Milestone 6 Progress Report 5 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

RESILIM-O:

Resilience in the Limpopo Basin

Program–Olifants

MILESTONE 6: Progress Report #5:

Under the

Lower Olifants catchment

Agricultural Support Initiative

(AgriSI)

30/09/2017

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 2

Acknowledgements

The USAID: RESILIM-O project is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development under

USAID/Southern Africa RESILIENCE IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN PROGRAM (RESILIM). The RESILIM-O project is

implemented by the Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD), in collaboration with

partners. Cooperative Agreement nr AID-674-A-13-00008.

P O Box 1919

Hoedspruit 1380

Limpopo, South Africa

T 015-793 0503

W award.org.za

Company Reg. No. 98/03011/08

Non-profit org. Reg. No. 006 –821

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 3

ABOUT USAID: RESILIM

USAID’s Resilience in the Limpopo River Basin (RESILIM) program addresses ongoing degradation in the

Limpopo River Basin in southern Africa, where people face water shortages, increased floods, and declines

in crop productivity as climate change further stresses an already water limited region.

There are two components to the program; one operating at a basin-scale (RESILIM-B, which is

implemented by USA-based Chemonix and addresses similar issues at the scale of the four SADC member

states that share the Limpopo Basin (South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique) and a

catchment-scale project (RESILIM-O) that It is being implemented by the Association for Water and Rural

Development (AWARD). Both projects share the same overall objectives. You can find out more

information on the RESILIM projects on www.usaid.gov websiteand www.award.org.za.

The USAID’s RESILIM-O focusses on the Olifants catchment. The program aims to reduce the vulnerability

of people and ecosystems in the Olifants Catchment specifically, by improving how transboundary natural

resources are managed. By understanding the systemic causes of vulnerability, including climate

vulnerability, it is promoting new ways of thinking and acting to promote integrated water and

biodiversity management.

ABOUT AWARD

At AWARD, we recognize that the natural world’s resources are limited, and undergoing rapid depletion

and transformation. We know current practices of useand management are inadequate to deal with the

changes and challenges we are facing. We design practical interventions to address the vulnerability of

people and ecosystems, and merge considerations from both environmental and social perspectives. Our

approach involves thinking across disciplines, boundaries and systems.

We are working with diverse people and institutions in the water and biodiversity sectors in the Olifants

River Catchment to understand the multiple vulnerabilities to change, including climate change. Along

with quality scientific contributions, our engagement in the socio-political context of the Olifants River

Catchment allows us begin to begin to institutionalize integrated, resilience-based practices, providing a

foundation for robust development policy and practice in the in this river catchment, and beyond.

The Olifants Catchment: An overview

The Olifants River Catchment falls within the Limpopo River Basin, which is part of an international

drainage basin that stretches across South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana. In fact, the

Olifants River contributes nearly 40% of the water that flows in the Limpopo River making it an important

catchment in the system as a whole.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 4

At the heart of this catchment is the Olifants River, a vital artery that flows for 560 kilometres through

South Africa and into Mozambique, where it is known as the Rio dos Elefantes in Mozambique.

This mighty river originates in South Africa’s Mpumalanga Highveld, flowing northwards before curving in

an easterly direction through the Kruger National Park and into Mozambique, finally finding rest in the

salty water of the Indian Ocean near Xai Xai, just north of Maputo.

The main tributaries of the Olifants River are the Wilge, Elands, Ga-Selati, Klein Olifants, Steelpoort,

Blyde, Klaserie and Timbavati Rivers.

Along with its tributaries, it is one of the six major Lowveld river systems, occupying an area just short of

55 000 square kilometres. It traverses three provinces in South Africa; Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo.

About 3.5 million people live on the South African side of the catchment. In Mozambique, it flows through

Gaza Province, which is home to about 700 000 people.

A system under change

Our catchment is the foundation of our livelihoods and development. Yet the river and associated natural

resources in the Olifants Catchment are under threat...

Unchecked pollution, inappropriate land resource use, weak and poorly enforced policies and regulations

and poor protection of habitats and biodiversity are degrading the Olifants at an alarming rate. What’s

more, the area is however under threat from factors such as mining for heavy metals, inappropriate land

management, rural sprawl and unsustainable use of natural resources. This affects the level of goods and

services provided by the ecosystem.

The diverse population groups living in the Olifants Catchment all have one thing in common; they rely on

the river and the catchment’s natural biodiversity for their livelihoods. This reliance can be direct or

indirect. Rural communities rely on it for things such as traditional medicine, grazing and browse, fuel,

food and housing materials. Some people in river-side communities harvest reeds, collect water from the

river for washing and drinking and useit for recreational and spiritual practices. Subsistence farmers in

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 5

Mozambique rely heaving on the catchment’s flood plains. There are also large mines and associated

industries, large scale agriculture and the wildlife economy, which all rely on a healthy, functioning river

system. Often people forget that what they do upstream affects people down stream, sometimes with dire

consequences.

The catchment is our home and it is worth investing in its future. The work reported here is part of the

ongoing activities of the RESILIM- O project under the grant from USAID: Southern Africa.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 6

Project partners

Mahlatini 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 management and low external input farming systems, including a focus on rain water

harvesting, conservation agriculture, intensive homestead food production, food security, micro 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 living with HIV/AIDs

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:
| 7
Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................9
1 Progress for the reporting period...................................................................................9
Project Objectives ..........................................................................................................9
1 Overview of RESILIM-O Project objectives.........................................................................9
2 Sub-grant Project Objectives ...................................................................................... 10
Milestone Description..................................................................................................... 10
1 Definition of milestone and purpose.............................................................................. 10
Approach/ Process/ Activities.......................................................................................... 12
1 Summary of activities ............................................................................................... 12
2 Progress and Results.................................................................................................13
2.1 Learning and mentoring.........................................................................13
2.2 Learning workshops...............................................................................18
2.3 Garden monitoring................................................................................20
2.4 Collaborative work...............................................................................25
3 Success and Challenges in meeting milestone. .................................................................31
4 MERL.................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Indicators: Assessment September 2017......................................................31
4.2 Project Life Change Questions:.................................................................32
4.3 Work Plan for the coming three months.......................................................34
5 Communication Materials from this milestone..................................................................35
6 Other outputs......................................................................................................... 35
Overall Progress of Project.............................................................................................. 35
1 Integration of milestone status.................................................................................... 35
2 Project risk and mitigation summary............................................................................. 36
2.1 Implementation risks and mitigation..........................................................36
2.2 Financial risks and mitigation...................................................................37
Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................... 37
Appendices................................................................................................................. 37
1Appendix 1: Case studies; WRC CCA............................................................................... 38
1Climate Change Adaptation, Limpopo....................................................................... 38
1.1Description of the programme..............................................................38

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 8

1.1.2Problem ........................................................................................38

1.1.3Rationale .......................................................................................39

1.1.4Implementation of practices................................................................39

1.1.5Methodology ...................................................................................43

1.1.6Outcomes and learnings......................................................................45

Future planning........................................................................................................... 49

1.1.7Suitability of this community as an implementation site for the CSA project.......50

2Appendix 2: DICLAD_Conversations about farming and climate change_ Principles for good farming

practices –Sedawa 20170817.............................................................................................. 51

2.1Agenda ............................................................................................................ 51

2.2Introduction ...................................................................................................... 51

2.3Climate Change Concepts...................................................................................... 53

2.4Small group work................................................................................................ 53

2.5Way forward...................................................................................................... 56

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 9

1Executive Summary

1.1Progress for the reporting period

During this quarter focus was given to:

•The construction of the 10 tunnels (shade cloth structures and associated drip irrigation systems)

across three villages –Botshabelo, Swedawa and The Oaks

•The construction of 3 underground RWH storage tanks (24m3) in Botshabelo and Sedawa–Norah

Mhlaku, Christina Thobejane and Mariam Malepe.

•Training and mentoring of Local Facilitators (LFs) and garden monitoring for participants

In addition, DICLAD workshops have been held for exploration of Climate Change impacts and adaptation

for all 6 villages (3workshops).

Further learning workshops have been run for all 6 villages, to provide an overview of all the practices

introduced thus far, a further focus on natural pest and disease control and to start on the Conservation

Agriculture trial process for the coming planting season. The agendas have been designed to accommodate

learning needs expressed by the groups. Some areas, for example Sedawa have asked for another process

around natural pest and disease control. Willows and The Oaks have requested an emphasis on practices

appropriate for field scale implementation.

Attention has been given to support the local facilitators in their processes of providing advice and

support to participants and in completion of the garden monitoring forms. A total of 38forms have bene

translated and analysed (April- July 2017). This process is ongoing and some adjustments have been made

to increase efficiency.

PARTICIPANTS THIS PERIOD

SEEDS OF LIGHT: Trygive Nxumalo

MAHLATHINI: Erna Kruger, Sylvester Selala, Chris Stimie

AWARD: Richard Hatfield, Bigboy Mkhabela,

2Project Objectives

2.1Overview of RESILIM-O Project objectives

RESILIM-O is large multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder, cross-boundary programme to reduce vulnerability to

climate change through building improved transboundary water and biodiversity governance and

management of the Olifants Basin through the adoption of science-based strategies that enhance the

resilience of its people and ecosystems through systemic and social learning approaches. The programme

has been running for four years and is being implemented byAWARD (The Association for Water and Rural

Development) with funding from USAID.

The Agricultural Support Initiative (AgriSI) was initiated as a sub-grant process within the larger

programmed towards the end of 2016. This initiative works specifically with climate change adaptation

processes with smallholder communities in the lower Olifants River basin. It is being implemented jointly

by Mahlathini Development Foundation and AWARD.

The Agricultural Support Initiative (AgriSI) addresses two of the RESILIM-O programme objectives directly:

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 10

i. To institutionalize systemic, collaborative planning and action for resilience of ecosystems and

associated livelihoods through enhancing the capacity of stakeholders to sustainably manage natural

resources of the Olifants River Basin under different scenarios

ii. To reduce vulnerability to climate change and other factors by supporting collective action, informed

adaptation strategies and practices and tenable institutional arrangements.

2.2Sub-grant Project Objectives

Sound agro-ecological practices for soil and water conservation (SWC) and the ability to self-organise and

act collectively are regarded as fundamental for building adaptive capacity and resilience. Not only do

agro-ecological farming approaches require minimum external inputs –which may be expensive and

increase dependency if subsidised – but they foster farmers’ sense that they can build sustainable futures

from local inputs and efforts. With knowledge about the potential impacts of climate change included in

the learning journey, farmers can make purposeful decisions around practices such as seed and crop-type.

This approach supports livelihood diversification –also fundamental for increased resilience –through

‘value-added’ associated activities such as seedling production, tree nurseries and bee-keeping.

The overall aim of the Agricultural Support Initiative is to enhance the resilience of the people and

ecosystems in selected villages(5-6) in the Lower Olifants River basin, using a systemic social learning

approach, exploring the question:What are you learning about the socio-economic and biophysical

characteristics of your environment and how these are changing and how are you ableto respond to that?

The overarching objective of this work is to provide support for increased adaptive capacity and resilience

to the effects of climate change for households involved in agriculture in select communities of the

Olifants River Catchment through:

-Improved soil and water conservation and agro-ecological practices for increased food security

-Livelihood diversification and supplementation through alternative climate resistant production;

-Increased community empowerment as a result of self-organisation and collective action.

3Milestone Description

3.1Definition of milestone and purpose

Each milestone and progress report indicates activities under the broad themes of learning and mentoring,

introduction to innovations and experimentation, collaborative work and networking undertaken during

the reporting period.

The table below summarises these activities against the milestone and indicate achievement of these

milestones.

Table 1: Summary of deliverable completion under Milestone 5: April- June 2017

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 11

Activities

planned

Completed?

Expected

outcomes

Completed?

Verification

documenta

tion

Completed?

Reference

Learning &

Mentoring:

In all 6

communitie

s each 2

days

Learning &

Mentoring:

Local Facilitator

training

Local Facilitator

mentoring of

new practices

Farmer ongoing

self-monitoring,

-assessment and

learning

-Training of LFs in

mentoring, learning

and monitoring ( 2

days x 6 villages)

-LF’s undertake

garden mentoring

and monitoring with

farmers (3-4 days

ea), supported by

field team-

-Learning groups;

learning sessions –

overview of

practices- natural

P&D control, tower

gardens, CA

Progress report on

outcomes

including the

following

documentation:

1. Photos & photo

diaries

2. Farmer work

plans

3. Garden

monitoring

4. Monthly

assessments

5. Monitoring

forms

6. Cluster activity

records

7. Event

materials,

attendance

registers

1. Photos in reports

and–All photos

saved in directories

and kept by Erna

and Lenkie

2.Farmer work

plans are recorded

in the garden

monitoring forms

3. 38 Garden

monitoring forms

across five villages

4. In this report

5. 36 garden

monitoring forms

6.Appended to this

report

7.Appended to this

report

Intro to

innovations

and

experiment

ation: In all

communitie

s each 2

days

Mentoring by

trainers and LFs’

- Garden monitoring

including trainers and

LFs- all participants

visited at least once

by LFs and a garden

monitoring form

completed

Collaborativ

e work: In

all 6

communitie

s each 2

days

Site assessments

and community

contributions to

infrastructure

support; tunnels,

drip kits and

RWH storage

tanks

-Preparation for and

construction of

tunnels (x10) and

RWH storage tanks

(x3) complete.

Networking:

1. Local

facilitator

networking:

all 6

Memetje

villages

reps

2. Village 3

(Oaks) &

village 4

(Lepelle)

open days

(1 day

each)

DICLAD

workshops

(Sedawa,

Botshabelo,

Willows and The

Oaks, Finale and

Lepelle

- 3 DICLAD workshops

exploring CC impacts

and adaptation

options

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 12

4Approach/ Process/ Activities

4.1Summary of activities

This section gives an indication of activities undertaken during the reporting period to achieve the

outcomes for this period, time spent and people involved.

Table 2: Summary of activities for the reporting period July-September 2017.

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY

Time

WHO WAS

INVOLVED

2017/07/06-07

Reports, arrangements for workshops

2 days

Sylvester –1

day

2017/07/05-07

Baseline questionnaires database

3 days

Erna

2017/07/05

Trygive planning at AWARD office

1 day

Trygive

2017/07/07

Household garden monitoring with BB, Lenki, Happy at

Botshabelo, Mammestsa

1 day

Trygive

2017/07/20,21

Follow up meeting Christina at sedawe, Norah in

Mametja, Merriam Botshabelo. Follow up On building of

pits for tanks, Christina at Sedawe, Norah in Mametja,

Merriam Btshabelo

2 days

Trygive

2017/07/23-29

Week in Hoedspruit- tunnel and tank construction, hh

visits

7 days

Sylvester

2017/07/25,26

Building tunnel at Meriam with Sylvester in Botshabelo.

Indaba on Climate change Maruleng Municipality

2 days

Trygive

2017/07/31-

08/06

Dam construction with Chris Stimie and Southern

Irrigation team

7 days

Sylvester, Chris

2017/07/25

RWH DKA report and invoice

1 day

Erna

2017/07/28-29

AgSi case study for implementation review (5 fingers)

1 day

Erna

2017/08/01-02

Database for baseline questionnaires and monitoring

forms –started

2 days

Erna

2017/08/14

Logistics around RHW tank sites and prep for tunnel

construction

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/15

Visit to LFs

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/16

Construction of tunnel, Sedawa

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/17

DIClAD workshop Sedawa

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/18

DIClAD workshop Lepelle (cancelled) Logistics

Botshabelo + Sedawa

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/19

Travel to PMB

1 day

Sylvester

2017/08/14-19

Visits to LFs; Willows, Oaks, Sedawa. Finance meeting

with Julia, Mayford, DICLAD prep and DICLAD w/s

Sedawa, Lepelle,

6,5 days

Erna

2017/08/21-26

Chris Stimie, Southern Irrigation team -finalisation of

underground RWH tanks

6 days

Chris

2017/09/18-19

Workshop in Willows

2 days

Sylvester

2017/09/20

Visits to LFs

1 day

Sylvester

2017/09/21

Workshop in The Oaks

1 day

Sylvester

2017/09/22, 25

Garden monitoring

4 days

Sylvester

2017/09/26,

27,29

Workshop Sedawa, Lepelle, Botshabelo

3 days

Sylvester

2017/09/28

DICLAD Workshop –at the Oaks

1 day

Sylvester

2017/09/30

Travel, reporting

2 days

Syvlester

2017/09/13-15

Milestone report

3 days

Erna

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 13

2017/09/28-30

Milestone report- garden monitoring consolidation

3 days

Erna

Sylvester: 36 days, Erna: 20 days, Chris: 10 days, Trygive 6 days

4.2Progress and Results

4.2.1Learning and mentoring

This quarter was devoted mainly to working with the Local Facilitators (LFs)to do the household visits and

garden monitoring for learning group participants.

An implementation summary of this process is provided below.

4.2.1.1LOCAL FACILTATOR ACTIVITIES AND PROGRESS

Below are a selection of photographs showing the Local facilitators in action

Above Left to right: Melida Shaai and Tomspon Motseo from Willows in an LF meeting, showing the seeds to be

distributed for spring planting. Mr Motseo in his garden next to one of the trench beds he is making and Christina

Thobejane from Sedawa showing some of her produce being harvested.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 14

Above left and right: Florence Lewele from the Oaks working in a small group with a garden monitoring form to

interview a participant. Josias Seboyane and Patricia Ngobeni from Lepelle show a participant how to mulch her

furrows and ridges during a household visit.

4.2.1.1.1 Progress summary

Nine Local facilitators have been selected, instead of the original six planned for. This is due to distances

between villages, sizes of the groups (1 LF per 25 learning group members), gender requirements and

limited skill sets for these facilitators.

Formal terms of employment have not been agreed to with the LFs’, and their payment is seen as stipends

supporting their activities. Each, fills in a detailed timesheet of their activities per month up to a

maximum of 10 days (@R200/day). Activities for LFs’ include:

➢Monitoring implementation in participants’ gardens on a regular basis, using the gardening

monitoring forms provided. It is expected that LFs can visit 3 participants per day.

➢Assistance to individuals intheir gardening practices by providing advice, doing small

demonstrations and assisting in setting up gardening experiments. It is expected that LFs will help

in doing some of the work required

➢Set up small localised training events where required.

➢Providing a link between the implementation organisation and the participants in helping to set up

meetings for example or in distribution of seeds as well as raising requests and issues from the

participants with the implementing organisation. Keeping lists of participants’’ names and helping

new participants integrate into the learning group.

It was expected that most of the LFs’ time would be devoted to doing regular gardening monitoring visits.

Because the groups are in fact still quite fluid with new members coming and going, they have had to

spend more time on induction of new members and introducing new practices to them as well as those

who had not attended some of the training/learning sessions for the group. This requires considerable

awareness raising and facilitation skills, which some of the LFs are excelling at, but others are not. This

means that some of the learning groups are expanding quite rapidly, while others are shrinking at a rather

alarming rate. The intention was not for the LFs to managethe learning groups in this way, but this

aspect of their role has somehow been accentuated; partly due to an assumption on our part that the

learning group membership is reasonably stable and partly due to the LFs taking on this management

process as part of their “jobs”. There has been a strong and unexpected trend for the LFs to attempt to

ensure that they maximise their activities to the maximum time of 10 days and they have thus taken on

roles that were not expected of them.

Most of the LFs have a reasonable understanding of the practices they are promoting, but a number of

them are trying to ‘force” the participants to implement these practices. This has also been a bit

unexpected and doesn’t fit into the ambit of their negotiated roles. It has also led to some conflict

between the facilitators and the learning group members.

These issues are being worked through by having intensive one on one mentoring sessions with each LF.

An aspect of this process is to look for ways to re-invigorate the failing learning groups. This would mean

re-introducing some trainings, finding ways to include those working in fields rather than at homestead

level, re introducing the idea in the villages using different entry points such as the clinics and home

based care workers and working with schools where appropriate.

Another major difficulty for them has been the extreme water shortages in their villages; specifically

Botshabelo, Sedawa, Willows and Finala. There literally are no options for irrigation for most of the

participants, who are paying for small quantities of household water, often needing to transport it in

drums from the distribution points. Those that have boreholes or have managed to make some kind of

arrangement for tapping into the municipal water lines are the only ones who can irrigate. Participants

cannot pay for irrigation water.

4.2.1.2Village levels summaries

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 15

Table 3: Summary of implementation by the Local facilitators; September 2017

Village

LFs

group

size

New

Active

Practices

promoted

Activities

Comments

Sedawa

Christina

Thobejane

Alex

Makgopo

~30-35

*Greywater

management

*mulching

*pest control

remedies

*soil fertility

improvement

*Liquid manure

*drip kits

*check soil

erosion and

control, eg

stone bunds,

diversion

ditches

*trench beds

(shallow and

deep)

*mixed cropping

*5 Fingers

assessment

*Saving water

*eco circles

*farmer

experimentation

*Garden

monitoring

*Small group

trainings and

follow up support

*garden level

advice and small

demonstrations of

practices

* Brining on board

new participants

*Distribution of

seeds

* Support for new

innovation

construction

processes;

tunnels and RWH

tanks

*Garden monitoring has been

done together

*12 forms filled to date

*A local training conducted in

Mametje (Mabins A) has led to

a subgroup of 16 participants

there learning and working

together –meeting monthly

*Another new group has

requested entry (close to the

turn off at the hardware store)

*1 new volunteer for RWH

tanks supported

* There are severe water

shortages

Willows

Melida

Shaai

Tomson

Motsiea

~10-15

*Greywater

management

*mulching

*pest control

remedies

*soil fertility

improvement

*drip kits

*diversion

ditches

*trench beds

(shallow and

deep)

*eco circles

*Mixed cropping

*Good irrigation

practices

* furrows and

ridges on

contour

*farmer

experimentation

*Garden

monitoring

*garden level

advice and small

demonstrations of

practices

* Bringing on

board new

participants

*Distribution of

seeds

* Garden monitoring has been

done together

*1o forms filled to date

*Seeds distribution manged

well, with follow up on

planting

* Difficulty with motivation of

members and many have

withdrawn

* Requested another training

from MDF

*There are those who work in

the fields not their households

and believe these practices

are not for them

*There are severe water

shortages in the village

Oaks,

Finala

Florence

Lewelle

*mixed cropping

*mulching

* garden layout

*Liquid manure-

plant based

*trench beds

(deep and

shallow)

*CA

*Garden

monitoring

*garden level

advice and small

demonstrations of

practices

* Bringing on

board new

participants

*Distribution of

seeds

*7 forms filled to date- but not

done well

*Garden monitoring attempted

but participants often not

home. She does not have their

contact details

*Quite a number of original

learning group members have

lost interest or resigned

*Linkage made with the local

school- but no interest shown

There are those who work in

the fields not their households

and believe these practices

are not for them

*There are water shortages in

the village –but not as severe

as in other places.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 16

*She requested support from

Lenkie and another training

session run by MDF

Lepelle

Patricia

Ngobeni,

Josias

Seboyane

*mixed cropping

*mulching

* garden layout

*Liquid manure-

plant based

*trench beds

(deep and

shallow)

* natural pest

and disease

control

*CA

*Garden

monitoring

*Garden level

advice

*Distribution of

seeds

*5 forms filled to date

*LFs not practising many of

the methods and thus do not

demonstrate them well to

participants.

*Particpants have worked in

and expanded their gardens.

Materials for packing trench

beds is a challenge

*Seed was distributed to

specific individuals in the

learning group to grow as

seedlings and distribute; rape,

chinese cabbage, green

pepper, swiss chard, chilli,

marigold, parsley, coriander,

beans

*Seedling production and

distribution has not happened

as planned- in future seeds to

be given directly to

participants

*Linkage made with the local

school-

Botshabelo

Mariam

Makghobo

*Greywater

management

*mulching

*pest control

remedies

*soil fertility

improvement

*Liquid manure

*drip kits,

tunnels

*check soil

erosion and

control, eg

stone bunds,

diversion

ditches

*trench beds

(shallow and

deep)

*mixed cropping

*eco circles

*Garden

monitoring

*garden level

advice and small

demonstrations of

practices

* Bringing on

board new

participants

*Distribution of

seeds

*Monitoring conducted with

support as Mariam is not

literate. –

*Some practices not focussed

on as the LF is not using them

and has forgotten

*Focus in this quarter on

tunnel construction and

underground RWH tanks.

*Seed distribution done and

seedling production by

participants undertaken

4.2.1.3Promotion of good practices

Some of the practices and processes introduced in the learning workshops are being promoted well. These

include:

•Mulching

•Mixed cropping

•Trench beds

•Pest control remedies

•Eco-circles

Some practices have not been internalised all that well and are difficult to implement:

•Soil erosion control

•Diversion ditches

•Nurseries

•Seed saving of new varieties and crops introduced

•Promotion of herbs and multi-functional plant species

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 17

Some practices have been under-emphasised or not well remembered

•Liquid manure

•Bucket filter for greywater

•Contours and placing furrows and ditches on contour

4.2.1.4Monitoring forms

LFs are struggling to do these individually. For the mostpart, they have gone as a team of 2 to fill in these

forms. They have bee unsure about filling in forms for participants who are not doing much, or have not

implemented the new practices. They have also been unsure about recording of garden monitoring for

follow up visits, finding the present forms quite long –sometimes not much has changed –or there are

only 1-2 small changes and it seems too much to have to fill in the whole form again.

A decision was made to make a simplified garden monitoring follow-up visit form to

accommodate for this.

Generally, LFs’ have claimed for 10 days/month of house hold visits and support. The number of forms

filled in for participants do not tally with these and there appears to be a trend for LFs to spend time, so

as to be able to claim.

It was emphasised to LFs that they are expected to do at least 3 hh visits in a day and thus three

forms. If their group is small then they cannot claim for a lot of time. They will be paid for forms

completed and submitted- not just visits.

4.2.1.5Overall trends

•Where LFs have got the process right of working with participants and promoting farmer

experimentation the support has worked well –for example in Sedawa. Where they have however

tried to ‘force’ participants to implement the practices introduced, there has been some

resistance - for example Willows and The Oaks. Some of the LFs are seeing themselves as being in

charge of the learning groups and this is not leading to good cooperation.

•LFs’ holding small workshops around specific themes in small sub groups within their village has

worked well. This has led to a considerable expansion of the learning group in Sedawa for example

and also to learning group members undertaking to meet regularly and discuss their issues.

•There is an expectation from participants that LFs will help them to do the work of

implementation. Although this has been emphasised by the facilitation team as a good thing, LFs

are not keen to actually work in participants’’ gardens.

•Not all the LFs’ are practising the whole suite of methods and processes introduced during the

learning processes and as a result what they are promoting to their learning group members is

biased more towards what they are doing and are familiar with.

•Generally the garden monitoring forms have been difficult for LFs to complete and have not been

done well, despite training sessions and mentored practice rounds with the facilitators.

•LFs have all set up good working systems with the participants relating to seed distribution and

seedling production.

•LFs have provided a good link with the facilitation team and have generally coordinated meetings

and have processes such as beneficiation for tunnels and underground tanks. They have been able

to communicate challenges and successes in their groups.

4.2.1.6 Recommendations

•LFs have asked that another round of training or learning sessions be done by the facilitation

team- providing a quick overview of all practices introduced- this was done towards the end of

September, 2017

•LFs have been asked not to fill their time, but onlyclaim for actual hh visits –and to undertake

3hh visits per day. The support provided in this project is not a full time ‘job’.

•A garden monitoring follow- up form- a much simplified version of the full garden monitoring

form, has been designed for LFs to use on repeat visits to households

•LFs have been given mini refreshers workshops- on a one to one basis for the introduction of

farmer experimentation with participants, as a way to promote learning and implementation.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 18

4.2.2Learning workshops

Through review sessions held with each of the LFs, workshop agendas were tailored to suite the present

needs and suggestions from the participants in those learning groups.

The learning agendas for the workshops conducted in September 2017, for each village is shown below.

Materials required, which are supplied by Mahlathini and contributions from participants are relevant for

each of the workshops, but here have only been mentioned in the first workshop

4.2.2.1Sedawa and Mabins A

-Disease and Pest control

-Introduction to pest control (farmers experience or knowledge of pest control)

-Traditional disease and pest control methods

-Disease and pests control innovations (companion planting, use of herbs and multipurpose plants,

making mixes)

-Design of an eco-circle

-Tower garden demonstration

Material required

-Plants and herbs (Tzaneen) to be purchased, can also source some from the other participants

-Seed (available already for this group)

-Mixes (chili, onion, garlic, soap) to be purchased

-4x droppers/poles, 2x3 m805 shade cloth, 10l bucket

Contribution from participants

-Manure (chicken, goat, cattle)

-Banana stems

-Blackjack Seed

-Tools (grater, chopping board, 2 l bottles, and buckets)

-Ash and stones

4.2.2.2Willows

-Soil fertility (from the lasttraining the focus was more on use of fertilizer, we need to shift to

simple ways)

oDeep trench beds

oShallow trench beds

oKey hole gardening and tower garden

-Water movement and water management (use of line level in making stone lines and diversion

furrows)

-Disease and pest control

-CA (use of Mbili planter)

4.2.2.3Oaks

Introduction of the project (MDF and AWARD and the AgriSI project) (new participants expected)

-Water management

oWater movement and use of line level

ogrey water system

-Soil fertility

oLiquid manure (manure, blackjack leaves and banana stems)

oTower garden

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 19

-Disease and pest control

oMixes

oIntroduction to herbs and multipurpose plants

oDesign of an eco-circle

4.2.2.4Lepelle

-Soil fertility

-Five fingers

-Keyhole bed and tower garden

-Trees (pest control in fruit trees)

4.2.2.5Botshabelo

-Five fingers principles

-Water issues (infiltration pit, zai pits and other techniques)

-Tower gardens

-Keyhole beds

The keyhole beds and tower gardens are being specifically introduced to give participants further

opportunities to use and work with greywater systems. Keyhole beds require stones for their construction

and thus work well in rocky areas.

The ‘Five fingers’ approach is being reintroduced as a method for remembering and assessing good

practices for those villages where LFs have not been confident to work with these principles with their

learning groups

Above left and right; A photograph and schematic representation of a keyhole

bed showing the stonewalls and central composting basket for greywater

Right: An example of a newly planted tower garden –Here the crops are

planted into small holes made in the side of the bag, which is packed with a

compost, soil and ash mixture for use of greywater.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 20

4.2.3Garden monitoring

A total of 38forms have been completed and analysed across 6 villages by the LFs between April and July

2017.

These garden monitoring forms have been analysed for the no of participants who have implemented

various practices; including local good practices, new interventions (new ideas around gardening and

S&WC introduced through learning sessions), new innovations (such as tunnels, drip kits and underground

RWH storage tanks) and who have done farmer experiments.

The results are presented in the sun burst diagram below

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 21

Figure 1: Diagram showing implementation of good practices, both local and introduced by the gardening participants

between April and July 2017.

From the diagram, it can be seen that participants have included the new gardening techniques and ideas

alongside the good local traditional practices in the area.

Those practices that more than 80% of participants have implemented include:the traditional practices of

planting multipurpose plants (windbreaks, hedges, medicinal and fruit) and use of greywateras well as

planting of seed and production of seedlings and mulching

Those practices that between 50-79% of participants have implemented include:the traditional practice

of planting in furrows and ridges, making of stone lines and bunds for controllingwater movement and

local RWH techniques (collecting water in basins and drums), trench beds and seed saving.

Those practices that only a small percentage of participants have implemented (8-39%) include; contours,

eco-circles, liquid manure, natural pest and disease control methods and conservation agriculture. For the

traditional practices, nurseries for propagation of multipurpose plant species is quite rare (around 18% of

participants). These practices will all be re-emphasised in the upcoming learning events for the

programme.

Around 58% of the participants have tried out farmer experiments. These experiments have been

promoted by the local facilitators and include for example gardeners comparing their normal planting

techniques with planting in trench beds, in planting with and without mulch and in planting beds to single

crops or mixed crops.

We then compared the percentage implementation of new innovations and interventions for the two

periods where individuals have been interviewed; November 2016-March 2017 and April-July 2017. See

Figure 2 below.

From these two sets of data, it can be seen that there has been a substantial increase in the

implementation of a number of different interventions including; mulching, trench beds, mixed cropping,

production of seedlings, diversion ditches, stone lines, natural pest and disease control and use of liquid

manure.

In addition, the new innovations of tunnels, drip-kits and underground RWH structures have been

introduced and implemented in the second period.

Generally, these implementation results are very promising and show good implementation of new ideas

by the project participants.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 22

Figure 2: Comparison of percentage implementation of new innovations by project participants

In addition, participants are also increasing their implementation of local good practices, as these are

being promoted in the learning sessions and through the local facilitators alongside the new ideas. See

figure 3 below

Figure 3: Implementation of local good practices by project participants.

2.855337777

Furrows and ridges

Multipurpose (windbreaks, flowers,…

Legumes

RWH

Grey water use

Nursery

Seed saving

Farming income

Food (x/wk)

Implementation of local good practice (N=38);

April- July 2017

AverageNo of participants

12%

21%

29%

24%

82%

50%

44%

29%

32%

50%

Cut off drains

Diversion ditches

Stone bunds

trench beds

Diversified crops

Seed and seedlings

mulching

Contours, line levels

Liquid manure

Green manures,…

inter cropping

Nat P&D control

% implmentation of new

innovations (n=33): November

2016-March 2017

% implmentation of new innovations

55%

74%

79%

16%

74%

95%

82%

11%

39%

18%

58%

Cut off drains/diversion…

Contours, line levels

Stone bunds

Trench beds

Eco circles

Mixed cropping

Seed and seedlings

Mulching

Liquid manure

Nat P&D control

Bucket filters/ drip kits

Tunnel

RWH storage

Experimentation

% Implementation of new

innovations (n=38); April-

July 2017

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 23

From this chart, it can be seen that around 61% of participants are able to harvest produce and eat form

their gardens on a weekly basis(average of 2,8x/week) and that around 37% of participants sell produce

locally to make small amounts of additional income. The results for the survey conducted during the rainy

season (November 2016-April-march 2017) showed a somewhat different result, where 85% of participants

were able to eat form their gardens 3x/week and 55% of participants were selling small quantities of

produce. The reduction in production is directly related to lack of access to water for irrigation.

Below are a selection of photographs meant to be indicative of gardening implementation over the last

few months.

Above left: Magdalena Malepe in Sedawa with her beautiful small garden- trench beds, mixed cropping and mulching

visible. Above middle and Left: Alex Makgopa’s (Sedawa) well tended and diverse garden

Above left and middle: views of Christina Thobejane’s garden (Sedawa). She has implemented the whole suite of

options including nurseries, trench beds, drip irrigation, mixed cropping and mulching and Above right; Florence

Lewele’s garden (The Oaks). The has tried out trench beds, mixed cropping and mulching.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 24

Above left: carrot harvest from a trench bed –with nice straight carrots in the foreground compared to a normal

planting in the background with deformed roots. Above middle: harvest of chillies, parsley and fennel and right:

Maria Malepe’s garden (Botshabelo); she has tried fencing her garden. Mustard spinach is in the foerground of the

picture.

Left: A good tomato crop for Sophy Molotho in Sedawa and Right; Linah Malepe’s trench beds planted to mixed

vegetables and mulched.

Above left: Matibeng Morema’s garden (Sedawa). She was not doing any vegetable production prior to the start of

this process, but has made a beautiful fenced garden. And above right: Mapeu Malepe from Botshabelo who also

started vegetable production during this process.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 25

4.2.4Collaborative work

4.2.4.1TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION

One of the new innovations introduced in the communities of Mametja through the AgriSI project is

homemade shade cloth tunnels. The purpose of introducing this innovation was to help participants deal

with some of the effects of climate change (e.g. extreme temperatures, increased evaporation and water

loss and increased outbreak of pests) in vegetable production.

Two community based workshops including participants from 3 villages each were held between November

2016-March 2017 to train participants in the construction of these tunnels.At the seasonal review

workshop, a process was initiated for individual participantsto access tunnels. The requirement was that

they dig 3x 1x6m trench beds and pack them to be eligible for a tunnel. Household visits were conducted

by the facilitation team in May to assess progress. 10 Tunnel and drip kit packages were ordered and

distributed among participants. Subsequently more participants have finalised their trench beds. There is

however a requirement to access further funding support before more tunnels can be supplied.

Participants however did not feel confident to build the tunnels by themselves.

An additional local workshop was held in Botshabelo including the three ladies there who were to build

tunnels. Sylvester,Trygive and Chris assisted.

Right: The ladies

busy sewing the

panels for the

tunnel and Far

right: using the

template to

place the tunnel

and the positions

of the arches.

Participants however still felt a little intimidated by the technicalities of the tunnel construction. A

further workshop training the LFs in the construction, so that they could assistparticipants was then held

by Sylvester.

The one day demonstration on how to construct a tunnel was organized with the local facilitators from

Sedawa. A LF from Oaks was also invited as were tunnel kit recipients. The photographs below give some

indication of the process

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 26

Far left: Mariam Malepe

fixing the tunnel door panels

and Left: Christina and

Norah sewing the

nets/panels of shade cloth

together

Far left: Christinah thobejane

and Esinah Malepe sewing the

shade cloth onto an arch and

Left: Esinah Malepe and

Norah Mahlaku joining

arches.

Below: the ladies putting on

the final touches of the door

panels prior to completion of

the tunnel

After completion of the tunnel, LFs with help from Sylvester

drew dimensions of the how the remembered it. This exercise

was done to help LFs remember the dimensions of the tunnel.

After this fourth workshop local facilitators together with

members of the learning groups were able to construct the

tunnels without further assistance. In Sedawa and Mabins A, 3

tunnels havebeen constructed by members of the learning

group with help of the local facilitators (Christina Thobejane

and Alex Molgopa). Feedbackfrom LFs included that they

worked well with the community members nad that even a

few people helped who were not beneficiaries of these

tunnels.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 27

6 of the 10tunnels for which materials have been delivered have been erected to date: Oaks (2), Sedawa

(2) Botshablelo (3) and Mabins A (3). The table below shows the list of participants who have erected their

tunnels.

Table 4: Progress with construction of tunnels by individual participants.

Name of participant (s)

Name of village

Tunnel constructed / not

(Yes or No)

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

YES

Flora Nthlamo

Botshabelo

Marwale Mokgotho

Botshabelo

YES

Magdalene Malepe

Sedawa

YES

Esinah Malepe

Sedawa

YES

Florence Lewele

Oaks

Betty Nkgogo

Oaks

Dronah Morema

Mabins A

Norah Mahlako

Mabins A

YES

Makibeng Morema

Mabins A

YES

One logistical issue that has been slowing down progress is the need to move the jig for bending the

arches from one village to another. As it is a heavy metal structure, a vehicle is required for this.

4.2.4.2UNDERGROUND RWH TANKS

The initial idea was to build 4 underground RWH storage tanks (24m3); 2 each in Botshabelo and Sedawa

respectively using two designs: ferrocement and geofabric with bitumen. The households were to dig the

holes, provide sand for construction and also labour for construction. The facilitation team was to assist in

the initial construction and in training the local building teams to construct these tanks. A small additional

budget was sought from DKA for this work.

In reality, a number of processes did not work as planned;

•Householders took some time to dig the original holes and did not pay much attention to the

proposed dimensions. Rocks in the ground made digging heavy going.

Far left: Christina Thobejane’s hole

with rocks in the bottom that she

could not remove.

Left: Norah Mahlaku’s hole with

huge rocks making digging very

difficult

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 28

•This meant both that the technical teams could not continue with construction as planned, when

they arrived (and thus had to schedule in further visits) and that a lot of extra time and resources

needed to be channelled into getting the holes the correct shape- in all cases having to build up

the walls again prior to starting construction

Above left and right; Views of the corrective plastering that needed to be done at Norah Mahlaku’s site to get the

walls the correct shape and angle for construction.

•Householders could not supply the sand as promised –they completely underestimated the

amounts required and tried to bring the sand to the sites by hand and wheelbarrow. This meant

that sand had to be physically loaded and brought to site by the building teams.

Left: Collecting sand for the building process

–now being done by the construction team. A

vehicle had to be hired for the purpose.

•The local teams for assisting with labour and building did not really materialise. Two people were

eventually trained –one in particular, Israel, having enough previous building experience to be

able to tackle these structures with reasonable confidence. In

addition, these people expected payment, which had not been

budgeted for under the initial arrangement.

Right: Israel and Noah, the local builders assisting Eric (in this picture busy mixing

cement). Noah was one of the young men who wanted to learn to do the

construction. He had very little previous experience. Israel’s help was invaluable

and he would be able to continue into the future to construct similar tanks

without much supervision. Eric is employed by Southern Irrigation as a master

builder and has years of experience building these tanks.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 29

•The pre-prepared bitumen impregnated sheets bought were a failure on site and had to be

replaced with the more original process of using fabric and then painting the bitumen on.

Left: The pre-prepared bitumen impregnated

sheets There were too many overlaps and folds

in the sheets to be able to confidently prepare

a sealed surface and this process was

abandoned. Middle: The traditional geofabric,

3.8m wide, being sealed to create one sheet for the tank and Right: the Geofabric placed in the hole with one layer

of bitumen painted

•Special attention had to be given to build the silt traps for these tanks –providing for both the

inflow and overflow for the tank. In addition, the furrows directing water to the tanks had to be

carefully constructed. In the end, this had to be done by a specialist and could not be taught to

the local building team.

Above left and middle: Eric from Southern Irrigation carefully digging out the silt trap. Right: A view showing the inlet furrow in the foreground of the picture, the silt trap in

the middle and the overflow furrow form the silt trap moving downslope to the left of the tank.

•The walls were constructed for the sole purpose of raising these tanks off the ground to make the

safer. Roofing had to be constructed of the thicker corrugated iron for the same purpose- to

ensure that if someone or something walked over the roof it wold remain stable. It then meant

that the trapdoor in the roof had to be well constructed and be tamper proof to ensure full safety

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 30

of the tank. Special trapdoors were constructed off site. These had also not been properly

budgeted for prior to construction.

Left; Noah pop riveting the trapdoor in place in a hole cut in one of the

roofing corrugate iron sheets. And Above; Eric busy securing the roof

sheets with the trapdoor installed onto Christinah’s tank. The sheets

are secured and then cut to be flush with the wall of the tank.

In all, three tanks were constructed instead of four. The last tank in Botshabelo took time as Gogo(Florah

Nthlamu) had to employ youths to dig her hole. They ended up digging it far too wide and roughly and

there was almost no way to reconstruct the sides to finalise a tank. She was reimbursed for her expenses.

Left: A view of Magog’s very wide and shallow hole, which

could not be ‘fixed’ to be able to build anunderground tank

with the resources and time at the team’s disposal.

The tanks overshot on budget by 100%, but have now

been completed to everyone’s satisfaction

Above left: Norah Mahlaku’s finished RWH Tanks. Aboveright: Christina

Thobejane’s finalised tank and Left: Mariam Malepe’s tank in Botshabelo. the roof

is still held down with bricks in this picture as the last two layers of bitumen are

still to be painted onto the walls.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 31

4.3Success and Challenges in meeting milestone.

4.4 MERL.

4.4.1Indicators: Assessment September 2017

Figures in the table reflect numbers for the period of reporting, in this case July-September 2017.

A combined team meeting to review this assessment sheet has not been conducted in the reporting

period. Figures have been summarised from field reports and discussions with the field team.

Indicator

Overall

target

Actual_

Nov 2016

Actual_ Jun

2017

Actual_Sept

2017

No of participants in

learning groups

100

108

73 (Open day, Soil

fertility and

natural P&D

control workshops)

46,43 (DICLAD

workshops), 55 –

household visits and

garden monitoring,

60 learning

workshops

No of learning groups

No of local facilitators

Percentage of

participants engaged in

CC adaptation responses

1-2 (45%)

2-3 (25%)

>3 (10-15%)

1-2 (10%)

1-2 (67%)

2-3 (15%) –for this

time period

OVERALL:

1-2 (60%)

2-3(15%)

1-2(75%)

2-3 (20%)

>3 (10%)

This time period

OVERALL

1-2 (65%)

2-3 (20%)

>3 (10%)

No of participants

experimenting with new

innovations

-local

-co-designed

No of participants

showing increased

knowledge

Percentage of

participants engaged in

collaborative activities

45%

14%- individual

implementation of

tunnels and drip

kits- 10

Underground RWH

tanks - 4

12% individual

implementation of

tunnels and drip

kits- 10

Underground RWH

tanks - 3

Percentage of

participants with

improved livelihoods

-increased availability

of food

-increased income

-increased diversity of

activities and

livelihoods options

40%

(summarised from

garden monitoring

-15%

(Summarised from

garden monitoring)

-25%

-15%

Qualitative assessments;

-stakeholder

engagement

Stories,

case

studies,

photos,

Stories:

-Open day

Stories: Local

facilitators- progress

Building of RWH

storage tanks

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 32

-Increased

understanding and

agency to act towards

increased resilience

- Adaptation and

innovations into local

context

-Potential for increased

resilience

-Social engagement

cluster

activity

records,

group

session

minutes,

-Underground

storage tanks

implementation

- garden

monitoring

Implementation of

construction of

individual tunnels

Case studies: WRC-

AgSi project

implementation

Understanding: Examples of

people showing an increased

understanding of CCA

adaptation

-Through the DICLAD workshops many people have shown a

coherent understanding of the impacts of CC and the

value of their activities in SWC and gardening in dealing

with these. There is however also a sense that this is not

enough and that peoples’ livelihood options are steadily

deteriorating. There is a general feeling that more people

in the community need to appreciate these problems

better and that youth need to be educated. There is a

request for support for larger production efforts (field

based) and a call for support for saving the natural

environment (grazing, indigenous trees, water) -

Actions:

Examples of people showing

an increased agency towards

increasing their resilience

-For the winter planting season a substantial number of

participants have initiated their intensive homestead food

gardens under difficult conditions and with very little

water available. Participants have made trench beds,

planted seedlings, used mulching, implemented mixed

cropping, plantedherbs and multipurpose trees and

shrubs, made liquid manure, used pest control brews and

constructed diversion ditches and stone bunds.

-Many individuals >25 have constructed the 3x6m trench

beds for eligibility for tunnels. This innovation is seen as a

very good option to continue planting under difficult

conditions, save water and also make a small income. The

demand for this infrastructure is much higher than the

project can afford to supply

-Drip kits are in use for a number of individuals

-Many participants are buying water to be able to continue

their gardening processes. Greywater use is common

across all participants.

-Christina Thobejane for example is forgoing her income as

a local facilitator to save to have a borehole drilled in her

yard. She will then have access to a range of water

provision options- pumping from the river when there is

water, greywater, RWH- Jo-Jo tanks and an underground

tank and a borehole

Examples of increased

potential towards resilience

-Tunnel, trench beds, diversion ditches, conservation

agriculture, grey water management and use, rainwater

harvesting and storage

4.4.2Project Life Change Questions:

1. Do we have examples or stories of how we or others are in the process of adaptive management

related to CC? (adapt, reflect and respond to….) and examples of what this adaptive

management is?

oThis is evident in a number of small changes and improvements made by participants in

the gardening practices: including mulching in traditional furrows and ridges, making

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 33

trench beds, mixed cropping, collecting grass and leaves for mulching, use of greywater,

making diversion ditches to channel water and planting in and on these, seedling

production and diversification of crops in vegetable gardens.

oLearning inputs are being tailored by the facilitation team to also be more appropriate for

field cropping as participants are finding applying the principles from gardening into their

fields a difficult task. They requested assistance with this.

oParticipants are making small intensive gardens to accommodate for the lack of water.

oSome participants have attempted to manage their microclimates, by making windbreaks

with grass and feedbags around their small gardens.

oThe shade cloth tunnels introduced show a huge potential to increase production and all

participants with tunnels are using them actively. They are selling small quantities of

produce form these tunnels.

oA few individuals have volunteered to build their own underground RWH storage tanks to

have access to water.

oIn Mametje learning group participants have formed small subgroups in their localities who

meet regularly to discuss issues, exchange ideas and ensure that they know how to

implement the new practices.

2. Do we have stories that show innovation or lack of innovation towards positive change? What

insights have we gained into how innovation can lead to positive change?(INCREASED RESILIENCE)

About 65% of participants have tried out some of the new innovations introduced and are able to

clearly articulate the potential benefits of these practices. For many however the cost of water

does not justify the outcomes of their gardening activities. They feel that what they produce does

help with food, but does not help them with increasing their incomes and they stillspend more on

production than they make. Many of the older female participants believe that having fresh food

available locally outweighs the cost issues and will continue to try and improve their gardening to

be able to make a small income from this. For the younger participants- their feeling is more that

they are not even prepared to try unless it looks like they will make reasonable amounts of

money.

3. Do we have stories that show evidence of, or an interest in self organisation towards collective

action? What insights have we gained into how self organisation can lead to collective action?

Local facilitators are already playing an important role in bringing people together and providing

for collective action, albeit on the level of working in the gardens. They are dealing with conflict

in the groups and supporting individuals in their implementation. They are coordinating some

collective action in the villages. New members have been joining in the last three months in most

of the villages and in a few groups are meeting by themselves to learn and implement together.

4. Do we have stories to show that learning together is happening or that there is an interest in

learning together? What insights have we gained about how to learn together?

The LFs who have grasped the concept to learning with the participants and working with

experimentation as an idea to promote implementation have been very successful –notable

Sedawa, Mametje and Botshabelo. Those who have worked within a model of being in charge of

the groups and ‘ensuring’ that they do the right thing have in fact seen their groups dwindle to

almost nothing- Willows, The Oaks and Lepelle.

Participants feel that learning in the groups vastly outweighs what they can learn on their own and

have set up ways in which they work together. They also feel however that the LFs may not know

enough about these new techniques and still value the input of the facilitation team higher than

that of the LFs.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 34

5. Do we have stories of how we and or others are able to think systemically? What insights have we

gained?

The DICLAD workshops have pointed to a remarkable capacity in the community members to make

the linkages and realise the larger impacts of actions. It is however hard for them to translate this

into ideas about how collective action can change the systemic interactions- or more precisely

they do not feel that they can work together on these issues without assistance from the outside.

6. Do we have stories of how we and or others are able to be inclusive and democratic? What

insights have we gained about how this can be achieved? (STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT).

Some advances have been made in stakeholder interaction in working with other NGOs active in

the area towards working together and limited sharing of implementation budgets. Cementing the

process around climate change and adaptation has assisted stakeholders to more clearly

understand the needs for this cooperation. Lima RDF has agreed to share the learning and training

processes and to augment the process where they have specific strengths. They have agreed to be

party to the CC adaptation approach and to frame their interventions and discussions in this way

and also to support beneficiaries with small grants for provision of more tunnels and drip kits.

4.4.3Work Plan for the coming three months.

The last three months of this intervention will focus on the following activities:

1. Continuation of the 2nd workshop in the DICLAD process, combined with a review of activities

and impacts of implementation in the learning groups to date.

2. Negotiation for continuation of the process through AWARD for the coming year

3. Negotiation of a partnership with the WRC project on community level adaptation to ensure

continuation and co-funding of the process going forward (2-3 years) –albeit on a much reduced

level of implementation

4. Collaboration with Lima RDFin combining activities across the two programmes- their food

security and small business initiative and AgSI. Training of facilitators in climate sensitive

facilitation and implementation of best bet options for good practices will be undertaken.

5. Continuation of garden monitoring and support for Local Facilitators

6. Finalisation of learning workshops around review of gardening techniques and conservation

agriculture.

7. Limited support for afocus on fruit tree production, notably in Lepelle and Willows where

participants have requested trees.

8. Monitoring processes are to be put in place for management of the tunnels constructed and also

the 3 underground RWH tanks.

9. Village level cross visits for all participants to explore and interrogate the options for tunnels

and RWH storage, as well as other innovations introduced.

10. Compilation and analysis of garden monitoring information.

11. Writing of a final report for this process.

The next field visit for the Mahlathini team will be from 16-27 October 2017.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 35

4.5Communication Materials from this milestone.

The production of communication materials is still being negotiated with the Agricultural Coordinator and

the communications team. Themid term community level review has been posted on the Mahlathini

website. www.mahlathini.org

4.6Other outputs

A case study has been written (See Appendix 1) jointly between Mahlathini and the relevant AWARD staff

for a Water Research Commission (WRC) brief entitled: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation

strategies for the dissemination of Water and Soil Conservation practices and Climate Smart

Agriculture in smallholder farming systems. Deliverable No.2:Report on stakeholder engagement,

case study development and site identification(August 2017)

The MDF has participated in the planning and implementation of the DICLAD process in the Mametje area.

The overall purpose of these workshops was to build climate change literacy among stakeholders with

regards to climate projections and impacts related to small scale agriculture. These workshops

particularly involved small scale farmers who are participating in the learning groups being established

and guided by the sub grant Mahlathini in the Mametja area (Lower Olifants).

The expected outcomes were the following.

•An understanding of some core concepts related to climate change and localised climate projections.

•An understanding of general climatechange impacts pertaining tosmallscale farming practices in the

Middle Olifants.

Three workshops were included:

•17 August 2017 with Sedawa and Willows (48 participants);

•21 August 2017 with Botshabelo (13 participants); and

•27 September 2017 as a combined workshop with Lepelle, Oaks and Finale.

A draft report has been compiled for the DICLAD workshop undertaken in Sedawa(Appendix 2: DICLAD_

Conversations about farming and climate change_ Principles for good farming practices –Sedawa

20170817)

5Overall Progress of Project

5.1Integration of milestone status.

The table below indicates overall completion of activities according to milestones. Activities are all well on

track for completion in December 2017

Table 5: Milestone target completion July-September 2017.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 36

5.2Project risk and mitigation summary.

5.2.1Implementation risks and mitigation

•Stability and continuity of learning groups: It is clear now that the local facilitators have had a

major impact on the learning groups; in some cases they have grown substantially and interest has

increased and in other they have dwindled quite dramatically. This was unforeseen as the

intention of the LFs was more to assist individual gardeners with their implementation and do

garden monitoring. A strategy has been put in place to manage the impact of the LFs on the

groups. In some villages another process of expansion of groups is required. This will be managed

through the facilitation team and minimising the influcne of the LFS. In the other cases, where

positive change has been noted, LFs will be supported to expand their work

MAHLATHINI

MILESTONE COMPLETION: target completion to date % (in black) vs actual (in red)

Key activities /

Milestones

MILESTONE

MILESTONE 4

MILESTONE 5

MILESTONE 6

MILESTONE

Inception report

100% /

100%

Setting the

scene

67% / 65%

100% / 80%

100% / 90%

100% / 100%

less

coverage,

villages

visioning +

final LFs

outstanding

Some

visioning + 2

LFs

outstanding

LF selection

and training

complete.

Additional

visioning in

Lepelle

Learning and

mentoring

10% / 15%

30%/ 40%

50%/65%

70%/85%

90%/95%

100%

6 villages

not 4

6 villages

Some

garden mon

+ LF

outstanding

6 villages;

continuation

with learning

schedule; LFs

elected in 3

villages

6 villages;

continuation

with learning

schedule; soil

fertility and

P&d control.

Mentoring and

garden

monitoring by

LFs

6 villages;

review

learning

sessions

including

tower

gardens P&D

control and

Experimentation

& intro to

innovations

25%

25% / 50%

50%/75%

75%/85%

90%/90%

For all 6

villages

100%

for all 6

villages

6 villages

not 4

6 villages

For all 6

villages

Collaborative

work

25%/40%

6 villages:

Introduction

to drip kits

and tunnels;

3 villages

RWH and

erosion

control

options

50%/65%

6 villages;

tunnels, drip

kits,

greywater

management,

RWH and

erosion

control

options

75%/100%

10 tunnels

with drip kits

constructed,

underground

RWH tanks

(24m3)

constructed

100%

Networking and

cross visits

25%/25%

cluster based

workshop in

good farming

practices

50%/50%

Open day:

cross visit of

all learning

groups. World

biodiversity

day workshop

75%/75%

LF visits to

other

villages, 2

DICLAD

workshops

100%

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 37

•Extreme water shortages brought about by the continued dry and hot conditions and further

collapse of some of the municipal water provision schemeshas put extreme pressure on

productive activities. In cases where participants now have to buy water, they have not been able

to afford buying of water for gardening, only household necessities. An increased focus on

greywater use and management will provide a small ambit of relief. In addition the focus on RWH

storage and also on water conservation has shown to be advantageous for those individuals who

have some access to water. The larger issues of water supply in these villages through government

processes are however outside of the scope of this project

•High levels of poverty and food insecurity in the villages have made the introduction of self

motivated action a challenge. There is a huge cry for external support from community members.

Many lose interest the moment they realise that free inputs are not forthcoming. In this social

climate the response from the individuals in the learning groups has been remarkable and a

number of participants have taken on the challenge of improving their lives even under these

difficult circumstances. They are to be commended for their courage and hard work.

5.2.2Financial risks and mitigation

•Extra financial and in kind support from AWARD was planned into this project in the early phases

of implementation, recognising the ambitious nature of trying to implement in 6 villages, as

opposed to the initially proposed 3-4. As implementation has progressed this support has become

more and more difficult for AWARD to offer and justify.Adjustments have therefor been made in

planned expenditure to accommodate for this.

•Over expenditure on the implementation of new innovations such as shade cloth tunnels and

underground RWH storage tanks has been high due to an attempt by the facilitation team to

accommodate for the demand from beneficiaries. This can be considered a mistake and shortfalls

have been accommodated for outside of the AWARD budget and brief.

•Budgets allocated for paying the stipends for local facilitators were very low, given that some of

the assumptions made during the proposal phase did not hold. In most villages 2 LFs have now

been instated, rather than one- to accommodate for lack of skills and different interest groups

and in addition LFs have regarded these stipends more as salaries rather than just a token of

support.

•In addition, time spent by the lead facilitator and coordinator in management of this project have

far outstripped the budgeted amount. To accommodate for these shortfalls the coordinator has

undertaken to reduce time spent. In addition, MDF has internalised a large proportion of this

additional cost, over and above the cost share allocation.

6Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the project is on track to fulfil all deliverable requirements and also to be able to continue

and expand into the future.

7 Appendices

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 38

1Appendix 1: Case studies; WRC CCA

1.1Climate Change Adaptation, Limpopo

1.1.1Description of the programme

RESILIM-O is large multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder, cross-boundary programme to reduce vulnerability to

climate change through building improved transboundary water and biodiversity governance and

management of the Olifants Basin through the adoption of science-based strategies that enhance the

resilience of its people and ecosystems through systemic and social learning approaches.The programme

has been running for four years and is being implemented byAWARD (The Association for Water and Rural

Development) with funding from USAID.

The Agricultural Support Initiative (AgriSI) was initiated as a sub-grant process within the larger

programmed towards the end of 2016. This initiative works specifically with climate change adaptation

processes with smallholder communities in the lower Olifants River basin. It is being implemented jointly

by Mahlathini Development Foundation and AWARD.

The Agricultural Support Initiative (AgriSI) addresses two of the RESILIM-O programme objectives directly:

iii. To institutionalize systemic, collaborative planning and action for resilience of ecosystems and

associated livelihoods through enhancing the capacity of stakeholders to sustainably manage natural

resources of the Olifants River Basin under different scenarios

iv. To reduce vulnerability to climate change and other factors by supporting collective action, informed

adaptation strategies and practices and tenable institutional arrangements.

The overall aim of the Agricultural Support Initiative is to enhance the resilience of the people and

ecosystems in selected villages (5-6) in the Lower Olifants River basin, using a systemic social learning

approach, exploring the question:What are you learning about the socio-economic and biophysical

characteristics of your environment and how these are changing and how are you able to respond to that?

The overarching objective of this work is to provide support for increased adaptive capacity and resilience

to the effects of climate change for households involved in agriculture in select communities of the

Olifants River Catchment through:

-Improved soil and water conservation and agro-ecological practices for increased food security;

-Livelihood diversification and supplementation through alternative climate resistant production;

and

-Increased community empowerment as a result of self-organisation and collective action.

1.1.2 Problem

A key vulnerabilitywhich was identified during Phase I of this programme is the potential for increasing

food insecurity under climate changing conditions, especially for the poor in former Apartheid bantustans

into which many people were forcibly re-settled. Not only are poor land-use practices impacting

production and ecological health and integrity but these impacts are likely to be greatly exacerbated

under the hotter and more erratic rainfall conditions that are predicted for the Lowveld as a result of

climate change. For example, with a 2OC increase maize farming and livestock production is likely to

become marginal whilst with a 4OC increase both will be untenable (AWARD; internal reports 2016).

Small-scale farming is widely evident throughout communal lands ranging in scale from small, so-called

‘backyard’ gardens to larger plots of between 0.5 and 2 ha. All of these are individually farmed. These

form an important component of livelihood security and in particular, offer important safety-nets in times

of crises.

MILESTONE 6: PROGRESS REPORT #5:

| 39

However, not only are current poor farming practices exposing farmers to unnecessary risks through loss of

ecological health but these are likely to be highly exacerbated with climate change. Current practices

typically do little to manage water movement and retention, soil health and loss and offer little resilience

in terms of crop choices, for example. From a social and institutional perspective there is little evidence

of farmers working together to learn from each other or others or to plan for the future. Collective action

and the ability to self-organise are regarded as critical components of adaptive capacity. Furthermore,

although some farmers have indicated that they haveheard of climate change, none expressed a sense of

urgency and few voiced any ideas about how to respond. Thissuggests that collectively they are not

resilient in a way that the magnitude of the impacts of climate change might demand. Building adaptive

capacity for food security is thus a key priority of the project.

1.1.3 Rationale