Midlands Annual Progress Report 2017

Download PDF
APPENDIX5:KWAZULU-NATAL MIDLANDS
FINAL REPORT
CA FarmerInnovation Programme (CA-FIP) for
smallholders in KZNMidlands.
Period: October 2016 - September 2017
Farmer Centred Innovation in Conservation Agriculture in upper
catchment areas of the Drakensberg in Midlands of KwaZulu-
Natal
Compiled by:
Erna Kruger and Hendrik Smith
With input from Mazwi Dlamini, Sylvester Selala, Nqe Dlamini and
Temakholo Mathebula
September 2017
2
Project implemented by:
Mahlathini Development Foundation
Promoting collaborative, pro-poor agricultural innovation.
Contact:Erna Kruger (Founder and Coordinator)
Address: 2 Forresters Lane, Pietermaritzburg, 3201, KZN
Email:erna@mahlathiniorganics.co.za, info@mahlathini.org
Cell: 0828732289
Time of operation: 2003-2016
Legal status: NPC
BEE status: 4. Certificate available.
In collaboration with:
Funded by:
3
Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................3
Identification of the project ....................................................................................................5
Description and selection of study areas ...........................................................................5
Approach and Methodology ..................................................................................................5
Key activities: October 2016-September 2017 ......................................................................6
Results achieved to date .......................................................................................................7
Overall process .....................................................................................................................9
Year 1: ...........................................................................................................................9
Year 2: .........................................................................................................................10
Year 3: .........................................................................................................................10
Possible agrochemical spraying regime options ...........................................................11
Soil health results and analysis........................................................................................12
Progress per area of implementation ..................................................................................18
Nkandla ...........................................................................................................................18
Mphotolo ......................................................................................................................18
Vulamhlamvu ...............................................................................................................18
Cornfields ........................................................................................................................21
Stakeholder engagement ....................................................................................................26
RASET............................................................................................................................26
DRDLR ............................................................................................................................27
Events and conferences ..................................................................................................27
Land Care Conference (October 2016) .......................................................................27
Soil Health day (October 2016) ....................................................................................28
Ukulinga Howard Davis Symposium (May 2017) ..........................................................29
No Till Club annual conference (October 2016 and September 2017) ..........................30
Farmer Innovation Platforms ...............................................................................................30
Madzikane Stakeholder Forum ........................................................................................30
Nokweja ..........................................................................................................................30
VSLAs (Village savings and loans associations) ................................................................. 30
Training for VSLA bookkeepers .......................................................................................31
Nkandla ...........................................................................................................................32
Madzikane .......................................................................................................................33
Bergville ..........................................................................................................................34
Ezibomvini ...................................................................................................................34
Eqeleni group ...............................................................................................................34
4
Stulwane ......................................................................................................................35
Mhlathuze, Acton Homes, Bethany ..............................................................................35
Matatiele ..........................................................................................................................36
Future activities ...............................................................................................................36
Suggestions and recommendations ....................................................................................37
Attachment 1: Concept proposal for Farmer Service Centres linked to maize and poultry
production: April 2017.........................................................................................................38
Background..................................................................................................................38
Concept........................................................................................................................38
Implementation model; commodity inters groups, linked to local value chains................39
Farmer Service Centres................................................................................................. 39
Activities within the implementation model...................................................................40
Proposed budget requirements......................................................................................43
Attachment 2: Summary of Savings group activities; Creighton, Nkandla and Bergville......44
Attachment 3; Outline of Record keeper training and supervision framework ......................45
Purpose of Training and Supervision Framework ............................................................45
Specific Outcomes...........................................................................................................45
Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................45
Training/Facilitation Aids ................................................................................................. 46
Training Programme (Duration: 3.5 hours to 4 hours) ......................................................46
Attachment 4: An example of a record keeping sheet for the VSLAs ..................................47
Attachment 5: MARCH RECORDS NCEDANI SAVINGS GROUP: NKAU ........................48
5
Identification of the project
Description and selection of study areas
This programme was to expand the CA Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme(SFIP)
activities piloted in Bergville to other maize growing areas in the Midlands, i.e. Estcourt,
Ladysmith, Greytown and New Hanover.
For this the CornfieldsLand Reform communityoutside Estcourtwas targeted as was
Mpholweni- a communal tenure area, originally on church land close to Greytown.
In addition, an expansion was planned in Nkandla in partnership with the Siyazisiza Trust
working with community groups in their agroecology projects.
Approach and Methodology
The farmer-centred innovation systems research process underpinning the programme, which
is based onworking intensively with farmer learning groups and local facilitators in each of the
villages, has been continued and strengthened.
Within the learning groups farmer innovators volunteer to set upand manage farmer-managed
adaptive trials as the ‘learning venues’ for the whole learning group. Farmer Field School
(FFS) methodologiesare used within the group tofocus the learning on theactual growth and
development of thecropsthroughout theseason. New ideas (CApractices) are tested against
the ‘normal’ practise in the area as thecontrols.Farmers observe, analyse and assess what
is happening in the trials and discuss appropriate decisions and managementpractices. Small
information provision and discovery-learning or training sessions are included in these
workshops/ processes. These are based alsoon the seasonalityof the crop and the specific
requests and questions from farmer learning group participants.
Local facilitators are chosenfrom within and by members of the learning group to be a person
who has the required experience, knowledge and a willingness to support the other farmer
innovators in their implementation.Facilitators are only chosenand appointed where people
with the appropriate skill and personalityexists. Local facilitators receive a stipend for a
maximum of 10 working days per month, for their support to the farmer innovators. They fill in
detailed timesheets outlining their activities against which they claim a monthly stipend.
Learning group members agree to a season long learning process and put forward the farmer
innovators to run the trials. Eachprospective innovator is interviewed and visited and signs an
agreement with theGrain SA team regarding their contribution to the process. They undertake
to plant and manage the CA trials according to the processes and protocols introduced as well
as a control plot of the same size. For the latter, farmers provide their own inputs.
The adaptive trials are also used as a focus point for the broader communityto engage through
local learning events and farmers’ days. Stakeholders and the broader economic, agricultural
and environmental communities are drawn into these processesand events. Through these
events Innovation Platforms(IPs)are developed for cooperation, synergy between
programmes and development of appropriate and farmer led processes for economic
inclusion. These IPs also provide a good opportunity to focus scientific and academic research
on the ‘needs’ of the process.
6
Key activities: October 2016-September 2017
Implementation in the three new sites in the Midlands, Estcourt (Cornfields), Mpholweni
(New Hanover) and Nkandla has been somewhat disappointing. Contributing factors in the
three include; continuation of drought conditions, extremely low soil fertility and ‘bad’ soils,
lack of focus from implementing partners, inability of the facilitation team to provide enough
support and lack of promised municipal support due to political instability.
As a consequence, activities in the Nkandla site will be discontinued in the coming season,
those in Cornfields will be more focused with fewer trial sites and those in Mpholweni will be
expanded into other villages in the New Hanover area.
VSLA’s (Village Savings and Loan Associations)have been given some focus in the second
half of this season, consolidating the process and record keeping for the 18 groups involved
with Mahlathini Development Foundation across Bergville ,Creighton, Nkandla and
Matatiele. A training workshop for the record keepers was instrumental in this process as
was the design and implementation of a new record keeping system that provides regular
information for all the savings groups.
Stakeholder interactions have been intensive and have involved the Local Municipality LED
Forums for Ubuhlebezwe and Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma LMs as well as the DRDLR
regarding collaboration around Farmer Centres in their Agri-parks model. Good relationships
have been built with the DARD and the GrainSA Farmer Support Programme local extension
teams, specifically in Southern KZN, leading to a number of joint awareness raising events
and good cooperation in implementation.
Soil health tests were repeated for a number of participants both in the EC and in Bergville
areas and a few new participants have been included. These results have indicated an
accumulation of organic carbon (ppm) in the CA plots when compared to control plots. The
results have also shown an increase in carbon, year on year in the CA trial plots, despite the
reduced soil health scores due the second season being a lot drier than the first
The table below outlines budgets and actual expenditure against key activities for the
project. Expenditure is in line with budgets and remaining funding is sufficient for finalisation
of the project.
TABLE1:KEY ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTSAND DELIVERABLEOCTOBER 2016-AUGUST2017;
PLANNED AND ACTUAL.
Midlands, KZN Milestones: Farmer Centred Innovation in CA. October 2016-
September 2017
Milestones/
Outputs
Key activities
OUTCOMES/
DELIVERABLES
Actual
expenditure
Aug 2017
Capital Equipment
R70 488
Farmer
experimentati
on EC and
SKZN
Documentation and
M&E
Meeting and monthly
reports
R50 797
Experimentation
List of participants,
interviews and
contracts,
awareness and
training
R303 638
7
Innovation Platforms
Stakeholder
meetings, platform
building and events
R24 535
Budget expenditure end June 2017
R449 458
Remainder
R68 987
TOTAL: Oct2016-Sept2017
R 605 050
Results achieved to date
Three learning groups (Nkandla, Cornfields and Mpholweni) have been supported under this
process. Training/learning workshops have been conducted for the following topics:
How to implement CA: introduction to the principles, soil health, crop diversification
and different planting options for CA
Working with herbicides and knapsack sprayers: information on different
herbicides, their uses and safety measures, as well as operation of knapsack
sprayers, protective clothing, etc.
Trial plot layout and planting using different CA planting equipment such as hoes,
MBLI planters, and animal drawn not till planters.
Top dressing and pest control measures for mid-season growth of crops and
planting of cover crop mixtures where people have been interested in this option
The learning groups provide the innovation platforms also for discussion of the value chain
issues, such as bulk buying, harvesting, storage and milling options and marketing.
In both Nkandla and Cornfields, mid-season visits revealed unsatisfactory growth of the trials.
In both areas, prevailing weather patternsand bad soils have led to patchy germination in
trials and slow subsequent growth of crops.
The table belowoutlines activities related to objectives and key indicators for the period of
October 2016-August 2017.
TABLE2:SUMMARYOFPROGRESS (OCTOBER 2016-SEPTEMBER2017)RELATEDTO
OBJECTIVESAND KEY ACTIVITIES
Objectives
Key activities
Summary of progress
% completion and comment
8
1. Document
lessons
learned
Documentation for
learning and
awareness raising
- Finalisation of CA
manual (Eng and Zulu)
- Soil health symposium
presentation and
participation (Nov 2016)
- Sharing of information
through innovation
platforms processes
-Stakeholder engagement
in the SKZN LM’s, with
DRDLR and DARD
-LandCare funding for
tools and inputs
-Articles and promotional
material
- 100 copies of E and Z
manuals printed. A further print
run expected. (50% complete)
- 100 copies of group and
individual savings books printed
and in use. A further print run of
300 copies done in January
2017 (100% complete)
- (100% completion;
Madzikane, Nokweja Matatiele,
Bergville
-No articles or promotional
material printed to date (0%
completion)
Final report
- 6 monthly interimand
final reports
- 100%: Reports finalised
2. Increase
the
sustainability
and
efficiency of
CA systems
1st level
experimentation:
24
- 6 participants in
Cornfields planted 400m2
intercropping trials as
advised. Other
participants used the
inputs for their regular
maize planting and a few
did not plant at all
- In Mpholweni the group
has been continued, and
planting will start in the
coming season
- 55%: Basic CA design-
intercropping with maize beans
and cowpeas on a 100m2-
400m2 plot, with a control plot
managed entirely by the
participant.
Adaptation trials included late
season planting of beans with a
mixture of winter and summer
cover crops.
2nd level
experimentation:
10
- 8 participants in Nkandla
planted their 100m2
intercropping trials.
- 100%. Participants opted to
continue with intercropping
practice from their 1st year.
Develop and
manage PM&E
framework;
weekly and
monthly M&E
visits
-M&E forms redesigned
and used
- Digital monitoring
system piloted
- 100%. Monitoring and yield
data completed for all
participants
Facilitation of
innovation
platforms
- Co-facilitation of
information sharing and
action planning with
stakeholders and role
players
- 100%. LED and Agricultural
Stakeholder Forums.
Collaboration with DRDLR and
farmer innovation platforms in
Matatiele, Nokweja and
Madzikane.
CA working group,
and reference
group
- Attended and presented
in Feb 2017 and Sept
2017
- 100%
A performancedashboard is indicated below. Thisprovides a snapshot of performance
according to suggested numbers and outputs in the proposal.
9
TABLE3:PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD;SEPTEMBER2017
Outputs
Proposed (March 2016)
Actual (July 2017)
Number of areas of operation
2
2
Number of villages active
3
3
No of 1st level farmer experiments
24
10
No of 2nd level farmer experiments
6
8
No of local facilitators
2
-
No of direct beneficiaries
30
18
Participatory monitoring and
evaluation process (farmer level)
Yes
Yes
Soil biological assessments
54
53
Stakeholders forums
4
4
Overall process
As this is an existing ‘technology’ the farmer level experimentation is in essence an adaptation
trial process.
Year 1:
Experimental design is pre-defined by the research team (based on previous implementation
in the area in an action research process with smallholders). It includes a number of different
aspects:
Intercropping of maize, beans and cowpeas
Introduction of OPV and hybrid varieties for comparison (1 variety of maize and beans
respectively)
Close spacing (based on Argentinean system)
Mixture of basin and row planting models
Use of no-till planters (hand held and animal drawn)
Use of micro-dosing of fertilizers based on a generic recommendation from local soil
samples
Herbicides sprayed before or at planting
Decis Forte used at planting and top dressing stage for cutworm and stalk borer
Planting of cover crops; winter mix in Autumn
Experimental design includes 2 treatments; planter type (2)and intercrop (2). Seethe diagram
below.
10
FIGURE 1:EXAMPLE OFPLOT LAYOUTS FOR THE 1STLEVEL FARMER TRIALS.
The basic process for planting thus includes: Close spacing of tramlines (2 rows) of maize
(50cmx50cm) and legumes (20cmx10cm) intercropped, use of a variety of OPV and hybrid
seed, weed control through a combination of pre -planting spraying with herbicide and
manual weeding during the planting season and pest control using Decis Forte, sprayed
once at planting and once at top dressing stage.
Year 2:
Based on evaluation of experiment progress for year 1, includes the addition of options that
farmers choose from. Farmers also take on spraying and plot layout themselves:
A number of different OPV and hybrid varieties for maize
A number of different options for legumes (including summer cover crops)
Planting method of choice
Comparison of single crop and intercropping planting methods
Use of specific soil sample results for fertilizer recommendations
Early planting
Own choices
Year 3:
Trials are based on evaluation of experimentation process to date; to include issues of cost
benefit analysis, bulk buying for input supply, joint actions around storage, processing and
marketing. Farmers design their experiments for themselves to include some of the following
potential focus areas:
Early planting; with options to deal with more weeds and increased stalk borer
pressure.
Herbicide mix to be used pre and at planting (Round up, Dual Gold, Gramoxone)
A pest control programme to include dealing with CMR beetles
Intercropping vs crop rotation options
Spacing in single block plantings
Use of composted manure for mulching and soil improvement in combination with
fertilizer
Soil sample results and specific fertilizer recommendations
Planting of Dolichos and other climbing beans
Summer and winter cover crops; crop mixes, planting dates, management systems,
planting methods (furrows vs scatter)
PLOT 1: Hand HoePLOT 2: Planter
Maize1, bean 1Maize2, Bean 1Maize1, bean 1Maize 2,Bean 1
Maize1, Bean 2Maize 2, Bean 2Maize1, Bean 2Maize 2, Bean 2
PLOT 3: OR repeat plot 1 and 2PLOT 4:
Hand hoePlanterHand hoePlanter
Maize1,cowpeaMaize1,cowpea
Maize1, Dolichos
Maize1, dolichos
Maize2, CowpeaMaize2, Cowpea
Maize2, Dolichos
Maize2, Dolichos
10m or5m
10m or 5m
11
Seed varieties; conscious decisions around POVs, hybrids and GM seeds
Cost benefit analysis of chosen options
Possible agrochemical spraying regime options
1. Roundup 2 weeks before planting - if there has been some rain. DualGold at planting (just
after with Decis Forte/Kemprin).
2. Gramoxone at planting (just before or after planting) with or without Dual Gold and Decis
Forte/Kemprin Dual Gold does not work on dry soil (followed by heavy rain)
12
Soil health results and analysis
An attempt was made to repeat the soil health tests for the same participants as in the 2014-2015 season and to expand the results to a few
more participants in both the Eastern Cape and Bergville sites.
As the 2015-2016 season saw quite a severe drought the expected trends in the soil health results were not clearly visible.
Below, samples that were comparable across the two seasons 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, have been analysed. There is a strong and obvious
trend where the microbial activity (as measured by the Solvita CO2 respiration tests), as well as the soil health scores (which is a combination of
the Solvita, the C:N ratio and organic C and N for each sample), have reduced proportionally in the second season.
What this indicates is that the prevailing seasonal climatic conditions affect the outcomes of these tests substantially and to an extent where
changes due to farmers’ practices are somewhat obscured.
- All the Solvita test results- for Control plots, CA trials and Veld baselines were substantially higher in the first season than the second.
- There are significant differences between CA and control practices with the CA plots showing substantially higher Solvita test results and
Soil health scores than the control plots across both seasons.
- This also shows that with these soil health parameters it works better to compare practices against each other in one season but not that
well to compare results across seasons- due to the variability brought about by the weather conditions.
The figure below outlines the results discussed here.
13
FIGURE 2:COMPARISONOFSOLVITA TEST RESULTS ANDSOILHEALTH SCORES FOR A SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS FROM THEECAND KZN
FOR 2014-2015AND 2015-2016.
Bulelwa
Dzinga
Dlezakh
e
Hlongw
ane
Khonza
phi
Hlongw
ane
Mamole
keng
Lebeou
a
Mtholen
i
Dlamini
Smephi
Hlatshw
ayo
Matsep
o Futo
Simon
Tsoloan
e
Bulelwa
Dzinga
Mamole
keng
Lebeou
a
Matsep
o Futo
Simon
Tsoloan
e
Mtholen
i
Dlamini
CA intercropCA intercrop
with ccControl Veld
baseline
Average of CO2 - C, ppm C (yr1)98,1179,1118,5155,6179,186,3141,839,8 41,5 86,3 94,1 34,7179,1
Average of Soil health Calculation (yr 1)14,5 16,29,521,4 16,5 10,7 15,67,45,510,5 12,46,813,4
Average of CO2 - C, ppm C (yr2)57,2 82,3 82,3 38,1108,043,5 26,4 14,6 12,8 36,4 34,7 16,8155,0
Average of Soil health Calculation (yr2)7,0 9,6 8,9 8,811,37,3 4,0 3,1 3,7 6,7 4,9 3,016,4
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
Comparison of Solivata test results and soil health scores across two years
14
When one compares the Water Exchangeable (WE) Organic C (ppm) in the soil and the organic C:N ratio the trend is the opposite-with
increased values seen for almost all samples in the second drier season (2015-2016). The WE Organic C is an indicator of available food
sources for microbes stated very simplistically- while the C:N ratio provides an indication of the extent of mineralization/ immobilisation or
conversion of this ‘food’ to plant available sources (through mineralisation) when the C:N ratio is below 20. If microbial activity is depressed
with a high C:N ratio (higher than 20 or immobilisation) or in drier seasons, then one would expect that the organic C would remain
underutilized in the soil. This trend is clearly shown in the figure below. One would also expect that the C:N ratio would increase- given the
lower rate of mineralization, which is also evident. Again, the overall climatic trends overshadow differences individual participants’ farming
practices may have effected.
15
FIGURE 3:ACOMPARISON OF WEOC(PPM) AND C:NRATIOS FOR A SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTSFROMTHE ECAND KZNFOR 2014-2015 AND
2015-2016
The following comments can be made from the figure above:
Bulelwa
Dzinga Dlezakhe
Hlongwane Khonzaphi
Hlongwane Mamolekeng
Lebeoua Matsepo FutoMtholeni
Dlamini Simon
Tsoloane Smephi
Hlatshwayo
CA intercrop - Org C ppm C (yr1)133,0 161,0 148,0 213,089,0148,0
CA intercrop - C:N ratio (yr 1)15,8 12,38,923,27,415,9
CA intercrop - Org C ppm C (yr2)227,0 214,0 250,0 304,0178,0211,0
CA intercrop - C:N ratio (yr2)16,9 14,0 16,8 11,913,312,4
CA intercrop with cc - Org C ppm C (yr1)119,0 89,0
CA intercrop with cc - C:N ratio (yr 1)11,1 11,8
CA intercrop with cc - Org C ppm C (yr2)154,0 116,0
CA intercrop with cc - C:N ratio (yr2)17,3 13,6
Control - Org C ppm C (yr1)120,0180,0 159,081,0
Control - C:N ratio (yr 1)9,715,0 15,611,3
Control - Org C ppm C (yr2)168,0272,0 156,0118,0
Control - C:N ratio (yr2)14,915,9 14,915,7
Veld baseline - Org C ppm C (yr1)374,0
Veld baseline - C:N ratio (yr 1)16,6
Veld baseline - Org C ppm C (yr2)316,0
Veld baseline - C:N ratio (yr2)14,1
0,0
50,0
100,0
150,0
200,0
250,0
300,0
350,0
400,0
Comparison of Organic C(ppm) and C:N ratios across two years
16
The Organic C in ppm was higher for all repeat tests in the 2nd year for the CA plots and the control plots. The organic C in ppm was
30% higher in the 2nd year for the CA plots and 22% higher in the control plots. Accumulation of organic C in the CA plots is thus higher
than in the control plots.
Values for Organic C in ppm for CA plots are higher for the 2nd year compared to the 1st year by values of between 30-100%. This
shows a lot more organic carbon being available in 2nd season of CA when compared to the previous year and indicates an
accumulation of carbon over time in the CA plots.
The C:N ratios are higher for the 2nd year than the first year and are also higher for the CA plots in the 2nd year. Which validates the
carbon accumulation and increased ability of the soils to process organic matter. Thus it also points towards increased microbial activity.
This trend should be verified also by increases in Solvita tests (in the figure above). This however is not the case, where Solvita tests
were lower in the 2nd season.
The veld baseline data however show a different trend. Here the Organic C in ppm and the C:N ratios are lower in the second season.
This is to be expected due to the substantially drier conditions in the 2nd season.
In summary the above figure shows that the practice of CA provides for increased organic carbon (ppm) and higher C:N ratios for participants
even in drought conditions when these parameters would naturally tend to be lower than in wetter seasons. It also shows that although
microbial activity may be reduced in drier seasons (indicated by the lower Solvita test results), there is still an accumulation of organic carbon in
the soil.
The table below summarises the soil health data per year and per area, to give a clearer indication of the soil health parameters for the two
areas.
Overall the soil health parameters show higher values in the Bergville area, indicative of the fact that they have much higher percentage clay
soils in that area with a naturally higher soil fertility than the sandy soils in the EC.
Matatiele
2014/2015
2015/2016
Name
Sample
CO2 - C, ppm
C
Organic
C ppm C
Organic
N ppm
N
C:N
ratio
Soil
health
Score
CO2 - C,
ppm C
Organic
C ppm C
Organic
N ppm
N
C:N
ratio
Soil health
Score
Mamolekeng
Lebeoua
Control
86,3
180
12
15
10,51
36,4
272
17,1
15,91
6,72
Mamolekeng
Lebeoua
CA intercrop
155,6
213
9,2
23,2
21,44
38,1
304
25,6
11,88
8,81
Matsepo Futo
Control
94,1
159
10,1
15,6
12,44
34,7
156
10,5
14,86
4,95
Matsepo Futo
CA intercrop
with cc
141,8
119
10,7
11,1
15,6
26,4
154
8,9
17,30
3,96
Simon Tsoloane
Control
34,7
81
7,2
11,3
6,75
16,8
118
7,5
15,73
3,00
Simon Tsoloane
CA intercrop
with cc
39,8
89
7,5
11,8
7,36
14,6
116
8,5
13,65
3,08
Bulelwa Dzinga
Control
41,5
120
12,3
9,7
5,54
12,8
168
11,3
14,87
3,67
Bulelwa Dzinga
CA intercrop
98,1
133
8,4
15,8
14,54
57,2
227
13,4
16,94
6,99
Bergville
2014/2015
2015/2016
Name
Sample
CO2 - C, ppm
C
Organic
C ppm C
Organic
N ppm
N
C:N
ratio)
Soil
health
Score)
CO2 - C,
ppm C
Organic
C ppm C
Organic
N ppm
N
C:N
ratio
Soil health
Score
Smephi Hlatshwayo
CA intercrop
86,3
148
12,1
15,9
10,65
43,5
211
17
12,41
7,31
Dlezakhe Hlongwane
CA intercrop
179,1
161
13.1
12,3
16,15
82,3
214
15,3
13,99
9,55
Mtholeni Dlamini
Veld baseline
179,1
374
22,5
16,6
13,35
155
316
22,4
14,11
16,39
Mtholeni Dlamini
CA intercrop
179,1
89
12,1
7,4
16,48
108
178
13,4
13,28
11,25
Khonzaphi
Hlongwane
CA intercrop
118,5
148
16,6
8,9
9,5
82,3
250
14,9
16,78
8,90
Progress per area of implementation
Nkandla
Mphotolo
The Learning group in Mphotholo in upper Nkandla was discontinued for the following
reasons;
The group remained small with 5-6 participants consisting mostly of retired men and
one school teacher. They could best be described as ‘hobby farmers”
Meetings with the other members of the maize cooperative operating under the
Department of Agriculture were not called, despite a number of attempts to do so.
Communicating directly with the local extension officer, also failed to bear fruit. He
voiced the opinion that CA was not compatible with the Department’s support – given
that they assist farmers with ploughing, inputs and planting.
Members of the group found it hard to navigate working with two service providers
with different approaches.
Vulamhlamvu
The relationship cultivated with the Siyzazisiza Trust was strengthened:
Siyazisiza Field staff were provided with a week-long training in Climate Smart
Agriculture practices (water wise farming) and implementation that included
Conservation Agriculture principles and approaches in July 2016.
Field staff were further provided with hands on experiential training in implementation
of CA with their farmer groups (October-November 2016).
Field staff and a small selection of farmers from the Vulamhlamvu learning group
attended a farmers’ day in Bergville (Ndunwane, March 2017)
The Siyazisiza Trust supported the initiative financially by providing inputs for the
learning group in Vulamhlamvu
And a workshop was held to plan expansion of the CA process with more smallholder
groups supported by Siyazisia Trust. Representatives form 8 different gardening
groups attended this meeting (10 May 2017)
Despite these efforts the expansion of the innovation platforms in this area were not
forthcoming. The existing group in Vulamhlamvu noted their interest to continue with the
trials in the same way as before- doing a joint trial in one plot and were not keen to
individually undertake trials. They cited lack of fencing and roaming cattle as their primary
reason. The group’s interest in receiving free inputs and facilitation support is much higher
than their interest in implementing CA principles.
No responses were received from the new groups. In addition, the Siyazisiza Trust
communicated that further financial support would be difficult for them. A decision has thus
been made to withdraw from the area.
19
Progress in Vulamhlamvu
Participants felt that the first season of CA planting was very positive as maize grew well and
beans were harvested as a ‘new’ crop in the area. They were however disappointed by
receiving no maize harvests due to cattle invasions in their field. They were reluctant to do
the CA trials in their own homesteads, citing that there is not enough space. These
homestead plots need to be shared with other family members. The women mentioned also
that their husbands were not keen on the CA process preferring to plant maize using
conventional tillage practices. Weeding is a big issue within the CA system and is more
manageable when tillage is used. Participants did not compare yields with their conventional
plots, as most of the maize was harvested as green mielies.
Learning group members showed interest in implementing an organic version of CA in their
plots. Although there is a lot of fallow land in the area that can be used, participants felt that
due to the lack of fencing and hard work required to bring these fields back into production,
that this was not an option for them. A discussion around the issue of livestock management
was held and the community is acutely aware of the need for grazing management. They
however requested that a meeting be set to bring the traditional authority (responsible for
this) and other stakeholders such as the Department of Agriculture together to discuss
options. It was clear that even though some of the women are livestock owners, that they did
not feel empowered to tackle the grazing issues among themselves.
For this second season of CA experimentation in Vulamhlamvu, 8 members of the original
group opted to continue and 2 new members joined the group. They opted to again plant
their experiments together in one fenced plot, donated by Mr Mthembiso Shezi. Each
undertook to do a 400m2 intercropping trial. The idea was for Siyazisiza to negotiate with Mr
Shezi to obtain a lease agreement for a larger plot, or plots in future. This however was not
done.
TABLE4:VULAMHLAMVUCAGROUPMEMBERS2016-2017
No
NAME
SURNAME
Gender, age
CELL
NUMBERS
1
Zithini
Biyela
F, 75 yrs
076 494 9767
2
Ntombithini
Majola
F, 61 yrs
072 717 3629
3
Zenzile
Mthimkhulu
F, 60 yrs
4
Thembisile
Masango
F, 54 yrs
078 794 0321
5
Ntozini
Biyela
F, 66 yrs
6
Buyi
Shezi
F, 50 yrs
7
Sinenhlanhla
Biyela
F 48 yrs
8
Babhekile
Majola
F, 58 yrs
NEW
9
Sthembiso
Shezi
074 855 6594
10
Sibangeni
Shezi
The Village Level Savings Association (VLSA), Maphotwe, that these members belong to
has been running smoothly. Members felt that they could afford the CA inputs subsidy from
their savings.
Spraying of the plot and planting commenced on 20 October, 2016 the date preferred by
the group. This early planting was expected to increase the yield potential of the maize in
20
this area considerably. Spraying was done on the same day as planting and as a result
weed competition in the plot was very high. A white maize hybrid SC701 was used and the
bean variety planted was Gadra. The overall yield for beans was low at 23,5kg (~0,54t/ha).
As maize was again harvested as green mielies, estimating yield became a bit of an
impossible task. Judging from the growth however, yield would have been reasonable at
between 1,8-2,2t/ha. This was estimated from no of cobs and weight of grain/cob.
Above Clockwise: A group member spraying Round up prior to planting. Mrs Biyela
preparing the planting basins for maize and the learning group planting the maize together.
21
Above left and right. Crop growth monitoring in December 2016 showed fastidious weeding
by participants. Germination was around 90% for maize, but much lower for beans and
cowpeas. Growth was a bit disappointing- with evidence of run off and yellowing due to
subsequent lack of nutrients.
Above and right: Growth of
the trial plot in Nkandla in
March 2017.
Cornfields
This land reform community has turned into a vast, sprawling settlement with almost 800
households as the arable lands (`80ha) closer to the river have been over-run by cattle and
further individuals setting up homesteads. Householders have opted to plant within smaller
fenced fields close to their homes. The area is over-stocked and there is substantial erosion.
Here the programme was initiated by starting trials with 2 participants from each of the 8
villages in Cornfields. A demonstration workshop was held where all participants joined in
planting one trial plot together. They were then provided with inputs for their trials and asked
to plant their trials at their homesteads. Of the 15 participants a total of 10 attempted the CA
plots.
The Grain SA CA trials (400m2) were planted 6-12 December 2016 once rains had properly
started. Gramoxone /Paraquat was sprayed at planting, along with Decis Forte for cut worm
and stalk borer. A hybrid variety of maize (Pan 6479) was used, intercropped with Gadra
sugar beans and mixed brown cowpeas. Both hand hoes and MBLI hand planters were
used.
22
Late season monitoring in April 2017 confirmed the poor growth of the CA trials in this area.
Most participants had not weeded their plots and added to the poor soils in the area and
general drought conditions, this led to poor germination and growth. In addition, striga/witch
weed, present in a number of the fields, further depressed growth and yields.
This group was not given enough support by the facilitation team who managed to visit the
area only 4 times during the year. There is however still interest in the community to
continue and a plan has been put in place to do 1 consolidated trial plot per village for 6 of
the villages in the coming season.
Progress
The trials were meant to be 400 m2 although some appeared smaller/larger than that. Overall
the control plots appeared to be performing better than the CA plots. Most of the CA plots
had patchy germination and the maize appeared stunted. In most households the farmers
had not weeded, which could explain the stunted growth and light green colour of the maize.
Under CA, lower quantities of fertilisers and chemicals are applied compared to conventional
maize fields which could explain why the control plots appeared to be performing better.
Below is a brief summary of progress for a sample of the 10 participants who planted trials,
from a visit conducted towards the end of April 2017.
Generally, germination for maize was very patchy and beans did not germinate or grow well,
or at all. Maize showed signs of nutrient deficiencies and drought stress.
Yearly group review
11 participants attended the meeting. They agreed that the season was difficult, with the
highest maize yield recorded as 3,46t/ha for Mr Petros Khumalo whose fields are in the old
cropping fields of the farm. A few participants had reasonable yields for their beans and
cowpeas. Participants agreed that the soils in some of the villages are really ”bad’, infertile,
and sandy, but very hard when dry. The season also started very hot and dry which reduced
germination substantially.
Comments for the season are summarised below:
-The herbicides used Gramoxone had very little effect on the weeds, as there was
as yet little growth at planting. A similar situation prevailed with the Round-Up.
Because of this participants had to do a lot of weeding.
-Participants felt that they saved some money planting this way, as they did not need
to hire tractors for ploughing.
-The MBLI planters did not work well due to the hard soils.
-Participants felt that CA would not work in some of the villages due to the bad and
shallow soils. But that there is potential ins some of the areas.
-The PAN 6479 grew very well when the rains finally started, but yields were still low
due to the slow dry start of the season. PAN53 was expected to better than it did- as
PAN6479 actually performed better for people
-Participants like the idea of working together, as it reduces the work and people can
learn from each other, but it is difficult to coordinate as the villages are quite far apart.
-Costs for conventional tillage and the CA were compared. Mr Miya produced the
small table below. It can be seen that there is a saving of around R400 for the CA-
although this includes the subsidy.
23
Conventional tillage(half a
Ha)
Cost (R)
Conservational
Tillage(400m2)
Cost (R)
Tractor hire
500
Ploughing with tractor
R1 500
Input subsidy
R 150
Seeds
R 200
Food for labour
R 70
Fertilizer
R 323
Food for labour
R100
Total
R2623
Total
R 220
-The group is keen to start a savings group for inputs as presently people in
the village do not do any savings.
Below are some examples of a few of the participants’ plots for this season.
Ms. Khumalo
Above left: Ms Khumalo’s CA trial plot. No beans or cowpeas germinated and patchy growth
of maize is evident. Above right; the controlplot was ready for harvesting maize showed
better growth here.
Mr and Mrs Choncho
Far left and left: A view of their CA trial plot in January and April 2017. Cowpeas grew very
well. Beans, although with patchy germination, grew well subsequently and a reasonable
yield should be realised. Maize growth was reasonable
24
Kwa Sithomo (by the river)
The trial is situated by the river away from the
homesteads in a small portion of the arable fields.
The maize in the CA plots was stunted and weeds
were predominant. The cowpeas again grew well
and assisted in some weed control. Beans were
not in evidence. The control plots appeared
significantly better than the CA plots.
Right: CA Plots (front), control plots (back).
Cowpeas can be seen in the CA plot along with
high incidence of weeds and struggling maize
Zandile Dubazane
The maize was light green and stunted in the CA plots. The beans had dried up and were
ready to harvest. Cow peas were still green. An interesting observation was that the soil on
the CA plots was dry and hard compared to the soil in the control plot which was moist and
soft. Possible reasons were that the soil in the CA plot may have more clay than the one in
the trial plot and therefore goes hard and cracks when dry. Another reason could be
because the soil was never ploughed and so its structure remained intact and there was less
infiltration of rain water. Such ‘hydrophobic’ soils with a tendency to capping, are known to
be difficult for initiation of CA.
Above left and right: Mrs Dubazane’sCA
plots, with weed overgrowth. Again
cowpeas have maintained better than the
beans and maize.
Right: Her control plot recently weeded
25
Mr Mkhize
The soil on Mr Mkhize’s field
was darker than that in the
other households. However
there were a lot of weeds on
his plots which could impact
negatively (far right) on his
yield and he also had a
problem with termites
damaging his beans (right).
Mrs Khumalo
The CA trial was growing well compared to other households. The beans were ready for
harvest and the cowpeas were still green. The maize showed good germination, however
the leaves were yellow brown in some plants and were drying up. This could be due to the
presence of weeds, of particular note was witch weed (striga), which is a parasitic weed that
leads to reduced yields in maize.
Above left to
right: Striga presence in Mrs Khumalo’s field. Her control plot and the CA trial with
reasonable growth of both maize and beans.
Thobile Dlamini
26
Above left: Thobile’s CA trial plot showing patchy germination and growth as well as an
overgrowth of weeds. Above right: Her control plot looked substantially better.
Stakeholder engagement
For Southern KZN a strategy has been followed of working closely with the Local
Municipalities in the area; namely Ubuhlebezwe and Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma (before
known as Ingwe), to embed the GrainSA CA programme into the local economic
development strategies of the areas.
This has entailed a number of different processes and presentations:
1.Participation in the agricultural development and LED forums of the two LM’s.
2.Participation in the latest RASET process launched end June in Harry Gwala District
Municipality
3.Negotiations with one of the provincial directors for DRDLR regarding involvement in
piloting our local farmer centre model as part of the Agriparks initiative
4.Linking to Agricultural Development Forums in Ubulhlebezwe, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini
Zuma and Okahlamba LMs. These are mostly still in their infancy and are
stakeholder sessions combining farmer representatives with role players and service
providers to provide a platform for information sharing and co-operation.
5.Participation in events, conferences and information sharing platforms
RASET
RASET stands for Radical Agrarian Socio-Economic Transformation. Basically, it wants to
re-direct the public expenditure to procuring food items from smallholder farmers and
SMMEs. This is a KZN programme. It was officially launched by a handful of KZN cabinet
ministers, the KZN Premier and the President of the Republic on the 27 of June 2017.
Serious commitments by the KZN ministers were made regarding setting aside at 50% of
their food procurement budgets. This is estimated to at least R2,5 Billion per year.
Secondary co-operatives are currently established for each local municipality in the province.
Only three commodities are targeted for now, namely, crops, red meat (beef) and poultry.
Each commodity will establish its secondary co-operative. The Development Agencies in
each district municipality will be responsible for championing RASET. Each secondary co-
operative will supply produce from subsistence and smallholder farmers to the district market
managed by the Development Agency.
Ubuhlebezwe Crop Farmer Secondary Co-operative was established on 28th June 2017.
Membership to the secondary co-operatives will be opened to primary co-operatives, for
profit companies, non-profit companies, sole proprietary and trusts. The main roles of the
secondary co-operatives were listed as follows;
1.Provide farmer support to members of a secondary co-operative
2.Provide business support on issues of administrative compliance (SARS and CIPC),
secretarial and general business management
3.Provide logistics for transporting produce and ensuring that producers are paid on time
4.Manage the sharing of equipment and other farming tools
27
There are some serious mismatches between the intentions of this programme and the local
capacity and Government commitment to actually implement the process. It is not expected
to succeed. Mahlathini’s involvement will continue but more to stay informed and to be able
to provide a buffer between the farmers and the unreasonable expectations being promoted
by Government through this process
DRDLR
Mahlathini has an interest in promoting the community based farmer centres that are
developing in the region as an alternative to the secondary cooperatives within the new
RASET (Radical social and Economic transformation) initiative and the agripark programme.
The latter focusses on creating an economic pathway within government structures for
agricultural produce.
In this regard meetings were also held with one of the Directors of DRDLR in the province,
Ms Lisa del Grande, who had previously indicated a potential for funding pilots of alternative
models. See attachment 1 (Concept proposal for Farmer Service Centres linked to maize
and poultry production: April 2017) for the concept proposal designed for this purpose. This
process has progressed substantially, but the outcomes are that the DRDLR is in essence
more interested in finding organisations that can support their process (for the most part un
funded) and do not have pathways for supporting other organisations. MoU’s first need to be
set up with such organisations and this process takes time.
DRDLR is interested in working with GrainSA in an area called Groenvlei (outside Utrecht) to
be part of a planning and implementation process for an Agripark in that area.
A further meeting with the regional coordinator for DRDLR, based in Ixopo, Mrs Hlengiwe
Mazibuko was unfruitful in terms of discussing our proposal. The DRDLR feeling is that
NGOs should support their initiative and assist the secondary cooperatives. They further
indicated their impression that NGOs are not adding value to the process and cannot ‘do’
anything that the Department itself cannot do.
Events and conferences
Land Care Conference (October 2016)
Land Care is a community participation model, implemented through DAFF and the
provincial Departments of Agriculture, based on voluntary groups of farmers and other
committed people working together at a local level to address local issues that vary from
place to place given issues in the locality and originates from Australia and Germany back in
the year 1986. The Conference, held on 3-6 October in Kimberly, South Africa was the 7th
Biennial conference tasked with addressing land degradation issues across the country. The
idea behind bringing relevant stakeholders together was aimed at sharing best practices and
technologies to aid in protecting as well as rehabilitating degraded agricultural resources
which translate to means of food security, job creation and sustainable livelihoods. The
conference was jointly convened by DAFF and the Northern Cape Department of
Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. The theme for the conference was
termed:
“Making a Land Care difference towards achieving land degradation neutrality.”
28
The audience was a mixture of general public, private and public sectors from all over the
country. Various departments’ management and extension staff were there, including the
ARC, Grain SA, FAO, farmer associations and farmers themselves were also represented by
a few individuals. Mr. Xaba from Madzikane was one of them under the Cedara banner, Mr.
Thabani Madondo represented farmers in the Okhahlamba Local Municipality. Mahlathini
Development Foundation had Mazwi representing the organization where he also presented
work his organization does in a separate session convened by Dr. Hendrik Smith. The idea
here was also to build bridges with other institutions with the aim of making more concerted
efforts in addressing the degradation of natural resources for agricultural activities for food
security.
Site visits to some on existing Landcare activities in the area included showcasing
rehabilitation and protection of natural resources, alien plant clearing and stream
rehabilitation, soil and water management and livestock rearing.
Some of the resolutions made at the conference to carry the LandCare process forwards
are:
Create awareness of the role of the Land care approach in achieving pertinent issues in
the global agenda such as meeting country level targets on land restoration and land
degradation neutrality;
Continue reaching out to other countries in Africa through partnerships and Land care
capacity building events;
Position the Land care approach as the best option currently for scaling-out sustainable
livelihood interventions;
Give special focus and support to regional and national level Land care networks through
fundraising at regional and country level, awareness creation and partnership
development, and documentation and dissemination of lessons;
Make more spirited efforts towards the development and realization of the “Green belt in
the Southern Africa states” through enhanced fundraising and awareness creation by
2017;
Land care focal points to continue taking the lead in mainstreaming the approach in
country programs and projects;
Provide support and attendance to the LandCare Master class which will be held in
Zambia in December 2016;
Continue to support awareness creation and partnerships through side events in major
conferences and meetings;
Members to continue with regular cost-effective meetings and teleconferences at least
on a quarterly basis.
These resolutions will be used to strengthen the LandCare network and will inform future
initiatives and gathering.
Soil Health day (October 2016)
This was the first national event in soil health organised by the Soil Health Support Centre
and Nulandis, on the 26th of October2016 in Pretoria.
The MDF team attended this event and contributed to one of the panel discussions. Some of
the key messages of the day included:
29
Profit margins are decreasing as farmers need to apply more and more fertilizer to
maintain yields. This leads to untenably high input costs and reduced profit margins.
The importance of soil health in sustainable agriculture cannot be overlooked. If one
farms in sustainable way with time inputs costs decrease, or become manageable
and profit margins rise.
Morocco is one of the countries that still have Phosphorus (P), but the sources are
being depleted. Input of Phosphorus in fertilizers will be a challenge going forward.
Adopting more sustainable practices such as CA is advantageous because it helps
build P reserves in soil by improving soil health.
Soil health is defined by the capacity of the soil to function as a living ecosystem that
sustains plants, animals and humans. It refers to microbial activity in the soil, the
more biological life in the soil the better the soil quality. Mineralization is the biological
process of breaking down organic matter into simpler organic compounds that can be
taken up by plants. Healthy soils have good reserves of NPK. If no farming is done
how much nutrients will you have in the soil. Has farming increased microbial activity
or not?
Cover crops are crops, mainly grasses and legumes which are planted in between
main crops to improve soil fertility. The primary benefits of planting cover crops
include improve soil health, water conservation, control of pests and diseases. Cover
crops such as legumes act as accumulators of Nitrogen (N). The amount of N
available depends on the species of legume, biomass and available N in plant tissue.
Benefit/relevance
Everyone realised that soil health is a new technology and that there is still a lot more to
learn. Moving forward, it is one of the decision making tools that can be used to assess
sustainability of agricultural practices.
Ukulinga Howard Davis Symposium (May 2017)
The Ukulinga Howard Davis Symposium took place on 30 May 2017 at Ukulinga Research
farm. The symposium takes place each year to present the latest research conducted by the
School of Agriculture, Engineering and Sciences at UKZN. It was attended by organizations
such as Siyazisiza, Biowatch, the Poultry Institute, PACSA and Mahlathini amongst others.
Proffessor Ben Cousins gave a presentation on “Smallholder Farmers and Land Reform in
South Africa”. The presentation highlighted the slow moving process of land redistribution,
where only 10% of farm land has been transferred since 1994. Although there are marginal
improvements in the livelihoods of some land reform beneficiaries, which has been identified
through case studies there is no national data to support these findings. In KwaZulu-Natal,
the major challenge is on tenure reform where government has failed to protect the rights of
labour tenants and farm dwellers. Black smallholder farmers live in a shadow of large scale
farming and there is a largely unknown informal market “bakkie traders” in the smallholder
sector in South Africa. Formal research is focused mainly on large scale agriculture and
there is still a long way to go in transforming the smallholder farming sector. Professor
Roland Schultz gave a presentation on linking Food to Water and Energy. The main points
from the presentation were that there is pressure on energy sources, especially from the
agricultural industry. Diesel and electricity put a lot of pressure on energy sources, therefore
it may be time to explore solar power and renewable energy sources. Biofuels derived from
plant sources could assist in addressing the problem, i.e. bioethanol from sugar cane and
30
soy bean and bio diesel from vegetable oil amongst others. Organizations that gave
presentations on the day include Biowatch, where Mr Lawrence Mkhaliphi presented on the
importance of seed saving and organic farming, the Mr Gwala from the Poultry Institute
presented on broiler and layer production, Mrs Avrashka Sahadeva presented the findings
on using the Sthill tiller in small scale gardens. The symposium created awareness on
current research and also presented an opportunity to meet and interact with various
stakeholders.
No Till Club annual conference (October 2016 and September 2017)
This was attended by a number of staff members from Mahlathini Development Foundation.
A formal presentation was given at the 2017 conference on the implementation of CA in the
smallholder sector.
Farmer Innovation Platforms
Madzikane Stakeholder Forum
An innovation platform and stakeholder forum has been set up at Madzikane (Creighton) in
Southern KZN. The process was formalised through thehosting of a farmers’ symposium
called ‘New frontiers in CA implementation for smallholder farmers in Southern KZN’
After the initial Madzikane Stakeholder forum meeting a number of subsequent activities and
meetings have been held. These have included information days shared with the DARD, and
a farmers day for the trials run by the Farming Systems Unit at Cedara.
In addition, the farmers association, under the leadership of Mr C Xaba has been very active
in leveraging recourses for the group. They are in the process of acquiring a sheller for the
group and there is alreadya small mill forlocal maizemeal production. Mr Xaba has been
given access to a sheller for this season by the DARD.
Nokweja
In this area, there has been considerable interest in the CA. Two other stakeholder
groupings namely the DARD and The GrainSA Farmer Support Porgramme are also active
in the area. Meetings were held to introduce the various programmes and work together on
overall planning and implementation. A farmers’ day showcasing CA implements was held
by the Department and this was augmented by a demonstration day held by the GrainSA CA
team to showcase the new 2 row tractor drawn planter that has been acquired for use by
farmers
A formal Stakeholder forum has as yet not been set up in the area and this has been
somewhat hampered by the sudden and tragic death of the head of the farmers association
there, Mr Nokweja. In all expansion into three new villages in the area is anticipated and
social compact agreement with Mahlathini has been tabled.
VSLAs (Village savings and loans associations)
Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA’s) are being established by the Mahlathini
Development Foundation (MDF) with the aim to support and empower local learning groups
to save towards production inputs. A VSLA is a group of 10 to 19 individuals who meet
31
regularly to save together and take small loans from those savings. The VSLA operates for a
period of twelve months after which the savings and profits are shared out amongst the
members according to the numbers of shares each member accumulated during the year
and then the process is started again. A VSLA group is formed on a voluntary basis and has
a specific purpose which is to offer financial services to its members.
MDF provides support to 13 groups across Nkandla, Creighton, and Bergville. The VSLA
groups, with the exception of Madzikane consists of mainly female members (98%) who also
make up the majority of participants working under the Conservation Agriculture (CA)
program. However, these groups also have members who only participate in savings but are
not doing CA. MDF is further involved with 5 Saving and Credit Groups in the Matatiele area,
supported by the local facilitator there, Bulelwa Dzingwa.
VSLA’s are a means for communities to save a portion of their income and make profit in the
end through interest charged on loans. The groups have a constitution that they follow when
conducting their savings meetings which guides them in terms of procedures regarding the
purchase of shares, share value, issuing of loans, interest charged, payment period and
non-financial components such as group composition, meeting attendance and the roles of
each member.
The team has been working closely with the groups across all areas with the aim to monitor
their progress and identify and help resolve challenges they experience. This interaction has
played a pivotal role in understanding the dynamics within the groups. Owing to the socio-
economic status of the groups where most people are unemployed and depend on social
grants and seasonal employment to survive, the VSLAs serve as multipurpose entities
whereby loans are taken for household needs, to pay back other loans and other activities
unrelated to agricultural production.
Generally, the groups know their constitutions but do not always follow the non-negotiable
rules when it comes to the issuing and distribution of loans. One of the highlights of the
VSLA’s is that they have empowered some groups to explore alternative ways of generating
money for inputs. For instance, one group started a VSLA specifically for the purchase of
fertiliser and also developed a system of making individual contributions of a predetermined
amount and giving the money to one group member every month. This was done to assist
each other to buy fencing and the money rotated until all the members received the
contributions. As a way to meet both household and production requirements, some groups
have opened two separate groups, one for agricultural inputs and another for general inputs.
Training for VSLA bookkeepers
This was initiated both to improve the record keeping capacity of the secretaries and to
introduce the new system of record keeping for the groups. An outline of the training is
provided in Attachment 3.
32
FIGURE 4:MR NQE DLAMINI FACILITATING THE RECORD KEEPER TRAINING SESSION
The training was extremely helpful in re-asserting the important role of the bookkeepers to
ensure proper functioning of their groups; to ensure that rules are adhered to, to manage
conflict in the group and to do accurate record keeping. An example of one of the new record
keeping forms introduced is given in attachment 4.
Below is a breakdown of the status of the savings groups in the three areas.
Nkandla
Maphotho savings group in Nkandla started saving in December 2016 and consists of 21
members who are all female. The group saves monthly, with each member buying shares at
R100/per share. Profit is generated through loans that are paid back with an interest of
10%/month. Each group member is required to repay the loan within one calendar month.
The group members work well together and follow the constitution. The group members
borrow money mainly for household consumption.
33
Right: Nkandla Savings Group working
with the new savings books and forms
Madzikane
Masibambane savings group based in Creighton started saving in March 2017 and has a
total of 15 members. The group meets monthly for savings and the share value is R200.00.
The group is the only one with a share value of more than R100.00. The group met for their
first savings meeting without MDF in June and reported that the meeting went smoothly. The
group understands the rules of the group constitution and follow all rules and procedures. So
far no major challenges have been reported. More than 50% of the group members borrow
money for agricultural production. The rest of the group, borrows money for household
consumption.
Left and below: Madzikane, Masibambane Savings Group
34
Bergville
Bergville has a total of 11 groups in eight villages, Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Stulwane,
Ndunwana, Ngoba, Bethany, Acton Homes and Mhlathuze. The smallest group consists of
10 members and the largest group consists of 40 members. Out of the 11 groups, 7 groups
are in their first year of savings. All groups have a constitution, but the members do not
always adhere to the rules. Challenges within the groups mainly relate to the issuing and
repayments of loans. The rule is that people should take loans to the value of double their
shares, but members in some groups take loans up to four times their number of shares.
Below are short descriptions of the current status of the savings groups in Bergville.
Ezibomvini
There are two savings groups in Ezibomvini, one for general household needs and another
(Ukuzama) for the purchase of fertiliser. The groups have 23 and 10 members respectively.
In both groups, the payment period is 6 months rather than the prescribed 4 months. The
reason was that most members would not be able to pay back the loan in 4 months as the
period was too short. Secondly, the group saves between R100.00 and R 300.00 a month
instead of R 100.00 to R500.00, because they could not afford to save more than R 300.00 a
month. In the first group, all three keys are kept by one person as one of the key bearers left
the group. The members of the learning groups agreed to have two separate groups as
there were people who wanted to join the savings group but weren’t under the CA program.
The groups are in their second year of operation.
FIGURE 5:EZIBOMVINI,UKUZAMA FERTILISER SAVINGSGROUP
Eqeleni group
Eqeleni also has two savings groups, Masithuthuke which is for inputs and Masibambane
which is saving for household use. Both groups have been around for more than 3 years.
The groups meet monthly to save and the share value is R100.00. Apart from one member
leaving the group due to non-payment, no major challenges have been reported.
35
Stulwane
Stulwane is the largest group in Bergville. It has a total of 40 members, and has 100%
female membership. There are a few dynamics in the group, especially when it comes to
borrowing money and repayments. To give some historical background, the group has been
around for about four years. There has been a constant change in membership over the
years and as a result the group has a mixture of old and new members. There is a tendency
of taking out new loans prior to fully repaying old ones and people take out loans that far
exceed their total shares. In addition, there seems to be an imbalance in power within the
group as some members believe they are entitled to certain privileges over others. For
instance, there is a member that owes money from 2016 but is still allowed to take out loans.
Going forward, the group will have to split into two groups or let go of some members, as
being such a large group puts strain on the group secretary and has a higher likelihood of
ending in conflict. The group has been advised to refrain from taking multiple loans and to
consider splitting into two groups in the 2018.
Mhlathuze, Acton Homes, Bethany
There are four groups in the abovementioned areas and they are all in their first year of
savings. Mhlathuze was started by Mr Madondo from MDF in January 2017. The group
consists of 17 members who meet monthly to save and the share value is R100.00. No
major challenges have been reported so far, except members take loans on top of existing
ones. Upon enquiry, they stated that they were not aware that it was not allowed. There are
two groups in Bethany and one in Acton homes which were started by Ms Makhithi, a former
Save Act facilitator. She requested MDF to work with the groups as they had no support
since Save Act had moved out of Bergville. Initially there was a total of eight new groups,
however it was agreed that MDF could only assist 3 groups. In terms of coherence, the
groups are fairly functional, however there is one group, Gudlintaba in Bethany in which the
members do not get along with the chairperson. It was advised that they hold a meeting and
elect an acting chairperson as soon as possible. The other two groups work well together
and follow the group constitution.
Above: Acton Homes Savings Group
36
Above: Bethany, Amangwe Savings Group
There is a total of 270 participants in the savings groups. For the current year, the groups
have saved a sum of R 291 800. A total of R 67 300 was bought in shares and a total of R
60 410 was paid back in loans for the month of June. All the money is managed and kept by
the groups. Attachment 2 provides a breakdown of the savings for each group.
Matatiele
Here Mahlathini’s involvement with savings groups has been though Bulelwa Dzingwa, the
local facilitator who is also a local promoter for SaveAct in the area and works with setting up
and mentoring the groups.
There are five savings group with CA participants, three in Nkau, one in Iskhulumi and one in
Sekhutlong. In total, there are 11people doing CA who are partof savings. Groupssave for
various reasons such as paying school fees, buying groceries, furniture and building houses.
None of thegroupssave for production inputs. See attachment 5 for an example of the monthly
savings record of the Nkau Savings’ Group.
Bulelwa stated that she wants to establish new savings groups in Belford, Mabua and
Thutaneng with Mahlathini as Save Act does not work in these areas. People in the
abovementioned areas would be interested in conducting CA trials, and the CA program can
be introduced at the local Imbizo called by the chief.
Future activities
A number of processes are being considered and explored for this aspect of the programme:
Opening of Stokvel bank accounts for the VSLA’s
Systems for re-ordering and payments to suppliers to enable smooth payment
options by smallholders
Payment of input subsidies for the CA programme as part of the VSLA shar outs
process
Social compact agreements with all learning groups and VSLA’s
Arrangements for purchase of grain storage containers on a 50% contribution basis-
where grains pays 50% and farmers the 505 through their VSLA’s
Incentives for “good practice” in the VSLA’s in the form of donations of tools, or some
arrangement of trade that does not involve cash
37
Suggestions and recommendations
MDF has employed new field staff in this cycle and Tema Mathebula will be ready to
managed the Midlands site in the upcoming season. As such she will be responsible
for the Cornfields and Mpholweni sites as well as expansion areas in Swayimane and
Wartburg. In addition, she will explore the possibility of starting learning groups in the
Thabamhlope communal tenure areas around Estcourt.
The work on soil health is to be continued and expanded, as the results are important
and show the potential benefits of CA implementation in the light of ecological and
environmental factors.
VLSA (Village savings and loan associations) are being shown to be central to the
future sustainability of CA efforts and are becoming a central aspect of the innovation
platforms and learning group approach. These will be promoted actively in the
Midlands region as well. Presently there is not an existing culture of VSLAs in the
villages where work has been started.
There may be a need to separate the expansion and awareness raising aspects of
this programme to an extent from the research aspects-
oFurther funding is required for the expansion, both in terms of resources for
the inputs required for the farmer experimentation and the required logistical
capacity to service many different areas
oResearch requires greater focus, time and technical expertise than some of
the fieldworkers have and specific staff may need to be employed for this.
Instrumentation and analysis is generally too expensive to fall within the
present budgets
Bringing other potential donors on board is important both for the research and the
expansion as is the initiation of smaller, dedicated research projects within this
process.
Opportunities exist to work within the realm of climate change adaptation and
payment for ecosystem services schemes, but this aspect is complex and will require
focussed attention.
Partnerships with government departments such as Agriculture, Rural Development,
Environment and Economic Development are important.
38
Attachment 1: Concept proposal for Farmer Service Centres linked to
maize and poultry production: April 2017
Background
The Mahlathini Development Foundation has pioneered a model for value chain
development and support at a local level for rural smallholder agricultural commodities
(maize, and beans, poultry production {broilers and layers}, vegetable production, potatoes
and livestock) . The work has been done in conjunction with The SaveAct Trust, StratAct
Grain SA, KZNPI (Poultry Institute) and Lima Rural Development Foundation.
The model is based on a farmer innovation approach linked to village level savings and
credit groups, where smallholder farmers in previously disadvantaged communities organise
themselves into commodity interest groups. These interest groups work together within the
whole value chain from input supply, through production to marketing to learn together and
create local economic opportunities within the system. They form bulk buying groups, set up
local supply systems and SMME’s, participate in farmer level learning and experimentation
and forge local market linkages. They are supported to forge relationships with Agribusiness
and Institutional partners and receive support and training in small business development.
Over the last 5 years, this model has proven extremely successful in stimulating local
production and marketing and provides coherent support to smallholders to develop their
farming enterprises. Linking the smallholder into the wider economy and ensuring ongoing
profitability under their difficult conditions can be tackled as a challenge with appropriate
industry and government support.
Concept
Develop a model of implementation for local rural farmer service centres that supports
individual smallholder farmers to develop viable SMME’s in their commodities of choice.
Working within and across linked commodity value chains is important, as is building a
stable local value chain that suits and supports smallholders. Individual smallholders are
organised into functional groups that can develop into more formalised structures. Functional
groups link across nodal villages to form farmer forums that oversee nodal farmer centres.
Farmer centres are managed and run by a combination of local facilitators, local SMME’s
and a support organisation.
A local market system analysis determines the key starting point of intervention; input
supply, production support or marketing, for each area. Each intervention is linked to villages
level savings and credit groups and or revolving loan funds that pay for inputs and limited
capital improvements. Relationships with Agribusiness and Institutional partners are
cultivated and formalised for input supply and marketing. Partnerships with private
commodity organisations such as Grain-SA and SAPA are seen as crucial.
Combining commodity focus areas of field crop production, poultry production and livestock
fodder production makes sense in consolidating and creating coherent value chains in local,
rural localities and economies.. Feed and fodder can be produced for poultry and livestock
as an integrated part of the grain production system, specifically if it is focused on
Conservation Agriculture principles. This includes an imperative for crop diversification which
could include a range of grain crops (including white and yellow maize, sorghum and millet) ,
39
legumes (such as sugar beans, cowpeas and dolichos) as well as cover crops such as
(sunnhemp, sunflower, black oats, fodder rye, fodder radish, Teff and Lucerne)
Implementation model; commodity inters groups, linked to local value chains
Individual smallholders in a locality/village work together in functional groups that:
1.Learn together: Working within the whole value chain focus learning though farmer
level experimentation and mentoring on a season long basis, alongside technical
training sessions to ensure full engagement by smallholders in the production
aspects of their chosen commodity
2.Do Savings and small loans: These functional learning groups also set up village
level savings and credit groups, as access to cash and cash flow and learning a
process of budgeting and allocation is a critical component of a successful production
cycle
3.Focus on the whole commodity value chain: Within the groups a learning and
action process is undertaken that guides members analysis and decision making
through the whole value chain; access and cost of inputs, efficient production,
harvesting, storage, value adding and marketing and technical, infrastructural and
institutional support.
Potential commodities are evaluated for local implementation and profitability and the
groups decide on a 2-3 commodities of their choice to focus on. Business start up
straining is focused around these commodities and each individual develops a
business plan which they implement with assistance from supporting organisations.
4.Explore social and economic models of organisation: The functional groups
explore organisational options and undertake formalising suitable structures over
time. This would include associations and cooperatives.
A nodal approach is used to link farmer groups across a locality into a Farmer service
centres. Nodes are made up of groups within a village or across villages within close
proximity that share roads within a 10km radius. Around 5-10 groups will make up the
membership of a farmer service centre. The centre provides
Access to tools and equipment; through sales and rental agreements
Access to inputs; through bulk buying schemes and direct sales of appropriately
packaged inputs specific to their commodities of interest
Access to advice through local facilitators and support organisations
Access to services such a spraying, and ploughing
And a forum for discussing and setting up joint activities such as storage, processing
and marketing
Farmer Service Centres
These are envisaged as local level centres managed by farmer level committees and run
jointly by local facilitators, entrepreneurs and the support organisation.
Characteristics of the farmer centres include:
40
Membership from local smallholder farmers
Managed and run by elected volunteers/ local facilitators as well as the support
organisation and the farmer level representatives/committee
Provision of access to advice and local services
Provision of access to affordable inputs and market linkages
Income generation balanced by agreed proportion of subsidization by support
organisations
Formal relationships and contracts with agribusiness
Formal relationships with local SMME’s and service providers.
Activities within the implementation model
A certain level of skill and social cohesion needs to be built up among smallholder farmers
engaged in specific enterprises to be able to develop a coherent value chain approach and
implementation. The activities in the table below summarise this step wise approach across
a 4 year implementation time line.
TABLE1:ACTIVITIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMODITY INTEREST GROUPS LINKED TO
LOCAL VALUE CHAINS.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
-Set up farmer
learning groups
in villages that
can
accommodate
nodal
expansion
- Expand nodal model
and set up forums
consisting of farmer
learning groups across
and within villages
- Explore
organisational
structures and set up
committees and
membership for
forums
- Formalise the
farmer forums and
set up organisational
structure for the
farmer service centre
- Expand farmer
service centre model
to include 3-4 local
area centres
- Support committees
and local facilitators
run farmer service
centres and monitor
progress towards
sustainability.
(Ongoing for 3-4
years from here)
- Link the local farmer
service centres into
an umbrella structure
-Set up village
level savings
and credit
groups (VLS)
around the
learning groups
- Continue to set up
VLS groups
- Work with VLS
groups to focus
savings, loans and
share outs on
productise activities
and assets
-Set up bulk buying
groups
- Continue to set up
VLS groups
- Expand bulk buying
groups
-Develop appropriate
financial instruments
for production loans
and savings
- Closely monitor
VLS groups
- Formalise
partnerships with
agribusiness around
bulk buying options
- Formalise financial
instruments into
financial institutions
- Choose local
facilitators 2-
3/ village
- Continue to choose
local facilitators
- Local facilitators
volunteer and/or are
elected into formal
positions to support
farmers and set up
farmer service centres
- Continue to choose
local facilitators
- Local facilitators set
up chosen structure
for farmer service
centre with farmer
forums
-Local facilitators run
service centres with
support organisations
- Local facilitators
manage farmer
centres and work with
local learning groups
- Local facilitators
earn a partial income
through the farmer
service centres
- Support
organisations
formalise ongoing
relationship with local
41
facilitators, including
structures for
subsidisation
-Choose
commodities of
interest and
start production,
learning and
small business
development
- Provide intensive
business start up
training and develop
individual business
plans
- Explore commodity
value chains for
collaborative options
- Formalise farmer
level cooperative
actions around
inputs, production
support, post harvest
activities and
marketing
- Support SMME
activities around the
value chains
-Finalise formal
farmer level structures
- Formalise farmer
service centre
organisational ad
economic structures
- Provide
production
support
farmer
experimentation
and learning
based on
production
cycles.
-Continue production
support with local
facilitators in place and
starting to provide
services to farmer
learning groups
- Design subsidisation
model for farmer
participants and
service centre
- Continue production
support with local
facilitators in place
and continue to
provide services to
farmer learning
groups
-Test subsidisation
model for farmer
participants and
service centre
-Continue production
support with local
facilitators in place
and continue to
provide services to
farmer learning
groups
-Formalise
subsidisation model
for farmer participants
and
- Post harvest,
storage and
processing
discussions and
learning
- Develop local
marketing
options and
avenues
-Monitor
consumption
and sales
- Farmer learning
groups engage in joint
post harvest and
storage activities
-Set up SMME’s that
support processing
and marketing (e.g.
local maize mills. Local
poultry feed
production, fodder and
hay production ...)
--Monitor consumption
and sales
- Develop
relationships
between farmer
service centres,
farmer forums,
SMME’s and local
service providers
-Develop local
marketing systems
and forge links with
commercial and
institutional buyers
--Monitor
consumption and
sales
- Formalise
relationships between
farmer service
centres, farmer
forums, SMME’s and
local service providers
-Continue to develop
local marketing
systems and
formalise links with
commercial and
institutional buyers
--Monitor
consumption and
sales
Year 1: Set up nodal villages:
(1 full time field worker, 1 part time fieldworker, 1 part time manager, 1 part time
administration assistant); 1 vehicle, office rental, office equipment and stationary x 1
15-25 smallholder farmers per learning group x 2 commodities X 3-4 villages ~160
individuals
5-8 farmer experimentation volunteers per learning group, per commodity x 2
commodities ~80 individuals
2-3 VLS groups(~15 members) per village x 3-4 villages ~90 individuals
42
2-3 local facilitators/village x 3-4 villages ~7 local facilitators
Year 2: Expand villages within nodes and set up farmer centres:
(2 full time fieldworkers, 1 part time field worker, 1 full time administration assistant, 1 part
time financial/ business support person,1 part time M&E officer, 1 part time manager); 2
vehicles, office rental, office equipment and stationary x 2
2-3 villages/node x 3-4 nodes ~ 480 individuals, 160 farmer experimentation
volunteers, 180 VLS members
~20 Local facilitators
1 bulk buying group per village x 6-8 villages ~ 7 bulk buying groups
1farmer centre per node ~ 2-3 farmer centres
1-2 SMME’s linked to farmer centre, per village x 10 villages ~ 15 SMME’s
~1-6 farmer cooperatives
Year 3: Link farmer centres across nodes and formalise farmer organisations:
(3 full time fieldworkers, , 1 full time administration assistant, 1 full time financial/ business
support person,1 part time M&E officer, 1 part time manager)
3-4 villages per node x 4-5 nodes ~ 800 individuals, 240 farmer level experimentation
volunteers, 540 VLS members
2-3 bulk buying groups per village x 15 villages ~ 35 bulk buying groups
4-5 farmer centres
2-3 SMME’s linked to farmer centre per village x 15-20 villages ~45 SMME’s
~3 formalised farmer forums links to farmer centres
~15 farmer cooperatives
Year 4: Formalise partnerships with farmer centres:
(3 full time fieldworkers, , 1 full time administration assistant, 1 full time financial/ business
support person,1 part time M&E officer, 1 part time manager); 2 vehicles, office rental, office
equipment and stationary x 3
~10 farmer centres, ~90 SMME’s
~10 formalised farmer forums
3-4 formalised institutional models for farmer centres
3-4 formalised partnership contractual arrangements with framer centres and or
farmer forums
Start to expand model into new areas
43
Proposed budget requirements
Year1Year2Year3Year4
Field workerR 396 000,00 R528000,00 R 792 000,00R 846 000,00
Administrationassistant R 48000,00 R 96000,00R 114 000,00R 120 000,00
Financial/Business support
person
R 108 000,00 R108000,00 R 240 000,00R 264 000,00
M&EofficerR 108 000,00 R216 000,00R 216 000,00
ManagerR 129 600,00 R259200,00 R 355 200,00R 444 000,00
Localfacilitator stipends R 72000,00R 144 000,00 R288 000,00R 288 000,00
Vehicle/transportR 90000,00 R 96300,00R 103 041,00R 110 253,87
AccommodationR 102 000,00 R204000,00 R 306 000,00R 306 000,00
Administration; banking,
auditing, equipment,
stationary, sundries, office
rental
R 110 000,00 R117700,00 R 125 939,00R 134 754,73
Farmer level experimentation
support; inputs and
subsidisation (~R1000/ farmer)
R 90000,00 R180 000,00 R270 000,00R 270 000,00
Farmer Service Centresupport;
stock, rental, administration
R 150 000,00 R200 000,00R 250 000,00
SubTotals- yearly1 145 600,00R1 991 200,00R3 010 180,00R3249 008,60R
TOTAL- 4years9 395 988,60R
Co-Funding - GrainSA -
(secured)
500000,00R 550000,00R580000,00R
Farmer Service Centre support budget; 4 years
Attachment 2: Summary of Savings group activities; Creighton, Nkandla and Bergville
No.
Name of Village
Name of Group
No. Of
Members
Years
active
Total monthly
saving
Total Monthly
Repayments
Total monthly
loans
Cumulative No. of
shares
CREIGHTON
1
Madzikane
Masibambane
15
1
R5,000.00
R10,280.00
R4,440.00
R18,800.00
NKANDLA
2
Nkandla
Maphotho
21
2
R1,900.00
R0.00
R16,200.00
R13,300.00
BERGVILLE
3
Ezibomvini
eZibomvini
23
2
R5,300.00
R3,020.00
R0.00
R38,500.00
4
Ezibomvini
Ukuzama
10
1
R16,300.00
R2,950.00
R4,330.00
R18,500.00
5
Eqeleni
Masithuthuke
20
4
R3,700.00
R2,840.00
R4,000.00
R31,400.00
6
Eqeleni
Masibambane
25
3
R5,700.00
R3,050.00
R6,000.00
R40,800.00
7
Stulwane
uMntwana
40
4
R7,700.00
R7,330.00
R6,600.00
R48,400.00
8
Mhlathuze
Siyaphambili
17
1
R2,600.00
R2,990.00
R5,500.00
R13,500.00
9
Acton Homes
Siyazama
20
1
R4,500.00
R11,085.00
R13,700.00
R8,400.00
10
Bethany
Gudlintaba
19
1
R2,600.00
R5,140.00
R2,500.00
R19,500.00
11
Bethany
Amangwe
19
1
R6,000.00
R8,380.00
R4,100.00
R25,200.00
12
Ndunwana
Phelandaba
20
1
R2,000.00
R0.00
R2,940.00
R15,500.00
13
Ngoba
Sakhokuhle
21
1
R4,000.00
R3,345.00
R8,800.00
R0.00
TOTAL
270
R67,300.00
R60,410.00
R79,110.00
R291,800.00
Attachment 3; Outline of Record keeper training and supervision framework
Mahlathini Development Foundation - May 2017
Purpose of Training and Supervision Framework
This training and supervision framework is targeted to record keepers of Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLAs), saving groups and
stokvels. Participants will be able to follow the correct procedures to record all financial and non-financial transactions in a group’s record
system correctly.
Specific Outcomes
1.Explain the record keeping system of a group
2.Identify and describe types of records used in the group
3.Capture Entries:Create members’ information record for biographical details of all members of the group in a membership book/form
4.Prepare and facilitate a saving meeting of a group
5.Capture Entries: Record all shares purchased in a meeting in the record books of members as well as the ledger of the group
6.Calculate Rand value of shares bought by a member in each meeting
7.Capture Entries: Record the repayment of loans by the members in the record books of members as well as the ledger of the group
8.Capture Entries: Record new loans in the record books of members as well as the ledger of the group
9.Calculate interest on loans taken
10.Calculate loans due and outstanding loans
11.Prevent members for taking new loans before settling current and outstanding debts
12.Capture Entries: Complete a meeting summary form (closing balances) and submit to the representative of MDF
13.Announce the closing balances to the group
14.Facilitate a share-out meeting and calculate share growth and amount due to each individual member
15.Capture Entries: Record all share-out entries in the record books of members as well as the ledger of the group
16.Report irregularities to the group
Assessment Criteria
1.The purpose for which the records are used is explained with examples
2.Complete membership forms/entries in accordance to group’s constitution
46
3.All entries are prepared and checked in accordance to the group’s recording system
4.The details of entries are recorded correctly in all individual and group’s transactional books
5.All transactions are communicated correctly to members of the group
Training/Facilitation Aids
1.Constitution of a VSLA
2.Individual member transaction book
3.VSLA record pack
4.Flip chart (flip chart stand and pens)
5.Note book
Training Programme (Duration: 3.5 hours to 4 hours)
No.
Item
Duration
1
Welcome, introductions, purpose, expectations, workshop rules
15 min
2
Overview of VSLA rules and procedures
15 min
3
Purpose and significance of records - general
5 min
4
Types of records - general
5 min
5
Qualities of a record keeper
10 min
Break
10 min
6
Identification and description of records of a VSLA
30 min
7
Calculating Rand value of shares and interest on loans
15 min
8
Capturing entries
60 min
9
Facilitating share-out meeting and calculating share-out
30 min
10
Summary of the workshop
15 min
Attachment 4: An example of a record keeping sheet for the VSLAs
Form 2: Amarekhodi: Amasheya Nemali-mbolekoUsuku - Date:_______________Records: Shares & Loans
Isibongo - Surname
Izinhla
vu -
Initials
Amasheya
Athengiwe
Namhlanje - Shares
bought
Amasheya
Esenginawo -
Cumulative No. of
Shares
Imininingwane Ngemali-mboleko - Details of Loans*
Inan
i -
No.
Awumalini?
- Value?
Isikweletu
Esikhokhiwe
Namhlanje -
Paid In
Isikweletu
Esisasele -
BalanceOwing
Isikweletu
Esisha -
New Loan
Imali Ekufanele
Ngiyikhokhe
Ngokuzayo -
Loan Due
Inan
i -
No.
Malini?
Value
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ISAMBA - TOTAL
Name of Group: _______________________________________________ *Yonke imali-mboleko ibhalwa seyihlangene nenzalo All loan
records are inclusive of interest
48
Attachment 5: MARCH RECORDS NCEDANI SAVINGS GROUP: NKAU
Name of
group
Ncedani Savings Group
Ref No
Date of meeting
14 March 2017
Ref No.
Member
Name
Shares
Bought
Rand
Value
Cumulative
no of
shares
Cumulative
Rand
Value
Loan
Amount
Reasons for taking a
Loan
Balance
Owed
GM1
Nofirst
5
R 500.00
20
R 2000.00
R 2000.00
Household consumption
R 2200.00
GM2
Nothandolwethu
0
0
6
R 600.00
R 1600.00
Household consumption
R 1760.00
GM3
Matshukulo
5
R 500.00
20
R 2000.00
R 1000.00
Household consumption
R 1100.00
GM4
Nokwanda
2
R 200.00
10
R 1000.00
R 500.00
Household consumption
R 550.00
GM5
Mamtlobi
5
R 500.00
20
R 2000.00
R 500.00
Household consumption
R 550.00
GM6
Mamodise
3
R 300.00
13
R 1300.00
R 1500.00
Household consumption
R 1650.00
GM7
Majosiele
3
R 300.00
16
R 1600.00
R 500.00
Household consumption
R 550.00
GM8
Andiswa
5
R 500.00
15
R 1500.00
R 300.00
Household consumption
R 1650.00
GM9
Madiopelo
5
R 500.00
20
R 2000.00
R 1500.00
Household Consumption
R 1650.00
GM10
Maqekelo
5
R 500.00
15
R 1500.00
R 500.00
Household consumption
R 550.00
GM 11
Siphulelo
5
R 500.00
15
R 1500.00
R 1000.00
Household Consumption
R 1100.00
TOTAL
43
R
4300.00
R 13 600.00
49
MONEY IN
MONEY OUT
Number of shares bought today
43
Number of loans issued today
Rand Value of shares bought
today
R 4300.00
Value of loans issued today
R 13 600.00
Value of loans repaid today
R 2710.00
Money remaining in the box
R 4710.00
Total income received today
R 7010.00
Money to be deposited in the bank
0
Optional Total funeral insurance
premium paid
Total value of outstanding loans
R 14 960.00
NOTES: 1) Loan amount must include 10% interest. 2) Repayment should include the 10% interest. 3) Balance owed must also include 10%
interest. 4) All of these figures should be the same with figures in the individual member’s transactional book.