Milestone 2 - Visioning and Decision Support Report | Mahlathini Development Foundation

| 1

Acknowledgements

The USAIDResilient WatersProgram is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Developmentand

implemented by Chemonics International Inc. Fixed amount award No. RWP-G3-MDF is a sub-grant

implemented by Mahlathini Development Foundation.

2 Forresters Lane

Pietermaritzburg, 3201

KZN, South Africa

T (+27)828732289

W www.mahlathini.org

Company Reg. No. 2016/285787/08 (2016)

Non-profit org. Reg. No. 930051028 (2015)

DUNS No. 539162 399

Community based climate change adaptation for increased

water productivity and food security for improved rural

livelihoodsin the Lower Olifants basin

MILESTONE 2: Visioning and Decision Support (1)

30/04/2020

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 2

ABOUT THE PROJECT

Mahlathini Development Foundation (MDF) is a small public benefit non-profit organization consisting of

rural development practitioners who specialize in participatory learning and action processes, sustainable

natural resource managementand low external input farming systems, including a focus on rain water

harvesting, conservation agriculture, intensive homestead food production, food security,climate change

adaptationmicro finance and enterprise development.

MDF designs and implements rural development programmes and training processes providing learning

processes for adults all the way from semi- literate farmers to post graduate university level. We work in

partnership with government and non-government organisations alike. We are sensitive to and mainstream

where possible gender, disability and people living with HIV/AIDs.

Climate variability and climate change (increased temperature, increased variability in rainfall patterns,

increased intensity of storms and increased drought) have far reaching effects on the lives and livelihoods

of the rural poor.Climate change poses a significant threat to South Africa’s water resources, food

security, health, infrastructure, ecosystem services and biodiversity.

This project intends to effect processes for community-based climate change adaptation (CB-CCA) for

improved livelihoods and resilience for project participants through introduction and implementation of

climate resilient agricultural (CRA) practices, building of social agency and stakeholder platforms and

support for alternative income generation opportunities.

The Innovation Systems methodological approachfor this projectfocuses on local level learning groups

and individual and group experimentation to increase local capacity and agency in building systems for

food security and rural livelihoods.

As a first step, a village level assessment of climate change impacts and general natural resource use

patterns are done. Secondly, an analysis of adaptive strategies and associated practices provides the

platform for implementation of locally derived and prioritized activities and CSA practices. Thirdly, the

learning groups provide the organizational platforms for participatory research and monitoring, improved

governance and agency and collaborative actions around village level water resource management,

rainfed cropping systems, grazing management, village level savings and loan associations and farmer

centers for local input provision and marketing.

Research and development assistance’s key role will be to create and facilitate innovation platforms for

local action in an environment of increasingly fractured social structures, immense economic and survival

pressures, and where direct government support to rural dwellers has decreased dramatically over the last

decade.Use of the smallholder farmer level decision support system will ensure a locally motivated and

owned agenda for action, with potential for transformative adaptation that includes local stakeholders

and service providers in the Communities of Practice (CoPs).

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 3

Contents

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................5

1.1 Progress for the reporting period.................................................................................5

2 Project Objectives........................................................................................................5

2.1 Overview of RW Community based CCA Project objectives...................................................5

3 Milestone Description.....................................................................................................6

3.1 Definition of milestone and purpose..............................................................................6

4 Visioning and decision support..........................................................................................6

4.1 Climate change impact mapping and visioning for new villages..............................................6

4.1.1 Understanding of Climate change................................................................8

4.1.2 Changes in the environment......................................................................9

4.1.3 Climate change impacts.........................................................................11

4.1.4 Local practices....................................................................................13

4.1.5 Adaptive measures...............................................................................14

4.1.6 CCA workshop reflection........................................................................15

4.1.7 Baselines...........................................................................................15

4.2 Review and planning for existing groups.......................................................................18

4.2.1 Turkey 1 and 2....................................................................................18

5 Progress for main activities...........................................................................................22

5.1 Learning and implementation:...................................................................................22

5.1.1 Conservation Agriculture experimentation...................................................22

5.1.2 Organic vegetable production and marketing................................................39

5.2 Mango production and marketing................................................................................41

5.3 Water committees................................................................................................. 42

5.3.1 Initial meetings and locations for boreholes.................................................42

5.3.2 Choosing of location for borehole drilling by Participants................................. 43

5.3.3 Designing and mapping the mainline pipe lines..............................................43

5.3.4 Decision making with MDF and the participants.............................................44

5.3.5 Continuing with installation of pumps and header tanks...................................45

5.3.6 Planning the digging of the main pipeline trenches.........................................46

5.3.7 Laying the pipes from the header tanks to the homesteads...............................48

5.3.8 Connection of pipes in Turkey..................................................................49

5.3.9 Connection of pipes in Sedawa................................................................. 50

5.4 Networking and stakeholder engagement......................................................................51

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 4

5.4.1 PGS workshop.....................................................................................51

5.4.2 Stakeholder engagement........................................................................54

6 Monitoring,evaluation and learning (MEL) plan....................................................................56

6.1 Framework & indicators..........................................................................................56

7 Work Plan for Milestone 3.............................................................................................56

7.1 Work plan for May- July 2020....................................................................................57

8 Appendices...............................................................................................................58

8.1Appendix 2: Attendance registers for stakeholder meetings................................................58

8.2 Appendix 2: CSO submission re COVID-19 disaster refiled support to smallholders.....................59

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 5

1Executive Summary

1.1Progress for the reporting period

This report focusses on the introductory climate change adaptation (CCA) process for 4 new villages in the

Lower Olifants basin. Processes that include exploration of climate change impacts and community level

adaptive strategies have been conducted for Santeng, Worcester, Madeira and Lorraine. Baseline

interviews have been concluded for26 participants across these villages

In addition, a networking workshop was held for all participating villages (~100 participants) focussing on

marketing, organic market development, PGS (participatory guarantee system), local savings and loan

associations and small business development. Introductory workshops for villages saving and loan

associations 9VSLAs) were held in five villages (Santeng, Willows, Sedawa, Turkey, Worcester and

Madeira).

A Conservation Agriculture (CA) field cropping experimentation process was implemented for 35

participants across four villages.

Further ongoing activities included weekly organic vegetable sales at the Hlokomela Wellness Wednesday

markets and work with the two water committees (Sedawa and Turkey) to continue the installation of

borehole pumps, header tanks and lay out of main pipelines for household water provision.

Farmer representatives visited the M-Pak packhouse for a tour of the facilities and to initiate the mango

supply arrangements into the dried mango market. Lists of participants across 4 villages who are to be

involved and who will buy in and grow more mango trees of the preferred varieties have been compiled

MDF is collaborating with the Nova Institute to put a joint proposal to Agri SA to further develop this

marketing option.

A new intern, Jessica Mangena has been brought on board.

PARTICIPANTS THIS PERIOD

MAHLATHINI: Erna Kruger, Betty Maimela,Jessica Mangena(Intern), Nqe Dlamini, Thabiso Mbatha

CHEMONICS: Sitha Mvumvu, Mayford Manika, Lindela Mketeni and Steve Collins.

2Project Objectives

2.1Overview of RW Community based CCA Project

objectives

GOAL: Increased adaptive capacity and resilience to the impacts ofclimate change for poor, rural

households involved in agriculture.

This goal is aimed specifically at Objectives 3 and 4 as set out in the 2019 Resilient Waters Program APS:

ØObjective 3:Strengthened ability of communities and key institutions to adapt to change,

particularly the impacts of climate change; and

ØObjective 4: Conserved biodiversity and ecosystem services.

OBJECTIVES:

ØReduced vulnerability to climate change by supporting and strengthening collective action,

informed adaptation strategies and practices and tenable institutional arrangements at a local

level, including all relevant service providers and sectors.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 6

ØIncreased sustainability and efficiency of CSA systems in the study areas giving specific

attention to the value chain, using an IS approach

ØAdaptation and scaling out of sustainable CSA systems in selected areas using livelihoods and

environmental criteria and

ØBuilding and strengthening of different innovation platforms and networks for financing,

awareness and implementation of community level Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)."

3Milestone Description

3.1Definition of milestone and purpose

Milestone descriptions have been developed forthe RW CB-CCA project for the period starting January

2020and endingNovember 2021.The table below summarises the activities against the present milestone

description and budget.

Table 1: Mahlathini Development Foundation Milestone 2: 20 December 2019-30 April2020

Payment

No.

Milestone

Title

Milestone Verification

Target Due

Date

Milestone

Payment

Visioning and

Decision

Support (I)

Progress report

The grantee will submit to Chemonics a Visioning and Decision

Support report detailing the following:

i.Number of participants engagedin the initial

meetings in Ga Mametja and Ga Mamathlola

ii.Baseline Informationfrom participants

iii.Climate change mapshowing the impact within

the communities.

iv.Climate Change Adaptive strategies.

Annexes:

i.Attendance Registersform initial meetings with

participants

ii.Photographsfrom initial meetings with

participants

iii.

The grantee will also submit a progress report outlining progress

in all main activities undertaken in the time period; 20 December-

30 April, (including action plans, learning and mentoring,

monitoring, reviews and networking)

30 April

2020

R 343406,00

4Visioning and decision support

4.1Climate change impact mapping and visioningfor new

villages

MDF visited and introduced the resilient waters project concept in four new villages; Santeng, Worcester,

Madeira and Lorraine. These initial visits also consisted of speaking to the local authorities and conducting

household and field level visits to ascertain activities and issues from local smallholders.

This was followed by the CCA workshop process:CCA workshop 1. Climate change analysis – impact and

adaptive measures.The workshop runs over a period of two days.

Facilitation steps proposed are as follows:

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 7

1.Contextualization: Natural resources; need to look at climate change databases for

KZN/EC/Limpopo, and discuss with people how these will affect them Tools; A4 impact pictures or a

PP presentation – of floods, droughts, erosion, declining natural resource base, declining yields, …)

2.Look at the difference between variability in weather and climate change. There is variability in

weather and there is also a major change in that variability in weather, predictions and certainty

(Tools, role play- Phone call; weekend visit vs moving to an area)

3.Exploration of temperature and rainfall and participants’ understanding of how these are changing

(Tool: Seasonal diagrams on temperature and rainfall – normal and how these are changing)

4.Timeline in terms of agriculture (Tool: livelihoods and farming timelines -assessment of past,

present and future)

5.CC impact Map: Changes (in natural resources), impacts (of changes), practices (past, present,

future), challenges/responses (Tool: Mind mapping of impacts)

6.Current practices and responses (effectiveness of responses) (Tool: outlining adaptive measures on

mind map)

Using these facilitation steps a workshop process is designed tailored to each specific group and their

responses to the questions and discussions.

The workshops were run towards the end of January and in early February, 2020 for groups who requested

involvement. Mostly residents had heard of the CCA work being conducted in other villages in the area and

asked to be included. This is a

method for horizontal scaling of

work, based on local interest.

Attendance of the workshops were a

bit disappointing. It was ascertained

later, that conducting the

workshops under the auspices of the

local traditional authorities had

driven a number of interested

individuals away,due to conflictual

and difficult relationships and lack

of trust. The situation has since

been rectified.

Figure 1: Sylvester and Betty

facilitating during the CCA workshop in

Madeira

The small tablebelowsummarizes participationand present farming activities for these groups.

Village name

No of

participants

Male

Female

Gardening

Field cropping

Livestock rearing

Lorraine

(Sekororo)

Worcester

Madeira

Santeng

12 (Mostly indigenous

poultry)

The outcomes of the workshops are discussed for all four villages together, as many of the discussions and

issues are similar across the villages.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 8

Understanding of Climate change

Here participants talked to their understanding of changes in climate and weather and also conducted the

seasonal diagrams for temperature and rainfall to indicate the changing trends.

Mostly farmers could not define climate change and were not sure what it means even though they have

heard of climate change over the radio and on TV. They were not sure of the causes of climate change,

but a few well-informed participants mentioned burning of deforestation, air and water pollutionas

causes ofclimate change.

They could however quite clearly define how the weather patterns have changes; indicating increased

heat and changing rainfall patterns as the two main changes. Changes in rainfall are mainly later onset of

summer rains and unpredictable rainfall during the rainy season. They also mentioned the drought that

has been decimating crops and livestock in the area for the last 4-5 years. This seasonis the firstrainy

season that has provided something closer to normal rainfall in the area, although it has still beenlower

than what people remember.

The seasonality maps provided more detailed insight. Participants divided into small groups and

constructed seasonality diagrams; first

indicating the “normal” temperatures and

rainfall on two separate diagrams and then

indicating, using red markers, the changes they

have experienced in the last six to seven years.

Participants were all clear that temperatures

have increased dramatically throughout the

whole year.

Figure 2: The seasonality diagram for temperature

developed by the Santeng village participants.

The rainfall diagrams differed somewhat between the villages, although the overall trends were marked in

all cases. Summer onset of rainfall has shifted from September to October and November. Rainfall in

October has become toolow and erratic to allow for planting and most planting now happened from the

middle of November into December. They also discussed that the rainfall in January is lower than before,

leading to mid-season droughts and crop failure.

Figure 3:Rainfall seasonality diagrams for Worcester (left),Santeng(centre) and Lorraine(right)

Effects of increased temperature and variable rainfall are considered to be the following:

•It feels as though there is no winter anymore and heat in spring and summer has been extreme

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 9

•Increase in temperature means a decrease in grass cover in the environment with increased

erosion and environmental problems

•Most farmers have stopped farming activities, because crops will do notsurvive the extreme heat

with reduced access to water. Other farmers have changed their planting calendars over the last

five years to accommodate for the changing rainfall patterns and heat.

•Many of the fruit trees planted in participants’ yards have died, as well as some of the indigenous

trees and people fear large scale die back of trees in the environment.

•Food will be expensive; including livestock food.

•Farmers also complained about having lower and lower yields over the past five to six seasons.

Underground water will be depleted.

•They rely on underground water for both irrigation and household use. As more boreholes are

drilled, underground water is starting to run out.

•Extreme heat and low rainfall in January are resulting in field crops wilting and dying. Shifting

planting dates to February might not be a good idea, because winter starts just as the maize starts

tussling and thus harvests will be badly affected. Some farmers suggested they could irrigate their

maize in January, but due to low rainfall in December over the last few years, access to water in

streams and rivers has been hampered. They believe that access to water for irrigation will

become and even bigger problem in the future. In some of the villages, such as Santeng, there is

no access to surface water at all and farmers have to rely on boreholes, many of which are

becoming salty and drying up.

•There is now a delay in harvesting wild leafy vegetables (morogo) as this used to be in November.

Now that it is drier and hotter, the supply has decreased considerably. Crops like mustard spinach

used to be grown in winter, but with the hotter temperatures it is no longer doing well.

•There is a change in crop types that can be planted. Heat tolerant crops are now preferred. These

include: chillies, onions, cowpeas, peanuts, jugo beans, sugar beans, sweet potatoes

•Planting of vegetables now works better in controlled environments such as greenhouses.

•These changes willaffect their livelihoods, as most of theparticipantsrely heavily on income

made from the sale of cropsto supplement their livelihoods.

Changes in the environment

The discussions with participants start with exploring the changes they are experiencing over time in their

general environment and in their farming system

A list of changes is provided below (summarized for the 4 villages):

•Low rainfall

•Unpredictable distribution of rainfall (we planted dry land fields in November after the onset of

rainfall but our crops died now)

•More frequent veld fires

•Very high temperatures (is getting hotter)

•Lots of mosquitoes and threat of malaria

•Drought (five years interval)

•Hunger

•No harvest (it has been a couple of years in this area)

•Low production of staple food

•Cannot grow anything in winter (no water for drinking let alone for irrigation)

•Jobs are affected

•Soil erosion

•Fruits (mangos) low quality (small size and they fall off the tree)

•Outbreak of pests

•Low or lack of grazing areas

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 10

•Rivers are drying out

•Food prices are increasing

Changes in the faming environment were explored by discussing the past, present and future of their

farming system. Again, comments from the four villages have been compiled into one summary table

Table 1: Summary of an analysis of the past, present and future of the smallholder farming system in the lower

Olifants

Past

Present

Future

Planted millet and sorghum (this

was drought tolerant) better than

the maize

Planted in September and

harvested in January

Maize (is not doing well) but we

cannot go back to millet and

sorghum, (birds are a major

problem), most of the millet and

sorghum varieties have

disappeared.

The planting time has changed to

end of November, but rain is not

enough to get a harvest

We need to find new ways to

improve production of maize

Production of maize will become

impossible

Used to plough by hand

Now we use tractors

If the trend of heat and lack of

rain continues, we will need to

stop farming

Good yields

Declining yield and no yield in

some years

We going to have to stop farming

at some point if things continue

the same way (we won’t have

inputs (e.g. seed will disappear) to

keep trying with

In the past there was more access

to grazing and more grazing.We

had herders who kept the cattle

out of the fields

There are no herders anymore as

the children go to school and we

cannotafford to pay people to do

this

There is less grazing and more

diseases in cattle and we need to

provide winter fodder to keep

them alive

It is very costly to lose cattle and

when the die we cannot afford to

replace them. A few rich farmers

will own all the cattle and others

will be left with nothing.

Variety of indigenous fruits

(mahlabo, dibopudu) these were

healthy, we didn’t pay money to

get these

Wild animals such as monkeys and

baboons were there, but did not

cause so much damage

A few indigenous fruits (lots of

these trees are now used for

firewood)

Wild animalsinvade our fields and

household plots. There is no food

for them in nature

There is little we can do about this

situation (but some of us have

started growing some of the trees

in the house hold) e.g. Marula

trees but they do not always bear

fruits (thoughthosethat grew

naturally bears fruits)

We are going to buy everything in

the future

These animals will disappear

There was less money but a lot

more access to healthy food grown

by us. We used to mill our own

maize and we did not use

chemicals

Now there is still no money, but

we use chemicals that poison our

food. We buy food that is not

health and suffer from diseases

that were not there in the past;

high blood pressure, diabetes,

cancer

We need to grow our own food

There should be opportunities for

those who can continue to farm –

as there will be fewer farmers –

those who can could make

reasonable incomes.

People will get more educated and

hopefully come with solutions.

Opportunity for things to get much

better and much worse at the

same time

Having a vision of what you want

to see is important

We need to protect and save

whatever there still is left to be

able to preserve our future.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 11

In the past there was easy access

to water

Since 2015 water has become more

and more scarce. Rivers, boreholes

and dams are drying up

Even if the rains return, it will be

difficult for us to recover and start

farming again

From the analysis in the table, it is clear that the participants in these workshops have a good grasp of

how things have shifted and the pressures on their farming system. They have some suggestions of how

they can continue into the future, but the increased vulnerability of these people is also obvious. A lot of

what is required is reconstructing natural and physical infrastructure to allow for farming to continue, a

task that many smallholders find daunting and for which very limited resources are available.

Climate change impacts

Impacts of climate change were discussed, again in small groups, doing the climate change impact

mapping exercise.This exercise is designed for participants to explore all the possible CC impacts on their

farming systems and livelihood as a starting point to beginning to identify possible adaptive measures.

Figure 4: Discussing the impacts nada dative measures in small groups here assisted by the new intern Constance

Rasweswe (left) and CC impact maps for the two small groups in Worcester (right)

The impacts and adaptive measures proposed by the group members are presented in the two tables

below for Worcester and Santeng as examples

Table 2: Worcester CCA impacts and adaptive strategies summary

Impacts

Description and linkages

Outcomes

Potential adaptive measure

Worcester

Heat

Plants wilt and die, veld

fires

Hunger, skin cancer, affects body

and energy, diarrhoea, vomiting

and fatigue, pest outbreaks,

affect internal body temperature,

disease, plants die, water has

salt, drought

-Provide soil cover (mulching) -

We don’t know what to do -

buy animal feed,

-government livestock feed

support

- cut out bushes to reduce veld

fires and use these as firewood

- use ash to purify water

-plant trees(indigenous) in our

households,

-use blue death,

-buy food and buy water

Water

shortages

Less rain, Increased

evaporation, water sources

dry out

No water for drinking and

washing, less indigenous trees,

decrease in indigenous food, less

food or no food

irrigate using borehole water,

buy water, drill boreholes

Soil

Soil microorganisms die, soil

erosion, increased soil

temperatures

Loss of fertility, loss of

microorganisms, formation of

dongas

Using erosion control measures

(contour planting)

-Use furrows and ridges as a

planting strategy

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 12

Crop

production,

resources

Lower yields, more pests,

veld fires, die back of

indigenous trees

Less or no indigenous fruits

Plant more trees, minimise or

stop burning things

Livestock

Grasses dry out, no grazing,

more diseases,

Livestock decreasing, not

healthy-

-Stop burning of bush to

increase feed availability

-buy animal feed, or ask for

animal feed support from

government

- buy medicines

Social

repercussions

Lots of human and animal

diseases (e.g. Malaria)

Poverty, hunger and death,

Population will decrease,

Increase in food prices,

crime, corruption, lack of

economic growth,

migration, police stations

overcrowded, air pollution,

stress and depression, strike

for jobs, no jobs

No tourists, businesses will

perform poorly, people won’t

grow food anymore and there will

be no income,

Hospitals will be full, increased

demand for medicine

No transfer of knowledge to the

next generation

-Seek professional help

-plant herbs and vegetables,

plant your own crops instead of

always buying

- entrepreneurship, job

creation,

Table 3:Santeng CCAimpacts and adaptive strategies summary

Impacts

Description and linkages

Outcomes

Potential adaptive measure

Santeng

Less rainfall

Grass will stop growing,

indigenous plants and crops will

die, nature is not beautiful

Lack of grazing, livestock

die, loss of traditional

medicines

Mulching

Water

shortages

Underground water depleted

and rivers are dry

No water for household use,

irrigation and livestock,

borehole drying out

Rainwater harvesting (rooftop)

Soil

Soil temperature increase and

soil erosion

Poor and less yields, hunger,

poverty and death

They don’t know what to do to

reduce soil erosion and protect

the soil temperature from

increasing.

Crop

production

Yield decreases each year and

crop diseases increase

No yield or less yield

Use blue death powder for pest

control and they don’t control

crop diseases, as they are

unemployed and don’t have

money to buy pesticides. They

lose when their crops are

attacked by diseases. They will

stop their farming activities.

Livestock

Lack of grazing, and water for

livestock

Decrease in livestock

Buy animal feed

Social

repercussions

Human health declines,

Diseases, Loss of jobs, Hunger,

poverty, divorces, crime, jail,

death,

Murder, crime, no money to

support families, conflicts

between neighbors

Visit clinics when they are sick.

A summary of adaptive strategies suggested by all four villages is presented below

Table 4: Summary of adaptive strategiessuggested by participants

Soil

Water

Crops

Livestock

Natural

resources

Social

Contour

ploughing

Rainwater

harvesting

Mulching

Buy animal

feed

Control veld fires

Visit clinics

Furrow and

ridges

Drilling

boreholes

Drought

tolerant crops

Stop cutting

trees and bushes

Plant own food

instead of buying

Different

planting times

Plant trees in

households

Entrepreneurships,

small businesses

Blue death for

pest control

Job creation

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 13

Participants also said that in many cases they don’t know what to do and are willing and interested to

learn new ways and practices to be able to improve their farming and resource management. In all

villages, participants were very concerned with the social problems in their areas, which they feel are

increasing day by day and has a very negative impact on their lives.

Local practices

These were gleaned fromconversation and household visits. The intention is also to find local adaptive

practices that are working well which can be included in the practices to be promoted through this

process

In Worcester some of the local practices noticed during the walks were:

•Rearing indigenous chicken

•Planting fruit trees (mainly mango trees)

•Planting indigenous trees (e.g. Marula and Mokgogoma trees)

•Mixed cropping (with legumes) e.g. groundnuts and jugo beans

Figure 5: Worcester practices; intercropping (left), planting mango trees in fields (centre) and indigenous poultry

enclosure (right)

In Madeira, further practices including banana basins, mulching, roof rainwater harvestingand making of

compost were recorded. Participants mentioned that in the past they used to make pit compost, burying

crop wastes and watering them well as a way to fertilize their fields and gardens. These days they cannot

find anyone who is prepared to put in that labour. They also mentioned that as they cannotafford what

people want to be paid to do weeding, they have resorted to using Roundup herbicide on their fields. They

do not believe that they are using it properly and do not have protective clothing. In addition, they

sometimes use pesticides, but do not understand well how they work. They have requested help with

these aspects. It was discussed that there are natural pest and disease control options and farmers were

keen to try these out.

Figure 6: Practices in Madeira; banana basins, roof rainwater harvesting, compost piles and pesticides

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 14

Adaptive measures

After the village walks, groups reconvened and were shown slides outlining some potential climate

resilient agriculture practices that they could try out. These practices are presented as 1pagers that gives

a description of each practice. The practices database is attached separately.

They developed criteria that they would find important when deciding on a practice and used these to do

a matrix prioritization of potential practices.

Below is an example of a prioritization matrix for climate resilient agriculture practices for Madeira.

CRA PRACTICE

Cost

labour

Material

accessibility

Hard

labour

Total

Drip irrigation

Mulching

Keyholebeds (grey water)

Furrow

Banana circles

Rainwater harvesting

Tied ridges

Targeted fertilizer and lime

Liquid manure

Trench beds

Eco-circle

Note: 1-Hard to do, 2-Medium, 3-Easy to do

Note 2: the difference between labour and hard labour is seen as the labour required to initially implement the

practice and the labour during the growing season to continue or maintain the practice

Farmers indicated that they would like to get practical knowledge on everything they were shownso that

they are able to do it in their farms. Thematrix indicates that they are more interested in drip irrigation,

furrows, liquid manure and eco-circles mainly, because these areless costly and does not require hard

labour.

For Santeng the following practice prioritization matrix was developed.

Cost

labour

Material

accessibility

Hard

labour

Total

Drip irrigation

Diversion ditches

Greywater

Rainwater harvesting

Ridges and furrows

Stone bunds

Keyhole

Banana basins

Crop rotation

Mixed cropping

Mulching

Conservation Agriculture

Targeted fertilizer and lime

Liquid manure

Trench beds

Legumes

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 15

Compost

Eco-circle

Note: 1-Hard to do, 2-Medium, 3-Easy to do

Note 2: The difference between labour and hard labour is seen as the labour required to initially implement the

practice and the labour during the growing season to continue or maintain the practice

During the presentation of practices to the learning group, pictures of the results of implementing

practices were used; farmers were impressed and they felt like they could do the same thing, because

they are struggling to grow crops using their old system. Most farmers chose to try trench beds and

shallow trench beds in their garden as a start, and they requested practical demonstration for all the

practices, more especially the trench bed, how to make drip kits, liquid manure, compost, Eco-circles,

tower garden and soil conservation.

For Worcester the criteria chosen for assessing practices were:

•Easy to understand and implement

•Water use efficiency

•Cost effective

•Less labour intensive

•Produce good results (good quality crops)

Farmers suggested they would want to prepare for winter planting; making and planting seed beds for

growingspinach, tomatoes, mustard spinach, beetroot, onions, carrots and cabbage. Participants

requested seed.

They also said they would like to learn about and try out the following:

•Better way of preparing seedling beds

•Water saving methods in the garden (drip kit, use of grey water, tower garden)

•Pest control measures (natural pest control remedies, and growing of herbs)

For Lorraine, farmers have previously been involved in a food security project implemented by Lima RDF.

They knew most of the practices already and felt that the only thing they still lack are shade cloth tunnels.

CCA workshop reflection

Farmersfelt that theylearned a lot from the workshop. They have been facing climate change effects and

couldn’t relate these changes; they first thoughtof them as punishment from God and they prayed more

for rain in their village but still nothing changed, instead the situation is different each year.

Farmers know about the word climate change but never thought the changes they are facing are the result

of climate change. Through the presentations,farmers showed their interest in learning new practices to

implement mainly in their gardens. Farmers have chosen practices to try out and will assist with

monitoring the impact of the practices they implemented in their gardens.

They also stressed more their water challenges. They don’t have water even though there are municipality

boreholes that can supplythe villages, somehave dried out others need maintenance.

This season farmers have planted field crops, in the hope that the season would be better than the last

five years. They have found however that they will once again not have a harvest and their stocks of

locally saved seed have now dwindled to nothing.

The vast majority of the participants no longer own large livestock (cattle and goats) and are focusing

instead on rearing indigenous poultry as their only option at present.

These realities set the scene for the focus of our support interventions on intensified food production in

homestead plots, linked to small livestock integration.

Baselines

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 16

A total of 26 baseline interviews were conducted across Santeng, Worcester and Madeira. This is

equivalent to around 36% of potential respondents. Baselines for Lorraine were conducted in the previous

cycle of implementation.

Questions in the baselines relate to basic socio-economic information (age, gender, household head,

income sources, income), farming practices (gardening field cropping, livestock multipurpose plants, fruit,

nurseries), diversity of crops and livestock and water sources.

The figures below give an indication of the situation.

Figure 7:Above Left: The figure provides a breakdown of income sources for the respondents and Above Right; give

anindication of the average monthly household income

Four of the 26 respondents were male (15%) and also heads of households. For the female respondents,

76% of them considered themselves to be heads of households.96% of respondents receive social grants

and of these, 73% rely entirely on social grants for their monthly incomes. This is corroborated by the

small figure above on income ranges mentionedfor participants. 50% of participant households earn

between R1600-R3200/ month. This is for an average household member number of 7,3 (min 3 max 11).

The 27 % of participants in the next income bracket (R3200-R6400), receive either two pensions, more

than the average of 2-3 child grants and or wage and family support.

If all the incomes are average out, then a per capita income for these participants is around R860/month.

This is just slightly above the lower bound poverty line of R810 per capita per month and well below the

upper bound poverty line of R1227 per capita (https://businesstech.co.za/news/finance/332553/this-is-how-much-

money-the-poorest-are-living-on-each-month-in-south-africa/).

In addition, the incomes of female headed households are ~33% lower than those of male headed

households, as shown in the small table below

Ave income M headed household

R3 600,00

Ave income F headedhousehold

R2 421,00

Wages are earned through work in local fruit estates, which is season, working in the CWP (Community

Work Programme) and other low-level civil servant positions. A few respondents, around 23%, make some

monthly income through sale of produce. Levels of sales are quite low and average between R200-R400/

month.

This provides a picture of a very poor rural population where more than 63% of respondents live well

below the poverty line.

The situation for water provision in these villages is severely restricted. Around 40% of these households

can only access enoughwater for household use and have stopped farming practices that need irrigation.

They get water through the Mopani District municipality; tankers deliver water to central points in the

19%

50%

23%

96%

Renting

Disability

Family

Business

Pension

Local produce

Wage

Social grant

Sources of income (N=26)

15%

50%

27%

R50-R400

R400-R800

R800-R1600

R1600-R3200

R3200-R6400

R6400-R12800

Average monthly household income (n=26)

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 17

village, on average once a week. The drums need to be transported to their homes and the average cost

for that is R35/210l. A few have made arrangements with the Municipality to fill up their JoJo tanks. This

costs them R650/2200l tank. A few other are part of small groups who have laid pipes up into the

mountains to get water. This only works well in average to high rainfall years as the streams higher up

have also all but dried up in the ongoing drought. Keeping of large livestock such as goats and cattle has

reduced substantially over the last 5-7 years, due to lack of grazing and water.

Most households in these areas practise a mixed farming system of gardening, field cropping, planting

multipurpose trees and shrubs, fruit production and livestock management.

The small figures below provide a summary of production and local practises employed by the

respondents.

Figure 8: Above; number of respondents undertaking

different local practices. Right; breakdown of participants

keeping livestock undertaking field cropping, fruit

production and cultivating multipurpose plants and trees

The bullet points below provide a narrative

summary:

ØParticipants eat on average 3 times per week, of their own produce. They consume around 1,7-2

types of produce during this time. Examples are spinach and maize. This indicator shows that

participants are not presently considered food secure through their own production as they should

be eating a minimum of 5 times per week, from 4-5 different types of crops or produce

ØAlmost all participants engage in gardening (mainly ‘morogo’, pumpkin and cowpea leaves and

sweet potatoes), field cropping (mainly maize and cowpeas), fruit production (mainly mangoes),

and livestock production (mainly indigenous poultry)

ØAll participants engage in use of greywater as well as rainwater harvesting. For the RWH they

mainly used tubs and 210l drums. Only 23% of participants have JoJo tanks (either 2200l or 5000l)

3,1

1,7

05 10 15 20 25 30

Manure, fertilizer

Dedicated garden beds

Diversified crops

Multipurpose plants

RWH

Grey water use

Nursery

Fruit

Field crops

Seed saving

Livestock

Farming income

Food (x/wk)

No of veg eaten

Local practices (n=26)

chickens goats cattle pigs

No of participants who keep livestock (n=26)

maize sugarcane sugar

beans

Cowpeas sorghum

No of participants undertaking field cropping

(N=26)

124

Marula

Indigenous…

Moringa

Mogokgoma

Flowers

Aloes

No of participants with multifunctional plants

(n=26)

7462312 2 2

mango

pawpaw

banana

guava

avo

orange

watermelon

mulberries

Grapes

peach

No of participants growing fruit trees (n=26)

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 18

ØAround 19% of participants do not fertilize their crops when planting, around 7% use fertilizer, but

for the most part participants use combinations of chicken litter and goat and cow manure for

fertilization

ØA large proportion (~82%) of participants keep their own seed for re-planting in consecutive

seasons and

ØMany (around 77%) also grow multipurpose plants such as indigenous fruit (‘Marla’ and

‘Tokonoma’), indigenous windbreaks and soil amelioration trees (such as Moringa, and Wild Medlar

or Mmilo), aloes and flowers and

ØThe reason why fruit production is dominated by Mango trees, is that many other fruit tree types

have died back in the ongoing drought; including bananas, avocadoes and citrus trees.

These baselines provide an indication of the kind of intervention entry points in terms of climate resilient

agriculture that would make sense for participants and also provides a snapshotfor comparison later in

the project, to determine progress and impact.

4.2Review and planning for existing groups

These sessions are held with existing learning groups according to their implementation cycles. During this

period the review and planning sessions was held for the two turkey learning groups.

Turkey 1 and 2

CCA review and seasonal planning workshop Turkey

Number of participants: 34

New members

1.Botane Moropane

2.Betha Marula

3.Masete Hellen

4.Mogofe Florence

Village: Turkey

Date: 20 March 2020

Facilitator: Betty and Jessica

(Mahlathini Development Foundation)

1.Purpose of the workshop

The main purpose is to evaluate the

impact of the programme for the past

two years and plan with farmers innovative and new practices they will be implementing this year. And to

talk more about thefollowingtopics;

•Adding of organic matter to the soil

•Seed saving

•Markets

•Nurseries

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 19

2.Review of five finger principle with farmers/what have they benefited from the project

The exercise is done to evaluate and to get an understanding of what farmers could remember or have

tried from all practices introduced under each of the five finger principles (soil erosion control improved

soil fertility, improved water management, crop production, multipurpose plants, trees and nature). What

farmers wereasked to do is to state practices they have implemented in their gardens and what has

changed since they implemented the practice?

a)Elizabeth Mokgatla_ had a problem of soil erosion in her household and the soil in her yard is hard

because the topsoil was eroded by water during rainy season. What she first did wastobuildstone

bunds around her yard (using cement bricks that she madeherself) and diverted water to her

garden. In her garden she used shallow trench beds and furrows when planting her vegetables.

The most important thing she has learnt isthat soil is more important than water; you can have

water and still not harvest.

b)Sara Madire_ she has implemented the following practices in her garden and field-cropping;

•Rain water harvesting through roof gutter to a jo-jo tank, also diverted water from her

yard to a small dam she built and later lined with bentonite to make it water proof

•Stone bunds around her garden and her yard

•She always adds organic waste from her household in her garden, she also makes her own

compost which takes about six months to be ready for use. In her compost she adds dry

leaves, green materialand weeds, ashes, smallamounts of chicken manure and grey

water

•Trench beds are the best; she has 11 trench beds in her garden. The quality of crops from

the trench beds is very good. She noticed that when she starts a new planting and doesn’t

add a bit of manure or compost when she plants the seedlings, the quality of her produce

decreases. She noticed this in one bed and now adds manure whenever she plants

•She uses planting basins and CA when planting her vegetables, maize and cover crops in

her garden. She prefers using planting basins because she doesn’t have water. Planting

basins saves water and produces better crops, due to the extra water going straight to the

roots

•Liquid manure using a chicken manure soaking in water for 10 days and diluting before

use. She uses liquid manure for both pests and soil fertility.

•Mulching

•Banana basins_ She also has two trench beds in the middle of banana basins and because

they can hold so much water it reduces her irrigation schedule; she only irrigates once a

week on those trench beds.

•Tunnels

•Mixed cropping

c)Norah Tshetlha_ She’s been farming for years; since she was young. From introduced CCA

practices she firstly implemented trench beds where she planted different kinds of crops for each

practice. The picture belowwas taken from her garden after her first seasonof implementing the

practice.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 20

•Norah was one of the farmers who used to do mono-cropping before. Since she has been

part of the project, she is planting different kinds of vegetables. She even plants crops

that she never

knewsuch as;

kale, leeks, spring

onions and herbs.

•Mulching_ The

practice is not new

to her, though now

she uses more of

organic matter.

When she was

growing her elders

would use tree

leaves to cover the

soil, for minimising soil erosion. Mulching reduces the rate of water evaporation on the

ground.

•Liquid manure_ She used this practice, where she made her liquid manure using cow

manure and soaking for 10 days. When she used the liquid manure in winter for pest

control, it didn’t work 100%, but she was able to manage the pest problem in her garden.

d)Magdalena Shai_ She is one of the young farmers in the group. She implemented trench beds, eco-

circles, mixed cropping and crop rotation. She has a small garden and has not increased the size,

due to difficulty of getting access to irrigation water. She used to get water from the mountain

but now that there are

conflicts and she can

only get municipal

water (paid for),three

times in a month.

Herhouseholdgarden

is 10m by 10m, but

also have a plot that is

50m by 20m for maize

and cover crops. All

the practices she

implemented are

working well and she

also shares information

and experiences with others, especially young people whoare unemployed.

3.How do farmers make decisions in terms of implementation of new ideas and practices?

•Farmers base their decisions on how easy the practiceis to implement. Mmatshego

mentioned that it’s not easy to implement new things, but if resultsare presented,

examples are shown to prove that the practice hasbeen tried by other farmers and it’s

working very well; then it makes it easier for her to give it a go

•Isaac Malatji said it’s not easy to move from traditional ways of doing things to something

new, becausethey associate change with risk and they are not ready forthat

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 21

•Elias Mogofe implemented trench beds after seeing results at Mmatshego’s gardenand

mentioned that if he had not seen that, he doubted that he would have tried the practice.

He also mentioned that it’s easier to choose practice where you know you are not going to

lose anything after implementing

•Lucas Mokhawane thinksitis because farmers don’t go back and check the results and

check whether the practice is working or no; for example, a tower garden was practically

introduced at Nkurwane Shaai’s household,but no-one has visited her to see how it is

going.They also had soil and water conservation workshop at his household and planted

pigeonpeatreesand no one came to check that either.If we don’t visit and work

together as farmers in this learning group, then we will only progress slowly.

4.Seed saving; what have farmers done?

Only 35% of the participants have been saving seed.They mostly store seeds in drums, glass bottles or jars

and plastic packets, somewhere cool and dark inside their homes.

The following list was provided for seed being saved:

•Fresh produce; Mustard spinach, Carrots, Onion, Leek, Butternut, Brinjal, Chilli, Kale,

Tomato, peas and Moringa

•Herbs; Basil, Rocket, Fennel

•Field crops; Maize, Cow-peas, Green beans, Sugar beans, White beans, Sun-flower, Sun hemp

Those who are not keeping seed provided the following reasons; that they do not have enough water for

cropping, they only produce enough to eat and or forget to keep seed when the time comes.

5.Composting

Compost is decayed organic matter (plant and or animal), used as a fertilizer. Composting is therefore the

art of making and using compost. Farmers were firstly introduced to trench beds as one of the practices

that fertilizes the soil. Trench beds are not easy to implement as they require hard labour, but 90% have

more than four trench beds in their gardens.

Composting was introduced to farmers, but only 10% of farmers implementedthe practice in their

gardens. Most of them make pit compost, where they throw in all their organic waste from the garden and

the house, grey water, cansandbones. When the pit is full, they plant their fresh produce and start

another pit compost. Other farmers add kraal manure to fertilize the soil with mulch assisting in the

process.

6.Practices and workshops to be implemented in 2020

Suggested practices to focus on in 2020

Suggested workshops and learning sessions

Seeding production

Processing; chilli, Marula, beetroot and atjar

Tower gardens

Organic mango production

Eco-circles

Mango grafting

Seed saving

Composting

7.Reflection

•Nora Tshetlha-she learnt that she should put same and equal effort both inside the tunnel and

outside the tunnel. What she does inside the tunnel she must also do outside the tunnel

•Petrus Tshetlha- He has learnt the importance of saving seeds from hisgarden to avoid buying

seeds each season.

•Elizabeth Mokgatla-Makingyour own compost is very important as you will add the compost to

your trees and trench beds to keep the beds more fertile.

•Sarah Mohlala- We have been taught about different practical practices and the way we chose

practices shows that if we don’t visit each other to see what other farmers are doing we will never

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 22

grow to be sustainable, for example Betty we spoke about tower garden which is one other simple

practice to implement especially farmers who have no space in their yards but yet because we

never visited or made any follow up not even one farmer implemented the practice after the

practical demonstration.

Figure 9: Left; Freddy Mankgele is looking at a tower garden picture with Mpodu Mogofe, Right; Farmers are

participating during the workshop.

5Progress for main activities

5.1Learning and implementation:

Conservation Agriculture experimentation

Dryland cropping is a common practice in the area, although it has declined dramatically with the five-

year drought in the area, compounding ongoing reduction in cropping due to low soil fertility, access to

seed and inputs and lack of labour.

Learning group participants are very keen to re-initiate or continue field cropping aspects of their

farming. Presently most participants undertake this activity within their extended homestead plots, with

only a small proportion of participants havingaccess to larger fields. There are only around 5-6

participants who have access to irrigation.

With the shift in weather patterns and climate variability the field cropping practice in the area has

already shifted; surprisingly away from the more drought tolerant crops such as millet and sorghum,

towards maize with supplementary irrigation. This is because of much greater predation of the millet and

sorghum by birds in particular, but also monkeys and wildlife than was experienced in the past.

Sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices such as conservation agriculture (CA), that conserve

and increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and improve soil health, are increasingly promoted in Southern

Africa as an alternative to conventional farming systems (Smith, et al., 2017)

. CA depends on the

Smith, H. J., Kruger, E., Knot, J. & Blignaut, J., 2017. Chapter 12: Conservation Agriculture in South Africa: Lessons

from Case Studies. Conservation Agriculture for Africa: Building resilient farming systems in a changing climate.

s.l.:CAB International.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 23

simultaneous implementation of three linked principles: (1) continuous zero or minimal soil disturbance,

(2) permanent organic soil cover, and (3) crop diversification, especially with the inclusion of legumes

and/or cover crops(FAO, 2013)

Complementary practices supporting CA implementation in smallholder farming systems include

appropriate nutrient management and stress-tolerant crop varieties, increased efficiency of planting and

mechanization, integrated pest and disease and weed management, livestock integration, and enabling

political and social environments (Thierfelder, et al., 2018)

Experimentation with Conservation Agriculture has been initiated with four of the longer standing learning

groups (Sedawa, Turkey 1 ,2 and Willows) and one new learning group (Santeng). This practice is known to

improve soil health and also provide for soil and water conservation aspects within the cropping system

The process was to have an introductory workshop with each of the learning groups, to introduced the

concepts and practices and discuss inclusion into their present farming system, followed by practical

demonstrations and setting up the farmer level experimentation plots. Interested individuals in a local

area or village come together to form a learning group. Several farmers in that group then volunteer to

undertake on-farm experimentation, which creates an environment where the whole group learns

throughout the season through observations and reflections on the trials’ implementation and results.

They compare various CA treatments with their standard practices, which are planted as control plots

A summary of the workshop processes and outcomes are provided below. These workshops were

conducted in early December 2019, given that it was not clear prior to that whether there would be

enough rain for the season.

5.1.1.1Sedawaand Santeng

VENUE: Eric Malepe’s homestead

PARTICIPANTS: 24 (17 women, 7 men)in Sedawa and23in Santengrespectively

AIM: Review of CA principles and practice to date and planning for the present season

This learning group was established towards the end of 2016 under the AgriSI project and most if not all

members practice homestead gardening and field cropping. CA was introduced for three consecutive

seasons. For the 1sttwo seasons complete crop failure was experienced, due to the drought in the area. In

the 2018-2019 season, summer rainfalls started very late, but there was enough rain to have some growth

and yields. Group participants felt that they knew how to work with the CA principles, but it has become

clear that for most of these participants, their understanding of the process has been very superficial and

that a more concerted and in-depth effort is required.

1.Current status of field cropping in the area

We started the workshop by finding outwhat participants know about CA (or rather still remembered) and

what their observations have been from their CA trials in 2018-2019. Participants said the following:

•Lack of rainfall has been a major challenge with regard to both field cropping and homestead

gardening

•Pest outbreaks which are associated with extreme heat havebeen worse, especially on maize

FAO,2013.Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United

Nations.

Thierfelder, C. et al., 2018. Complementary practices supporting conservation agriculture in Africa. A review.

Agronomy of Sustainable Development, Volume 38:16.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 24

•Those with supplementary irrigation were able to get some harvests from field cropping systems.

For example, Mr Maphori got 160kg of sugar beans (grain) from a 0.75 ha field, planted to a

monocrop of beans (~0,2t/ha – which is around 10% of the yield potential of beans) while Mpelesi

Sekgobela also realised a good harvest of maize and cowpeas (not quantified),

•Magdeline Malepe who has struggled with poor soil and soil erosion, has installed stone bunds in

her field and planted in between them and has planted millet which has helped her to increase

her soil cover. She believes this is already contributing to improving her soil

•Farmers have observed that soil in the CA plot holds moisture longer than their traditionally

planted plots and

•Farmers have also observed less competition between the crops in their CA plots compared to

their traditional planting method.

Options for dealing with some of the problems:

•Famers would like to try bird resistant sorghum and

•Would like more detailed and site -specific planting calendars, although in this regard it was

explained that planting calendars cannot accommodate for rainfall variability – as there is no

predictable pattern.

From this discussion, it became apparent that the 3 pillars of CA which are (Minimum soil disturbance, Soil

cover and mixed copping) were not fully understood amongst the participants.

2.Methodology used in conducting the workshop

We ran the workshop over 2 – 3 days: One day for theory and the 2ndand 3rddays for practical

demonstrations and planting workshops.

For the theory part, we used a power point presentation on CA and cover crops, which was printed out

and pasted on a wall, for participants to peruse, as each slide was discussed. Topics covered in the

presentation include: Principles of CA, different planting options

and planters, farmer level experimentation and layout of CA

trials, intercropping examples, reduction in runoff, cover crop

options (summer and winter combinations and a Bergville case

study for Phumelele Hlongwane)

Figure 10: Introduction of concepts in CA and cover crops using printed

slides

Comments from the group included:

-“One thing that is clear is that we have not left as much

soil cover as we see in the pictures (this could be

because in winter we clear and turn the field cropping

fields into a garden. This also means that we till the

soil, so we haven’t minimised the tilling. This has led to

a lot of run-off in the plots and in summer the rain

washesaway the seed and causes erosion”

-“Seeing examples of places where CA has worked, gives

us courage to keep trying, one day we might realise the same benefits. Even with thehigh level

of uncertainty it is worth trying.”

-“Though it seems in the examples shown on the slides, the people have access to water or it rains

a lot in their area “

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 25

3.Practical component (CA demonstration)

We first asked what participants would like to try in their fields. The majority wanted to try out

sunflowers andalso asked for options related to value addition of this crop.

The learning group was divided into 3 sub-groups:

I.Those who had already planted their fields at the time of the workshop

II.Those who have planted only portions of their fields at the time of the workshopand

III.Those who had not yet planted

For sub-group I, the idea was to incorporate cover crops into what they have already planted. Most of

them had planted maize only. We chose Magdalene Malepe’s homestead to do the demonstration. For sub-

group II, the demonstrationwas done at Meisy Mokwena’s homestead, Here, we aimed at trying different

combinations (maize plus beans, cover crops and lab lab) depending on how much space was available. For

sub-group III, Nomsa from Santeng (just before Willows) requested that we do a demonstration in her

village and she organised a group of participants.

Table 5: Sub-groups for planting demonstrations

Sub-Group 1

Sub- Group 2

Sub-Group 3

Christina Thobejane

Meisy Mokwena

Nomsa

Ema Malepe

Lourance

+ 22 participants from Santeng

Magdelene Malepe

Joyce Mahlako

Lina Malepe

Makgale Malepe

Mapekere

Eric Malepe

France Malatji

Thamara Malepe

Ngobe Manana

Nora Malepe

Elizabath Matsete

Koko Maphori

Esina Malepe

Mr Maphori

Joyce Seotlo

Alex Mogopa

PriscillaSekgobela

Makobila Malepe

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 26

4.Sub- Group I (CA demonstration)

This is Magdelene’s field, in some parts of the field the maize

was about 20 cm high while in other parts the maize was only

starting to germinate. The inter and intra row spacing between

the maize varied (from 25 cm to 40 cm) and the rows were not

straight. We planted Sun hemp, beans and cowpeas in between

the maize in areas where the spacing between the maize was

around 40 cm.

Figure 11: Magdalene Malepe’s planted field

Magdeline has made stone lines across her field to slow down

and spread the water flow. This gave usan opportunity to talk

about different ways to control water movement in the yard,

field or garden. We also experimented with mulch. A bale of

grass was used as mulch in a small portion of the field, to test

whether this conserves soil moisture and improves the growth of

the maize.

Figure 12: Above left – one of the

stone lines in Magdalene’s field.

Chillies have been planted along

the stone line and maize has been

planted above and below this line.

Above right: Mulching a small

portion of Magdalene’s maize to

test soil moisture conservation.

5.Sub Group II(CA

demonstration)

Having learned from Magdalene’s plot that the spacing between the

maize varied, we introduced a rope with knots made 50 cm apart to

help participants tokeep the spacing constant. The rope is stretched

between two droppers and is 10m long.Formaize the rope needed to be

offset by 25cm in the 2ndline to accommodate for the zig-zig pattern of

making the planting basins. Another rope with the knots at 25cmwas

made for the legumes.

Figure 13: Right: Knotted rope for spacing of maize planting basins.

Due to low and unpredictable rainfall in the area, we recommended

that participants should incorporate the cover crops into their maize

field once the maize has reached knee height, to avoid competition.

With sub-group II, we demonstrated planting; maizewith a summer

cover crop mix-babala, sunflower and sun hemp, maize with sugar beans/ cowpea) aswell as (maize with

sunflower. The maize and beans/ cowpea intercrop is something participants are familiar with.

Participants wanted to plant the Dolichos (Lab-Lab) in the way they are familiar with, namely along the

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 27

fence line, so that it can climb. It was suggested that they plant a few rowsinside their fields as an

experiment- so that the soil improvement effect on neighbouring crops can be tested.

There was a good positive energy amongst participants and everyone took part during planting,

Figure 14:Above left; Mpelesi Sekgobela planting maize during the demonstration, Centre; Group busy planting, and

Right; Mulching a section of the plot after planting

WEEDING: This is an issue in organic CA systems, hence the use of mulch to suppress weeds. One plot was

mulched, and one was left without mulch as a comparison. Participants were worried that the mulch

would blow away and pegs were used to keep the mulch in place. Meisy Mokwena was also asked to weed

these CA plots, without disturbing the soil too much and ensuring that she leaves the weeds on the soil

surface to act as a mulch.

Review of the learning demonstration:

-“We appreciated that you are patient with us, it helps us when our memories are being refreshed

(even though we should be knowing this very well by now)

-You always try new methods to help us understand the subject matter

-Please provide use with some sort of a template on how to plant different combinations under

CA, (something that will look like a calendar that I can paste on a wall)

-We are going to plant, let’s hope and pray that it rains (we really want to see the full potential

of CA)

-We don’t collect wood anymore as such and ropes are not really available in the households, but

we will share the existing rope templates and try our best”.

6.Sub-Group III(Santeng village)

With this group, we went straight into the CA planting demonstration, without the day workshop on the

theoretical aspects. These aspects were however explained and discussed during the planting process.

Luckily some of the participant have worked for commercial maize farmers in the past and were already

familiar with some of the CA principles. We demonstrated how to plant maize and beans / cowpea sand

talked about cover crops and their importance with the group. The group asked for a full workshop where

we would cover a wide range of topics, from soil fertility, to pest control to seed saving.

7.Conclusion

Participants who were introduced to CA before had a reasonable grasp of the land preparation and

planting process, but were lacking somewhat in the theoretical aspects. Ways need to be explored to

introduce the CA concepts in an even more simplified format, to ensure that participants remember and

use the principles. With regard to cover crops, as is the case the most smallholders, their reason for

planting these crops is for food either for themselves or their livestock and the soil improvement aspects

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 28

are considered an added bonus. Lab-Lab for example is popular as people can eat both the leaves as

greens and cook the beans.

Under the present difficult climatic conditions, it is likely that the field crops will only do well if

supplementary irrigation can be provided.

8.Actions for MDF

-To make templates for planting CA plots (something that one can put on a wall). We are already

playing with options

-Find bird resistant sorghum seedfor next season

-Design a workshop on pest control specifically for field crops (maize in particular)

-Think through weeding options; there was a hand “weeder” that was used in Bergville at some

point that could be useful to try out.

5.1.1.2Monitoring at Sedawa

Magdalene Malepe

Monitoringwas done for Magdelene Malepe’s demonstration CA trial plot in March 2020. She had planted

in the sun hempa month after the initial trial planting. It has grown very well and she mentioned that it is

a good crop for provision of fodder for goats. She mentioned also that the sun hemphas survived the dry

hot conditions better than maize, cowpeas and beans and that” intercroppingwith pigeon pea works much

better because I have seen an improvement on my soil.”

The maize however has struggled and most had died back. Upon inspecting the root growth,it was found

that the extreme compaction of the soil has caused the roots to branch out at the base of the stem,

rather than having a main/tap root growing down. This is so common in this area, the Magdelene doubted

that maize even has tap roots.

Magadelene is aware that her soil is not very fertile and has issues. In this regard, she decided to do a

small experiment with lime by herself; She added lime to a section of her plot where she planted cowpeas

and another small area with cowpeas without lime. She has seen that the cowpeas that received lime have

grown much better and are a good dark green colour compared to those without lime which showed

purpling on the leaves.

Figure 15:

Magadelene’s

sun hemp,

intercropped

with maize

growing very

well. The maize

however is

showing strong

signs of heat

and water

stress and most

has already died

back.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 29

Figure 16:Left; A

maize plant dug up to

show root radiating

out from the base of

the stem, indicating

severely compacted

soil and Right;

cowpeas growing well,

with added lime and

mulching

Meisie Mokwena

Meisie has also

persevered with the

CA production

system.Sheplanted

sugar beans and

maize in her plot. During the winter season, she throws organic waste in her plots in preparation for

planting. She also provides supplementary irrigation for her field crops from her borehole, although her

irrigation system is a bit rough – given that she just places a pipe in the fieldand lets the water run out.

As her plot is quite steep, this would not provide an even spread of irrigation.

The crop growth in her different plots has been quite variable, with some showing good growth and others

not. Meisie thinks that there is variable fertility in her soil, as she has not added organic waste equally to

all the plots in her field.

Figure 17: Above left; Stone lines have been used as a S&W conservation practice. In the foreground is groundnut and

in the back ground her maize and bean

intercropped plot. Above right; some of the

maize on the steeper parts of her field is

yellow and has not grown that well

Figure 18: Right; Meisie practices

intercropping of maize and pumpkin and has

also planted a few Moringa trees in between

her maize – both of these are great local

adaptations within the CA system.

5.1.1.3Turkey (1 and 2)

VENUE: Community centre in Turkey 1

PARTICIPANTS: 18

AIM: Review of CA principles and practice to date and planning for the present season

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 30

The aim of the workshop was to improve farmers’ understanding of conservation agriculture (minimum soil

disturbance, soil cover and mixed cropping) with more emphasis on cover crops. The workshop was

divided into 2 parts; atheoreticaland a practical component. For the practical component or CA

demonstration the group was subdivided into Turkey 1 and Turkey 2. The CA farmer level experimentation

demonstrations were done atMr Mogote’shomestead inTurkey 1 and Sarah Madore’shomestead inTurkey

Topics covered in the presentation include: Principles of CA, different planting options and planters,

farmer level experimentation and layout of CA trials, intercropping examples, reduction in runoff, cover

crop options (summer and winter combinations and a Bergville case study for Phumelele Hlongwane).

This led to a discussion within the group about the cover crops such as sunflower. Participants have

planted sunflower before, but have reduced this now as they are nolonger really rearing chickens. They

are aware that sunflower can thrive under hot and dry conditions and grows better than maize under

these circumstances and also that close spacing is possible.

They wanted to know whether they could grow sunflower at scale and wanted to know whether there

were markets for this crop and what price they could obtain. MrMagobatloucontinued that the

introduction of the animal drawn planter for planting using donkeys in previous seasons gave them hope

that we wold assist them to plan larger areas. The facilitators had to re-iterate that we do not provide

inputs and ploughing support and that the focus is on trying out different techniques that farmers have to

take to scale if they can and want to. The issue of lack of soil fertility and bad soil structure in the larger

fields was discussed. Participants are aware that there are issues and that it could take some time to

rectify these situations for improved production at field scale level. They want to do this as they feel that

growing maize in their homestead plots is too little for milling and food security and they eat that maize

mostly as green mealies.

Further, participants were a little sceptical of mulching as an option and felt that maize might struggle to

germinate through the mulch. It was explained that the actual planting holes/stations are not covered

with mulch, so that should not be an issue.

Weeding was discussed. Common weeds are blackjack and nutgrass. Participants couldn’t imagine how

mulch would stop the tall weeds from growing. It was explained that mulching stops the weeds from

germinating and will not stop them once they are growing.

Feedback from previous CA trials:

•Mr Mogofe; “From what we were taught last year I went and tried and I realised that the

moisture lasts longer in the CA plot compared to the normal plot”

•Sarah Madire added that with addition of manure and leaving soil cover, even the colour of the

soil is starting tochange “this could indicate that with time yes this can help improve our soil”

•Some participants felt that they could see some improvement in the CA trials form last season,

but not that much.There washowevera realisation amongst participants that CA is a long-term

strategy and if will take a while before they realise some of the benefits (e.g. improvement in soil

structure) of CA.

Reflection (participants understanding of CA after the presentation of CA and cover crops):

•CA is about building the soilwhich will hold water like a sponge

•CA as a practice to increase species diversity in soil, thus improving the soil heath.

•We should not disturb the soil (ensuring our soil becomes a conducive habitat for soil

microorganisms)

•Mulching (cover crops helpincrease availability of mulching material)

•This is planting in a way of nature

•They would need to make some adjustments in how they do their cropping;

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 31

odividing their fields into two parts (garden area) and (field cropping area)and

ominimising orstopping burning of dry weeds and crop residues, even though this is tricky

as the crop residues take some time to break down in the soil and snakes can hide in this

mulch and make it unsafe for children to play there.

A wish list going forward (with CA):

•To try planters that are more appropriate at a large scale

•Research the possibility of us being able to grow sunflower and selling it in the market

•You keep showing us examples of CA from other places, is it because you do not have local

examples (put together pictures of how CA has done locally, that can also be a good information

sharing process)

CA Demonstration at Sara Madire’s homestead (Turkey 1)

Sara had already planted mostof herfieldand we worked in her sister’s yard for the CA demonstration.

This site is used for field cropping not much gardening. Sara’s children had removed the weeds from a

large part of this field with hand hoe and have allowed the weeds to dry and they burnt them. Luckily,

there was a patch that was left, which we used for the CA demo.

We demonstrated how to grow maize with cover crops (was four lines of maize and four lines of cover crop

mix (millet/babala, sun hemp and sunflower) and how to grow maize and beans / cowpea. We started by

showing participants how to make templates for planting (to demarcate the spacing for maize at 50 cm

apart) and (for beans at 25 cm apart). This template is also useful for helping famers plant in a straight

line.

Figure 19: Above left a diagram developed for the layout and spacing and Above right, developing the template for

planting

Figure 20: Above left making the pits along the template lines and Above right placing manure and seed in each

planting basin

The basins are made so that there is still a hollow in the ground after the manure and seed have been

added, to allow for extra collection of rainwater. A portion of the planted area was mulched to provide

for some soil cover to reduce weeds and also increase water holding in the soil

Figure 2: Turkey 1 participants planting a CA

trail

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 32

Figure 21: Right; mulching a portion of the CA demonstration plot

CA Demonstration Mr Mogofe’s homestead at Turkey 2

A similar process as above was followed in Turkey 2, below are photos of

taken at CA demo in Turkey 2

Figure 22: Below left; Template for planting, Centre, digging the planting basins

and right; sowing in the cover crops in the rows that were opened for these

Review of the planting process:

•CA is still be praised for it easy of operation or implementation, even though those with large

fields feel more appropriate no till planters should be introduced

•Making the template was easy and it made the job a lot easier

•Overall, we loved how the layout made with seed on paper, I don’t think I can forget this

5.1.1.4Monitoring in Turkey

Sarah Madire

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 33

For Sarah’s CA trial plot, maize was planted first using spacing of 30 cm andgroundnutsand summer cover

crops (sun hemp, millet

and sunflower) were

planted after further

rainfall, about 3-4 weeks

later.Due to the difficult

weather conditions her

maize hasnot done well.

But the other crops have

grown very well.

Figure 23:Clockwise: Sarah’s

cover crops growing well,

with some maize that

survived the hot and dry

conditions; he

groundnuts and her

compost heaps,

made close to her

bananacircles for

shade and moisture

Sarah makes her

own compostusing

grass residues and

other organic

materials.

5.1.1.5Willows

VENUE: Sports stadium(see picture on the

right)

PARTICIPANTS: 18

AIM: Review of CA principles and practice to

date and planning for the present season

The aim of the workshop was to improve

farmers’ understanding of conservation

agriculture (minimum soil disturbance, soil

cover and mixed cropping) with more

emphasis on cover crops.

The workshop started a bit late,as participants needed to first complete applications for subsidies on

electricity from the municipality (this took place at the same venue where we held the workshop). This

somehow shows that venues like a stadium are not ideal for these workshops.

Status of field cropping in the village

Participants had questions which mostly related to pest control in field cropping systems, as the changes

in weather patterns and extreme heat has led to massive pest outbreaks in their crops.The only crop

which was not affected is watermelon. A few people managed to harvest watermelonslast season. These

are sold at a price ranging from R 10to R40per watermelon depending on the size.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 34

Participants’ favourite crops are maize, groundnut, dithotse(jugo beans), pumpkin/ butternuts,

watermelons, cowpeaandsugar beans.They felt that they would continue to grow a combination of

crops, even in these difficult weather conditions as some of the crops at least are likely to survive and

produce a harvest.They felt also that they could adjust their planting dates as they have noticed in

previous seasons that some people who planted at different times managed to get reasonable harvests.

Irrigation is not really an option, especially at household level where participantspay R 35for a 210 L of

water.

Recently, they have discovered a local market for sorghum; those who make traditional beer prefer to use

sorghum instead of maize.This has increased the interest in growing sorghum, despite the difficulty of

birds attacking the seed heads. According to them, they can cover each seed head with a small piece of

netting to reduce this predation. They charge R140/ 20l bucket of sorghum, which is about r3000/ ton,

which is a much better price than they would get for maize which is only around R1400/ ton

They also requested bird resistant seed. They mentioned that it is very difficult to find sorghum seed and

impossible to get bird resistant seed.

Introduction to CA

We presented CA and cover crops (in their role

in CA) using printed slides and recorded the

response of the participants on the flipchart.

Figure 24: Sylvester going through the CA

presentation with Willows participants.

Comments from participants:

•Use of picture on the slides help participants visualise what was being taught

•Maybe you should make note of the flipchart in Sepedi to allow us to also take notes

Again, for those who had attended workshops on CA before, they didn’t internalise the principles well.

The issue of weeds in this system was raised.

Options for dealing with weeds under CA:

•Weed the plot before planting (in a way that does not disturb the soil too much), this can be done

with a hand hoe or a spade

•Use mulch after planting to suppress the weeds

Participants with larger fields felt that they could not use these practices. It was however emphasised

that CA is practices on very large fields and the mulching component is managed through keeping the crop

residue as stover on the fields. Weeding needs to be managed on any size plot.

They also questioned why Government is still ploughing fields for people if this is the new way of farming.

Participants’ comments of cover crops:

•Sunflower performs well under high temperatures. Farmers would like to know whether there is a

market or them for sunflowers. Sunflower is usually fed to chickens, butparticipants don’t feelit

is worth growing if that’s all they can do with it

•With maize we have agreements with shops where we give them maize grain and pay a small

amount then we get maize meal at a very low cost

•Lablab is known amongst the participants, its tender leaves are harvested, cooked and served with

pap. Some eat the seed (boiled), but Mrs Mohlala said her children won’t eatthis anymore. It is

usually grown next to the fence so it can climbonto the fence, never in the middle of the plot or

garden. The Pedi name of lablab is “Dikolokoto”.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 35

Planting of experimental plots

We subdivided the group into three smaller groups based on how close they lived next to each other. The

groups are as follows

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Phinious Pako

Maria Rapatsa

Abita Shai

Marks Malapane

Angelina Thekwane

Lucy Donka

Amos Mohlala

Aniki Sebashe

Melida Shai

Tomson Motseo

Reachelle Morapo

Kgaogelo Mahlako

We started doing demonstrations with group 2, at Maria Rapatsa’s homestead, all these participants have

only hard of CA on the day of the workshop. Due limited space in the yard we focused on a maize and

bean intercropped plot and also construction of a diversion ditch to reduce erosion and increase water

access.

There were traces of erosion in the

field. Maria made a ridge to control

the water, we worked on the ridge and

planted below it and talked about

better way to make ridges, diversion

furrows and stone lines.

Figure 25: Working on CA demonstration

and the diversion ditch in Maria’s field.

Comments from new participants on

the CA demonstration process:

•This is the easiest way to plant (ifI used this method from the beginning, I would have finished

planting the whole yard in less than 2 days).

•Maria Rapatsa; “It really does not feel like we are planting is as if we are playing “Aniki Sebashe”

•Participants praised the CA as a method which requires less labour and also as a method that saves

seed.

•They also admitted to not being used to leaving plant residue as soil cover, Maria had a pile of dry

grass or weeds shehad takenfrom the plot she planted a week earlier, which she was about to burn.

We used this material as mulch after planting the CA trail.They felt that this looks untidy and

though they understand the reasoning, it is going to take them a while to get used to it.

•Participants felt that the spacing between the beans was too narrow and thought there will

competition. It was suggested that this is one of the aspects they should observe in their CA

experimentation plots, rather than deciding beforehand not to do it.

•They were worried that it was too dry and there was no sign of rain. As a consequence, only half

the plot was planted to maize and cover crops. The rest was left for a later date (after some rain),

to compare the effect of different planting times. we planted half of the plot and showed them how

to plant cover crops.

For group 3, the CA experimentation demonstration was conducted at Abita Shai’s

homestead.She had already planted maize, butternut and maraca(Gourd – see photo

on the right)). For the experiment we planted maize with the same thing she had

planted to see how the two perform under CA compared to their normal planting

method

They commented that “It seemed easier when we were planting, but know that I am

thinking about it is not that easy to remember“As a consequence, they decided to

work together as a group and help each other to plant.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 36

Figure 26: Right; Abita Shai

drawing out the layout of the

CA plot and far right; Betty

assisting the small group with

the planting process.

NOTE: Planting into a stand

of weeds as seen here is in

fact not recommended as

good practice within CA. the

weeds will easily out

compete the crops.

For group 1, the

demonstration was done at

Mr Mogofe’s homestead.

Mr Mogofe’s field is used for vegetable gardening (tomatoes, spinach,

onions and green paper) in winter and for field cropping (maize and

cowpeas) in summer. He has access to water for irrigation (private

borehole) and has installed a homemade drip irrigation system. The

drip irrigation was used to water the vegetables in winter, he has left

it in the field and is using it to irrigate the maize. There is a lot of

compaction on the soil. He has planted maize on half of this field and

left the other half to do a CA trail on it. Both the maize under CA and

normal planting method will be irrigated using a drip irrigation

system.

Figure 27: Mr Mogofe drawing out the layout of the CA trial plot in his

homestead.

5.1.1.6Monitoringof CA implementation in Willows

Mr Mogofe

He planted maize and dry beans. Beans germinated very well after it

rained but died as the heat continued to be extreme during December and January. Only maize survived

but growth has been very

disappointing, regardless of

the drip irrigation he

practiced. The soil in his yard

is extremely compacted with

very low levels of organic

matter. He also did not add

any organic matter or manure

prior to planting.

Figure 28: Right; shows the

surviving maize after beans died

back. This clearly indicates the

need for improving soil fertility

and soil health in this plot.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 37

Abitha Ramoshaba

She is a new entrant into the CA

experimentation. Nothing germinated in

her plots, except for a small patch of

summer cover crops.

Figure 29: Right; A small patch of summer

cover crops growing in Abitha’s otherwise

empty yard, dueto zero germination of crops.

A similar situation was found for Maria

Rapatse, whose beans and cowpeas did not

germinate and maize growth has been very

bad, likely leading to zero harvests.

Figure 30: Maria’s field showing lack of growth

as well as exposed, compacted and low fertility

soils.

Angelina Thekwane

Angelina provides supplementary irrigation for her crops, using municipal water. This is her first season

experimenting with CA. Her maizegrew very wellbut thecowpeas didn’t even germinate. She then

plantedgroundnuts in their stead. She findsCA to be agoodideaand it is easy to implement and she

believes that the situation

would be much improved

with better rains.

Figure 31: Left Angelina’s

maize and summer cover

crops intercrop growing

remarkably well; Centre

holding a maize cob and

Right; a root ball for one of

the maize plants This

indicates compacted low

fertility

5.1.1.7Facilitators’ notes on the CA learning process:

For this season 44 participants volunteered to do the CA implementation process. Overall only 10 of 35

participantswhoplanted their CA experimentation plots, realized any growth and yields. This was due in

part, to the weather conditions as rainfall did not continue into December. Instead, after initial rainfall

dry hot conditions continued throughout the whole of January. This meant that the legumes (cowpeas and

beans) germinated but died back soon afterwards. Maize as well did not survive well. The cover crops

however; millet, sun hempand sunflowers, as well as the Lablab beans grew surprisingly well under these

difficult conditions.The other major contributing factor is the compaction of the soil and extremely low

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 38

levels of organic matter, exacerbated by the localpractice of not adding manure or compost when

planting.

A small number of participants who managed to get harvests practices supplementary irrigation. Some

participants decided against planting maize, given the bad track record for this crop in the last few years.

One such participant isMattshegoShaai from Turkey. She planted only legumes; groundnuts and jugo

beans for a second season

in a row. She has found

these crops survive better

and also provide for better

soil moisture due to their

canopy, as well as reduced

erosion in her plot.

Figure 32: MattshegoShuai’s

field planted to ground nuts

and jugo beans, which she

sells in the community.

Silence Malaspinain

Willows followed the same

practice. He planted these legumes in basins and in ridges and furrows. He felt that he did not understand

the concept of CA well and that the compaction of soil, along with uncovered soil is a problem under the

present conditions. This can be considered a local adaptation and is important to note.

Some further points are the following:

•The concept of CA is knowledge intensive and difficult to convey in one learning session,

especially linked to deeply entrenched habits that work in opposition to the principles; such as

clearing and burning of weeds, wide spacing and the like

•It would be ideal to be able to run workshops through the whole cropping season to make

observations and deepen the learning

•Because the innovation system approach to learning relies on positive results from the farmer

level experimentation, seasons such as the present one, where hot and dry conditions has

seriously hampered germination and growth, tend to be difficult for introduction of a new

practice. Farmers associate the lack of results with the practice, rather than the season. It can be

almost impossible to disentangle different factors, such as lack of soil fertility on the performance

of the trials as well. It is thus common to have very variable results within a group, with some

participants faring reasonably well and other failing completely. Under such conditions, uptake of

these practices tends to be low.

•Participants somehow believe that this method cannot be used on larger fields as they have now

got into the habit of believing this is only possible with tractors and with assistance provided in

provision of seed. The concept of manual weeding is one they are not prepared to consider.

•The habit of planting without any addition of soil nutrients or manure is a very common practice in

the area and for us a big problem in terms of improved yields. It is however, extremely difficult to

persuade participants to collect and use manure. Any have no access and would need to buy this

from people who do, which is a constraint.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 39

Organic vegetable production and

marketing

marketinghas been continued since early January, withthe most

successful being the Hlokomela WellnessWednesday market and

selling a Lebamba supermarket. Some farmersplanted spinach

and beetroot for December and sold the produce locally, while

others lost everything due to the extreme heat. This has meant

that only around 4-6 farmers have continued with the marketing

activity.

Figure 33: The first customer in January

20202 at Hlokomela bought all the “morogo’

on the table

5.1.2.1Produce sold

Farmers have beenselling the following

produce since January;

1.Morogo (pumpkin leaves)

2.Basil

3.Flat leaf and curly leaf parsley

4.Brinjal

5.Mango

6.Lemon grass

7.Chilli

8.Coriander and rocket seeds

9.Moringa Powder

10.Chilli powder

Table 6: Farmers participating in the marketing and incomes generated for January 2020

Farmer

Produce

Unit of

produce

Price for

produce

Unit sold

Total income

Mpelesi Sekgobela

Chilli powder

R10,00

R 50.00

Curly leaf parsley

R15,00

R 120.00

Flat leaf parsley

R15,00

R 165.00

Morogo(pumpkin

Leaves)

R15,00

R 240.00

Chilli

R15,00

R 60.00

Triphina Malepe

Flat leaf parsley

R15,00

R150.00

Christina Thobejane

Mango

R50,00

R 1250.00

Basil

R15,00

R 90.00

Rocket

R15,00

R 105,00

Morogo (pumpkin

leaves)

R15,00

R 210,00

Mmatshego Shaai

Mustard spinach

R15,00

R 225,00

Thyme

R15,00

R 195,00

Basil

R15,00

R 90,00

Mint

R15,00

R 225,00

Table 7: Farmers participating in the marketing and incomes generated for February 2020

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 40

From the beginning of March,

farmers started concentrating on

finishing the water project by end of

March so they can have water when

they start planting winter crops.

They stopped participating in their

gardens.

Figure 34: Produce being sold at

Hlokomela during February 2020

A small workshop was held in

Turkey, to discuss greater

involvement in this marketgoing into the future.

AVAILABLE MARKETS

Presently smallholders can sell through the following avenues:

-Hoedspruit farmers market

-Hlokomela Wellness Wednesday

-Health shop

-Wholesales/grocery store (Lebamba and Pick n Pay)

These markets are still quite small and underdeveloped and there are times when produce is required and

farmers don’t have the requested crops and other times that farmers wish to sell a crop that is not wanted

in the market. This is considered to be an integral part of the development of a market, as the buyers and

sellers develop systems that work for both parties.

Farmers thoughts on this included the following:

•Norah Tshetlha has been selling mustard spinach and Swiss chard spinach locally. She used to

deliver every Wednesday at a day care centre locally. She also sold at available markets in

Hoedspruit where Bettywould assist. To her understanding available markets don’t have many

consumers, it’s a market trying to establish. She won’t say she gave up on the markets but she had

no water for irrigation and had to decrease the size of her garden, which led her not participating

anymore at the market.

Farmer

Produce

Unit of

produce

Price for

produce

Unit sold

Total income

Mpelesi Sekgobela

Chilli powder

R10,00

R 60.00

Curly leaf parsley

R15,00

R 150.00

Flat leaf parsley

R15,00

R 120.00

Morogo(pumpkin

Leaves)

R15,00

R 225.00

Chilli

R15,00

R 60.00

Triphina Malepe

Flat leaf parsley

R15,00

R 120.00

Christina Thobejane

Mango

R50,00

R 1000.00

Basil

R15,00

R 150.00

Rocket

R15,00

R 300.00

Morogo (pumpkin

leaves)

R15,00

R195.00

Mmatshego Shaai

Cherry tomatoes

R15,00

R 150.00

Thyme

R15,00

R 150.00

Basil

R15,00

R 135.00

Mint

R15,00

R 225.00

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 41

•Isaac Malatji: The markets are not strong according to his observation. The other thing he noticed

is that farmers are not ready for the market, reason being he once witnessed a situation where

Christina had to call farmers to bring their produce on the day of delivery and had to fetch the

produce herself; this is an indication of farmers who are not ready/sure what they want.

•Sarah Mohlala: She normally sells her spinach locally at church every Sunday. She only sold basil at

Hoedspruit market and everything was sold out. She stopped sending produce due to lack of water

for irrigation.

•Elizabeth Mokgatla: She never sold anything at Hoedspruit market. She normally plants produce

for household consumption, but she thinks thatfarmers who are planting for both selling and

consumption should try by all means to keep the market growing and stop giving up when things

are going slowly, as nothing starts on fast speed. Consumers must know that there are farmers

from Turkey and they will find them through certain markets.

•Sarah Madire: She sold different kinds of produce, onions, Swiss chard spinach, kale, beetroot,

spring onionsat the markets. She also sells locally. If it wasn’t for farming and selling, she would

now be starving, as she depends only on an old age grant and she is the head of the house.

Challenges were summarised as:

•Water shortages to maintain and expand gardens and production. Now that the water committee

has worked together to get access to more water through the borehole, it will be easier to plan

and grow enough produce.

•Some farmers felt that the logistics of deciding what to grow and how much of it and then

harvesting and delivery to the central point was too problematic.

Way forward:

•Freddy Mankgele: If farmers give up, we will lose all markets established. Wehave to work hard to

grow the market and not be afraid to lose, because losing is the reason farmers are not even

trying to participate.

•Nora Tshetlha: All farmers have to participate so as to keep the market growing. We can all add

oursmallquantities ofproduce together to meet orders placed. This will also give all farmers an

opportunity to join Betty and see how things work and meet the consumers.

5.2Mango production and marketing

A small group of farmers; Lina Malepe and Christinah Thobejanejoined Betty for a visit and tour of the M-

PaK facility(for drying and processing of mangoes)and to discuss their involvement in this market. Both

ladies also delivered some mangoes and went home well satisfied. They received a cash payment of

R4.51/kg of mangoes.

An agreement has been reached with Mr Flip Nel from M-Pak that he will support smallholders by buying

any quantities they can deliver to him, however small and will continue to do so as the smallholders

expand their production abilities. To this end, learning groups were consulted and farmers have

undertaken to buy in more trees of the required varieties; Kent, Keit, Tommy Atkin and Shelley. The

‘wild’ mangoes grown more commonly; namely the fish and peach mangoes as they are called, are not

appropriate for drying as they contain a lot of fibre. Participants were also shown how to grade and pick

their fruit; as these need to be quite green for this market.

A list of 146 trees has been compiled; on the understanding that MDF will assist with the order.

Participants are to pay in R20/ tree as their contribution.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 42

In addition, Erna has been negotiating with the Nova Institute to put together a joint proposal to AgriSA

for development of this market on a larger scale.

5.3Water

committees

A summary narrative for this

intervention is included here, as the

work, although not funded by the

RWP, has taken some time and effort

from learning groups that are part of the

process. It provides a learning

process and pilot for potentially

expanding this kind of activity with the

groups.

The learning group members had to

learn a substantial number of new

things, both technical and also in how to work together and make joint decisions that can be accepted and

implemented by all group members.

Initial meetings and locations for boreholes

Initially meetings were held with the 2 water committees representing 4 learning groups across 4 villages

to discuss with them how the process could be undertaken and work through some of the logistical and

financial details. Participants were given the task of lookingfor possible locations that have good ground

water retentionpotential, to be surveyed and to also look for drilling companies that have worked in their

villages, that they trust.The groups also finalised participants to be involved and their financial and

labour contributions to this project.

Participants from each village chose two to three possible locations to be surveyed as a starting point.

RaymondVonk from Georay geophysical services and his assistant undertook the surveys using a process

that incorporates bothvertical electrical sounding and horizontal profiling activities. These tools provide

the depth and thickness of various subsurface layers and their relative water yield capacity.

They started working at Turkey 1 accompanied by Isaac Malatji, Sarah Mohlala, Nkurwane Shaai and

Elizabeth Mokgatla and Betty. Raymond moved along the most plausible lines form the positions

suggested and the best option for drilling was calculated from there. Private property such as orchards

and existing unutilised boreholes as well as other obstacles were taken into account. He also surveyed

three suggested locations at Sedawa.

Figure 35: Left a view of rock and pebble formations typical of an area where subsurface water is flowing and Right;

Raymond surveying at Turkey 1

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 43

Choosing of location for borehole drilling by Participants

The process of choosing the right location was difficult. From the options provided, participants had to

consider distances between the borehole and their homesteads, options for where the header tank would

be and where the mainline pipes would go. Some conflict arose due to a lack of trust and some

participants initially refusing to accept and discuss these challenges objectively.

It took a few meetings and alot of discussion to make these decisions, after which Betty used a cell phone

app known as Maverick to survey the GPS coordinates of each household This was in order to map (using

Google Earth) out the participants’ receptive distances heights to design the best possible system within

the given constraints of topography and budget.

The maps assisted in outlining the quantity and types of pipe used and

also clarified that some participants were too far away or at a much

higher elevation than could be serviced by the process.

Further negotiation was required, which saw the removal of piping to

irrigate fields – these were all over 1km away and participants did not

foresee themselves being able to afford and install their own piping.

For those few households that fell above the header tank,

arrangements were made to provide tanks for them at a household

nearby.

The drilling company that participants preferred was not immediately

available and eventually everyone agreed on Mr Stimie’s

recommendation; Afrisolutions from Tzaneen, who were already

working in the area and have experience installing community-based

infrastructure. There was a lot of debate about the reliability of

drilling companies.

Figure 36; Right: Core samples taken during the drilling process. These

pictures were sent to Mr Vonk to establish decisions about continuing or

stopping drilling based on the structure and consistency of these samples

Figure 37: Left; The drilling machine and Right: water starting to come out during the drilling process.

Only 2 of the 4 proposed boreholes drilled were successful. The one was completely dry and the other

yielded so little water as to be completely impracticable. The successful boreholes yielded around 14000l/hr

(Sedawa 1) and 500l/hr (Turkey 2) respectively.

Designing and mapping the mainline pipe lines

Mr Alain Marechaltookover this responsibility and worked closely with Betty to fine tune and finalize the

maps. These were discussed and negotiated with the water committee groups repeatedly until everyone

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 44

was in agreement. The maps also indicted the size of pipes and the different connectors needed. Pipe sizes

differ to ensure even pressure within the system and a reasonably even supply of water to all households.

Below is a section of the Sedawa pipeline outlining the different pipe sizes in different colours and also

where the pipelines had to cross paved roads.

Figure 38; Map of a section of the Sedawa pipeline outlining the different pipe sizes in different colours.

Figure 39; Map of a section of the Turkey 2 pipeline with the different pipe sizes indicated in different colours.

Decision making with MDF and the participants

Once the boreholes were drilled a number of decisions needed to be made, including the best use of

available budget, whether to proceed with the two working boreholes and how to accommodate those

participants who live in the two villages wherethe boreholes drilled came up empty.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 45

Firstly, we discussed the process of borehole drilling, how much was used and how much we are left with

on the budget. Some suggestions here included that further sites be surveyed and drilled in the two

villages without water – so that all four should end up with a borehole – and then to find further funding to

develop these boreholes later. It had to be explained to participants that project budgets could not so

wholly be diverted from the purposes they were proposed for. It was thus

decided to continue with the two boreholes and support the villages without

boreholes by providing 15 x 2500 L Jo-jo tanks for participants in Turkey 1.

For Sedawa 2 the 3 participants suggested that a 4500L Jo-jo tank be placed

in the system for them closest to their homesteads and they would arrange

between themselves to fetch the water from there. MDF also undertook to

search for further funding opportunities in the future.

Participants also decided on where to place the electric box

for the boreholes

and who will

be in charge

of pumping

water.

Figure 40: Above left; Jo-jo tanks delivered in Turkey 1 and Above right; installed at Elias Mogofe’s homestead in

turkey 1. He built a nice plinth for the tank, as all participants were urged to do.

Continuing with installation of pumps and header tanks

Afrisolutions then continued with the process of installing PVC casings, pressure pumps, lockboxesand

electric cablingforboth boreholes, as well as the piping, valves and stands required for the installation of

these tanks.

Figure 41: Below left; lock box for Turkey, Below centre;

lock box for Sedawa and Below right; Controlling valve

for the pump inside thelock box.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 46

Afrisolutions hired three participants (decided upon in their groups) to dig the trenches to take cabling to

the households which would manage the electricity supply. Mr David van Wyk from Afrisolutions worked

with the two teams of participants in Turkey and Sedawa. He found that the borehole in Sedawa had

partially collapsed, since being

drilled a month earlier and this

required it being ‘blown out’ again,

which delayed activities in Sedawa a

little.

Figure 42:Right; Electricity supply in

Sedawa showing the cable and plug for

the borehole pump and Far right; the

cable in Turkey which was linked into the

electricity box with a switch.

Planning the digging of the main pipeline trenches

The delivery of the pipes and fittings were somewhat delayed, as the cheapest supplier still had to

manufacture some of the piping; a small detail that was not communicated to the team prior to payment.

In the meantime, Erna, Alain and Betty worked with the two water committees to understand the maps

and then do walks to stake out the different sections of pipe, where the pipe sizes changed, which fittings

to use and where the pipes would cross

paved roads.

Figure 43: Erna and Alain working with the

Turkey committee to explain the pipeline on

their map

Alain also worked with the committee

members to ensure that they understood

how the fittings worked, what the reducer

couplings looked like and how to install

them. People were confident that they

knew how to do this themselves.

These crossings were a cause for concern, but the

water committee members felt that they could easily

get permission from their traditional authorities. In

Sedawa, the process of approval and installing pipes

below the paving, and replacing paving thereafter

worked smoothly. In Turkey however local residents

stopped work on the day after approval by the

traditional authority and insisted instead on having a

cement speed-hump on top of the paving, with the

pipes inside the structure encased in a steel sleeve.

They were determined that they did not trust the

water committee or the implementer to restore the

road to its original state after laying the pipe. Alain

and Betty worked closely with David during this time,

as frustrations ran high and Afrisolutions threatened

to leave until a later date.

Figure 44: David from Afrisolutions working with Alain to

site and measure the paved road crossings in Sedawa, of

which there were two

At the same time Afrisolutions was installing main tank stands before connecting the jo-jo tank to the

boreholes.Again, some discussion was required as participants had envisaged much higher stands and felt

that the 1m high stands would not allow for proper emptying of their header tanks. Betty and Alain

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 47

needed to re explain how the heights and pressures were calculated and the reason for choosing these

lower and cheaper stands.

Participantstook it upon themselvesto digthemainline trenchesfrom the borehole to the header tank,

so that they couldconnect the pipes when they arrive. It was very difficult for participantsfrom Sedawa

to cooperate with each other and dig the trenches. Someparticipantsdidn’t come and work on the

trenchesand they all managed to convince themselves that the soil was too hard and rocky to dig. The

local facilitator, Christinah Thobejane requested assistance from the municipality with digging trenches

using a TLB, but was told that the TLB is occupied with a sanitation project. Participants held meeting

after meeting discussing the way forward. They then made a decision that they would each dig 20m of

trenchand that each person’s section wold be numbered, so that everyone knew which section they were

meant to dig.Most of the participants adhered to the decisions taken, but still there were a few who did

not. Participants again made more rules, where fines ofR350,00 were instituted and a threat thattheir

pipes wouldnot be connected till they pay the fine. Participants started with the trenches.

Figure 45: Above left; One of the Sedawa group meetings to thrash out how the main trench would be dug and Above

right; measuring a rope to stake out each person’s 20 m section

Figure 46: Right; Digging the main

trench to the header tank in Sedawa;

Centre; Alain working with Alex and

Magale in Sedawa to stake the

crossings and Far right: Digging the

main trench to the header tank in

Turkey

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 48

Afrisolutions also connected pipes to the header tanks both at Turkey and Sedawa, once they arrived and

tested the systems by pumping water into these tanks.

Figure 47: Above left; The header tanks (4500 L each) fully functional and tested at Turkey (Michael Makgobatlou)

and Above left at Sedawa (Joyce Seotlo)

There is however a slight problem with the header tank at Sedawa, where the stand is slowly collapsing.

Afrisolutions has undertaken to replace this stand at their own cost and this will be ensured by the MDF

team.

Laying the pipes from the header tanks to the homesteads

Delivery of piping was done in both villages and participants started on digging their trenches around the

last week of February.

Figure 48: Above; Piping and fittings delivered in Sedawa

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 49

Figure 49: Above; Piping and fittings delivered in Turkey

Participants from Turkey also worked on their trenches from the borehole to households, after marking

the positionswhere the pipesizeswill be change, from the borehole to their households. After pipes

were delivered, they started connecting the pipes and closing the trenches with the help of Betty and

Jessica from MDF. Afrisolutions inthe meantime were installing the speed- hump to cross the main road to

connect the pipes from

the borehole to the main

jo-jo tank.

Figure 50: Right: The sketch

for speed hump

construction provided to

Afrisolutions by Alain and

Far Right; the speed hump

being constructed

After the speed hump

construction, community

members were still not pleased, deciding that the was too steep and rounded. After much negotiation, in

which the traditional council was not very helpful at all, Mr Malatji eventually agreed to use some of the

funds collected by the group to acquire more cement and the group helped to even out the hump to the

grumblers’ satisfaction.

At Sedawa the crossings were done differently; three crossings were done on the paved road sections,

where the paving was removed the steel sleeve and pipes were buried and the pavement was carefully

replaced.This was done without incident and the crossings now are all but invisible.

Figure 51: Above left: The final speed hump crossing in Turkey and Above right; one of the crossings under the paving

being done in Sedawa

Connection of pipes in Turkey

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 50

Participantsthought it would be asimple job andthatthey could do this without the help of the engineer.

The encountered a number of challenges but Betty assisted the group, with constant advice and pointers

being provided telephonically by Alain.

During the process it became clear to the group that if they wanted to divide the participants into two

sections, who received water on alternate days, as they decided to do, then further valves would be

required to close off one section and open the other. These were then installed in the lines.It took

participants five days to install all the pipes and fix the speed-hump. Below is a picture of one of the

connections and the drawings provided by Alain to facilitate the process.

Connection of pipes in Sedawa

Sedawa participants found it difficult to dig the trenches from the borehole to their households,due to

the hard, rocky soil. They waited for a few weeks hoping to have a TLB from the Municipality to undertake

this process.The process of allocating a section of the trench to each participant was used again, but on

the day of laying the pipe some members had still not done this; so it took more time as the group then

decided to do these sections together and deal with those individuals who did not dig their sections later.

These participants also thought it would be easy to install all the pipes, but found the actual

implementation quite challenging. Below are the drawings and an example of the household connector

valve for Sedawa.

The pictures below provide some indication of the work and process in Sedawa.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 51

Figure 52:Clockwise from Top

left; A homestead connection into

the main pipeline, digging out the

trenches using picks and laying a

pipe into one of the trenches

5.4Networking and stakeholder engagement

PGS workshop

This workshop, arranged and held jointly withAWARD(Supported by USAID and DKA Austria) aimed to

introduce a number of concepts and processes around enterprise development and marketing to the Lower

Olifants’ farmers network. The outline for the workshops is presented below:

AGENDA:Participatory Guaranteed System workshop

DATE: 2/25/2020TIME: 08:30- 16:30

ATTENDEES:By invitation (NGOS, Government Department, Maruleng Municipality, Small-holder

farmers, Donor organisations/funding partners)

FOCUS:

•Strengthen collaboration and networking between farmers and other local role players

around organic produce network, foodsecurity, agroecology and climate change

adaptation.

•Introduce small-holder farmers to organic producer’s network, SAOSA and PGSSA (PGS

Hoedspruit)

•Explore the impact that farmer’s network in Agriculture Support Initiative (AgriSI) is

having on the livesof smallholder farmers within the Olifants Catchment of the Limpopo

basin

•Introduce small-holder farmers to local savings and enterprise development linked to CCA

and climate resilient agriculture (CRA)

PROGRAMME OF THE DAY

Task/ Discussion

Facilitator

Time

Arrival, registration and opening

8:00 -9:00

Introduction (new farmers and old farmers) and

Orientation

Per village; Purpose of the workshop

BB, Derrick, Erna

9:00 –9:30

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 52

1.Why network for farmers?

2.Benefits of networks

3.Experiences from the past(Farmers talk – cards)

4.What are challenges in a network?

5.What makes a good network?

Derrick

9:30-10:00

•Networks-

•Network options (What are the options in networks,

examples co-ops, boards, informal and self-

organising)

HH_Ishmael

Derrick, Betty

10:00-11:00

•Organic producer’s network- SAOSO, PGS

•PGS Hoedspruit (introduce farmers to PGS Hoedspruit

network)

•What PGS Hoedspruit supports (seeds, compost,

beauty & vegetables/fruits)

•Requirements for belonging to PGS (for farmers to

part of the network)

•Who is interested in joining PGS?

oAre you interested in something like this?

What are the concerns?

oTraining? Further interest

Betty, (list, villages,

participants)

11:00-12:30

•Market (farmers share experience of the market;

Hoedspruit farmers market, Hlokomela Wellness

Wednesday market)

•What are the markets available?

•From the Region for the Region, Chamber of

Commerce

Betty, Erna (PP

presentations) Slides pics

Mango,

Itumeleng – From the

Region for Region (FRF)

Lunch

13h:00 -

14:00

What are the experiences?

Introduction to Savings and business enterprises

Nqe, Betty

14:00-15:00

•Summary and reflection

oWhat did you learn?

16:00 -16:20

Closing Remarks and Way forward

16:20-16:30

ATTENDANCE:75 participants from Sedawa, Turkey, Santeng, Willows, Madeira, Worcester,and Mametja,

K2C, Hoedspruit Hub, DKA, AWARD and MDF.

5.4.1.1Network discussion

Derick du Toit provided a background on networks. He defined networks as a way of bringing things

together so that they function better.Theintention is to build capacity and take action.It is about

creating interconnectedness;the skills of interacting, sharing, bargaining, and negotiation.

Comments from participants included that if they work together, they are stronger and can achieve things

that they cannot do as individuals. It helps people to be able to have a say,so that others cannot the

advantage of them. Here in Sedawa we have found that working together, through AWARD and MDF has

shown and taught us many things; producing organically, saving seedand accessing water. We have learnt

that if we have the energy to do things together, then organisations will have the energy to help us do

that.

Dericksummarised that networking isabout working together to achieve things we cannot do separately.

There are different kindsof networksand different reasons for coming together; to learn new ideas, to

get access to services and support and for example like the K2C process “from the region for the region”

to produce and add value to produce new products to sell and also to do marketing together or save and

swap seeds.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 53

Small group discussion followed on people’s experiences with networking and what kinds of networks they

would find useful.

Some of the participants’ comments are summarised below:

•Magdalena; we grew a lot of herbs and needed a market, then we networked with the Hoedspruit

Hub and for a period managed tofind a market for the herbs. People didn’t know how to use the

herbsat home

•Nomsa; because of CC we have lost a lot of crops and seeds, but in our groups, we have now been

able to exchange seeds and find new crops

•Malatji; We were lucky to set up a committee for getting water and then we applied for funding,

then some people got water and somedid not, but it is progress and now we can continue to go

forward

•Christina; We have seen the importance of MDF and AWARD in this village, we have underground

RWH tanks, using runoff water and since startingwe can pick vegetables form our own gardens,

sell and buy other food and this is from the learning network process. When we meet,we learn

about new things. We talk about the challengesin our gardens in the learning groups. The local

facilitators should all know each other to continue the networking.

•Matsatsi Ramoshaba: I planted tomatoes, but had not harvestdue to lack of water. Now it looks

like if I knew about this networking things could have beendifferent

•Esinah: I have seen the importance of being in the group; now started having goats and chickens

in my household, which I did not have before and I am growing different kinds ofherbs, including

medicines. The only problem is lack of water

Thesegive us examples of creating networks for water supply, to solve problems in the production cycle,

dealing with CC and drought, changing cropping patters-confidence and support to try new things.

5.4.1.2What makes a good network?

We must work on something in common, communication is very important, listen, trust each other, see

things, don’t hide stuffand be transparent.

Motseo: When people can agree on actions then they can move forward. There is an example of theLTGA

– Limpopo tomato growers association(A provincial structure, government run), where farmers from

Willows, Finale and Lepellewere involved. We had meetings but there was not transparency,so although

it is still going many people are no longer involved.

This also gives an indication of the different kinds of networks there are; such as cooperatives,

government run networks and boards, water users’ associations which is a mixture of government and

private concerns, civil society networks such as church groups and stokvels and informal networks like the

learning groups.

5.4.1.3The PGS process

This is a network under the SAOSO (South African Organic Sector Organisation) called the PGSSA

(Participatory guarantee system, South Africa). A chapter/ network has been set up here called the

Hoedspruit PGS. It isa peer run system for organic certification and ensuring quality of organic produce.

People voiced that they understand that rules for production are important and that these are kept. PGS

can assist in setting up and linking in to more formal markets.

ACTION: All groups were interested in a training session on PGS so as to be able to decide whether to

go with this marketing networking process

5.4.1.4Organic marketing

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 54

This was followed by a brief summary (Erna and Betty) on the organic and other marketing processes that

have been tried out and which are underway. They also introduced dried mango as a new alternative and

outlined the new relationship set up with M-Pak.Participants were urged to become involved and take

these processes seriously, as they are not easy to set up and maintain. Both Hoedspruit Hub and K2C

provided short inputs on marketing as well.

5.4.1.5Introduction to savings and enterprise development

Mr Nqe Dlamini from StratAct gave a presentation (Appendix 1attached separately) to outline the value of

local Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and how they work. He also emphasised how they build

on stokvels as an idea, but are safer because of the transparency built into the group processes. He

continued to outline the enterprise development learning process that will be undertaken by MDF.

ACTION: A schedule was developed for giving introductory workshops for VSLAs in five villages:

Sedawa, Willows, Turkey, Madeira and Worcesterbetween 26thto 28thof February.

Stakeholder engagement

The following meetings have been held: (Attendance registers are attached in Appendix 2.)

•AWARD, MDF, Maruleng Municipality:This meeting started with a review of the PGS workshop

and a discussion of collaborative activities between MDF and AWARD. Bigboy Mkhabela from

AWARD is available for networking activities and will assist Betty in the PGS training sessions for

the learning groups He has already translated the PGS rules and forms into siPedi in preparation.

Inaddition, he is interested in being more closely involved in the savings groups training and

monitoring processes.

ACTION: A monthly workplan will be developed to coordinate these activities and include BB

into the planning process

Input was provided by Tsakani Tivani from the LED unit of the Maruleng Municipality. She

mentioned that this unit does not have funding specifically to support smallholders. They provide

support to the Department of Agriculture, which also sends through itswork programme to be

included in the IDP.

She asked some questions about the sustainability of organic production, markets, formalisation of

groups, the village-based savings and loan associations, safety of monies kept there. She suggested

a meeting with the Dept of Agric to explore options and overlaps. The unit’s input is limited to

heling to coordinate such meetings and also providing venues and some logistical support towards

community-based meetings.

Direct funding for water or other

requests cannot be considered. She

also advised that we would need to

involve the Departmentform the

beginning to set out a joint path,

otherwise they will not want to be

involved.

Figure 53: Tsakani from Maruleng Municipality

outlining the LED sections’ activities and role

Tedi Nqisi is the extension officer of

theDoA office close to Sekororo

(Oaks). They know what farmers needand Masaka Mbilo isbased at theMopani District DoA.

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 55

ACTION: Day workshop with DoA to discuss collaboration through engagements with technicians

(Suggested by Tsakani) before inception of programmes

ACTION: (Tsakani) You should submit your projects to me to be put into the IDP (with project

description, duration & allocated budget)

•CIRAD;Sent a small team (Stefano, Mark, Damien and Eric) of researchers and post graduate

students in the beginning of March for an exploratory visit to initiate a research process into

farmer level decision making and social agency. The purpose of this research was outlined as:

oAssess impact of our interventions on social capital (Trust, reciprocity, co-operation), to

ascertain whether there is greater social capital where we have worked. They would focus

on the young and old and gender and would compare “treated” villages with “un-treated”

villages

A discussion was held around how to involve the learning group members and what kinds of

incentives for participation would be considered appropriate. This was followed by a workshop

with the learning group in Sedawa on 4thMarch. They were asked questions such as what they

learned from MDF and AWRD, how they have come together as a group, who is part of the group,

group rules, how their relationships have

been influenced by working with MDF and

AWARD and how they can tackle the water

issues.

Figure 54: A snapshot of the CIRAD workshop held in

Sedawa on 4thMarch.

Participants mentioned that the groups

have helped them to learn new things and

to tackle their farming and marketing

activitiestogether. They have built

stronger relationships and trust. They need

more assistance in terms of access to

water.

CIRAD is to write up the outcomes and make a final decision in terms of their postgraduate

student involvement.

•TheNova Institute: MDF have been liaising with members of this organisation (Attie van Niekerk

and Hendrik Smith) to develop a joint proposal for a full feasibility study to develop the

smallholder mango marketing chain in the area to be presented to AgriSA. A copy of this proposal

is available on request.

•The Hoedspruit Hub:MDF has drawn in Anri and her team to provide dedicated organic mango

production training to 60 of our participants. This will take the form of 1day visits to the

participants’ orchards, to review present practices and provide advice, a one-day theory session at

the Hub including a visit to the Bavaria estates orchards and nurseries and a 1 day on site practical

training. The training will be provided for 30 participants at a time (thus two sessions). The

training is planned for end-April to early May.

•TheHoedspruit PGS: Bimonthly meetings are held where members finalise the outstanding

certifications and discuss issues such as branding, future certifications, branding and the like.

•Post lockdown:An essential cervices certificate was obtained from CIPCand MDF jointly wrote a

submission to the Minister of Agriculture (DARDLR) from the CS coalition(250 CSOs), with

endorsements from 60 organisations who are not presently members of this coalition. The

submission is attached in

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 56

6Monitoring,evaluationandlearning

(MEL) plan

6.1Framework & indicators

Below is a summaryof implementation according to our indicators for Feb- April 2020

Indicator

Overall target

Actual (Feb-April

2020)

No of participants in learning groups

370

212

No of learning groups

9-12

-No of local facilitators

Percentage of participants engaged in CC adaptation

responses

1-2 (45%)

2-3 (25%)

>3 (10-15%)

44%

35%

No of participants experimenting with new

innovations

-local

-co-designed

15%

45%

16,5%

No of participants showing increased knowledge

35%

21%

Percentage of participants engaged in collaborative

activities (water committees), marketing)

35%

25%

Percentage of participants with improved livelihoods

-increased availability of food

-increased income

-increased diversity of activities and livelihoods

options

40%

21%

Qualitative assessments;

-stakeholder engagement

-Increased understanding and agency to act towards

increased resilience

- Adaptation and innovations into local context

-Potential for increased resilience

-Social engagement

Stories, case studies (5-

6), CC impact

summaries (4), best

practices booklet

7Work Plan for Milestone 3

Below a brief assessment of progress for each of the activitiesmentioned for the February -April workplan

is provided.

1.Set up learning groups and identify and

induct local facilitators for new villages

4 New learning groups set up;4 learning groups

continued

Induction of new Local facilitators (NOT DONE)

2.Recap of agroecology/permaculture

training workshops for existing groups and

start on training for new groups; (garden

Training workshops (NOT DONE)

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 57

layout, soil and water conservation, soil

fertility, bed design, mixed cropping,

shade cloth tunnel construction,

Quotes being prepared for tunnels and materials

to initiate this training as soon as possible in May

2020

3.Continue and finalise an order list for new

mango varieties for participants to be

involved in organic marketing and drying

Quotes prepared and trees paid for

4.Continue with organic marketing initiative

with existing groups; Hlokomela Wellness

Wednesday and monthly farmers’ market

as well as ad hoc orders from restaurants

such as Amigos and Hat and Creek.

Ongoing; weekly sales.

Activity halted due to national lockdown.

5.Do VSLA training and initiate savings

groups in 5-6 villages. Monthly mentoring

during group saving meetings is to be

undertaken

Activity halted due to national lockdown.

Introductory workshops were however held in 5

villages 9Willows, Sedawa, Santeng, Worcester

and Madeira)

6.Employ and induct a new intern to support

the process.

Jessica Mangena has been brought on board and is

fully active.

Water committees were assisted to finalise their

implementation of boreholes and household

reticulation for agriculture purposes.

7.1Work plan for May- July 2020.

MDF strongly believes that our presence in the villages where we work is crucial within thesedifficult and

uncertain times, both to continue and strengthen the agricultural work and food production of the

participating farmers and also to provide social support and commentary on the effects of COVID-19 and

South Africa’s national strategy.

We propose thus to continue activities, as responsibly as possible, within the strictures of present legal

and health directives. Large gatherings and cross visits will thereforebe put on hold for at least 4 months

and networking and communication through SMSand WhatsAppgroups will be given attention.

Below a brief work plan is presented:

1)Set up mango production training for 2 groups (30 each) in association with Hoedspruit Hub (May-June

2020)

2)Order and deliver mango trees according to list of trees and participants prepared (May 2020)

3)Finalise CA and field cropping monitoring for 35 participants across 4 villages

4)Set up learning groups and identify and induct local facilitators for new villages

5)Order materials and tunnels to support in the training and learning activities (May 2020)

6)Recap of agroecology/permaculture training workshops for existing groups and start on training for

new groups; (garden layout, soil and water conservation, soil fertility, bed design, mixed cropping,

shade cloth tunnel construction) (May- July 2020)

7)Do VSLA training for the 5 new savings groups set up in February 2020.Monthly mentoring during group

saving meetings is to be undertaken. (May- July 2020)

8)Initiate garden monitoring after training and learning sessions

9)Initiate beneficiary selection and training in construction of shade cloth tunnels (June 2020)

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 58

8Appendices

8.1Appendix 2: Attendance registers for stakeholder

meetings

Meeting with CIRAD Experimental Economics

2nd – 3rdMarch 2020

•AWARD and MDF:SharonPollard, Derickdu Toit, BigboyMkabela, Betty Maimela

•CISAD: Stefano, Mark, Damien, Eric

•POST GRADUTE STUDENTs UL:Eric and Asanda (students MSc and PhD, Erick likely to come)

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 59

8.2Appendix 2: CSO submission re COVID-19 disaster

refiled support to smallholders

Submission to amend the COVID-19 Agricultural Disaster Relief procedures and criteria

for Small Farmers

1.Introduction

On April 6, the Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development,Minister

Didiza, announced a R1,2 billion COVID-19 disaster relief fund for small-scale farmers. This is a recognition

of the crucial contribution of rural, urbanand peri-urban small-scale farmers to local food supply and why

they need agricultural inputs. The COVID-19 crisis comes on top of an extended and long-term drought in

many regionsof the country, which has severely compromised small-scale farmer production and who are

in desperate need of a kick-start to stimulate production. The Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) thus all

welcome the Minister’s recognition of the need for relief and a number of them have beenattempting to

assist farmers to apply for themeasures.

However, it has become evident that the eligibility criteria, application process, time frames, the type and

source of support provided and the ring-fencing of 30% of the available fund for a particular group of often

better off farmers createsevere restrictions on who can apply. This will exclude the majority of farmers,

including those the relief is intended to support. Furthermore, it is apparent that the scope of support

envisaged by government excludes farmers and food producers, including urban and peri-urban producers,

whose contributions to food security are essential in these times of COVID-19 induced stress on our people,

our food production systems and our supply chains.

This submission is based on a broad-based consultation with approximately 60 CSOs providingdirect support

to small-scale farmers or research in support of small-scale producers and agricultural suppliers. The CSOs

involved in this disaster relief fund are already part of the C19 National Food Group (of which a smallholder

farmer sub-group hasbeen formed). Together, these groupings form the broader C19 National People’s

Coalition focussing on the food system.

The submission makes alternative proposals for the administration of relief to small-scale farmers around

four immediate issues:

a)Broadening the eligibility criteria for who can apply

b)Ring-fencing a budget for allocation to resource poor farmers

c)Broadening the types and modalities of support that will be funded

d)Extending the deadline for submission of applications

In addition, we submit that a wider range of Government Departments and local municipalities and NGOs

could play a role in the distribution of vouchers in order to reach those farmers most in need and at risk of

exclusion.

2.Background

COVID-19 has illuminated in a stark manner the vulnerability of South Africa’s food system. The historical

and post-apartheid centralization and consolidation of production, agricultural suppliers and food retailers

means that South Africa’sagricultural and food economy is dominated by a small number of corporate

conglomerates who squeeze out producers and small suppliers and retailers in normal times. COVID -19 thus

comes into a highly skewed and constrained environment, with disaster measures to contain its spread

locking people down into old apartheid spaces without adequate access to food supplies or health care. The

results are already catastrophic with hunger and food shortages being reported on a scale we have not seen

in this country for half a century. While we support Government’s strategies to contain the spread of the

virus, we are motivated by a keen awareness that the lockdown measures and their economic consequences

have disrupted food and resource flows between rural and urban areas and within households. Small-scale

farmers continue to play an important role in providing food in their local communities, although on its own

this cannot meet the full demand. Other small-scale farmers have lost access to markets they were

previously supplying, and narrowing of channels for agricultural input provision threatens continued

production in the next few months. Suspension of school feeding programmes and lossof employment, both

formal and informal, have sharply increased the need for distribution of food to those in need. How we

support our smallholder farming sector in the next few months to a year will determine to a large extent

whether these people will survive as farmers and suppliers of local food systems or will become a further

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 60

desperate burden on state recourses for grants and food parcels. The longer-termimpacts of COVID-19 will

require changes in forms of economic organisation. In particular, morelocalised food economies that are

responsive to local food needs, short supply chains to reduce travel, and local open-airmarkets that can

flexibly accommodate embedded social distancing measures will take on more significance. Most food

parcels focus onnon-perishable groceries. The provision of fresh produce to vulnerable communities is

critical both from a nutritional diversity and health perspective, but also to sustain household and

smallholder producer livelihoods through this crisis and in the period of economic reconstruction beyond.

Smallholder producers can play a critical role in the necessary restructuring of food systems that will follow

this immediate crisis.

3.Analysis of the problem

Smallholders, as the Department’s National Policy on Comprehensive Producer Development Support

acknowledges, are highly differentiated and yet the relief attempts to provide a ‘one size fits all’ solution.

If this segmentation of support is not built into how the disaster relief fund is disbursed and managed,the

Department will fail to target up to 94% of the farmers who are partof an invisibleeconomy and which is

key to the household economies of the rural and urban poor. It is these farmers who most in need of relief.

If they are not specifically targeted, the relief fund will succeed in supporting only the six percent, mostly

male farmers who are already well integrated into support and commercial market networks.

The definition of smallholder the Department is using to target its relief relies on the concept of turnover

for which farmers must produce financial records or “evidence”. This is consistent with the Department’s

current redistribution programme, the Proactive Land Acquisition Programme (PLAS), where turnover is a

measure of “graduation” into commercialisation. However, smallholders are a much bigger and diverse

group of producers and they do not only produce food. Smallholder farmers include:

●Farmers and household producers (mainly women) who produce for their own subsistence;

●Farmers and household producers (mainly women) who sellsmall surpluses into informal markets

(pension pay points or at the gate) often on a cash basis;

●Smallholder farmers (mainly women) who manage mixed farming systems including crops and

livestock, farm in low input and often organic oragroecological systems,who do not purchase

chemicals and fertilisers from corporate retailers but use local suppliers of manure, seedlings,

seeds, effective micro-organisms, biopesticides and veterinary requirements.

●Smallholder farmers who do not farm full-time but use small injections of cash from farming as a

critically important component to sustain mixed livelihoods that are often heavily dependent on

grants;

●Farmers of non-food products such as rooibos tea, essential oils or herbs such as buchu

The concept of turnoverand the expectation of financialrecords or evidence of sales are unrealistic as a

mechanism to identify the great majorityof these farmers; and yet, it is precisely thesefarmers who are

sustainingthe most vulnerable part of our food system under lockdown. The farmers already tied in to

government programmes (such as PLAS farmers) are thus at an advantage in relation to applying for the

relief. It is thus puzzling why the fund further consolidates this advantage by ringfencing R400 million (33%)

specifically for PLAS farmers, who have been described in research as beneficiaries of “elite capture”. The

ringfencing will enable 8000 PLAS beneficiaries to benefit.Assuming the remaining fund is distributed to

the six percent of better off small-scale farmers able to produce financial statements or bank accounts,

who each apply for the full R50000 of relief they are entitled to apply for, a total of 24000 (8000 + 16000)

farmers will benefit in total.Given that this is an insignificant distribution relative to the total estimated

number of smallholders (that is, 1% of 2,2 million producers), itis important that Government attempts to

distribute the relief more equitably.

Most smallholders do not farm single commodities but operate mixed farming systems that make limited use

of chemical inputs from commercial agricultural suppliers.Many rely on organic inputs sourced from

neighbours and small local suppliers. These suppliers appear to be excluded in the voucher system, which

identifies (and prioritises?) Boxer, GWK, NTK, Cambridge Foods and Obaro as possible suppliers. The support

being offered to farmers, through vouchers for industrial inputs, seems designed to squeeze farmersinto

this unsustainable, high input model which doesn’t achieve sustainability goals, including reducing

environmental impacts. Such objectives are clearly specified in the Department’s Comprehensive Producer

Support Policy.

The previous Minister of Land Reform andRuralDevelopment, Minister Nkwinti, described policy

implementation has a “total system failure”. Similar comments were made in the High-LevelPanel Report

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 61

and the Presidential Advisory Panel Report. We cannot assume that this total system failure has been

addressedand fixed, and in this time of urgency, we cannot rely on the Departmental officials to administer

this relief without CSO assistance. Indeed, President Ramaphosa in his announcement of the disaster

measures indicated thathe wishes to see the active involvement of CSOs in efforts to deal with COVID-19

and its impact on society. CSOs have access to farmer data bases, small localised suppliers, and can quickly

develop linkages between small producers, small retailers and households in desperate need of foodand

are willing to support the relief measures.

The requirements around submission of the application forms need to be clarified and communicatedwidely.

In addition to the practicalities of printing the applications forms, it is not clear how and to whom do these

forms get submitted. The form only provides the Department’s physical address in Pretoria. If it is through

the extension services, then it is likely that agroecological producers, non-food producers and farm dweller

micro-producers and labour tenants who are not normally connected to this support will be excluded.

4.Proposals

We call on MinisterDidizaand the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

immediately to consider the following proposals:

Ring-fence a budget for allocation to resource poor farmers

●Ringfence at least 35% ofthe fund to household producers, i.e. households that earn less than

R50000 turnover pa, as indicated in the Comprehensive Support Development Policy.

Deadline for application

●Extend the deadline of the 20thApril to a period of 4 months in order to enable excluded small-scale

and micro farmers to apply.

Broaden and simplify the eligibility criteria for who can apply

●Apply the definition of household producer as contained in the Comprehensive Producer

Development Support Policy and include rural, urban and peri-urban household producers.

●Replace turnover as a criterion for application with information about the production being

undertaken at any scale, including subsistence. The information could be confirmed by affidavit

from an NGO, a councillor, a church leader, traditional leadership, pound masters and community

dipping officials. Disaster relief funding should be available to any person who:

▪Has a track record of producing agricultural products such as vegetables, fruit, rooibos and/

or livestock, depending on their request (what they last produced, when and how much)

▪Can specify what they produce and quantity; e.g. land size, crop types, animal numbers etc

▪Can quantify (eitherin terms of quantity and or yield, or in terms of no of meals per week

per household of x members and or in terms of an estimate of cash sales) the contribution

of their production to their overall ‘food budget’ and

▪Can state their access to resources (with visual confirmation e.g. photo); cropping area,

livestock, water source etc.

●Allow those household producers and smallholder farmers who wish to do so to apply through their

co-operatives.

●Remove all tenure requirements from the application (i.e.leases, ownership etc) since many

farmers have unwritten agreements to use communal, church, Eskom, Government owned land, or

portions of privately owned farms that include the rights to crop and graze, such as is the case with

many labour tenants and farm dwellers.

●Remove requirements for a bank account or detailed evidence of technical understanding of

production (like feed conversion ratios, mortality rates or yields per hectare). Include clearly that

unpaid household labour meets the requirement of a job.

●Translate the applications into all official languages.

Broaden the types and modalities of support that will be funded

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 62

●Provide household producers with a relief in a range of R5-R10000 per household based on their

production needs.

●Remove restrictions or suggestions on where the household producers or smallholder farmer may

source their supplies from (the Minister in her press briefing did say small and informal suppliers

would be acceptable). Where support organisations are able to identifylocal input producers and

suppliers, these should be integrated as part of the recognised supplier base and supported as a

critical element of localised food systems during and in the aftermath of the crisis.

●Apply greater flexibility in the type of support the relief may be used to purchase. Some livestock

farmers are reporting that they have sufficient feed but could productively use the support for other

needs.

●In addition to a flexible use of the relief fund, we propose that support packages to micro- and

subsistence producers could be structured as follows, which will address household food security

and localised food markets:

▪Microclimate and water provision support for example; 6mx4m shade cloth tunnel kit

(R3500) or a stipend to pay for 12 kl water distributed over six months = R1800. This portion

of the budget should beflexible enough to include further ‘structural’ support to the

farmers, which could take the form of fencing support, rainwater harvesting, spring

protection etc, to accommodate the immediate needs in specific localities.

▪Diverse winter season vegetable seed types or seedlings based on availability, with an option

to include organic compost, bio and other fertilizers and pesticides to plant an area of

100m2 (R1000).

▪A selection of fieldcropping seed (maize, sorghum, legumes) for the upcoming spring

planting season to cover an area of 2000m2, with an option to include manure, lime, bone

meal and (bio) fertilizers (R2000).

▪Small livestock production support: provision for 20 broilers or10 layers; (day old chicks,

medication, starter and finisher pellets (R1500)

▪Large livestock production support: feed supplementation (R1500) (hay bales and protein

blocks. LS33 or premix 450)

●Allow the relief to be used to acquire protective clothing and hygiene products to keep the farmers

and their consumers safe.

Additional considerations

●The Department urgently needs to consider how to support the workers and their families who have

been retrenched by small-scale farmers preparing to survive the disruption to production as a result

of COVID-19.

●Support farmers sitting on surpluses that they are unable to move due to travel restrictions to access

new and different markets.

●Simplify the process for application and approval of essential services permits and makingitmore

accessible to enable small-scale farmers andmicro-food producers to perform the essential services

of growing and distributing food and securing the inputs that they need.

●Make available simple information in multiple official languages on general safety guidelines for

interactions between people during the lockdown (social distancing, hygiene, masks etc), as well as

specific food handling safety guidelines at harvesting, packaging and handover of food to recipients.

●Make available COVID-19 information (on health and safety measures, essential service and travel

permits) to be distributed digitally (WhatsApp,Facebooknotifications, bulk SMS’s) in low data

intensive designs. CSOs are already providing this information but it shouldbe continuously revised

and updated.

●Broaden the point ofreceipt for applications to include Local Municipal offices such as Local

Economic Development (LED),Public Participations Units, Town Planning, Disaster Management

Units. These offices should be roped in by DALRRD to assist farmers to make applications as they

are closer to the target group, they have the technicalskills / resourcesrequired to complete the

applications.

●Commit to publishing the lists of both those who succeed and those who don’t, and reasons for the

outcome, to ensure transparency and accountability.

5.Value add of the proposed amendments

The proposals madehere will ensure a more equitable distributionofthe disaster relief fund, which will

ensure that more micro, subsistence, agro-ecological and surplus-selling farmers will survive the COVID-19

MILESTONE 2: VISIONING AND DECISION SUPPORT (1)

| 63

disaster. We believe this willcontribute in a significant way to creating more vibrant and resilient local

food, producer and retail systems.

In summary, we are proposing that the total fund of R1,2 bln is distributed in the following manner:

§R400 mln (33%) to PLAS farmers, currently ring-fenced as per Minister’s announcement, benefitting

a total of 8000 farmers.

§R420 mln (35%) ring-fenced for micro, subsistence, mixed and surplus-sales farmers who conform to

the Comprehensive Development Support Programme definition of household producer and who are

currently excluded from the relief, benefitting a minimum of 42 000 farmers.

§R380 mln (32%) to smallholders supplying informal or local markets, benefitting 7600 farmers.

This increases the total number of smallholder farmers receiving COVID-19 relief from 24000 to 57 600

farmers. While this is still support to very few compared to the need, it is a more equitable distribution and

reaches more than double the number of farmers compared to the current process.

6.Medium to longer term considerations

A number of proposals are emerging for consideration for longer term support to household and smallholder

producers. We’d welcome the opportunity to raise these proposals in a dialogue with the Minister, as soon

as the immediate crisis has passed. What is clear is that South Africa must build the resilience of producers

as key components of very local food systems if we are to cope with the economic downturn expected after

the Covid-19 has past and as climate change worsens, and droughts and floods reoccur in a devastated and

weakened post-Corona virus countryside.

The discussion areas are:

●To support the development of local agroecological suppliers, particularly of diverseseed,

seedlings, bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides for crop production. Small enterprises supplying to local

producer bases can play a key role in this regard.

●To find ways of stimulating localised markets building on the informal markets, street traders, spaza

shops, open air farmer’s markets and distribution points that already exist.

●To undertake research to develop a scorecard or indicators oflocalised food system

vulnerability/resilience to target post COVID-19 support and to re-think the current model of food

production and distribution and how post COVID-19 agrarian political economies should look like.

●To support and strengthen local food production along agroecological lines, and local distribution

systems using existing networks.

●To discuss what will happen to Government support to farmer after COVID-19 given that the relief

on offer is a reshaped package that was on the table before COVID-19.

●Use and repurposing of existing infrastructure and resources such as the EPWP, Agri SETA, training

facilities, extension workers, Agri Hubsand others to support the development and maintenance of

localised food economies that can respond to changing requirements in the aftermath of the crisis.

●There are a number of “Agri Hubs” that are lying redundant country wide, atleast four of which are

inGauteng. We propose establishing functional team/s and a proactive programme to assist with

the appropriate use of these hubs, which are meant to be providing food security to the most

vulnerable.They appear as “White elephants” in the context of food security, especially in these

challenging times.

7.CSOs in support of the proposal and the support they can offer(separate excel sheet).