Why do a
vulnerability
assessment
How it is done
Linking the
assessment to
action
And monitoring of
impact and
resilience.
Risk and vulnerability assessments for CCA
October 2019
Begin at the end
•Main outcomes
•Improved functioning of degraded land and
ecosystems…
•Improved adoption of knowledge based land
management practices
•Improved livelihoods and economy
•Improved management capacity for
communities and local government
•Through
•Improved decision making in SLM practices and
approaches and
•Innovative and improved practices;
implementation
Indicators
•Outcomes
•Reduced erosion, improved soil fertility and soil
health, improved grasslands, improved water
holding and availability, improved Carbon,
improved diversity.
•No of new practices, no of people
•Improved food production, improved incomes,
diversified income sources
•Stakeholder organisations and decisions
•Activities
•Improved productivity, diversity, waterand soil
management…..
•Improved management of natural resources
(water, trees, grazing land, soil)
•Impact
•Improved livelihoods (income, assets (social,
physical, economic, human, natural)
•Improved diversification
•Improved resilience (related to SLM and CC
shocks and vulnerabilities)
Now the question
is how to assess
these indicators
Monitoring and
measuring
change
Start with a
baseline
Use proxies and
benchmarks
What is within our capacity to change
•Climate Smart Agriculture Hub (CA) –
gardening: mulching, crop diversification,
seed saving, post harvest, nutrition, water
harvesting, land access
•Land Rehabilitation Hub (LCA) –brush
packing, use a Lapesi for economic
activities, who benefits, involvement of
livestockowners
•Improved Governance Hub –multi
stakeholder forum, actual management
agreements and activities
•Improved Livestock and Rangeland
Management Hub ; disease control,
sheep feeding, improved wool
production, financial management
Potential indicators
•….
•….
•….
•….
A change in
behaviour stems
from a change in
mindset; related
to beliefs and
experience -
Has to be based
on peoples’ own
motivation and
not those of
outsiders and
Government
MDF’s process
•To understand local conditions
•To unpack aspects of local vulnerability and
resilience
•To assess the impact of CC and outline
potential adaptive measures
•To developa baseline and farmer typology for
tailoredimplementation and
•To inform a decision support process for local
adaptation practice
To allow local people to set their own
agendas for informed decision making in
CCA; prioritization, implementation and
impact assessment
Exposure
IMPACT
Sensitivity
OUTCOME
Adaptive capacity
RESILIENCE
Exposure
IMPACT
The WHAT
•Different types of criteria/ indicators in a socio-ecological system
•Need to be measurable; link initial assessments and baselines with
potential impact measurements
VULNERABILITY
Socio-Economic
•Economic: Income (types, amounts), savings (types
amounts), markets (formal/informal) debt/credit
•Social: Gender, household head, social organisations
•Human: education level,access to information
Access to resources
•Resources and infrastructure: Access to water,
electricity, equipment
•Farming activities: Gardens, fields, livestock, natural
resources
•Market access: Sales, food
RESILIENCE
•Economic: Income (types, amounts), savings
(types amounts), markets (formal/informal)
•Social, social organisations, working together
•Human:, access to information, knowledge
confidence and sharing
•Physical: Access to water, electricity,
equipment, farming (gardens, fields,
livestock)
•Increased farming activities, continuity,
increased productivity, increased water use
efficiency (RWH, access, availability,
efficiency), Soil fertility and osil health….
The HOW
•Income is received from grants for 63% of
households, from salaries for 46% of
households and from sale of produce for
36,5% of households
•Average income for unemployed households
(no-one in the household is employed) is R
2330/month and for those households where
1 or more members are employed is
R5770/month.
Individual interviews; Socio–economic data
Severe disparity in income potential between male
and female headed households, linked to a
substantially higher depencyratio in female headed
households indicate the high level of vulnerability of
these households
29.0
51.2
31
10
18
8
41
31
20
16
12
3.2
2.8
1.14
26
19
15
2.33
5.77
Gender (F)
Average Age
Household head
Primary school
High school
Tertiary
Social organization
Learning group
Savings group
School gardening group
Farmer 's cooperative
No, of adults inHH
No, of children
Dependency ratio
Grants
Salary
Income from veg sales
Income (in R1000)- unemployed
Income (in R1000)- employed
Baseline information: Socio-economic (n=41)
Total
Household head
Ave income
Dependency ratio
Male headed
R 6 730
0,89
Female headed
R 1 361
1,21
•Lay of the land; land use patterns,
ecological stresses, climate stresses
•Local adaptations
Individual interviews and walkabouts
73%
12%
12%
76%
73%
80%
20%
61%
22%
51%
37%
7%
49%
78%
73%
90%
12%
27%
41%
90%
0,1 - 1 ha
1-2 ha
>2ha
Gardens
Field cropping
Livestock, chickens
No,other livelihood activities
Fruit trees
Indigenous plants
Tap water
Standpipe
Borehole
RWH storage
Electricity
Fencing
Hand tools
Traction; incl animal
Market access
Local markets
Training andadvice
farm
scale
operation
farming
activities
Natur
al
resour
ces HH infrastructure
Farmi
ng
infrast
ructur
e
Livelihoo
ds
Baseline information: Access to resources (N=41) April
2019
Ezimbovini (KZN) walkabout; Jan 2018 –shows
heat and moisture stress in sweet potatoes,
garden crops such as cabbages and CA
intercropping trial with maize and beans
The typologies are briefly summarised below
The table below indicates the typology for each of the participants interviewed for the baseline
assessment
51 years, woman headed hh, Grade 9-11, unemployed,
Ave monthly income R2170, field cropping, gardening
and livestock husbandry, no access to water in hh, local
markets only, savings groups
Farmer typologies (gender and vulnerability disaggregation)
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
CC dialogues –effects (past,present, future), seasonality,
impacts, practices, prioritization criteria
WORKSHOPS OUTLINE
1. What we are seeing around us, what has been happening (nature, economy, society,
village, livelihoods, farming) (list main issues (biophysical, social, economic) –with
ranking of vulnerability, organisational mapping, financial flows and services mapping,
2. Past, present, future of farming activities and livelihoods (timelines and trends)
3. Climate vs weather (role play)
4. Scientific understanding of climate change (Power point input)
5. Seasonality diagrams of temperature and rainfall –generally what it is, what is changing
(seasonality diagrams)
6. Reality maps (choose temp, or rainfall): draw up mind maps of impacts (mind mapping)
7. Turn impacts in to priority goals (positive statements) and think through adaptive
measures that we know of or think could work
8. Introduce a range of practices (facilitation team) related to these goals to broaden
potential adaptive measures (A4 picture summaries and power point presentations)
9. Walkabouts and individual interviews (transect walks, key informant interviews,
mapping of local innovations/adaptations)
10. Prioritization of practices –matrix using farmer level criteria for assessment (matrix
ranking and scoring)
11. Planning of farmer experimentation, learning sessions and implementation of practices
(Individual experimentation outlines, lists)
Seasonality
diagrams;
rainfall, heat
Impacts;
reality map
In all villages farmers had some ideas, or many, of potential practices for CCA
Area
Village
Natl resources/
landscape
Water (manage and
increase available
water)
Soil health and
fertility (
incl
Manage soil
movement)
Crops
Livestock
Other
Bergville
Thamela
RWH
Mulching
No previous exposure to
improved practices
Manure and fertilizer
Bergville
Ezibomvini
Spring protection
Compost
Natural P&D control
Plant fodder
Savings groups
CA learning groups; 3
-
4yrs (MDF)
RWH storage tanks;
Jo
-Jo tanks
Furrows
Conservation
Agriculture
Fodder
supplementation
bulk buying
Infield rainwater
harvesting
Contours
Mulching
Drip kits
Diversion ditches
Tunnels
Greywater; tower
gardens
Stone bunds
Infiltration pits/
banana circles
Small dams
Suggestions
for Natural
resource
management
lag behind for
most groups
POTENTIAL ADAPTIVE MEASURES:
Where to
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
Materials and information
Appropriate practices
Assessment of outcomes and
impacts
internet based platform
Cyclical, iterative learning
and implementation
Facilitator-Farmer Decision Support System
DSS outlineIndividual(computer model) and Facilitated
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: Climate and geographical
parameters; GPS coordinates, agroecological zones,
soil texture, slope and soil organic carbon content
PRACTICES: Database of CRA practices including; managing available
water, improving access to water, controlling soil movement,
improving soil health and fertility, crop management, integrated crop-
livestock management, veld management and veld rehabilitation
Focus group and
individual
interviews,
walkabouts
Focus group
discussions,
individual
prioritization
Link vulnerability criteria to practices
Criteria for confining the selected practices based on farmer’s typology, physical environment and farming system (if practic
e n
ot constrained =1), based on Table 5 of
report
Proxies for physical environment
Farming systemTypology
AEZSoil texture Soil OCSlope
Practices
Tropics
semiarid warm
Subtropics
semiarid 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
vegetatble
gardening
Livestock
Tree
and
other
nat
.
resources
A
B
C
Drip irrigation
1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11
1
1 1
Bucket dripkits
1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 111 1
Furrows and ridges/ furrow irrigation
1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1
Criteria for confining the selected practices based on farmer’s typology, physical environment and farming system
(if practice not constrained =1)
Practices
Proxies for physical environment
Farming systemTypology
AEZSoil texture Soil OCSlope
Tropics semiarid
warm
Subtropics
semiarid
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
1111 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1
Bucket drip kits
1111 1 1 1 1 1
1
11 1
Furrows and ridges/ furrow
irrigation
1111 1 1 1 1
1
111 11
Bucket Drip kits
- Gardens
-<0,1ha,
-Medium cost, medium skills, including learning
and mentoring
-Medium maintenance –drippers need to be
checked and cleaned regularly ; medium labour
intensive to set up, maintenance easy.
DESCRIPTION
-Stones and sand are placed in a bucket
(20L)for filtration of greywater to be used
in dripping system
-The drip kit is assembled on site making
your own string drippers and choosing
width of lines and spacing of drippers.
-2 lines 30cmapart and 5 m long is good for
a trench bed and provides 4mm of
irrigation.
-Watering is done on a daily basis
A 210l drum drip irrigation system used in a
tunnel
A well functioning string dripper that makes a
wetted circle around the dripper
Mulching the beds adds to efficient water
management A bucket drip kit irrigating a 1mx 3m trench
bed with mixed crops
Attaching the dripper lines to the feeder pipe
from the bucket
Making the string drippers
Bucket with stones; a cloth bad of
sand is added on top to complete
the filter
CRA implementation summaries;Kwazulu- Natal
CRA implementation summaries; Eastern Cape
Parameter
Instruments
Dates
Evapotranspiration
(Et0)
Davis
weather station
ongoing
Soil
moisture
Chameleon
water
sensors
On
going
Amount
of water applied
Measuring
cylinder
On
going
Rainfall
Rain
gauge
On
going
Weighing
of the harvest
Weighing
scale
On
going
Rand
value of the harvest
Local
market price
At
harvest
Table 1 : Measurements taken for the gardening trials
Parameter
Instruments
Dates
Evapotranspiration
(Et
0)
Davis
weather station
ongoing
Soil
moisture
Gravimetric
soil water samples
4
x in growing season
Bulk
density
Sampling
Once
towardsend of
the
season
Soil
fertility
Sampling
for analysis at CEDARA
soil
Lab
End
of growing season
Soil
health
Sampling
foranalysis by Soil
Health
Solutions
End
of growing seaosn
Rainfall
Rain
gauges installed in5sites
On
going
Infiltration
Single
and double ring infiltrometers
Once
during the season
Run
-off
Run
-off plotsinstalled inthreesites
On
going
Weighing
of
the
harvest
Weighing
scale, including grain
and
biomass
(lab analysis)
At
end of growing season-
for
Maize
only
Rand
value of harvest
Local
market price
At
harvest
Table 2 : Measurements taken for the field cropping trials
Assessing the outcomes: Quantitative
Table: New redesigned VSA Indicator sheet for 2018
Visual
indicator of
Soil
Quality
Visual Score
(VS)
Weight
Comments
Soil
Structure
(clods,
aggregates)
0 = Poor
conditions;
1 =
Moderate
conditions;
2 = Good
conditions
4
Shatter
test
Soil
porosity (macro
pores,
clods)
5
Coarse
pore content
Soil
colour (dark,
average,
light
and
uniformity
(mottles)
3
Incl
mottles
and
organic
matter
Soil
surface
(crusting,
siltation,
runoff)
x 3
Assessment
of
soil
surface
texture
Earthworm
counts 2
Soil
cover (0-15%;15-30%
;
>
30%)
3
Revised
scale,
using
quadrant
Soil
depth
(penetration
resistance
to rod into soil)
2
Bulk
density 2
Using
knife
tip
penetration
in a
small
pit
.
Root
growth
and
development
2
New
scale
Ranking
Score (sum of VS rankings) Max =52
Below are a few photographs indicative of the VS assessment and sampling process
Above Left-Right: Doing the bulk density testusing a knife blade. A clod of earth showing good aggregation, organic
matter and fine root system.A soil sausageshowing the high clay content of the soil.
Above left to right: Examples of the shatter test for soil structure – showing good soil structure;
with porous loos soil with irregular aggregates of a dark colour indicate of higher organic
matter– an intermediate or moderate soil structure – With a larger proportion of clods that
break up into unaggregated soil, but also larger clods staying intact and Poor Soil structure with
a large clod showing very little root penetration and few macro pores.
Qualitative indicators; visual proxies
Bgvl
June-Sept 2018
Simple
scientific method
(ET)
Farmers'
method
(Water
applied)
Name
of famer
water
use
(m3)
Total
weight
(kg)
WP
(kg/m
3)
water use
(m
3)
Total
weight
(kg)
WP
(kg/m
3)
Phumelele Hlongwane
trench
bed inside tunnel
1
,65
21
,06
12
,76
1
,85
21
,06
11
,38
Phumelele
Hlongwane
;
trench
bed outside
tunnel
0
,83
5
,32
6
,45
1
,75
5
,32
3
,04
Ntombakhe
Zikode
trench
bed
inside tunnel
1
,65
17
,71
10
,73
2
,37
17
,71
7
,47
Ntombakhe
Zikode
;
trench
bed outside
tunnel
0
,50
3
,35
6
,76
0
,53
3
,35
6
,33
Simple
scientific
method
(ET)
Farmers'
method
(Water
applied)
Name
of famer
water
use
(m
3)
Total
weight
(kg)
WP
(kg/m
3
)
water
use
(m3
)
Total
weight
(kg)
WP
(kg/m
3)
Christina
Thobejane (Tunnel
;
trench
beds, withmulch)
0
,8
48
,9
65
1
,10
48
,9
56
,7
Christina Thobejane
(Furrows
and ridges
with
mulch)
0
,5
24
,5
46
,4
3
,91
24
,5
5
Christina
trench outside
0
,8
14
,7
18
,4
2
,93
14
,7
11
,3
Nora
Mahlako (Tunnel
;
trench
beds withoutmulch)
0
,8
19
,6
26
9
,47
19
,6
5
Table: Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants from
Limpopo (Sedawa); April -July 2018
Table : Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants
from Bergville; July-Aug 2018
WP for trench beds substantially higher than
“normal bed”. WP in tunnels substantially
higher than outside; around 5 x more in
Limpopo andaround 3 x more in KZN
Water productivity; Gardening
Impact: Resilience snapshots; Individual interviews
Resilience indicators
Increase for Limpopo
Increase for KZN
Comment
Increase in size of farming
activities
Gardening; 1%
Field cropping;
–98%
Livestock; 6%
Gardening
–18%
Field cropping
–63%
Livestock
–31%
Cropping areas measured, no of livestock assessed
Dryland cropping has reduced significantly due to drought
conditions andinfertile soil
Increased farming activities
No
No
All involved in gardening, field cropping and livestock management
Increased season
Yes
Yes
For field cropping and gardening
- autumn and winter options
Increased crop diversity
Crops: 21 new crops
Practices: 11 new practices
Crops: 12 new crops
Practices: 8 new practices
Management options include; drip irrigation, tunnels, no
-till
planters, JoJo tanks, RWH drums,
Increased productivity
Gardening; 120%
Field cropping: 15%
Livestock: 6%
Gardening
–72%
Field cropping
–79%
Livestock
–25%
Based on increase in yields (mainly from tunnels and trench beds
for gardening
CA forfield cropping
Increased water use efficiency
45%
25%
Access, RWH, water holding capacity and irrigation efficiency rated
Increased income
13%
13%
Based on average monthly incomes, mostly though marketing of
produce locally and throughthe organic marketing system
Increased household food
provisioning
Vegetables; 7
-10kg/week
Fruit; 5
-10kg/week
Dryland crops (maize,
legumes, sweet potatoes);
5
-10kg/week
Maize
- 20kg/week
Vegetables
–7kg/week
Food produced and consumed in the household
Increased savings
Not applicable
R150/month
Average of savings now undertaken
Increased social agency
(collaborative actions)
2
2
Learning groups, farmer centres, local water committees
Increased informed decision
making
5
5
Own experience, local facilitators, other farmers, facilitators,
extension officers
Positive mindsets
2
-3
2
-3
More to much more positive about the future: Much improved
household food security and food availability
Impact: Participatory impact assessment
Soil
;
health
and
fertility
Money
;
income
and
savings
Productivity
;
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,
empower
ment
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)
Recommendations
RVA - Implementation - Impact
•Systemic approach
•Grounded in local contextualisation
•For appropriate community led implementation and
•Participatory impact assessment for
•Incremental and cyclical improvements and behaviour change
