping >79%
Livestock > 25%
Based on increase in yields (mainly from tunnels and trench beds for gardening
CA for field cropping
Increased water use efficiency
25%
Access, RWH, water holding capacity and irrigation efficiency rated
Increased income
23%
Based on average monthly incomes, mostly though marketingof produce locally
and through the organic marketing system
Increased household food provisioning
Maize
-20kg/week
Vegetables
–7kg/week
Food produced and consumed in the household
Increased savings
R267/month
Average of savings now undertaken
Increased social agency (collaborative
actions)
>
3
Learning groups, farmer centres, local water committees, marketing groups,
livestock associations
Increased informed decision making
> 5
Own experience, local facilitators, other farmers, facilitators, extension officers
Positive mindsets
2 to 3
More to much more positive about the future: Much improved household food
security and food availability
Monitoring toolsResilience snapshots:Individualinterviews
Soil
;
health
and
fertility
Money;
income
and
savings
Productivit
y
;
acceptance
of practice,
saving in
farming –
equipment
,
labour
Knowledge
;
increased
knowledge
and
ability
to
use
Food
;
how
much
produced
and how
healthy
Water
;
use and
access
Social
agency
;
Support,
empowe
rment
Total
Conservation
Agriculture
22
21
26
28
18
23
18
156
Savings
6
15
14
15
12
11
15
88
Livestock
19
11
18
7
5
12
11
83
Gardening
14
15
12
13
15
17
21
107
Crop rotation
16
12
13
12
12
15
10
90
Intercropping
12
13
15
12
11
11
9
83
Small
businesses
11
17
15
10
20
11
9
93
In KZN positive impact of CRA and associated
practices in order of importance: CA, gardening
(tunnels, agroecology) , small businesses
(farmer centres, poultry), savings, livestock
(integration – fodder, health)
Monitoring toolsParticipatory Impact assessments
Learning groupsDevelopment of social agency
•Learning groups provide
institutional focus
•Exploration of many associated
issues
•Link to stakeholders both
internal and external
•Platform for change and
innovation
•Blended finance options: E.g.
job creation, spring protection
With partners: UKZN-
CWRR, DUCT-AEN,
SANBI-LCP, WWF-WSA
Local governance
structures absent or weak
Financial support required
by communities to tackle
the big issues
CRA implementation within a
CbCCA approach is providing:
•Water, soil health and fertility
and productivity
improvements
•Livelihoods and social security
improvements
•Social agency improvements
and
•Evidencebasedincreased
resilience to climatechange
Effectivemodelfor
CbCCA; locally
contextualised and
owned
Conclusion
Appropriate for
partnering in
different contexts
•Local water committees who undertake communally managed and
owned water access infrastructure management need a legal
framework of support and legal recognition through the Water
Service Authorities and need to be able to make agreements of
mutual support
•The CbCCA framework and linked climate resilient agriculture
practices and implementation options can provide a good entry point
for both LMs and DM’s to engage in a considered, longer term
support process for adaptation that is both participatory and
sustainable –to move the implementation awayfrom the vote forcing
superficial placebo actions presently in place and provide for an
integrated development option.
•Enablingprocesses for market entry and development of local value
chains are very long overdue
Policyimplications
•For CCA strategies are in place, but Government appers tosee
themselves only as a directiveand overseeing institution and expect
both funding and implementation to happen from external sources
and by other organisations–It has been very slow in the making and
thus in practical terms have only got as far as vulnerability
assessments in the process
•Our National Adaptation Fund process for involvement has been very
convoluted, slow in the making and a bit lacking in building the
technical and social expertise required to get new innovations and
ideas into the adaptation space. There needs to be more of a
recognition thatadaptationrequiresashiftinmindset andparadigm
and needs collaboration across sectors.
Policyimplicationscontinued
