WRC-CCA Facilitation Manual | Mahlathini Development Foundation

$-*."5&$)"/(&"%"15"5*0/'034."--)0-%&3

'"3.&34*/4065)"'3*$"

70-6.&1"35$0..6/*5:$-*."5&$)"/(&"%"15"5*0/

'"$*-*5"5*0/"."/6"-'03'"$*-*5"5*0/0'$-*."5&3&4*-*&/5

"(3*$6-563&'034."--)0-%&3'"3.&34

77

Climate Change Adaptation for

Smallholder Farmers in

South Africa

Volume 2 Part 1: Community Climate

Change Adaptation facilitation: A manual

for facilitation of Climate Resilient

Agriculture for smallholder farmers

Report to the

Water Research Commission

E Kruger

Mahlathini Development Foundation

WRC Report No. TT 841/2/20

February 2021

Obtainable from

Water Research Commission

Private Bag X03

Gezina, 0031

orders@wrc.org.za or download from www.wrc.org.za or www.mahlathini.org

The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled Collaborative knowledge creation and

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

Agriculture in smallholder farming systems. (WRC Project No.K5/2719/4)

This report forms part of a series of 9 reports. The reports are:

Volume 1: Climate Change Adaptation for smallholder farmers in South Africa. An implementation

and decision support guide. Summary report. (WRC Report No. TT 841/1/20)

Volume 2 Part 1: Community Climate Change Adaptation facilitation: A manual for facilitation of

Climate Resilient Agriculture for smallholder farmers. (WRC Report No. TT 841/2/20)

Volume 2 Part 2: Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Intensive

homestead food production practices. (WRC Report No. TT 841/3/20)

Volume 2 Part 3: Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Local, group-

based access to water for household food production. (WRC Report No. TT 841/4/20)

Volume 2 Part 4: Climate Resilient Agriculture. An implementation and support guide: Field cropping

and livestock integration practices. (WRC Report No. TT 841/5/20)

Volume 2 Part 5: Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers in English.

(WRC Report No. TT 841/6/20)

Volume 2 Part 6: Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers in isiXhosa.

(WRC Report No. TT 841/7/20)

Volume 2 Part 7: Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers in isiZulu.

(WRC Report No. TT 841/8/20)

Volume 2 Part 8: Climate Resilient Agriculture learning materials for smallholder farmers in Sepedi.

(WRC Report No. TT 841/9/20)

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for

publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of

the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial productsconstitute endorsement or

recommendation for use.

ISBN 978-0-6392-0228-0

Printed in the Republic of South Africa

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals and organisations deserve acknowledgement for their invaluable

contributions and support to this project:

Chris Stimie (Rural Integrated Engineering RIEng)

Dr Brigid Letty and Jon McCosh (Institute of Natural Resources – INR)

Nqe Dlamini (StratAct)

Dr Sharon Pollard, Ancois de Villiers, Bigboy Mkabela and Derick du Toit (Association for Water and

Rural Development)

Bobbie Louton

Hendrik Smith (GrainSA)

Marna de Lange (Socio-Technical Interfacing)

MDF interns and students: Khethiwe Mthethwa, Samukhelisiwe Mkhize, Sylvester Selala, Palesa

Motaung and Sanelise Tafa and

MDF board members: Timothy Houghton and Desiree Manicom

PROJECT FUNDED BY

REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS

Prof S Mpandeli Water Research Commission

Dr S Hlophe-Ginindza Water Research Commission

Dr L NhamoWater Research Commission

Dr O CrespoUniversity of Cape Town

Dr A Manson KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Prof S WalkerAgricultural Research Council

Prof CJ Rautenbachpreviously of WeatherSA

COLLABORATING ORGANISATIONS

https://www.inr. org.za/https://award.org.za/https://amanziforfood.co.za/

https://foodtunnel.co.za/http://www.rieng.co.za/

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AEZ Agroecological zone

CA Conservation agriculture

CC Climate change

CCA Climatechange adaptation

CoP Community of practice

CRA Climate resilient agriculture

CSA Climatesmart agriculture

CSO Civil society organisation

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DSS Decision support system

NGO Non-government Organisation

OC Organic carbon

PAR Participatory Action research

PIA Participatory impact assessment

PID Participatory innovation development

PLA Participatory learning and action

PRA Participatory rural appraisal

PTD Participatory technology development

RWH Rainwater harvesting

SLT Social learning theory

SWC Soil and water conservation

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................iii

PROJECT FUNDED BY ..........................................................................................................................iii

REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS ........................................................................................................iii

COLLABORATING ORGANISATIONS ..................................................................................................iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................... iv

1PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 1

2BRINGING TOGETHER THE METHODOLOGICAL ELEMENTS .................................................. 2

2.1LEARNING AND CHANGE..................................................................................................... 2

2.2SOCIAL LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE MEDIATION .................................................................3

2.3AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT........................................................................................................ 5

2.5COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE............................................................................................. 6

2.6INNOVATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 8

2.7PARTICIPATORY INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT (PID) ...................................................... 9

2.8ADDING THE ELEMENTS TOGETHER: COACTIVE GOVERNANCE IN A CHANGING

CLIMATE ............................................................................................................................... 11

3CLIMATE CHANGE ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.1CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION...................................................................................... 12

3.2CLIMATE SMART / RESILIENT AGRICULTURE................................................................ 13

3.3CONCEPTS OF VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE ........................................................ 15

3.3.1VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................. 16

3.4SMALLHOLDER FARMING IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CRA ................................................ 17

3.4.1SMALLHOLDER FARMING SYSTEMS............................................................................ 18

3.5LOCAL AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN CRA........................................................... 20

4DECISION SUPPORT PROCESSES ............................................................................................ 22

4.1WHAT GOES INTO THE CRA SMALL SCALE FARMER DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM ...

.............................................................................................................................................. 22

4.2HOW DOES THE FACILITATOR-FARMER DSS WORK?.................................................. 25

5HOW TO FACILITATE THE FACILITATOR-FARMER DSS ......................................................... 27

5.1BASELINE SURVEY ............................................................................................................. 27

5.1.1THE BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 27

5.1.2EXAMPLE OF A BASELINE SURVEY ............................................................................. 28

5.2COMMUNITY LEVEL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ANALYSIS – OUTLINE OF THE

3 WORKSHOPS ................................................................................................................... 29

5.3CCA WORKSHOP 1: CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS – IMPACT AND ADAPTIVE

MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 30

5.3.1OUTLINE OF THE TWO-DAY WORKSHOP .................................................................... 31

5.3.2FACILITATION TOOLS ..................................................................................................... 35

5.3.3HOUSEHOLD VISITS ....................................................................................................... 42

5.3.4EXAMPLE OF A CCA WORKSHOP1 PROCESS............................................................ 43

5.3.5PRIORITISATION OF ADAPTIVE MEASURES AND PRACTICES ................................. 46

5.4CCA WORKSHOP 2: PRIORITIZATION OF ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND

PRACTICES.......................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.1OUTLINE OF CCA WORKSHOP 2................................................................................... 48

5.4.2EXAMPLE OF CCA WORKSHOP 2 ................................................................................. 49

5.4.3SEASONAL WEATHER PREDICTIONS .......................................................................... 52

5.4.4FARMER EXPERIMENTATION ........................................................................................ 53

6PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (PIA) ........................................................................ 55

6.1BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 55

6.2PIA WORKSHOP OUTLINE ................................................................................................. 56

6.2.1RECAP CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ............................................................................ 56

6.2.2RECAP ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES/ PRACTICES............................................................ 56

6.2.3PRACTICES: RECAP FIVE FINGERS AND LIST ALL PRACTICES UNDER EACH

CATEGORY ...................................................................................................................... 57

6.2.4WHAT HAVE BEEN THE CHANGES OR BENEFITS FROM EACH PRACTICE? .......... 57

6.2.5EXPANDING ON PRACTICES ......................................................................................... 57

6.2.6EXAMPLE OF A PIA ASSESSMENT OUTCOME: BERGVILLE KZN (2019).................. 58

6.3RESILIENCE SNAPSHOTS.................................................................................................. 60

6.3.1THE INDIVIDUAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ....................... 60

6.3.2EXAMPLE OF A RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT ASSESSMENT FOR 12 PARTICIPANTS IN

BERGVILLE, KZN APRIL 2019 ......................................................................................... 63

7REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 66

Community CCA Facilitation

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

This facilitation manual is one of the outputs for a Water Research Commission research 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”, undertaken

between 2017 and 2020.

The research objectives were defined as:

1. To evaluate and identify best practice options for climate resilient agriculture (CRA) and Soil

and Water Conservation (SWC) in smallholder farming systems, in two bioclimatic regions in

South Africa

2. To amplify collaborative knowledge creation of CRA practices with smallholder farmers in South

Africa

3. To test and adapt existing CRA decision support systems (DSS) for the South African

smallholder context

4. To evaluate the impact of CRA interventions identified through the DSS by piloting interventions

in smallholder farmer systems, considering water productivity, social acceptability and farm-

scale resilience

5. To test visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Payment for Ecosystems based model at

community level for local assessment of progress and tested against field and laboratory

analysis of soil physical and chemical properties, and water productivity.

The design of the decision support system is seen as an ongoing process divided into three distinct

parts:

¾Practices: Collation, review, testing and finalisation of those CRA practices to be included.

This allows for new ideas and local practices to be included over time and also includes linkages

and reference to external sources of technical information around climate change, soils, water

management, etc. and how this will be done

¾Process: Through which CRA practices are implemented at smallholder farmer level. This also

includes the facilitation component, communities of practice, communication strategies and

capacity building and

¾Monitoring and evaluation: Design and implementation of local and visual assessment

protocols for assessing implementation and impact of practices as well as processes used. This

also includes site selection and quantitative measurements undertaken to support the visual

assessment protocols and development of visual and proxy indicators for future use in

incentive-based support schemes for smallholder farmers.

This manual focusses on the process; the methodological and facilitation components of the research

brief.

2 BRINGING TOGETHER THE METHODOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

When engaging with smallholder farmers the socio-cultural, economic and environmental complexities

of these farming systems need to be taken into account; explored, understood and managed. Any new

ideas and processes need to be facilitated inclusive of all socio-cultural, economic and environmental

aspects and in a setting of open dialogue and learning.

2.1 LEARNING AND CHANGE

To engage in exploring the change in farming systems happening due to climate change and thinking

into the kinds of changes required to consciously adapt to these changes, requires both the process of

learning (including new ideas and information into the mix) and the process of doing (how to implement

and farm differently).

As adults, we learn best by doing. We retain the least information when we just listen to talks and

presentations or read. The diagram below provides a visual representation of how we best remember.

It also shows that combining learning and implementation and working in groups are generally the most

effective ways to learn.

Learning Pyramid (Adapted from National Training Laboratories Bethel, Maine, USA) (Dale E, 1969)

Figure 1: The learning pyramid demonstrating retention of information in different learning scenarios

It is widely appreciated that information on its own does not lead to capability development and that

education, training, knowledge dissemination and communication involving a range of knowledge

dissemination and mediation processes are required for information to translate into action (Lotz-Sisitka

and Pesanayi, 2019).

There are a number of different ways in which to understand learning and behaviour change in adult

learning processes. These processes have been defined within the ambit of educational psychology,

but are a useful tool in designing earning programmes for behaviour change.

Over the years, academics have proposed a number of theories to describe and explain the learning

process – these can be grouped into five broad categories:

1. Behaviourist

2. Cognitivist

3. Constructivist

4. Experiential

5. Social and contextual

Figure 2: Five main learning theories

Behaviourism: Key behaviourist thinkers hypothesized that learning is a change in observable

behaviour caused by external stimuli in the environment (stimulus-response). The key principle of

behaviourism is the reward or punishment of a new behaviour, commonly described as the 'carrot and

stick' approach to learning.

Cognitivism: Cognitivism replaced behaviourism as the dominant learning paradigm in the 1960s and

proposes that learning comes from mental activity such as memory, motivation, thinking and reflection.

Cognitivism focuses on the transmission of information from someone who knows (such as an 'expert'

as opposed to facilitators) to learners who do not know.

Constructivism: From the constructivist perspective, learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon

as described by behaviourism, rather it requires self-regulation and the building of conceptual structures

through reflection and abstraction. The learner takes an active role in constructing her own

understanding rather than receiving it from someone who knows, learning through observation,

processing and interpretation.

Experientialism: One of the key theorists of experiential learning is David Kolb who developed his

experiential model, as opposed to a purer cognitive model which formally recognised that people learn

from experience and described learning as following a cycle of experiential stages (observation, action

and reflection).

Social and Contextual: In this approach, learning does not occur solely within the learner, but in the

group (or context) and community in which they work. Learning is a shared process which takes place

through observing, working together and being part of a larger group, which includes colleagues of

varying levels of experience, able to stimulate each other's development. (Thompson, 2012)

Social learning is the most appropriate learning approach for working in complex community-based

situations.

2.2 SOCIAL LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE MEDIATION

Social Learning Theoryis a theory of the learning process which combines elements of behavioural,

cognitive and constructivist approaches. Learning is not purely behavioural, but is a cognitive process

that takes place in a social context.

Key tenets of Social Learning Theory (SLT) are as follows:

¾Learning can occur by observing a behaviourandby observing the consequences of the

behaviour

¾ Learning involves observation, extraction of information from those observations, and

making decisions about the performance of the behaviour (observational learning

or modelling). Thus, learning can occur without an observable change in behaviour.

¾Reinforcement plays a role in learning but is not entirely responsible for learning and

¾The learner is not a passive recipient of information. Cognition, environment, and behaviour

all mutually influence each other.

According to the sociocultural theory of education (an extension of SLT), learning is social; we learn

through interacting with others, through a meaningful exchange of ideas, concepts, and actions.

Knowledge is mediatedthrough dialoguing with the other (other members of the community,

stakeholders, facilitators, etc.). This process allows for the negotiation of meaning through dialogues

with others who have a different understanding of the topic. It allows for the interplay between different

sociocultural perspectives and the development of new understanding that can lead to different actions

and behaviours, or stated in a slightly different way”

“Contemporary theories of learning and change indicate that for knowledge or information to become

meaningful, there is 1) a need for the information to be related to the situation and experience of the

user; and that this needs to 2) be mediated in context; in addition to 3) providing new knowledge or

information that can expand existing knowledge and/or practice” (Lotz-Sisitka and Pesanayi, 2019).

The model proposed by Shaxson et al. (2012), which proposes a ‘continuum’ of knowledge

dissemination approaches, contexts and relations within a systems approach to learning provides a

useful framework for project or programme design that incorporates social learning and change and

has recently been used in the Amanzi for Food social learning network approach (Lotz-Sisitka and

Pesanayi, 2019).

Figure 3: Knowledge dissemination continuum from Shaxson et al., 2012

Here, this framework will be used as a basis for building the methodological approach for innovation

system development and decision support for implementation of CRA in smallholder farming systems

2.3 AGENCY

The concept of agency, developed in the Social Sciences can be considered as an aspect of learning

within this sociocultural context. This concept helps us to more clearly understand the interplay between

learning and doing.

Agencyis the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices and

decisions. Social structure is a combination of factors (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity,

ability, customs, etc.) that determine, or limit an agent and their decisions.

The ways in which people understand their own relationship to the past, future, and present also make

a difference to their actions; there are cultural habits and ways of understanding one’s place in the

world, that sustain identities, meaning and interactions over time. These differ between cultures and

change over time. It is also possible for individuals within cultures to change their own understanding

of their role and their understanding of the world as more or less responsive to human imagination,

purpose, and effort. While repertoires are limited by individual and collective histories and may be more

or less extensive and flexible, they do require a certain degree of manoeuvrability in order to assure the

appropriateness of the response to the situation at hand.

Habitual actions are largely unreflective (not thought about) and taken for granted, but are nevertheless

a form of agency, as they involve attention and effort. People encounter problematic situations that

need imagination and judgement solve and these situations provide for reflection and the analysis of

patterns that may in some contexts allow for greater imagination, choice, and conscious purpose.

(Emirbayer and Mische, 1998)

But people do not merely repeat past routines, they are also the inventors of new possibilities for thought

and action. A certain increase in freedom and flexibility of action is possible, as one becomes more

conscious of one’s situation. “Experience in its vital form is experimental, an effort to change the given;

it is characterized by projection, by reaching forward into the unknown.” (Dewey, 1981)

We draw upon past experiences (our own and that of others) in order to clarify motives, goals, and

intentions, to locate possible future constraints, and to identify morally and practically appropriate

courses of action.

After surveying possible scenarios of action, actors face the task of proposing solutions that will

adequately respond to their moral, practical and emotional concerns. Such resolutions will often attempt

to resolve several conflicts simultaneously and to incorporate different fields of intended action. They

may be put to the test in tentative or exploratory social interactions; interactions that may be

transformative in nature. (Hays, 1994)

Even relatively unreflective routine dispositions must be adjusted in changing situations; and newly

imagined projects must be brought down to earth within real-world circumstances. Moreover, judgments

and choices must often be made in the face of considerable ambiguity, uncertainty, and conflict; means

and ends sometimes contradict each other, and unintended consequences require changes in strategy

and direction.

By increasing their capacity for practical evaluation, actors strengthen their ability to exercise agency in

a mediating fashion, enabling them (at least potentially) to pursue their projects in ways that may

challenge and transform their societies. (New, 2007)

This orientation toward action provides a powerful tool to respond to a rapidly changing world;

composed of increasingly complex and overlapping matrices of social, political, and economic relations.

If we cannot control the consequences of our interventions, we can at least commit ourselves to a

responsive, experimental, and deliberative attitude as we confront emergent problems and possibilities

across the variety of contexts within which we act.

2.4 SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT

From the previous sections, we have ascertained that involvement in any communities, including rural,

farming communities, is a process of social engagement first and foremost as well as a process of

research; exploration, understanding and trying out new ideas.

Key principles of engagement resonate with the previously discussed concepts of learning processes

and agency and can be summarised as follows:

COLLABORATION: Researchers and community members co-create the intervention;

Assessment of need, design of intervention, and evaluation are done together, with community inputs

carrying weight. Collective self-determination should be the basis for needs assessment. This requires

flexibility as the intervention may take new directions not initially envisioned by researchers.

INCLUSION: Everyone who has a stake in the intervention has a right to participate in processes

and decisions; Efforts are made to ensure no one who has stake is excluded from participation or

decision making on the basis of any demographic or socio-political factor. Work for diversity. The

research team will not default to working with visible or influential players. The vulnerable, marginalised,

least vocal will be actively included. Be aware of how power is recognised, structured and shared in a

community.

SAFETY: The process and intervention are conducted in a way that is safe for all participants;

This includes the spaces chosen for meetings, the design of processes and interactions (e.g. how small

groups are set up), the design of learning tasks (begin with simple, clear tasks). Allow small groups to

find their voices. Establishing competence and experience contributes to safety. Make space for

informal interactions where views or needs can be expressed in safety.

RESPECT AND BUILD ON LOCAL AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: People are experts in their

own context and what they know is the foundational for new engagement. The research team must

become thoroughly acquainted with the community: culture, social networks, economic conditions,

demographics, history with other interventions – and respond to the realities and dynamics that exist.

MUTUALITY AND EQUALITY IN LEARNING: Everyone already has knowledge and experience,

everyone will learn; Prior knowledge of everyone is taken into account; life experience is used as the

basis for relating to new knowledge, attitudes or skills. Researchers and participants are equals; all are

learners. Peers challenge and mentor each other. Aim for both individual and collective learning and

growth.

PRAXIS: Learning is structured through active doing and reflecting;Learners consider new

content (skills, knowledge, attitudes) and re-create them to fit their context, then try it and reflect on how

it works. Learning happens with the mind, emotions and muscles. Passive learning teaches passivity.

The process, not only the outcomes, are important.

BUILD A CULTURE OF OPEN DIALOGUE: Encourage expression of different opinions and value

minority views and individual insights. Talk transparently about power dynamics.

FLEXIBILITY:The research, programmes, projects and interventions must serve the wellbeing of the

community and the environment; not the other way around. They should be structured with reflective

processes that allow them to be reshaped as needed as a clearer perspective unfolds.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY;Work for a culture where researchers and community

members operate with transparency and are accountable for their roles and actions. Work for a culture

of accountability to oneself for realising one’s aims in the process.

BUILD FOR THE LONG TERM; Build into the intervention mechanisms to sustain collaborations over

the long term and work to mobilise community assets to this end; as collaborations mature and grow,

their ability to address complex and long-range issues also grows.

2.5 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are a progressive theory of knowledge management, knowledge

creation and learning; knowledge mediation. It is a type of contextualised learning, proposing that the

learning process of an individual is much more than the cognitive process of acquisition of skills and

knowledge but situated in a social context, and it is through participation in the social context that the

learning process occurs. (Lave and Wenger, 1991)

It thus depends on a group of people, contextually defined, who share a common interest and a desire

to learn from and contribute to the community with their variety of experiences. Stated more simply, the

primary purpose of a CoP is to provide a way for practitioners to share tips and best practices, ask

questions of their colleagues, and provide support for each other.

Work on large, complex projects goes beyond the knowledge of one person to require the knowledge

and skills of people from different disciplines. They need to coordinate their activities and synthesize

their knowledge. Cross-disciplinary team participation requires an ability to negotiate team process and

participate in decision-making (Poggenpohl, 2015). It moves from primary experience through refined

reflection to explanation; moving from the tacit to the explicit.

For example, both research and practice can develop theory, theory needs to be proven through

practice, practice can flag needs for research, research can overthrow theory, and research can

improve the performance of practice. Research, theory, and practice are not isolated activities, but are

tightly interrelated.

©S Poggenpohl, 2015

Figure 4: The relationships and interplay between research, theory and practice

Communities of practice are important because they:

¾Connect people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to interact; either as frequently

or at all,

¾Provide a shared context for people to communicate

and share information, stories, and personal

experiences in a way that builds understanding and

insight,

¾Enable dialogue between people who come together

to explore new possibilities, solve challenging

problems, and create new, mutually beneficial

opportunities,

¾Stimulate learning by serving as a vehicle for

authentic communication, mentoring, coaching, and

self-reflection,

¾Capture and diffuse existing knowledge to help people improve their practice by providing a

forum to identify solutions to common problems and a process to collect and evaluate best

practices,

¾Introduce collaborative processes to groups and organizations as well as between

organizations to encourage the free flow of ideas and exchange of information,

¾Help people organize around purposeful actions that deliver tangible results and

¾Generate new knowledge to help people transform their practice to accommodate changes in

needs and technologies.

To design or set up a CoP the following steps to develop a well-defined purpose linked to the needs

and potential benefits to members, are required:

Essential elements of a CoP:

- Share experiences and know-how

- Discuss common issues and interests

- Collaborate in solving problems

- Analyse causes and contributing

factors

- Experiment with new ideas and novel

approaches

- Capture/codify new know-how

- Evaluate actions and effects

- Learning

1. Developing relationships: Interaction with and developing of a wider network of peers working

with a process of building trust, reciprocity, mutual respect and commitment.

2. Developing practice: Practice evolves with the community as a collective product, becomes

integrated into members’ work and organizes knowledge in a way that reflects practitioners’

perspectives. Successful practice development depends on a balance between “the production

of ‘things’ like documents or tools and deep learning experiences for community members.

3. Carrying out tasks and projects:Small group projects, sponsored by the community, help

members create personal relationships and also provide a way to produce the resources for

developing the practice: cases, effective practices, tools, methods, articles, lessons learned,

databases, learning tools and aids, models and the like.

4. Creating new knowledge:Members go beyond current practice to explore the cutting edge of

the domain, to innovate. Community may redefine its boundaries and membership and foster

boundary-crossing, possibly working with people from other communities to explore emerging

technologies, practices, and ideas.

Actions for the CoP are based on the premises of inquiry, design, activities, communication, interaction,

learning, knowledge sharing, collaboration, roles and social structures and piloting and roll out of the

processes.

Examples of CoPs are learning groups, innovation platforms, forums, networks and research and

implementation teams.

2.6 INNOVATION SYSTEMS

Methodologies for agricultural development and research have been designed to incorporate the

concepts of social engagement, learning, experimentation and agency into the process.

The international development community is giving increased attention to agricultural innovation

processes and systems that lead to outcomes at scale. Inclusive multi-dimensional and multi-

stakeholder learning processes are seen as important. Smallholder family farmers become more

central in the design and implementation of research processes as partners in planning and

implementation processes (Kruger and Gilles, 2014).

Key trends in Participatory Agricultural development thinking show a movement or change from:

¾Increases in production to improvement in local livelihoods,

¾Technology transfer to local innovation development,

¾Beneficiaries of projects to influential stakeholders within programmes,

¾Technology transfer to co-development of innovation systems,

¾Functional participation to empowerment and

¾Applied and adaptive research to strategic and pre-adaptive research.

Global experience shows that new ways of thinking about and doing agricultural research and

development are required. The basic paradigm shift is one of moving away from the idea that research

and development is a process of generating and transferring modern technology to farmers. And then

moving towards seeing the idea as an inclusive multi-dimensional learning process that:

¾Works from a holistic perspective that includes biophysical, socio-political and economic

perspectives in agriculture and natural resource management,

¾Draws upon diverse sources of knowledge – from local to global,

¾Provides for meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating improvements

in local situations,

¾And builds synergy between local capacities, resources and innovations by

oProviding decision support tools and information that enables various types of users to

make strategic choices and actions,

¾Which results in a wide range of knowledge products (technological through to socio-political) for

generating, sharing, exchanging and utilizing knowledge.

Now, concepts such as strategic and pre-adaptive participatory research become important as does

the idea of best practise scenarios and options and the mainstreaming of cross cutting issues and

themes. In many ways, these concepts are still in a developmental phase and are not as yet integral in

existing institutional and research cultures.

The development of methodological frameworks and processes to encompass the above themes and

goals has followed two broad tracks/lines depending to an extent, on the type of institution at work and

their overall aims; namely Participatory Action research (PAR) and Participatory Innovation

Development (PID). (Brock and Pettit, 2007).

2.7 PARTICIPATORY INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT (PID)

Participatory Innovation Development (PID) is an approach to learning and innovation that is used

in international development as part of projects and programmes relating to sustainable agriculture. The

approach involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural

problems and testing of alternative farming practices.

It has developed out of methodologies such as Farming Systems Research and Extension, PRA

(participatory rural appraisal), PLA (participatory learning and action) and Indigenous Technical

Knowledge Systems and incorporates further methodologies such as Farmer Field Schools.

This approach enables the research and development community to respond to locally defined

problems and to find solutions that build upon local knowledge and are consistent with local resources

and contexts. Moreover, by involving farmers as the users of the research process, it is more likely that

farmers would share and use (new) knowledge.

Local innovation in agriculture and natural resource management goes beyond technologies to socio-

organizational arrangements such as new ways of regulating the use of resources, new ways of

community organization, or new ways of stakeholder interaction. The term Participatory Innovation

Development (PID) embraces this broader understanding of joint research and development and is now

being used alongside, or in place of PTD (Participatory Technology Development). It is a process in

which farmers and other stakeholders engage in joint exploration and experimentation leading to new

technologies or socio-institutional arrangements for more sustainable livelihoods. This action-oriented

approach promotes engagement in a process that strengthens the capacities of agricultural services to

support community-led initiatives (Hartmann, 2009, Wettasinha et al., 2009).

The following statement in a recent publication in the agricultural development and extension field, sums

up the imperative for working with these approaches:

“Scientists are being challenged to re-consider that their role in technology development is through

innovation and a complex process involving a reorganization of social relationships, not just technical

practice. In this context, technology shifts from something to be applied to something leveraged for

networking and organizing. To ensure the future, the idea of sustainability as a dynamic process rather

than an endpoint offers a route for understanding and engagement between research, policy and

personal spheres. For both research and extension agendas; in considering traditional agriculture in

the context of economic development we have to create the capacity to co-operate in a way that opens

up the possibility of social change; a way of interacting that preserves and creates new forms of social

cohesion. Researchers will come to understand that attitude, environment and relevant issues, not

specific tools, achieves participation” (Caister et al., 2012).

Figure 5: The interplay between researchers, facilitators and farmers, indicating associated methodologies

Farmer led innovation builds on the PID concepts to include local innovations into the system and

describes the interaction between local communities and outside facilitators, as:

¾Gaining a joint understanding of the main

characteristics and changes of that particular

agroecological system,

¾Defining priority problems,

¾ Experimenting locally with a variety of options

derived both from indigenous knowledge … and

from formal science and

¾Enhancing farmer’s experimental capacities and

farmer-to-farmer communication (Wettasinha et

al., 2009, Rai and Shrestha, 2006).

The text box alongside provides an example of steps

that can be followed to implement a farmer led

innovation process.

A summary of the Farmer Led Innovation

steps

1.Getting started (getting to know each

other);

2.Joint analysis of the situation – the

problems and opportunities;

3.Looking for things to try to improve the local

situation;

4.Trying them out in community-led

participatory experimentation;

5.Jointly analysis and sharing the results; and

6.Strengthening the process, often through

improving local organization and linkages

with other actors in R&D, so that the

innovation process will continue.

PRA/PLA

Farmer to Farmer

PTD/ PID

PAR (Participatory action research)

PRA/PLA (Participatory rural

appraisal/participatory learning and

action)

Farming systems research

Farmer participatory research

PTD/PID (participatory

technology/innovation development)

FFS (Farmer field schools)

PID

Agroecology

Researcher

Developmentfacilitator/

extension/ innovator

Farmer

2.8 ADDING THE ELEMENTS TOGETHER: COACTIVE GOVERNANCE IN A CHANGING CLIMATE

The concept of coactive governance is borrowed from industry, where it is being developed to manage

service relationships. This new way shares strategy and responsibility between the client and provider

equally and allows an innovation environment to flourish. Implementing collaborative models in

enterprise environments requires organizational readiness – that is, willingness – to adopt a different

working attitude that accepts change as a condition, rather than an event (Batty, 2017).

In this process we need to combine and synergise the way people learn, what they learn and how they

incorporate this learning into changing their practice into a coherent model that can support an individual

farmer’s decision-making process about which adaptive practices to implement in their context and

farming system.

3 CLIMATE CHANGE

There is ample evidence of national and local changes in the temperature and rainfall climatology of

South Africa over at least the past five decades and a high probability that these changes will increase

in the coming decades:

xMean annual temperatures have increased by more than 1.5 times the observed global average of

0.65°C,

xMaximum and minimum temperatures have been increasing annually and in almost all seasons,

xHot and cold extremes have increased and decreased respectively in frequency, in most seasons

across the country, particularly in the western and northern interior,

xIn almost all hydrological zones there has been a marginal reduction in rainfall for the autumn

months. Annual rainfall has not changed significantly, but an overall reduction in the number of rain

days implies a tendency towards an increase in the intensity of rainfall events and increased dry

spell duration and

xExtreme rainfall events show a tendency towards increasing in frequency annually, and especially

in spring and summer, with a reduction in extremes in autumn (DEA, 2013).

Given South Africa’s present trajectory and already alarming increase in average temperatures, the

predictions of strongly increased drought, increased rainfall variability and strongly increased extreme

rainfall events into the future are all but guaranteed.

Climate change impacts on South Africa are likely to be felt primarily via effects on water resources;

with increased evapotranspiration, run-off and soil erosion and reduced surface and underground water

reserves. Significant trade-offs are likely to occur between developmental aspirations, particularly in

terms of the allocation between agricultural and urban-industrial water use, linked to the high costs of

enhancing water supply (DEA, 2017).

With regard to the impact of climate change on food security in Southern Africa, the IPPC makes the

following predictions:

xMaize-based systems, particularly in Southern Africa, are among the most vulnerable to climate

change with predicted yield losses for South Africa and Zimbabwe in excess of 30%,

xLoss of livestock under prolonged drought conditions is a critical risk given the extensive rangeland

in Southern Africa that is prone to drought,

xGroundwater recharge may also be significantly affected by climate change in areas that receive

less than 500 mm per year.

3.1 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

Small-holder farmers and pastoralists in particular are being especially hard hit by these changes. Many

of these small-scale producers are already coping with a degraded natural resource base. They often

lack knowledge about potential options for adapting their production systems and have limited assets

and risk-taking capacity to access and use technologies and financial services (SARVA, 2013).

Climate change is intricately linked to almost all facets of our society, particularly socio-economic

progression as resources such as water, feedstock in the form of food and fibre and biodiversity,

amongst others determine the production potential of many sectors of the economy, which in turn affect

human development aspirations of the country.

In South Africa, emphasis is being placed on the development of policies and strategies for climate

change mitigation, albeit slowly, with a much smaller focus on adaptation. Nonetheless, processes such

as collaborative, participatory research that includes scientists and farmers, strengthening of

communication systems for anticipating and responding to climate risks, and increased flexibility in

livelihood options, which serve to strengthen coping strategies in agriculture for near-term risks from

climate variability, provide potential pathways for strengthening adaptive capacities for climate change

(IPCC, 2014).

The IPCC defines adaptation as the “adjustments in human and natural systems in response to actual

or expected climatic stimuli or effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (ibid.).

Planned adaptations to climate risks are “most likely to be implemented when they are developed as

FRPSRQHQWVRIRUDVPRGL¿FDWLRQVWRH[LVWLQJUHVRXUFHPDQDJHPHQWSURJUDPVRUDVSDUWRIQDWLRQDO

or regional strategies for sustainable development.” (ibid.).

3.2 CLIMATE SMART / RESILIENT AGRICULTURE

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) presented its response to climate change;

an approach it has termed Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) in 2010 (FAO, 2013). In this study, the

research team opted to use the term Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA), to clearly situate the practices

promoted here within the agroecological sphere, rather than the technological and internet of things

spheres, which are also considered climate smart under the broader definition.

According to the FAO, “Enhancing food security while contributing to mitigation of climate change and

preserving the natural resource base and vital ecosystem services requires the transition to agricultural

production systems that are more productive, use inputs more efficiently, have less variability and

greater stability in their outputs, and are more resilient to risks, shocks and long-term climate variability.

More productive and more resilient agriculture requires a major shift in the way land, water, soil nutrients

and genetic resources are managed to ensure that these resources are used more efficiently” (ibid.)

CRA contributes to the achievement of sustainable development goals. It integrates the three

dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) by jointly addressing

food security and climate challenges. It is composed of three main pillars:

1. Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes,

2. Adapting and building resilience to climate change and

3. Reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible.

This approach aims to strengthen livelihoods and food security, by improving the management and use

of natural resources and adopting appropriate methods and technologies for the production, processing

and marketing of agricultural goods. The approach is entirely compatible with the idea that CRA

practices are essentially good developmental agricultural practices, applicable in and suitable for a wide

range of contexts (ibid).

Climate Smart Agriculture is the overarching approach (shown in the diagram below) that has been

used to inform this decision support process for smallholder farmers. All CSA practices have the

potential to directly benefit farmers and increase food production in the communities as a whole,

irrespective of any climate change predictions. However, they also have the capacity to buffer farmers

against any increases in temperature or changes in rainfall quantities and patterns occasioned by

climate change.

Figure 6: The FAO concept of CSA as an overarching approach to sustainable development (Arslan, 2014)

The FAO characterises CSA as an approach that:

1. Addresses the complex interrelated challenges of food security, development and climate

change and identifies integrated options that create synergies and benefits and reduce trade-

offs

2. Recognizes that these options will be shaped by specific country contexts and capacities and

by the particular social, economic and environmental situation where it will be applied

3. Assesses the interactions between sectors and the needs of different involved stakeholders

4. Identifies barriers to adoption, especially among farmers and provides appropriate solutions in

terms of policies, strategies, actions and incentives,

5. Seeks to create enabling environments through a greater alignment of policies, financial

investments and institutional arrangements

6. Strives to achieve multiple objectives with the understanding that priorities need to be set and

collective decisions made on different benefits and trade-offs

7. Prioritizes the strengthening of livelihoods, especially those of smallholders, by improving

access to services, knowledge, resources (including genetic resources), financial products and

markets

8. Addresses adaptation and builds resilience to shocks, especially those related to climate

change, as the magnitude of the impacts of climate change has major implications for

agricultural and rural development

9. Considers climate change mitigation as a potential secondary co-benefit, especially in low-

income, agricultural-based populations and

10. Seeks to identify opportunities to access climate-related financing and integrate it with

traditional sources of agricultural investment finance (FAO, 2013).

The FAO’s description of CSA makes it clear that appropriate technologies that have been developed

under different agricultural regimes can be entirely compatible with the broad concept of CRA. The

approach here is to work directly with smallholders in local contexts to improve practices and synergise

across sectors. The emphasis is thus at farm/household level. Here CRA aims to improve aspects of

crop production, livestock and pasture management, natural resource management, as well as soil and

water management as depicted in Figure 7.

From farm-basedto comprehensivedevelopmentconcepts

Conservation agriculture

Sustainable land

management

Agroecology

Organic farming

Macro

Micro

Farming

technics

Area - based

management

Multi-function

planning and policies

Climatesmart agriculture

Value

chain

Figure 7: Household level implementation of CRA integrates across sectors (adapted from Arslan, 2014)

3.3 CONCEPTS OF VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE

Vulnerability is a function of two factors:

¾Firstly, impact (exposure and sensitivity of exposure to climate change in turn)

oExposure – refers to the extent to which a system is impacted by climate change

oSensitivity – refers to how affected the system is after the exposure

¾ Secondly, adaptive capacity – the ability of the system to avoid potential damages, take

advantage of opportunities and cope with the consequences of damages. It can also be framed

as the capacity of people in a given system to influence resilience

Resilience is the ability of a system to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of

an extreme climate event in a timely and efficient manner.

Contextual vulnerability is locally focussed and considers the present as the departure point and

considers socio-economic dimensions of vulnerability as a basis for assessing future vulnerability. This

is largely a participatory process as opposed to modelling approaches that are applied at programme

and policy scales. Vulnerability and adaptation needs are contextualised with the local context and will

include factors that aren’t necessarily directly linked to climate change or CRA.

Vulnerability and resilience frameworks are different in key aspects (FAO, 2013).

The vulnerability approach tends to:

¾Be oriented towards research on hazards and risks

¾Be centred on people and more translatable to application and policy outcomes

¾Conduct assessments for single spatial scale and ‘snapshots’ in time

¾Be less focused on ecological and environmental aspects and

¾Assess present and future vulnerability from past information.

SYNERGIES

RGRG

Soil

and water

conservation

The resilience approach, on the other hand tends to:

¾Be oriented towards ecological sciences

¾Be more focused on complex interactions, feedbacks and processes of social-ecological

systems

¾Be conceptual and not easily translatable into practice

¾Assess one particular system and can often not be generalised for wider application

¾Produce more dynamic assessments (but with present methodological difficulties in measuring

and characterising)

¾Be less focused on the social aspects of social-ecological systems and

¾Assess more positively future needs by building on present assets.

However, more recently, resilience frameworks are placing more emphasis on social systems (moving

towards a social-ecological-system framework), while vulnerability frameworks are including more

environmental factors and are thus becoming more alike. Nevertheless, both frameworks are connected

through adaptive capacity assessments (FAO, 2013). Ultimately, the effect of any CRA intervention

should contribute simultaneously to reduced vulnerability and increased resilience.

3.3.1

Vulnerability assessments

Vulnerability of livelihoods is determined by the capacity of communities to replace a negatively affected

production system with one which would prevent losses in income, sustain subsistence production or

supply food to markets. Vulnerability assessments characterise areas that have low livelihood

resilience, allow for the identification of vulnerable subsectors in the community (e.g. elderly, women,

youth) and provide the basis for developing strategies to increase the resilience of livelihoods to climate

change (FAO, 2013).

A useful toolkit has been developed by the CGIAR/CCAFS (Ulrichs, Cannon, Newsham, Naess and

Marshall, 2015). This vulnerability assessment toolkit for assessing community level potential for

adaptation to climate change, can be used to understand the interrelations between climate impacts,

food systems and livelihood strategies at the local level. It applies a multidimensional view of

vulnerability of livelihood strategies to climate change, with a focus on differentiated access and

entitlements to livelihood resources and food for different groups within the community (often

determined according to gender, ethnicity and socio-economic class). It is based on a concept of five

(5) Dimensions of Vulnerability (DoV), illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8: The 5 dimensions of vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)

For each of these vulnerability dimensions a set of criteria and indicators can be developed to

benchmark the baseline conditions in a locality. A wide range of participatory approaches, techniques

and practices are available and include for example: transect walks, village mapping, historical timelines

and climate trends, well-being ranking, seasonal calendars, ranking of livelihood strategies, chaining

farming practices and crops, climate risk and coping mechanisms matrix, food system analysis and

institutional mapping and Venn diagrams

3.4 SMALLHOLDER FARMING IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CRA

Development in South Africa is inextricably tied to massive challenges rooted in both the past and in

the future. In the past, colonial appropriation and control of access to resources was taken to disastrous

extremes through the policies of apartheid; twenty-five years into democracy poverty and dispossession

still plague us. At the same time, problems anticipated in the future already loom large: South Africa as

a water stressed country can expect to face particularly difficult challenges in terms of food security due

to the increased temperatures and pests and decreased water access anticipated to result from climate

change

About 2.5 million households (15,6%) were involved in agricultural activities in South Africa in 2017.

Most of these households are found in Limpopo (25%), Eastern Cape (20%) and KwaZulu-Natal (20%).

They are mainly headed by females (52,8%) and mostly involved in the production of fruits and

vegetables (53,4%), grain and other food crops (51,8%), as well as in livestock (47,1%) and poultry

(35,3%) farming. The main source of income for these households is social grants. Furthermore, most

households involved in agricultural activities do so to supplement food for the household (43,7%)

(StatsSA, 2017).

Poverty levels in the rural areas of South Africa are difficult to assess and are now believed to be a lot

higher than the officially recorded level. Indigency, as recorded by the municipalities is around 22% of

households, meaning that these households earn less than R3200/ month (7 household members). In

2015, over half of South Africa’s population (55.5%) lived in poverty, below the poverty line – for which

the upper bound poverty line was R1 183 per person in 2018. This percentage is slowly increasing

every year. Poverty is highest in the provinces with the largest rural populations; the Eastern Cape,

Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal (Africheck, 2018). Women headed households are more vulnerable to

poverty.

Within the smallholder sector, there are distinctions based on access to land, resources and agricultural

activities pursued. The table below provides a typology of farming in South Africa, as an illustration of

these differences.

Table 1: The agrarian structure of South Africa (Cousins, 2016)

Farmers Numbers Key features

Top 20% of large-scale commercial

farmers on private land; almost all are

white

7 000 Sophisticated, specialized, capital-intensive

farmers, producing for export or for agro-

processing and large retailers; produce bulk of

produce, perhaps as much as 80%

Medium- to large-scale commercial

farmers on private land; almost all are

white

9,000 Some farmers succeed, some struggle, some

are unable to earn a living from farming alone

Small- to medium-scale commercial

farmers on private land; mostly white,

some black

19,000 Many cannot survive from farming alone;

includes hobby farmers

Small-scale black capitalist farmers in

communal areas and in land reform

contexts

5,000-10,000 Many farmers earn income from off-farm

incomes and businesses in addition to farming

Market-oriented black smallholder

farmers in communal areas and land

reform contexts, supplying tight value

chains (e.g. under contract)

5,000-10,000 Many grow fresh produce under irrigation,

others are livestock producers, and a few

engage in dryland cropping

Market-oriented black smallholder

farmers in communal areas and land

reform contexts, supplying loose value

chains

200,000-

250,000

Many grow fresh produce under irrigation, and

others are livestock producers. Few depend

wholly on farming

Subsistence-oriented smallholder farmers

growing food for themselves, and selling

occasionally

2 million-

2.5 million

Most crop production takes place in homestead

gardens, some of which are quite large.

Occasional livestock sales by some

3.4.1

Smallholder farming systems

Within smallholder farming systems people practice a mixed farming approach and use available natural

resources in the commonages. Access to resources (land, water and natural resources) depends to an

extent on what and how much is available and on the local arrangements that are in place, which are

managed through the traditional and local authorities. In theory, everyone has access; in practice this

translates to those who can leverage resources through individual influence and resourcefulness.

Mixed farming in communal tenure areas consists of homestead plots, fields and communal grazing for

livestock.

Homestead plots, as the word indicates, are situated around the farmers’ homes and range in size

from around 500 m2 to around 0,5 hectares. These plots may or may not be fenced and in the more

formally planned villages will have some access to a municipal supply of water. Water supply however

is severely restricted in most cases to the municipal allocation of 20 litres per person per day – and only

if that water is available. Shared, communal standpipes outside people’s yards are the most common

form of access to water. This means that for around 90% of smallholders, they only have access to as

much water as they can carry to their homes on any given day. This water is used primarily for

household needs. This means that dryland cropping is still common even within homestead plots and

that more intensive productive activities such as vegetable and fruit production and rearing of small

livestock usually is done only if additional sources of water can be accessed, either through the

municipal systems, which is not common, or through access to springs and streams nearby. A very

limited number of individuals have their own boreholes.

Fields are generally allocated to individuals and are often not in direct proximity to the homesteads.

Sizes range from 0,1-5 ha, averaging around 1 ha in size. Historically these have been used primarily

for field cropping grains (maize, sorghum, millet), pumpkin species and legumes (sugar beans). Fields

may be fenced or unfenced and are worked by hand or by paying for private or government-based

mechanisation services. At this scale, a number of group projects exist in the communal tenure areas

and in some cases, projects run by government and non-government organisations have included

irrigation options. A very small percentage (around 1-5%) of individuals have set up their own irrigation

systems.

Communal grazing is managed on a village level and livestock are allowed to graze in and around the

villages and fields in winter months and adjacent veld, bush and hillsides during summer. Individual

smallholders often have kraals for their livestock and pay towards herding and dipping systems for their

livestock. Mostly these systems apply to cattle and sheep. In the past goats were not herded, but due

to increasing pressure on grazing areas and conflicts related to livestock destroying crops and gardens

this is becoming more common. Rangeland management is notoriously difficult in these communal

tenure areas and the quality and quantity of grazing appears to be in an almost continual decline.

Systems for fodder production, supplementary feeding and rotational grazing are not widespread.

Natural resources are harvested extensively for firewood, thatch, reed and grass crafts, food (e.g. wild

leafy greens) and medicinal purposes. Very few systems for control, management and regeneration of

natural resources are currently in place and in addition wide scale poverty and population pressure in

the communal tenure areas have led to overuse of resources and denuding of the commons.

In the author’s experience, access to water for both household and agricultural purposes is considered

the main limiting factor by smallholder farmers. The figure below outlines the typical average monthly

water demand of a household. Most households receive around one fifth of this allocation of water.

Figure 9: Household water requirements and access (Kruger, 2016)

3.4.1.1Climate change impacts on smallholder farming systems

The more extreme weather patterns with increased heat, decreased precipitation and more extreme

rainfall events; increase of natural hazards such as floods, droughts, hailstorms and high winds that

characterise climate change place additional pressure on smallholder farming systems and MDF has

found that this has already led to severe losses in crop and vegetable production and mortality in

livestock. A significant proportion of smallholders have abandoned agricultural activities and this

number is still on the increase. Smallholders are generally not well prepared for these more extreme

weather conditions and experience high levels of increased vulnerability as a consequence (Manderson

et al., 2016).

It is becoming clear that climate change will have drastic consequences for low-income and otherwise

disadvantaged communities. Despite their vulnerability, these communities will have to make the most

climate adaptations (Fenton et al., 2015). It is possible for individual smallholders to manage their

agricultural and natural resources better and in a manner that could substantially reduce their risk and

vulnerability generally and more specifically to climate change. Through a combination of best bet

options in agroecology, water and soil conservation, water harvesting, conservation agriculture and

rangeland management a measurable impact on livelihoods and increased productivity can be made

(Hansford, 2010.)

3.5 LOCAL AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN CRA

Most of the CRA practices with which the project will be concerned are likely to be quite site-specific,

which makes local and traditional knowledge extremely relevant for implementing such practices at a

ground (community) level. It should be acknowledged that some of the CRA practices correspond with

many existing local practices. Local and traditional knowledge is deeply embedded in many

communities and the associated practices are considered cost effective and easy to scale out to other

communities.

The literature indicates that for adoption of CRA practices to be successful it should be built on existing

local and traditional knowledge (FAO, 2013). However, local understanding of the practices and reasons

to take up a practice often differs to that in the scientific domain. It is important for development

practitioners and researchers to have some understanding of the local and traditional knowledge to

allow better implementation of improved practices (e.g. CRA practices). Building links between the

scientific information and local and traditional knowledge presents a potential opportunity for developing

a holistic approach for dealing with the negative impacts of climate change at community level. The

Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) is implementing a programme to increase

resilience in the Olifants River Basin – the approach, involving systemic social learning, is one example

of this (Kruger and Selala, 2017) (AWARD, 2017).

It is important to note that the depths of such knowledge and the implementation of such practices

varies considerably between communities in different areas across South Africa. In areas with a long

continuous tradition of indigenous agricultural practices, such knowledge is strong and the practices

well understood. Such areas include much of Limpopo Province, and the coastal sections of the former

Transkei homeland in the Eastern Cape Province, historically inhabited by the amaPondo and

amaThembu clans. However, in many other areas – such as those to which people were forcibly

relocated during the establishment of the former homelands – there is not such a long continuous

tradition and many of the farming practices have been derived from people’s acquaintance, often as

farm labourers, with the conventional agriculture practiced by the white commercial farmers. Even in

these areas, however, it is possible to find traditional practices such as ‘matamo’ (construction of small

ponds) or ’gelesha’ (ripping the ground to improve infiltration, prior to planting) (Denison and Manona,

2007).

Communities are already needing to use local, traditional and indigenous knowledge to help cope with

the negative impact of climate change. This includes knowledge of food preservation techniques (e.g.

fermentation and sun drying), knowledge of indigenous plants (e.g. for use in natural pest control), seed

selection to avoid drought and disease control in livestock. The list below shows some other local and

traditional practices which correspond with CRA principles and practices:

¾Seasonal weather forecasting (Use of shift in seasonal migration for birds as an indicator

for weather forecasting)

¾Selection of seed to avoid the risk of drought and pests

¾Water harvesting techniques (e.g. roof water harvesting)

¾Use of ash for seed preservation

¾Soil and water conservation using planting basins, furrows and ridges

¾Use of sunken and raised beds to accommodate for water holding capacity and soil types

¾Mixed cropping or intercropping and diversification

¾Use of supplementary feed for livestock

¾Preservation of pasture for use by young, lactating and sick animals in cases of drought

¾Transhumance to avoid risk of livestock loss

¾Culling of weak livestock for food

¾Diversification in the herd to survive climate extremes (Kruger and Selala, 2017).

CRA may provide a valuable opportunity to revive local and traditional knowledge and practices, as

they have considerable potential for amelioration of some of the negative impacts of climate change on

small-scale agriculture.

4 DECISION SUPPORT PROCESSES

This project aims to design a framework of methodologies, associated processes and a selection of

best bet practices, informed by the issues that have been discussed, which can be used to assess,

implement and monitor likely local CRA strategies. The practices themselves are discussed in the

accompanying handbook.

Within the climate change community, decision support systems for climate smart agriculture options

at a local level have thus far been designed in top-down processes – using climatic, geographic and

demographic databases and information to select a range of appropriate practices on regional level as

for example through USAID, Care International and FAO. Generally, a DSS is currently seen as a

computer, or perhaps more saliently, internet-based system, which enables large amounts of diverse

information to be analysed in order for managers to reach rational decisions.

A recent review, discusses the different types of models presently available and along with equation-,

agent and geographic-based models, discusses more participatory models as well (Nay, Chu,

Gallagher and Wright, 2014). Their conclusion is that it is advisableto adopt approaches incorporating

both technical and social components in a DSS.

The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has developed a decision

support system for identifying appropriate CRA practices; described as a set of filters for evaluating

CRA options & establishing CRA investment portfolios for National and sub-national decision makers

donors, NGOs, implementers (CGIAR, 2017).

Here however, we are focussing the decision support process on a bottom-up approach, where

individual farmers in a locality make decisions regarding the ‘basket’ of CRA approaches and practices

most suited to their specific situation. To do this in a way that also includes the concepts of social

learning, innovation and agency the following decision support concept has been developed.

4.1 WHAT GOES INTO THE CRA SMALL SCALE FARMER DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM

Using a systemic approach and social learning from a socio-ecological perspective, the model consists

of a number of layers of input parameters or filters used to define a basket of best bet CRA options for

a specific smallholder farmer, using a combination of participatory processes linked to technical

databases.

The process is designed to also support and assist the facilitator in their decision making, in support of

the smallholder farmers; meaning that the facilitator accesses information such as the basic climate

change predictions for the area, the agroecological characteristics including rainfall, temperature, soil

texture, etc.) and an initial contextualised basket of CRA practices from which to negotiate prioritized

practices with farmers. Practices are thus chosen by both facilitators and farmers.

Figure 10: The Small-Scale Farmer Decision Support System

The model is designed primarily as a participatory and facilitated process at community level. In support

of this process a computer-based model can be used alongside this methodology to provide further

information and decisions support to the facilitator. It is also possible for a farmer to access this model

independently to derive an initial basket of CRA practice options for themselves.

The computer model information flow is designed as shown in the figure below and follows the same

basic steps as the facilitated model shown in Figure 10.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: Climate and

geographical parameters; GPS coordinates,

agroecological zones, soil texture, slope and soil

organic carbon content

PRACTICES: Database of CRA practices including; managing

available water, improving access to water, controlling soil

movement, improving soil health and fertility, crop management,

integrated crop-livestock management, veld management and veld

rehabilitation

raphical parameters;

coordinates,

roecolo

ical zones, soil texture, slope and soil

organ

c car

on content

movement, improvin

soil health and fertilit

, crop

ement,

nte

rate

crop

vestoc

mana

ement, ve

mana

ement an

ilit

Figure 11: The computer-based model for the smallholder DSS

In our case the set of criteria (proxies used as indicators for the complex reality) that helps to make

informed decisions on management practices are:

¾The current farming systems; gardening, field cropping, livestock production and natural

resource management (NRM) (including trees),

¾The physical environment: agroecological zone, soil texture, slope and organic soil carbon and

¾The socio-economic background of the farmer; demographic information (gender HH head,

age, dependency ratio), level of education, sources of income (unemployment vs. external

employment, own business, grants, farm, etc.), total income, access to services, infrastructure,

technology (Electricity, water (tap, borehole, rainwater harvesting, etc.), irrigation (buckets,

standpipes, etc.), fencing and farming tools (hand vs traction/other), social organisation,

market access (formal vs. informal), farm size and farming purpose (food vs. selling).

Besides this, the resources and related management strategies as well as a list of practices need to be

provided as input to the system. All information, except the physical environment; i.e. climate, soil and

topography, and the resources and management strategies, are derived through the use of a range of

participatory processes. Data on the physical environmental conditions have been taken from datasets

freely available online. This information can however be customised by the DSS user, in case more

appropriate information is available for the specific farmer concerned.

For the Facilitator-Farmer DSS the resources and related management strategies are discussed and

negotiated in the participatory process. For the computer based or Individual Farmer DSS these are

provided as an input into the model using the framework shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Resources to manage and their associated management strategies

The practices have been identified by both farmers and South African development experts, as well as

desk top reviews.

4.2 HOW DOES THE FACILITATOR-FARMER DSS WORK?

In effect, the DSS discussed above is a way of providing and making sense of information. This

information is contextualised in a social learning system (a group of people learning and implementing

together) using the framework shown in Figure 13.

Activities and

processes

Local good practice Climate Change Farmer level

experimentation to test

practices

CoPs and innovation

platforms

Best practise

options

Impacts of climate

change

Introduction of new

practices and ideas to

Benchmarking for visual

indicators

Stakeholder

ements

Adaptive strategiesLearning and mentoring

Materials and

information

Appropriate practices Assessment of

outcomes and impacts

internet based

platform

Cyclical, iterative

learning and

implementation

Facilitator-Farmer Decision Support System

Figure 13: A systemic view of the Facilitator-Farmer DSS indicating associated activities and processes

The DSS thus incorporates the whole system of social learning and innovation, in an iterative process

that can lead to social change and agency in climate change adaptation, as depicted in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Social learning, innovation and building agency is an iterative process that includes careful monitoring

and evaluation

Agency

Innovation

Social

learning

Indicators: qualitative and

quantitative, process,

output, outcome and impact

indicators

Cyclical analysis,

planning, implementation

and review (monitoring

and evaluation)

5 HOW TO FACILITATE THE FACILITATOR-FARMER DSS

An assumption made is that entry into a community has already been made and that it is possible to

arrange a community level meeting for interested participants.

This means that an introductory workshop explaining the process would need to be held first, before

launching into the short series of 3 climate change adaptation (CCA) workshops. The intention of these

workshops is also to create and strengthen the learning group, to enable the social learning process to

unfold.

In addition, as baseline survey is important to understand the existing conditions in the locality. These

baselines also provide the information for the individual DSS process in terms of the environmental

conditions and vulnerability criteria for the individual (socio-economic criteria and typology).

5.1 BASELINE SURVEY

Generally, this is done during the 1st CCA workshop when individual household visits are undertaken,

but can also be a stand-alone exercise conducted at the beginning of a CRA intervention

5.1.1

The baseline survey questionnaire

Date Area

VillageGPS

Surname First name

Cellno

ID number

Gender ⋒⋓⋕⋖Household

head (Y/N)

Education

Members of Social

organisation/s

(describe), e.g. savings

group, learning group,

etc.)

No of Adults in

household (HH)

No of children

Income sources (grants,

employment,

remittances, other –

specify)

Level of

income –

monthly per

household)

Type of grant (s) – add

in no

Child Support Old Age Foster care

Scale of operation 0,1-1 ha 1-2 ha >2 ha

Farming activities

Garden (size) Fields (size) Livestock (No)

Cattle

Goats

Chickens

Other:

Nat resources –

specify

Trees

Indigenous plants

Resources and

infrastructure

Water (list – tick

and describe)

– tap

– standpipe

– RWH

– Other

HH infrastructure

– dwellings

– electricity

– fencing

– other

Farming

infrastructure and

tools (list

Other

Other livelihood activities

(list)

Market access

(describe)

Training and advice

(Name sources of

support)

5.1.2

Example of a baseline survey

The responses to these questionnaires can be input into an excel sheet and coded to be able to

summarise information from a number of different participants and get an indication of the ‘profile’ of

the participants involved. Below are two bar charts summarising information for 41 participants across

7 villages in KZN, EC and Limpopo as an example. The charts summarise the livelihoods and resource

indicators of the questionnaires.

Figure 15: Socio-economic baseline information from a survey conducted for 41 participants (April 2019

Figure 16: Access to resources, indicated as a percentage for 41 participants (April 2019)

5.2 COMMUNITY LEVEL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ANALYSIS – OUTLINE OF THE 3

WORKSHOPS

In these community level workshops/dialogues facilitation tools have been designed that can assist in

the analysis. A number of different tools have been designed for the following explorations/workshop

activities: Differentiating between weather and climate change, unpacking changes in the environment

73%

12%

76%

73%

80%

20%

61%

22%

51%

37%

49%

78%

73%

90%

12%

27%

41%

90%

0,1 - 1 ha

1-2 ha

>2 ha

Gardens

Field cropping

Livestock, chickens

No other livelihood activities

Fruit trees

Indigenous plants

Tap water

Standpipe

Borehole

RWH storage

Electricity

Fencing

Hand tools

Traction; incl animal

Market access

Local markets

Training and advice

Farm

scale

operatio

Farming

activities

Natu

ral

reso

urces

infrastructure

Farm

ing

infra

struc

ture

Liveliho

ods

Baseline information: Access to resources (N=41)

29,0

51,2

3,2

2,8

1,14

2,33

5,77

Gender (F)

Average Age

Household head

Primary school

High school

Tertiary

Social organisation

Learning group

Savings group

School gardening group

Farmer's cooperative

No of adults in HH

No of children

Dependency ratio

Grants

Salary

Income from veg sales

Income (in R1 000.00) - unemployed

Income (in R1 000.00) - employed

Baseline information: Socio-economic (N=41)

Total

and livelihoods, assessing those most affected by climate change, exploring impacts of climate change

and exploring current practices and adaptations already being implemented to respond to these

changes.

Below is a chronology of steps or processes to be undertaken at community level, assuming there is

already some level of relationship and interest. These steps work towards building a CoP /learning

group:

¾Understanding climate change and impact (academic understanding, community

understanding)

¾Climate change and agriculture (farmers’ roles and responsibilities, current

practices/challenges)

¾Changes, reasons and responses (what are we doing already, what do we think we can do that

will help, willingness to change)

¾Discussions around change (most important problems, what do we foresee in the future based

on what we are doing, effectiveness of our adaptation responses)

¾Who do we want to work with (outside organisations, local institutions, learning groups, other

community organisations? Are there new relationships or new ways of working together that

can help)

¾Is anyone doing new and interesting things (local innovations to consider – what has been tried

and how well has it worked?)

¾ Introduction of practices:

oReality map (present agricultural practices and impact)

oWalk about in village

o Desktop review for appropriate practices or to research practices suggested by

participants

o Focusgroup discussions

oPrioritising (defining criteria)

oPractices that mostly match criteria (short visual introductions for likely doable practices

in the area, introduce about 5 practices – facilitator’s judgement call) Link to local

practices

oRanking exercise linking criteria to practices

oLearning group members choose practices they would like to implement or experiment

with. This could mean:

Subgroups dealing with different topics (e.g. gardens, fields livestock)

Whole learning group doing practices in succession (e.g. start with gardens

first)

Defining a chronology of activities, e.g. start with trench beds and mulching,

then implement diversion ditches and stone bunds, etc.

Individuals choose an initial set of 5 practices for example and then upon

review decide how to build on that in a following season.

oImplementation, training and mentoring, demos, cross visits, specialists (sources of

expertise), lead farmers

o Monitoring and review.

5.3 CCA WORKSHOP 1:CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS – IMPACT AND ADAPTIVE MEASURES

This workshop runs over a period of two days.

Facilitation steps proposed are as follows:

1. Contextualization: Natural resources (facilitators need to look at provincial climate change

databases before the workshop and discuss with people how these will affect them). Facilitation

tools for this exercise include: A4 impact pictures or a PP presentation – of floods, droughts,

erosion, declining natural resource base, declining yields, etc.)

2. Look at the difference between variability in weather and climate change. Facilitation tools for this

exercise include: A climate change role play

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

Facilitation tools for this exercise include: Seasonal diagrams on temperature and rainfall – normal

and how these are changing

4. Timeline in terms of agriculture. Facilitation tools for this exercise include: Livelihoods and farming

timelines – assessment of past, present and future

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

future) and challenges/responses. Facilitation tools for this exercise include the climate change

impact mind mapping exercise

6. Current practices and responses (effectiveness of responses). Facilitation tools for this exercise

include outlining adaptive measures on mind map and doing matrix ranking exercise for different

adaptive measures.

Using these facilitation steps a workshop process has been designed and tested. Below is a summary

of the workshop outline followed by short descriptions of the facilitation tools.

5.3.1

Outline of the two-day workshop

Community level climate change adaptation exploration workshop outline

DAY 1

Time Activity Process Notes Materials Who

9:00am INTRODUCTION

9:00-

9:45am

Community and

team

introductions

In pairs, take 5 minutes

to talk to each other.

Then introduce each

other to the group.

Choose a person you

don’t know well (both

team and community).

[include Name and

surname, farming

activities (garden, field,

livestock natural

resources), income from

farming]

Depending on the

size of the group,

this can take a long

time. If time is

short, then just do a

quick round of

introductions.

Attendance register– with

columns for farming

enterprises (so that each

participant can tick what

they do) – in English and

Zulu/Pedi. Name tags;

stickers, kokis

Materials

and

logistics:

Facilitation:

Recording:

Purpose of the

day

Introduction of the

organisation/s and

purpose of this

workshop – link to

already ongoing

activities if possible and

introduce visitors and

other stakeholders

involved

Talk to CC

necessitating

adaptation from us

– we may need to

change how we do

things and what we

do to – This w/s is

to help us explore

options for such

changes

Flip stand, newsprint, kokis,

data projector, screen,

extension cables, plugs –

double adaptors. Black

refuse bags and masking

tape (for blacking out

windows), camera – and

one person to undertake to

take photos throughout the

day. Extra batteries for

camera and sim card

Materials

and

logistics:

Facilitation:

Recording:

9:50am PRESENT SITUATION

9:50-

10:30am

Present

livelihoods and

farming

situation –

discuss impacts

related to CC

Use a series of impact

pictures – from the local

situation. Include the 5

categories (and describe

them to the group) –

water management

(increased efficiency

and access), soil

management (erosion

control, fertility, health),

crops, livestock and

natural resources

Impact pictures –

either PPT or

printed on A4 to

facilitate dialogue

(or both).

Record community

comments)

Power point presentation

pictures

PPT :

Facilitation:

10:30am PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE

10:30-

11:30am

Discuss farming

activities as

they have

changed, what

they are now

and what may

happen in the

future if the

present trends

continue

SMALL GROUPS (5-10

people): facilitated

discussion on farming

activities (include the 5

categories) – prompt for

all five and keep

conversation focussed

Facilitate a shorter

plenary discussion on

how things are changing

(if time is pressing)

Important to note

and record any

discussions around

changes and

adaptations – so

things people are

already doing to

accommodate for

changes – also

where they are not

sure what to do

Small groups; each needs a

facilitator and recorder

Facilitation:

Recording:

11:30am-

12:00pm

TEA Fruit (apples, oranges, biscuits, juice and water, paper cups (lots) and plates…

Generous helpings – and lots of juice if it is hot. Find someone to be in charge

of food and refreshments, while the rest of the workshop continues

12:00am CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS

12:00-

12:50pm

Summary of

predictions for

the locality

(from scientific

basis) [15 min]

Present to group– using

flipchart or power point

– Keep it simple with

brief bold statements

that can be

remembered. Include

concepts of certainty –

and CC scenarios –

unmitigated, neutral and

mitigated

Facilitation:

Recording:

Weather vs

Climate [10

min]

Role play; phone

conversation – weekend

visit for weather,

relocating to an area for

seasonality/climate.

Check in with

participants how

they understand the

difference from the

role play

Facilitation:

Seasonality

diagrams [25

min]

SMALL GROUPS (5-10

people): facilitated

discussion on

temperatures for each

month of the year – in a

normal year and then

discuss how this is

changing and going to

change. Start with the

hottest month and then

the coldest month as

reference points

Do temperature first

or if the group is

small and works

quickly include

rainfall then on the

same chart.

Easy to use kebab sticks

bought from supermarket

for this. Small groups; each

needs a facilitator and

recorder

Facilitation:

Recording:

1:00pm REALITY/IMPACT MAPS

1:00-

2:00pm

Impact of CC

mind map

SMALL GROUPS (5-10

people): facilitated

discussion – MIND MAP

of livelihood and farming

impacts (using the 5

categories) using Hotter

(drier) as the starting

point – LINKAGES

between cards on the

mind map – make

arrows (and include

more cards if need be

and discuss (e.g. hotter

soils, lead to poor

germination lead to poor

yields lead to hunger)

Prompt for social,

economic,

environmental

impacts as well if

these don't come

up in the group…

Small groups; each needs a

facilitator and recorder

Facilitation:

Recording:

2:00-

2:30pm

Possible

adaptive

measures

POSSIBLE

SOLUTIONS: things that

people know, have

changed, have tried and

or are trying, to deal with

the changes. Use

different coloured cards

to attach these solutions

to the mind map. If

participants are

struggling then rephrase

the -ve impact

statements into a +ve

outcome and ask what

actions are possible.

Also make a

separate list on

newsprint of names

of people trying

things plus the

innovation they are

trying (this is to

facilitate h/h visits

on day 2)

The cards need to be

written in local language

with smaller translations in

English written in on the

cards as well (to avoid the

need for later translations)

Facilitation:

Recording:

2:30-

2:45pm

CLOSURE REPORT BACKS – of

possible solutions

PLANNING FOR DAY 2

– choose 3-4

participants for

household visits and ask

for a small group of

other interested

individuals to join.

Decide on venue and

time (12 noon) for

continuing with practices

Households to be

within walking

distance hopefully.

Otherwise drive

these 3-4

participants around

and meet for focus

group thereafter

Rapporteurs need to be

chosen from the group to

summarise the solutions in

the report backs [5

min/group]

Facilitation:

Recording:

LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals – ~R45 per head (Rice and stew with one

veg… or something similar)

DAY 2

9:00am HOUSEHOLD VISITS

9:00 am-

12:00pm

To look at local

adaptations and

innovations

To assess the

household situations

To start to elucidate

criteria people use to

make choices and

decisions

Use questionnaire

and fill in through

semi structured

interview and

observations

Questionnaires to contain

the following info:

• Head of household

(male/female)

• No of adults

• No of children

(dependency ratio)

• Income sources

• Level of income

• Scale of operation: 0,1-1

ha, 1-2 ha, > 2 ha

• Farming activities:

Gardens, fields, livestock

,trees

• Market access

• Other activities

• Resources

• Water access

• Infrastructure

• Knowledge and skills

• Literacy rate

• Social organisation

Facilitation:

Recording:

Team meets in evening (BEFORE DAY 2) to discuss mind maps and lists of solutions and

choose a range of practices from the database to present (5-10). Also, summarise criteria that

came from the household visit discussions.

TEA Packed tea for on the go to share with household members

12:00 PRACTICES

12:00-

1:00pm

New ideas/

practices/

innovations

Recap and summary of

day 1

Introduce a selection of

new practices _power

point and A4s (chosen

the night before by

facilitation team to

match the general sense

of what participants

need ideas for or what

they are trying (to

improve upon those).

Provide descriptions and

get questions and

comments

Select the 5-10

practices

beforehand and

make sure there

are 3-4 copies of

the A4s for the

small groups and or

a power point

presentation –

record comments

from participants

Sets of practices (A 4s),

attendance registers

Materials

and

logistics:

Facilitation:

Recording:

1:00-

1:20pm

Criteria for

selection of

practices

In plenary present

criteria, discuss with

group and add more

(prompt for criteria to

relate to five categories

(e.g. saving and using

water well, increasing

access to water,

improving organic

matter, increasing soil

health, increasing

natural resources....

etc.) along with criteria

like cost, labour, time....

Choose 5-7/8

criteria max. Some

criteria can be

made from two into

one…

Flipchart, newsprint, kokis Facilitation:

Recording:

1:20-

2:00pm

Prioritization of

practices

SMALL GROUPS:

Choose a selection of

practices from their own

suggestions and new

ideas presented (5-10)

and assess them using

the criteria chosen in a

matrix.

Let the group

decide for each

square using a

scale of 0-2 where

0 = bad or little,

1 = ok to medium

and 2 = a lot to

good.

Newsprint, kokis. Small

group facilitator and

recorder

Facilitation:

Recording:

2:00pm WAY FORWARD

2:00-

2:30pm

Each individual choses their practices

Set up sessions in the coming months to

refine choices and start on demonstrations

and training in implementation of practices

and farmer experimentation

Choose 'volunteers' for joint /group

experimentation per site

Learning sessions Put together a list for each

small group for each

individual to record their

name, surname, tel /cell

phone and practices

Facilitation:

Recording:

LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals – (Rice and stew with one veg… or something

similar)

CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS:

Hotter 1-4 degrees Celsius For every month of the

year

HIGH probability/ Certainty

Less rainSimilar amount of rain but over a

shorter period of time (fewer

rainy days per season)

This will lead to an

overall drying effect in

the environment

MEDIUM certainty

Greater intensity of rainfall

More rain in spring and or more

rain in summer

Storms LOW certainty

Longer term Greater frequency of droughts under scenarios 1 and 2 Scenario 1– Business as

usual; Scenario 2 – Stabilise

emissions; Scenario 3 –

Reduce emissions

Greater frequency of extreme rainfall events under scenarios

1 and 2

5.3.2

Facilitation tools

5.3.2.1The weather and climate roleplay

Requirements: Two co-facilitators prepare a small role play of a telephone conversation

beforehand.

Aim: To explore as a group the difference in concepts of weather and climate

Activity: A small role play of a telephone conversation is prepared and presented (no more

than 5 min) in two parts – one where a conversation about the weather is presented and the

second, a short conversation about climate. The group is asked how this conversation shows

the difference between weather and climate and what they think it means.

1. The facilitator opens the session by acknowledging how most of us have now heard stories of

“climate change”, what it is, what it concerns. It can be very confusing. Therefore, it is important to

create an understanding of what climate is and how it is different from weather.

2. The facilitator introduces the concept of weather, as the familiar concept we encounter every day

and consider in short timeframes, e.g. we can’t know what the weather will be like in a month’s time,

but we can have a pretty good idea what the weather will be like tomorrow. The facilitator then

introduces the telephone role play around the weather and two co-facilitators do a quick role-play.

a. Co-facilitator A: [Calling] Hi Phindile!

b. Co-facilitator B: Hi Itumeleng

c. Co-facilitator A: I am going to come visit you in [village name] for the weekend. What is the

weather like? What should I wear?

d. Co-facilitator B:It’s going to be a bit cold this weekend, so bring a warm jacket, some jeans

and socks

3. The facilitator introduces the concept of climate, noting that it is the patterns of temperature and

rainfall over a long period of time and again introduced the telephone role play:

a. Co-facilitator A: [Calling] Hi Phindile!

b. Co-facilitator B: Hi Itumeleng

c. Co-facilitatorA: I’m really looking forward to moving to [village name]. I’m currently sorting

out my packing. What kind of clothes should I pack seeing that I will be living there for at

least the next few years? What are your summers and winters typically like?

d. Co-facilitator B: We’ll, we have long hot wet summers so pack lots of t-shirts and an

umbrella. The winters aren’t that cold though. So, no need for a lot of thick jackets.

4. The facilitator asks for comments from participants about what they saw and how they understand

the difference between weather and climate.

5.3.2.2Climate impact overview in pictures

This is a session where the facilitator provides the context for the process of working in climate change

adaptation and discusses with participants some of the impacts of climate and climate variability on

their environment. It is best to collect photographs relevant to the participants and the locality, where

they can easily recognise their area.

Below are a few examples.

(from H. Smith, 2018)

5.3.2.3Seasonality diagrams for temperature and rainfall

Requirements: A1 newsprint paper, kokis and a selection of thin sticks that can be broken into

different lengths easily. One can buy kebab sticks from a local supermarket, if it is difficult to

collect thin straight sticks in the area.

Aim: to explore participants’ experience of a changing climate

Activity: To explore with participants their understanding of rainfall and temperature in a

typical year in their areas and then to overlay on this typical year the changes they have been

experiencing.

5.3.2.3.1Temperature Seasonality Diagram

1. Participants break into small groups of 5-10 participants. It will be very helpful if participants can be

in groups with others who work/live in the same area as they do. This is because rainfall patterns

and temperature can differ quite substantially from area to area.

2. Temperature chart for a typical year:

2.1. The facilitator draws an x and y axis on a blank flipchart, and asks the participants:

How many months are there in the year? Can you please write down the months evenly spaced

along this line (indicating the x axis)?

2.2. The facilitator begins to discuss temperatures by asking the following: In this area

where you work/live, which month is typically the hottest month? Which month is typically the

coldest month?

2.3. The facilitator asks participants to use the sticks to represent the temperature, using a

short stick to indicate the coldest month and a long stick to indicate the hottest month. All other

months fall between the shortest and longest stick

2.4. Continue with the process by guiding participants to put in sticks to represent the

temperatures of the other months. For example, ask: Is January hotter than February but cooler

than December? If so, then January will have a longer stick than February, but a shorter stick

than December, correct?

Notes:

¾The chart should reflect a typical year, and not necessarily the past/current year.

¾7KHFKDUWGRHVQRWKDYHWREHSHUIHFWO\DFFXUDWHHJDFWXDOPHDVXUHPHQWVRIÛ&5DWKHU

it is based on the impressions and lived experiences of participants. Here, we are using

sticks to indicate the relative difference of average temperature between months.

¾There are no right or wrong answers, even when there are disagreements.

¾All participants should reach an agreement that the chart now roughly represents monthly

temperatures in a typical year in their area. Some may not agree at all. Acknowledge this

difference, but ask them if it would be okay to accept the chart as is just for the sake of

going through the exercise.

3. Temperature chart under climate change:

3.1. Participants can be asked how much the temperature is increasing in each month and

this can be added by drawing in a line with koki above the stick for each month. If the

participants are not confident here, then the facilitator demonstrates how the temperature

increases for all the months (i.e. it gets hotter). Note that the approach is that of “show-and-tell”

instead of asking prompting questions.

Note: This part of the exercise shows in a tangible

way what it would look like if the average

temperature increases for all seasons. Again, this

additional length does not need to be super

accurate. As long as it demonstrates that when we

speak about “average temperatures increasing by

Û&´WKLVPHDQVWKDWHYHU\PRQWKZLOOOLNHO\EHD

bit hotter.

On the right is an example of a temperature

seasonal diagram produced in Limpopo (AWARD

AgriSi programme, 2018)

5.3.2.3.2Rainfall seasonality diagram

1. Rainfall chart for a typical year:

This chart follows the same process as the one produced for temperature; where the months are written

on the x-axis and the amount of rainfall for a typical year, is depicted with different lengths of sticks.

2. Rainfall chart under climate change:

2.1. The facilitator introduces climate change by giving the following explanation: Climate

change can mean various changes to the rainfall. One possible change is the timing of rainfall

being shifted later. For example, some of the rain in October/November may only come in

December… (While explaining this, facilitator takes the stick for, e.g. November and breaks a

piece off to add to December)

…and the rainy season may end earlier (While explaining this, facilitator takes the stick for, e.g.

April and breaks a piece off to add to March., or removes it entirely if there is no rainfall).

2.2. The facilitator asks the following question: How do these changes affect the pattern of

rainfall? And explains further that the rainfall amount for the year may stay the same, but it is

concentrated in fewer months and another possible change is that there could be more rainfall

(While explaining this, the facilitator adds a bar to the likely month where rainfall is increased,

to lengthen the sticks, similar to what was done with temperature)

2.3. The facilitator wraps-up this part of the activity by stating: With rainfall, there are

multiple ways that it can change. This presents a special challenge. Why? Because we have to

consider multiple scenarios instead of one. For example, we need to address both dry periods

and flooding.

Notes:

¾This exercise should show how rainfall patterns and distribution can change and not necessarily

just the volume of annual rainfall. For example, demonstrate how rainfall can be concentrated

into fewer months with more extended dry periods between “wet” seasons.

¾Use words like could or likely instead of will.

¾Remember that we are not trying to communicate an accurate prediction here (i.e. “this is how

your rainfall will decrease in the future”). Rather, we are trying to demonstrate how rainfall

patterns could change from how they are now.

¾If participants ask if climate change will “cause more drought and/or floods” or

“increase/decrease rainfall”, then you can say at a global level, warmer climate is expected to

increase extreme events such as droughts and floods, but these changes may not happen

everywhere in South Africa because it has very diverse climate.

On the right is an example of a rainfall seasonal diagram produced in Limpopo (AWARD AgriSi

programme, 2018). Note that the rainfall under climate change is likely to increase in some of the

summer months, decrease in winter months

and that a longer period without rainfall is likely

(the red line stretching from April-September)

5.3.2.3.3Plenary discussion

As groups complete their charts, these are

pasted onto the wall for all to see. When the

charts are completed,the facilitator asks: We’ve

talked about what climate change could look

like, how it can change what we now see as a

“typical year” regarding temperature and

rainfall. Reflecting on this, how do you think this

change will impact you and your work?

With this question, the facilitator leads the group

into the next activity.

5.3.2.4Timeline of farming activities

Requirements: A1 newsprint paper and kokis

Aim: This exercise is designed for participants to explore their farming practices and how these

have changed over time, as well as trends into the future. This exercise helps to unpack trends

in farming, issues with management practices and to pin point areas where immedaite activity

is required.

Activity: Brainstorm in plenary, with recording undertaken by the facilitator

1. The facilitator asks: In the past (10-20years ago) what did your farming look like? What did you

do? How did you live? And records a summary of the responses on newsprint

2. The facilitator then asks: And now in the present what does your farming look like? What has

changed? And records a summary of the responses on newsprint

3. And then the facilitator asks: If these changes continue what will farming and your lives look

like in the future (10-20yrs from now)?

Notes:

¾The facilitator needs to dig deeper into some of the issues coming up and also ensure that the

group as a whole participates and remains engaged in the conversation. If for example a

participant makes a statement such as “Now there is less grazing for cattle”, the facilitator needs

to probe, and ask why? – Are there more cattle, has the quality of grazing changed, has grazing

reduced due to climatic conditions, is there less access to grazing areas and so on.

¾It is important to elucidate and clearly show trends that are taking place and also, with the help

of participants, to understand if such trends are negative or positive and whether a change in

practices can ameliorate such trends.

Example: Timeline for environmental and farming conditions for Madzikane, Creighton, KZN, 2019

PAST CONDITIONS PRESENT CONDITIONS FUTURE CONDITIONS

Hot temperatures Increasingly hot temperatures

during summer months

Temperatures will continue to increase drying

out vegetable plants (tomatoes, green peppers)

Longer rain season Shorter rainfall season and

frequent droughts

Less rain & no rain fall in some seasons

Strong winds Frequent and stronger winds that

wreck peoples’ homes

Less water infiltration in soil

PAST CONDITIONS PRESENT CONDITIONS FUTURE CONDITIONS

Low yields Increased yields as a result of

sustainable agriculture practices

Yields will decrease if farmers do not act

against climate change

Tillage No tillage and less use of tractors No tillage and hand planting

Livestock controlled

and regulated

No livestock control and regulationFencing of farm fields to control livestock

grazing

Mix cropping Single cropping Mixed cropping and intercropping

Hand weedingUse of pesticides and herbicides Increased use of pesticides and herbicides

Soil erosion due to

flooding

Increasing incidences of floods

that lead to washing away of

seeds

Vast and increasing soil erosion that may lead

to farmers’ inability to farm

Large farm fields Smaller farm fields Even smaller farm fields

5.3.2.5Climate change impact mind mapping

Requirements: A1 newsprint paper, kokis and a selection of squares of different coloured

paper

Aim: This exercise is designed for participants to explore all the impacts on their farming

systems and livelihoods as a starting point to beginning to identify potential adaptive measures

Activity: Brainstorm in a small group all impacts (including individual, social, economic, health,

environment, farming, etc.) and potential adaptive measures, both those participants are

already using and are thinking about.

1. Participants are divided into small groups (maximum 8 participants). To start the mind mapping

exercise one key entry point is chosen – usually in the South African context increased temperature

is a good option and something that almost everyone has already experienced.

2. The facilitator asks: We’ve talked about what climate change could look like, how it can change

what we now see as a “typical year”. Reflecting on this, how do you think increased temperatures

could affect your lives and farming? Participants are given a few minutes to write/draw these

impacts on the yellow cards.

2.1. The facilitator asks each participant to choose their top 5 impacts, the 5 impacts that are most

important to them.

2.2. Each participant is given the opportunity to describe one impact and why it is important to them.

After each description, place the card on the flipchart (but do not yet arrange or draw links between

the cards).

2.3 Continue to go around the group until all participants have described their top 5 impacts.

3. With all impacts now on the flipchart, briefly discuss these impacts while arranging impacts

according to how they are similar, or are linked. Arrange the cards accordingly, but do not yet draw

linkages.

4. If there are concepts that were missing in what the participants describe, ask the participants to

write out those concepts in additional cards, one concept per card. The facilitator can refer back to

the impact pictures presented earlier to jog participants’ memories and to include as many different

aspects as possible. For example; the facilitator asks what about drought and or floods – what are

the impacts linked to this? Or what are impacts linked to denuded soil and grazing areas? And so

on.

5. The facilitator asks participants to describe the linkages between the impacts, and draw in these

linkages and to elaborate on causes (what caused what).

6. Exploration of potential adaptation actions: The facilitator asks: Looking at the cards, can you

think of actions to cope with or adapt to these threats? Or are there actions or measures that you

have already been taking? Write these ideas down on cards, one idea per card (use a different

colour paper than was used for the impacts). Another potential question could be: How can you

change the management of a resource such as water, soil, veld, to ensure that it remains a good

resource?

Notes:

¾This exercise works quite well for groups where they have already been implementing certain

interventions related to increased soil and water conservation and sustainable farming

practices. If a project is already underway part of the climate change introductory discussion

should refer to practices that have been introduced that could be considered adaptive

measures; e.g. mulching, efficient irrigation, crop diversification and so on.

¾If participants come from a group or an area where they have not thought about this before, the

initial list of suggested adaptive measures may be quite short. They may also say that they do

not have any ideas, but may expect support from the facilitator and or Government. Participants

are likely to believe that if they have more access to resources (more money, more seed, more

equipment for example) that they could adapt to the changes in climate. It is important for the

facilitator to acknowledge this, but to add that changes in how resources are managed are

equally if not more important than resources themselves.

6.1 Each participant gets to present two cards and explain the actions, which threat the

actions addresses and how the actions address the threat.

6.2 As additional conversation pieces, the facilitator can introduce the flooding and drought

pictures to discuss the additional complexity of extreme events.

6.3 At the end of this activity, the group takes a few minutes to decide what key point from

their discussion and which three adaptation actions they want their representative to report

back on during plenary.

On the right is the mind map produced

by one of the small groups in Sekororo,

Limpopo (2018). Blue cards show the

impacts and yellow and pink cards the

potential adaptive measures.

Participants mentioned impacts such as:

¾More drought and floods

¾Heavy winds and more storms

¾Increased veld fires

¾Scarcity of water; drop in boreholes

and rivers drying out.

¾Decrease in wetlands and natural

vegetation – specifically trees.

¾Having to produce crops in smaller

areas

¾Condition of roads deteriorates

rapidly

¾More wild animals moving into the

homesteads and

¾Social issues such as increased hunger, increased crime, lack of jobs, increased domestic violence, theft,

divorce, no money to pay lobola, increase in death rate.

5.3.3

Household visits

This is part of day 2 of the 1st workshop. The idea is to do a bit of a transect walk through the village or

area to broadly ascertain from visual observation;

-General environmental conditions in the area

-Access to resources and infrastructure and

-Vulnerability of the people.

The household visits also provide an opportunity to conduct the baseline interviews (mentioned above)

and ascertain circumstances at household level.

In addition, these household visits are set up to showcase practices and local innovations that

participants are already undertaking. The ‘walkabouts’ are informal and conversations are recorded for

later summaries and photographs are taken to record the conditions in the area and the practices.

5.3.3.1Example of a walkabout with household visits in Sekororo, Limpopo (2017)

Summary of discussions around CRA practices from a group of 9 participants visiting 4-5 households

scattered across the village:

Practices we are already familiar with: Mulching trench beds, furrows and ridges, intercropping, planting

herbs, diversification (or different kinds of crops planted together), small dams, compost.

Further comments made by the group include:

¾Mulching is done, but is not so popular, because of lack of materials

¾Earth dams are dangerous for children

¾Rainwater harvesting tanks are expensive – we are using drip irrigation (2nd hand from

commercial farms)

¾Hybrid seeds are expensive and problematic as seed cannot be kept, even though they have

given very positive results.

Practices gleaned from community walkabout: Small earth dams, planting grass in eroded areas,

planting and keeping seed of old and traditional crops such as shallots, cowpeas, as well as indigenous

greens such as cleome, using kitchen scraps in shallow trenches, compost pits, banana circles,

management of mango trees by some pruning, planting green beans under shade of trees rather than

sugar beans as the latter does not pod well in the shade., protecting litchis from birds using netting.

Participants learnt about pollination processes for mangoes. They did not know about male and female

flowers. They also commented that ‘normally when we see brown patches on the mango leaves, we

did not think that this can affect the fruiting’. With the age of the trees, quality and quantity of fruit

deteriorates.

Above Left to right: Local innovations

1 small dam 2 shallots grown and seed kept 3 banana circles with compost4 furrows and ridges

5.3.4

Example of a CCA workshop1 process

A number of workshops were held across three provinces in 7 villages, working with around 200

participants in total and the results have been summarised to provide a ‘snapshot’ of climate change

impacts for these three provinces

Table 2: Summary of climate change impacts from CCA workshop 1, across three provinces (2017-2018)

Climate change impacts on livelihoods and farming

KZN EC Limpopo

Water Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry

out quickly after rain

Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry

out quickly after rain

Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry out

quickly after rain

Dams dry up Dams dry up Dams dry up

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable;

Need to buy water for

household use – now

sometimes for more than 6

months of the year

RWH storage only enough for

household use.

Soil More erosion More erosion More erosion

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils too hot to sustain plant

growth

Cropping Timing for planting has

changed – later

Timing for planting has

changed – later

Can no longer plant dryland

maize

All cropping now requires

irrigation – even crops such

as sweet potato

Drought tolerant crops such

as sorghum and millet grow–

but severe bird damage

Heat damage to crops Heat damage to crops Heat damage to crops

Reduced germination and

growth

Reduced germination and

growth

Reduced germination and

growth

Seeding of legumes

becoming unreliable

Seeding of legumes

becoming unreliable

Seeding of legumes becoming

unreliable

Lower yieldsLower yieldsLower yields

Winter vegetables don’t do

well – stress induced bolting

and lack of growth

More pests and diseases More pests and diseasesMore pests and diseases

Loss of indigenous seed

stocks

Loss of indigenous seed

stocks

Livestock Less grazing; not enough to

see cattle through winter

Less grazing, not enough to

see cattle through winter

Less grazing; not enough to

see cattle through winter

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

Fewer calves Fewer calves Fewer calves

More deaths More deaths More deaths

Natural

resources

Fewer trees; too much

cutting for firewood

Fewer trees, too much

cutting for firewood

Fewer trees; too much cutting

for firewood

Decrease in wild animals

and indigenous plants

Decrease in wild animals

and indigenous plants

Decrease in wild animals and

indigenous plants

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Availability of indigenous

vegetables has decreased

No longer able to harvest any

resources due to scarcity

Increased population puts

pressure on resources

Social More diseases More diseasesMore diseases

Climate change impacts on livelihoods and farming

KZN EC Limpopo

Increased poverty and

hunger

Increased poverty and

hunger

Increased poverty and hunger

Increased crime and reduced

job opportunities

Increased crime and reduced

job opportunities

Increased crime and reduced

job opportunities

Increasedfood prices

Increased conflict

Inability to survive

Although many of the impacts are similar across the three provinces, the severity of these changes is a lot

more obvious in Limpopo; where comments like “we will all die”, “we will need to move from here to the

cities” and “it feels like the end of the world is coming” were not uncommon.

In all the provinces, but more so in KZN and Limpopo people felt that they are being punished by God for the

disintegration of their social fabric. They mentioned that people nolonger follow the old rules or keep to their

traditional beliefs and taboos, people do not care properly for their families and immorality, violence and

theft are all too common. There is thus a tacit understanding that these social problems exacerbate their

ability to survive well into the future.

Potential adaptive measures were discussed as an outcome of the impact mind map and participants

discussed in small groups possible practices and ideas which could help them adapt to the changes

and reduce the negative impacts of these changes.

Being practically minded, most of the participants moved straight from impacts to practices – so

strategies were not really discussed. Some of the groups had many ideas, some of which were gleaned

from working with support organisations and NGOs. Those groups where no external support is

available, did not have many ‘new” ideas, but focussed more on doing what they are currently doing

better.

Below is an example of this discussion for Turkey in Limpopo (with limited external support)

Table 3: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Turkey (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process

(2018)

Turkey CC workshop; December 2017

ImpactsDescription and linkages OutcomesPotential adaptive measure

GROUP 1

Reduced

water

availability

Dams dry out, boreholes

provide less water, rivers dry

out, less rain

Reduced

production,

hunger, diseases,

no jobs, poverty,

crime, death

More boreholes, more dams, water

management, irrigation in evenings

and early morning, mulching, trench

beds (keep moisture in and soil cool)

Drying of

environment

Soils are hotter and drier,

drought, plants wilt, increased

pests

Save plant residues for animals, buy

fodder, control pests on animals

Reduction of

resources

Deforestation, fruit trees die,

livestock, wild animals die

Planting of trees after they have been

cut down, make use of paraffin

stoves and electricity, government

involvement in solving the problem,

GROUP 2

Extreme heatEarly fruiting, trees wiltPoor crop health Shade netting

Shortage of

water

Rivers dry out, municipal

supply only once per week.

Boreholes dry out

Lack of education

towards saving

water

NGOs and government to assist

trench beds, mulching, save water in

dams, drip irrigation, irrigate in

evening, boreholes, greywater

Reduction of

resources

Less grazing, seed shortage,

trees are removed, indigenous

animals are no longer there

Donations for/of seed

Rather use paraffin stoves than

firewood. Only chop down mature

trees to allow others to grow, planting

trees, government intervention

Taking care of indigenous plants

Turkey CC workshop; December 2017

ImpactsDescription and linkages OutcomesPotential adaptive measure

Plant fodder for livestock

Soils Poor cultivation practices, soil

erosion, dry soils, sandy soils

Using crop residues and manure

Social

repercussions

Less or no food, health

problems, no jobs

Burning of buses,

divorce,

separation of

families, poverty,

crime

Getting access to health care,

parents must work

Shortage of

implements

Setting up cooperatives for

government support, use animal

drawn traction – oxen and donkeys,

improvise, make our own tools, make

use of hand hoes

When this table is compared to a community who have been involved in a support programme, such a

Sekororo where Lima RDF have been running a Food security and livelihoods improvement

programme, the differences in suggestions clearly indicate some ideas gleaned from the facilitating

organisation

Table 4: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Sekororo (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process

Sekororo; CC workshop November 2017

ImpactsDescription and

linkages

Outcomes Potential adaptive measure

GROUP 1

Heat Plants wilt and die Lack of grazing, livestock

ide

Mulching, controlled grazing, reduce

stock, save/store fodder – leaves and

grasses for dry season

Water

shortages

Rivers drying out,

boreholes drying out

Greywater, purification using moringa

seeds, water storage for dry season

Soil Soil erosion (more

dongas), soil fertility

decreasing,

Deterioration of roads –

making access difficult

Planting in tyres, keyhole beds, tower

gardens,

Crop

production,

resources

Lower yields, more

pests, veld fires,

reduction of indigenous

trees

Common pests:

cutworms, millipedes,

centipedes

Natural pest and disease control,

mulching (but this can increase some

pests), inter cropping, crop rotation,

use of multi-purpose plants (e.g.

marigolds)

Use the wild cucumber (yellow

inside) dry, grind and spray on crops

to control nematodes and soil pests

Manage cutting of trees and plant

Plant in tunnels

LivestockLack of grazing, more

diseases, more

damage of crops

Livestock decreasing, not

healthy

Control grazing,

Social

repercussions

Poverty, diseases,

hunger

Crime, murder and theft,

domestic violence,

divorce, increased death

rate, no money to pay

lobola

GROUP 2

Extreme heatVeld fires Use of tunnels, plant heat resistant

cultivars, irrigate in early mornings

and evenings

Lack of water No grazing, drying of

natural vegetation and

bushes, wilting of

plants, trees do not

fruit, extreme rains

destroy infrastructure,

Food shortages, animals

die due to lack of

grazing,

Water harvesting, earth dams, grey

water and management of existing

water, diversion furrows

Sekororo; CC workshop November 2017

ImpactsDescription and

linkages

Outcomes Potential adaptive measure

Soils Organicmatter content

is low, dry soils, roots

are exposed, soil

erosion, also due to

use of mechanisation –

ploughing

Liquid manure, make use of animal

manure, trench beds and eco-circles

Plant sweet potatoes to hold soil,

plant across the slope, plant

indigenous crops such as cowpeas,

Make use of hands and oxen to plant

using conservation agriculture

Loosen the soil to avoid water

logging and yellowing of plants

Crops Reduced production

increased pests,

medicinal herbs

destroyed in drought

and heat

Plant colourful flowers and plants to

attract pest predators and bees,

companion planting, making brews

form marigolds

Plant medicinal species in controlled

environments with the vegetables

9tunnels)

Social

repercussions

More diseases and

health problems,

poverty food shortages,

low education

standards (because

schools are free)

No transfer of

knowledge, crime

Plant herbs and vegetables,

entrepreneurship, job creation, plant

your own crops instead of always

buying

5.3.5

Prioritisation of Adaptive measures and practices

Based on the adaptive measures suggested a selection of the CRA practices summarised as 1-pagers

are introduced to each group. This process is easy for groups that have had some exposure to

agroecological practices and support in implementation and a lot harder where little outside support has

been available.

5.3.5.1Database of CRA practices

This database can be found as a separate document on the DSS website entitled “CRA practices” and

consists of 44 practices under 4 headings (soil management, water management, crop management

and livestock integration) and have all been tried out and assessed for resilience impact under

smallholder farming conditions.

In any situational analysis, the local smallholders are likely also to have their own ideas and specific

requests that should be added to the list of potential practices. These could include for example

requests for cropping calendars, specific crop types to try out and even practices such as biodigesters

or rainwater harvesting tanks.

5.3.5.2Criteria for selection of practices

Once an initial rough list of potential practices has been put together, participants spend some time

thinking through criteria they would use to prioritize implementation, based on the question “How would

you decide which of these practices to try out and use?

A few examples of such criteria are shown in the following small list:

¾Availability of material

¾Increased water infiltration and water holding capacity (water use efficiency)

¾Increased availability of water

¾Costs – cost efficiency, cost-benefit

¾Labour (labour vs benefit)

¾Crop quality (germination, growth) and

¾ Fewer pests.

These criteria are then used to start a matrix ranking exercise. The criteria are placed along the top row

of the matrix and the practices are placed in the first column. Then a scale is decided upon with the

group. The scale can for example be from 1 to 3; where 1 means little or “bad” and 3 means lots or

“good”. Each practice is related to each criterion and given a score. For example, tower garden is related

to availability and then given a score, then eco-circles are related to availability of materials and so on.

An aspect to keep in mind when facilitating matrix ranking exercises, is that they work best in small

groups of up to 10 participants. If the group is large, participants should be divided into small groups to

undertake this exercise.

Below is an example of such a matrix ranking exercise

Table 5: Matrix ranking exercise for an initial prioritization of adaptive or CRA practices to try out (Ntabamhlophe,

KZN, 2018)

PracticeAvailability

materials

Water

use

efficiency

Increased

water

Cost Labour Crop

quality

Fewer

pests

Score

Tower garden 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 17

Eco circle 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 18

Underground

tanks

1 3 3 1 1 3 3 15

Trench bed3 3 1 3 1 3 3 17

Mulching2 3 1 3 3 3 2 17

Lizard hotel 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 17

Diversion

furrow

3 3 1 3 1 3 2 16

NOTE: Categories such as cost and labour should be carefully considered – as one may be tempted to give a rating of 3 for high

cost – except that lower cost is “good” in this instance and thus low cost=3 and low labour=3

Comments on the matrix from group participants:

¾Eco-circles are the practice that most participants have tried

¾Underground tanks are not really done as they are expensive and difficult to do. They do

however have a huge potential to make a significant difference

¾Savings groups could be a way to help with the issue of money

¾The matrix is a very useful method for decision making

¾It is good to do a number of different things and

¾The more knowledgeable participants will help the others to try these practices.

This initial prioritization is kept by the facilitators, so that it can be used to re-introduce the discussion

for CCA workshop 2. The second workshop is often held some weeks after the first one and thus

participants need a ‘refresher’ in terms of what was discussed already.

5.4 CCA WORKSHOP 2:PRIORITIZATION OF ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES

The aim of this workshop is to find an appropriate basket of practices for the participants to “pilot” or try

out as experiments, to assess their value. The idea is to find practices that participants have immediate

energy and motivation to experiment with and also to build on practices to attempt to address some of

the large, more recalcitrant problems in the area; such as lack of water and erosion.

The workshop consists of two broad activities:

1. Prioritization of practices: Matrix using farmer level criteria for assessment (matrix ranking and

scoring)

2. Planning of farmer experimentation, learning sessions and implementation of practices (Individual

experimentation outlines, lists)

5.4.1

Outline of CCA workshop 2

Community level climate change adaptation: Prioritisation and planning workshop outline

DAY 1

Time Activity ProcessNotes Materials Who

9:00am Introduction

9:00-

10:00am

Community and

team

introductions

In pairs, take 5 minutes to

talk to each other. Each

person names one

practice they know or are

doing that is good for CCA

– a CRA practice. OR one

they would most like to try

out.

Practices to be

summarised on a

flip chart.

Attendance

with column

for CRA

practices – in

English and

Zulu/Pedi.

Name tags;

stickers, kokis

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

SAEON weather

predictions

Presentation and group

discussion on the SAEON

weather prediction maps

that are produced

quarterly to ascertain

usefulness to farmers as

a decision-making tool

Copies of the

temperature and

rainfall maps

produced for

each small group

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

Purpose of the

day

Introduction of the

organisation/s and

purpose of this workshop

– Review of

understanding of CC,

Impacts and adaptive

measures. Introduction to

CRA principles

Summarise from

report of 1st

workshop – Use

the 5 categories

– summarise

measures under

each. Use two

PP slides

attached

Flip stand,

newsprint,

kokis, camera

– and one

person to

undertake to

take photos

throughout

the day. Extra

batteries for

camera and

sim card

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

10:00am Prioritization of practices

10:00 to

11:00am

Review practices

mentioned in

detail – both

community level

and presented

from 1pgers

Divide into small groups –

for prioritization matrix;

Use five categories (Nat

res, soil, water, crop,

livestock). Supply with

cards where all prioritized

practises are written.

They then prioritize these

in a list under each

category, based on what

to try first, second and so

on – make sure the

criteria used for these

choices are recorded.

Come back in plenary,

present and get overall

choices summarised for

all small groups

See Community

level

prioritization of

practices Excel

worksheet

Flipchart

paper, kokis,

cards with all

prioritized

practices

written out,

prestik

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

11:00-

11:30am

TEA Fruit (apples, oranges, biscuits, juice and water, paper cups

(lots) and plates… Generous helpings – and lots of juice if it is

hot. Find someone to be in charge of food and refreshments,

while the rest of the workshop continues

Preparation:

11:30 Demonstrations and learning

Community level climate change adaptation: Prioritisation and planning workshop outline

DAY 1

11:30-

2:30pm

Learning and

practical

demonstration

session on a

selection of

practices – start

with gardening

practices

(appropriate for

present season)

Presentation to group –

discussions, etc., then

practical demonstrations

in an appropriate garden

– preferable a household

garden. Choose 1-4

practices: e.g. trench bed,

mulching, liquid manure,

intercropping

Facilitators to come prepared with

handouts and learning materials.

Also, materials for doing the

practical demonstrations such as

mulch, manure, seed, seedlings,

tools, and other, e.g. shade

netting, poles, gravel and ash for

tower gardens – depends on

practices and must be planned for

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

2:30pm Individual experimentation

2:30-

3:00pm

Individual choice

of practices for

household

experimentation

After the demonstrations

– Make a list for

individuals to choose

experiments to try out.

Headings are practises.

Each participant writes

their name under the

practices they will try – it

can be one, a few or all.

Facilitators to discuss how an

experiment works – i.e. the farmer

compares the new idea to her

usual practice. For example, if she

will do a trench bed, she has to

make a bed new to it the same

size the way she usually does and

plant both in the same way on the

same day. This way she will be

able to see the differences in

growth and yield from her practice.

She needs to monitor how it is

going and be able to report back to

this group what has happened.

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

Input on farmer

level

experimentation

Group based input to

discuss aspects of

experimentation;

choosing an experiment,

what to monitor, observe

and measure

Copies are made of the farmer

level experimentation form and

individual farmers work together in

small groups to outline their

experiments

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

3:00pm LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals – ~R45 per head (Rice and stew

with one veg… or something similar)

Preparation:

5.4.2

Example of CCA workshop 2

This is a summary of a workshop that was held in Ezibomvini village, close to Bergville in KZN, in 2018.

CCA practices that are familiar to farmers

An introduction session over five minutes took place where farmers were to introduce each other and

their farming activities. Following is the summary of the results from the discussions:

¾The use drip irrigation to retain moisture for a long time in the soil.

¾ Grey water harvesting practice.

¾Use of cow manure

¾ Mulching

¾ Intercropping

¾ Bed design

¾Rain Water harvesting

¾Watering the garden before sunrise and after sunset

¾Blue death as pest and disease control measure and

¾ Conservation Agriculture (CA)

oCA farmers receive more yields, the level of pests such as stalk borer and cutworm has

decreased. Farmers are saving on inputs.

Review of participants understanding of climate change

Farmers still remember the previous discussion on climate change and that the weather patterns have

shifted from what has been experienced in the past; the level of rainfall is now lower and temperatures

are high. The increase in temperature has a negative impact on crop growth. There are stronger, hotter

winds, which dry the soil. Historically it was only windy in winter and presently it is windy throughout the

year. There are no wetlands anymore because of reduced rainfall and people building houses where

there were wetlands.

The impact of climate change on farmer’s livelihoods

¾The outbreak of pests and diseases: There is an outbreak of pests such as aphids, termites,

and cutworms, which farmers do not know how they can solve this problem. Some farmers

have ants in their gardens and they used blue death

¾Shortage of animal feed: The high temperatures lead to dry conditions, therefore there less

vegetation growing and available for livestock to graze on the grazing lands

¾Burning of Grazing veld: Farmers have different reason to burn the veld, some burn it to dispose

of the straw left after grazing so that the field can be ready for the following spring, and some

burn it for soil fertility and health purposes. At the end of the day burning of veld leads to disease

outbreak to livestock. Previously our great grand fathers were creating fire breaks so that fires

do not spread all over, in nowadays males are lazy and they do not do that and

¾Shortage of grazing lands: The population is increasing all the time; more people are building

houses and this has led to the building of houses in the grazing lands.

CRA practices that were suggested by farmers on the previous workshop

The following table outlines the practices and their categories.

Table 6: Suggested practices for farmers, categorised into the 5 primary themes.

Practices Natural

Resource

Management

Soil Water Crops Livestock

Tunnels

Bed design

Mulching

Natural pest and disease control

Rainwater harvesting

Trench beds

Composting

Fodder crops

Underground water tank

Mixed cropping

Conservation of wetlands and

streams

Burying of disposable pampers

Reducing burning of grazing veld

Greywater Harvesting

Group Prioritisation of practices

After the exercise of categorising the initial list of potential CCA practises, the group went on to the

matrix ranking exercise, now prioritizing the practices that they specifically would like to try out. Due to

the drought conditions in the area, farmers focused on practices that would improve their access to

water and also the efficiency of water use in their farming. Due to harsh weather conditions farmers

chose tunnels as their second option. The following figure shows how farmers prioritised practices.

Figure 17: group prioritization of a basket of CRA options for Ezibomvini

Individuals then indicate on a list of practices those they would undertake immediately; in this case

participants focused on trench beds, mixed cropping and mulching. In this example 20 of the 29

participants present chose to start with trench beds. An input is provided on farmer level

experimentation and how farmers can use this process to make observations about the new idea, as

compared to their normal practice.

Another example, where the prioritization of practices was done slightly differently is shown below. This

is for participants who belong to a learning network Imvoto Bubomi in the Eastern Cape.

Table 7: CRA Practices: Prioritization by groups and individuals

NOTE: Groups in this case are the small groups in the workshop setting consisting of homestead gardeners, cooperative

members and more commercial farmers

Practice Scale at which practice is

appropriate: (Small:

Homestead, Medium: <1

ha, Large: >1 ha)

No of

Groups (out

of 4

subgroups)

No of Individuals

(for

experimentation)

Swales All 1 3

Greywater Small 1

Small DamsS/M 1

Fertility Pits S/M 1

Contours M/L 1

Terraces ALL1

Furrows/Ridges All 0 1

Infiltration pits/ Banana Circles Small 1 2

Raised Beds All1

Trench BedsS/M 1

Tower Gardens S 1 3

Tunnel All1 2

Basins/In-field All 1 1

Mulching All 4 4

Close-spacing, intercropping, mixed

Cropping

All – in different ways3 3

Crop Rotation All 1

Minimum TillageAll 1

Herbs All 2

Group Priority in order of importance

1. Underground water tanks

2. Tunnels

3. Trench beds

4. Mulching

5. Pest and disease control

6. Mixed cropping

7. Compost

8. Fodder crops

9. Conserving wetlands and streams

Liquid Manure All 2

Drip irrigation All 3 5

Underground Storage S/M 1

Rainwater Harvesting (general) All 1 1

What is perhaps most interesting about these outcomes is the great difference between the practices

selected by the different groups, with only mulching being identified by all 4 groups, and only the Bucket

Drip and the combination close/mixed/inter-cropping practices by 3 out of 4. Essentially almost all the

practices listed in the practices 1 pagers document were selected by one or another group.

The individual preferences as recorded in the register were similarly diverse with a similar concentration

on (bucket) drip, mulching and close/mixed/inter-cropping. Swales, tower gardens and tunnels were

also identified as being of specific interest to several participants. Only one participant identified large-

scale furrows and ridges and infield RWH as being of interest to them. Below is the table filled out by

a selection of the participants in choosing the practices they would want to experiment with for the

upcoming season.

Table 8: Individual farmer led experimentation choices; EC, Aug 2018

Learning workshops that can provide theoretical information and practical demonstrations of the

practices chosen can then be planned with the participants. Ideally, ongoing monitoring of the farmer

level experiments need to be undertaken and a review session held at the end of the season to discuss

observations and learnings and plan for the following seasons’ experimentation

5.4.3

Seasonal weather predictions

It is considered to be important to have reliable climate information locally available to smallholder

farmers. For this process, we accessed easily available information from the South African Weather

Services (SAWS); called the ‘Seasonal Climate Watch’. The SAWS use long range forecasts and a

coupled modelling system to create quarterly predictions for rainfall and temperature for South Africa.

(http://www.weathersa.co.za/home/seasonal)

Below are examples of the maps produced. The following maps indicate the rainfall climatology for the

early-summer (Dec-Jan-Feb), mid-summer (Jan-Feb-Mar) and the late-summer (Feb-Mar-Apr). The

rainfall and temperature climate are representative of the average rainfall and temperature conditions

over a long period of time for the relevant 3-month seasons presented here.

Name and

Surname

Tunnels

Bucket

Drips

Tower

Gardens

Trench

beds

Furrows

and ridges

Grey

water

Small

Dams

Herbs

Terraces

Fertility pit

Swales or

contours

Aviwe

Biko

999999

Monwabisi

Jende

999999

Xolisa

Dwane

999999

Thango

Hogana

Phindisiwe

Msesiwe

Siyabulela

Hafe

Figure 18: An example of rainfall prediction maps for December 2019-April 2020 (SAWS, November 2019)

Figure 19: Maps indicating the predictions for higher than normal (green) and lower than normal (brown) average

rainfall for December 2019 to April 2020 (SAWS, November 2019). The white areas on these maps indicate rainfall

patterns that are similar to the long-term averages.

Sets of maps were reproduced and used in a workshop setting with smallholder farmers, to work

together to learn to read and analyse the information from the maps and then to decide how that

information could be useful in their agricultural planning.

Smallholder participants in these discussions spoke to needing to know when to plant, their dryland

fields, as there is increased uncertainty due to large weather (rainfall and temperature) variability. They

wanted to be provided with planting dates, but upon discussion realised that the climate modelling

predictions are not a definitive answer, but only a highly probable outcome for the season. They felt

that they could not take the risk of planning their cropping season according to these predictions and

that in effect such planning was similar to what they are already doing; planting when the rains start

and hoping for the best. They did indicate that it was useful to have a sense of what the upcoming

season would be like, but that it wasn’t much help for them in terms of planning. The maps corroborated

their feeling that planting times are later, given the late onset of summer rainfalls.

The smallholder participants liked the idea of being able to have some local indicators, such as rain

gauges to help them make decisions, but did not feel confident about relying on information such as the

seasonal climate watch forecasts.

5.4.4

Farmer experimentation

Farmer experimentation was introduced explaining that the best way to learn is to do it and compare it

with whatever you are doing. Thus, the control becomes the “normal way” and that is compared with

the new idea. It is important to try new ideas out on a small scale to reduce risk. Decisions about how

to observe and measure the differences are made at the onset of the experiment and these

observations and measurements are recorded throughout the season, so that an informed decision can

be made about the potential benefits and challenges of the new idea.

Once an innovation (new idea) has been tried and established, that farmer may begin experimenting

with other innovations. At the same time, she/he may teach the innovations already implemented to

others. When technology is introduced slowly by overcoming limiting factors one by one, farmers have

a chance, not only to test, implement and share the innovations, but also to build up strong circles of

knowledge amongst themselves. It also means that the role of the facilitator is not to try and convince

farmers to “adopt” specific technologies and innovations but is more to introduce new ideas/innovations

that farmers can try out for themselves and make their own decisions.

The following form is filled in by individuals, or groups of individuals in a workshop setting, to assist the

farmers to think through the aim, implementation and monitoring of their experiment.

Figure 20: Outline of a planning process for farmer level experimentation

Small Scale experimentation plan

What is the problem?

What is the possible solution?

Why will this solution solve the problem?

How will I test this solution step by step?

What will I look for and what will I measure?

How will I measure the results or outcomes?

How will I compare my experiment to my usual way of farming?

Drawing of the experiment in the field.

6 PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (PIA)

6.1 BACKGROUND

A specific framework for monitoring of impact of the CRA practices on livelihoods and vulnerability is

required to be able to assess increased resilience. This framework works alongside the entire

monitoring and evaluation process; with activity, output and outcome indicators.

For this process the PIA framework has been used to outline the indicators used at community level

and provide for a qualitative assessment of increased resilience by community members. A group

process has been designed and tested, as has an individual survey instrument. Both will be reported

on here.

In PIAs there are three basic questions:

1. What changes have there been in the community since the start of the project/process

2. Which of these changes are attributable to the projects

3. What differences have these changes made to people’s lives.

Impact indicators measure changes that occur in people’s lives and can be qualitative or quantitative.

These indicators look at the end result of project activities on people’s lives. Ideally, they measure the

fundamental assets, resources and feelings of people affected by the project. Therefore, impact

indicators can include household measures of income and expenditure, food consumption, health,

security, confidence and hope.

Community impact indicators may be quantitative, such as income earned from crop sales, or

qualitative, such as improved skills, knowledge or social status. Tracking changes in food availability,

income and expenditure can often be a useful way of measuring impact against community indicators

of impact and against coping strategies (Catley, Burns, Abebe, & Suji, 2014)

As impact measures change, there needs to be a starting point, or baseline from which the changes

can be assessed. There are different types of indicators in a socio-ecological system. Indicators need

to be chosen to be measurable

Below is an example of a set of indicators which have been designed for this research process, which

shows the linkage between the vulnerability and impact indicators.

Table 9: Comparison of socio-ecological indicators used for vulnerability and resilience assessments

VULNERABILITYRESILIENCE

Socio-economic indicators

Economic: Income (types, amounts), savings (types,

amounts), markets (formal/informal)

Economic: Income (types, amounts), savings (types,

amounts), markets (formal/informal), access and

sales

Social: Gender, household head, social

organisations,

Social: social organisations,

Human: education level, access to informationHuman: access to information, (sources), knowledge

and skills

Physical: Access to water, electricity, equipment,

farming (gardens, fields, livestock)

Access to resources

Resources and infrastructure: Access to water,

electricity, equipment

Resources and infrastructure: Improved access to

water, improved access to equipment, equipment

Productivity

Farming activities: Gardens, fields, livestock, food

provisioning

Increased farming activities, continuity, increased

productivity, increased food provisioning, increased

water use efficiency (RWH, access, availability,

efficiency), soil fertility and soil health

The resilience impact monitoring and assessment process designed has two components:

¾A focus group based participatory impact assessment process and

¾A questionnaire-based individual interview process. These are called Resilience Snapshots, as

they are considered a measurement of change at a certain point in time (e.g. seasonally,

annually), but are not considered an end-point as adaptation and building adaptive capacity is

an ongoing process.

These two processes are outlined below.

6.2 PIA WORKSHOP OUTLINE

These workshops are conducted with smallholder farmer participants who have been involved in farmer

level experimentation and implementation of CRA practices for a minimum of two to four seasons;

where a season is broadly defined as either winter or summer.

The intention is for the participants themselves to jointly develop the impact indicators that are

appropriate for them and then to use these indicators to analyse and assess the changes in their

system.

6.2.1

Recap climate change impacts

Explore what people have noticed around climate change impacts and make lists under headings:

natural, physical, economic, human and social.

Group level brainstorming of ideas; written on cards under the headings given, with arrows for increase

or decrease.

6.2.2

Recap adaptive strategies/ practices

¾What have people been doing to adapt to this, fix the problems, make things better?

¾What can be done? (first look at what has been done so far and then any further ideas of what

can be done)

¾Elucidate adaptations for each category: natural, physical, economic human, social

Group level brainstorming: Write on different cards (those done and those thought of) and place next

to the impact, indicate with a * which of these have been facilitated or introduced (and by whom) – this

can be other farmers, projects, extension officers, etc.

6.2.2.1The five fingers tool

In addition to monitoring being conducted by facilitators a local framework for self and peer assessment

and monitoring of progress is employed using the ‘five fingers’ principles, as developed by AWARD

(http://award.org.za/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AWARD-BROCHURE-Principles-of-Soil-Water-

Conservation-in-Agroecology-2019-v1.pdf). Local criteria for assessment of each ‘finger’ (things we

are doing and changing) are developed alongside an easy scoring progress to track changes and

progress.

This tool has been slightly adapted by MDF to accommodate for the five thematic focus areas of the

CRA experimentation and implementation process namely:

¾Soil management: Adopt practices that limit soil movement and build and maintain soil health

¾Water management: Practice good water management to enhance soil moisture and limit

water movement

¾Crop management: Manage crops for diversity, location and sustainability

¾Livestock management: Manage livestock for diversity, location and sustainability

¾Natural resource management: Protect and maintain indigenous plants as part of farming

practice and

¾People working together

The 6th category (the whole hand) has been added in MDF’s work to accommodate for the principle of

people working together (social agency and collaborative actions).

6.2.3

Practices: Recap five fingers and list all practices under each category

¾Re-introduce the 5 fingers concept and include a further category of the whole hand – which is

the social and personal

¾Which practices have been implemented (introduced and other)? Go around in the circle and

each person mentions what s/he has done (productive, economic, social, personal actions) and

what she would still like to try

¾Add these practices to the five fingers diagram. Make an A1 diagram of the five fingers and

then add practices on cards

¾Go through practices recommended through the DSS. Use cards with ranked practices from

the DSS – describe and show the ones that people are not familiar with.

¾Rank practices for next round of implementation. Rank the list of practices by a show of hands.

6.2.4

What have been the changes or benefits from each practice?

¾What changes have there been? Brainstorm changes and interrogate answers to get to the

¾How important are these changes to your lives? How do you decide? Which criteria would you

use to decide?

Do a matrix ranking: Changes (in columns), criteria (in rows) – Use proportional piling, working

down each column by asking “how important is this practice for the criteria” and comparing the

practices with each other (to an extent) as you go down the list. The exercise is done in small

groups of 5-8 participants

Below is an example of what the matrix could look like.

Food Income Soil, waterAccess, ease of

implementation

knowledge

Trench beds

Tunnels

Cover crops

Legumes

Other crops; potatoes, sweet

potatoes

Savings

Subsidised inputs

Saving for inputs

Farmer centre

Small businesses

Learning group

Water committee

6.2.5

Expanding on practices

¾Introduce new practices for each of the ‘five fingers’

¾Participants assess each practice (after deciding on criteria for how you decide this practice is

useful)

Eventually the whole exercise can be summarised in the matrix below.

Natural Physical EconomicHuman Social

CC impacts

Adaptive

strategies

Actions/

practices

Changes due

to practices

Importance of

these changes

to your

livelihood

6.2.6

Example of a PIA assessment outcome: Bergville KZN (2019)

Below a few of the outcomes of a PIA process conducted for a CRA learning group consisting of

participants from 5 different villages is summarised as an example.

6.2.6.1Participatory assessment of climate change impact

Table 10: Climate change Impact assessed according to livelihoods indicators (Bergville, April 2019)

Natural (environment

and farming

Physical

(infrastructure,

environment

)

Economic Human (Skills,

knowledge,

enc

Social

(organisation,

cohesion

)

Earthworms disappear Water shortages;

reduced flow in streams

and springs, boreholes

Food shortages Increase in diseases

in humans

No progress here

Degradation of veld and

reduced grazing

Severe erosion of roads

and damage to houses

by heavy rainfall

Water shortages at

household level

Farming is done by

older people; the

younger people are

laz

People don’t work

together

Livestock break into

fields and eat crops

Dongas are increasing

in number and size

Farming inputs and

services are very

expensive

Water borne

diseases from

drinkin

dirt

water

Traditional

leadership is no

lon

er respected

More diseases in cattle,

requiring purchase of

medication and vaccines

and more deaths

Damage to wetlands

from people building

there, overgrazing and

other uses.

Other community

members steal

farmers’ produce

Contours in the fields,

that were made many

years ago have not been

maintained causing

erosion in the fields

Severe erosion due to

denuding of land,

followed by heavy

rainfall

Learning groups;

some conflict in

some of the

learning groups has

reduced

participation.

More crop damage from

birds than before

SOME GENERAL ADAPTIVE MEASURES PROPOSED

- Savings

- Rotational group saving for buying and putting up fencing

- Small businesses

- Buying fencing

- Request support for fencing and ask Government support as well – although with the latter

participants are aware that Government support is unlikely.

COMMENTS ON PLANTING DATES

- People who planted in November – have struggled with lack of germination

- More germination for those who planted in December

- Spraying with Decis (pesticide against cutworms and stalk borer) helped with germination and

growth (more pests were present) and reduced eating of seed by birds

- A few participants even planted in January – and this worked quite well in this last season

- One participant in Thamela mulched her whole field and planted in November and has had

promising germination and growth from this

- Participants also noted that beans did not grow at all, but the cowpeas have done reasonably

well, even under these difficult conditions.

It is difficult to make decisions about planting dates now that the climate is more unpredictable.

The importance of crop residues to maintain soil moisture cannot be under-estimated

soil

Seeds don’t

erminate

Extreme winds that

damage vegetation and

crops

More veld fires

More pests in crops and

new pests that were not

present in the past

Fertilizer is ineffective in

hot, dr

conditions

Planting times for crops

are changing in

unpredictable wa

There are small water

sources in some

people’s homesteads,

which they refuse to

share with others

6.2.6.2Participatory assessment of Climate resilient Agriculture Practices

Participants described CRA practices they are using under the five fingers (soil, water, cropping

(gardening and field cropping, livestock and natural resource management. We decided also to include

a further category – social agency, or what they described as people management

Table 11: CRA practices implemented in the Bergville area 2017-2019

Soil Water Crop (garden and field) Livestock Natural

Resources

People

Making compost Drip irrigation Diversified crops in

gardens; beetroot,

Chinese cabbage, carrots,

parsle

, th

me,

Vaccinations Savings

Use of goat and

cattle manure

Mulching Shade cloth tunnels Dipping Small

businesses

Canopy cover and

legumes (Lab-Lab)

Infiltration pits Beds: raised beds, trench

beds, eco-circles

Proper feed;

including from

fodder produced

Farmer centres

Diversified crops to

hold soil and prevent

erosion

Garden layout with

shallow furrows for

water harvesting

and retention

Tower gardens – fertility

and greywater

management

Addition of

supplements

Selling chickens

Greywater

management

Conservation agriculture;

including management of

residues

Limiting burning of

veld

Improved irrigation

practices

Inter cropping and crop

rotation

Planting grass:

ungwengwe and

kiku

Rainwater storage

in JoJo tanks and

drums

Diversified crops in fields;

different varieties of

maize, sorghum, millet,

legumes (e.g. cowpeas,

beans, Lab-lab), cover

crops

Spring protection Use of Decis Forte,

(Pyrethrins) for pest

control in fields

Buying JoJo tanks–

and negotiating with

water trucks to fill

these

Liquid manure

Mixed croppin

ardens

6.2.6.3Participatory assessment of Changes and benefits from CRA practices

This exercise consisted of doing a matrix ranking of practices farmers have used in the past year;

incorporating gardening, field cropping, livestock management, soil and water conservation and water

issues (access, availability). Impact indicators for this exercise were developed in 2 small groups by

asking participants to outline how they make decisions about which practices to use and what changes

they would observe.

Below is a summary of the Matrix for each of the 2 small groups. A process of proportional piling was

used for the scoring of each practice and indicator – where 100 counters were provided for each

indicator and the small group decided how these would be placed proportionally for each practice. In

this way participants can comment on; more or less, and how much more or less. The outcome of the

exercise is quantifiable in terms of gauging percentages.

For this matrix the practices were conflated to encompass all specific practices within that category:

¾Conservation agriculture; minimal tillage, soil cover, crop diversification

¾Savings: Village saving and loan associations, rotational saving in small groups towards

specific infrastructural needs, personal savings

¾Livestock; fodder production, vaccinations, dipping, supplementation

¾Gardening; bed design (trench beds, eco-circles, raised beds, tower gardens, tunnels,

mulching, mixed cropping, crop diversification, inclusion of herbs, infiltration pits and water

conservation furrows

¾Crop rotation; 3-4 crop rotations in field cropping

¾Intercropping: grain-legume and grain-cover crop intercropping options in field cropping and

¾Small businesses; including agricultural and non-agricultural businesses; sale of snacks in

schools, sewing, baking, poultry production, maize milling, etc.

The impact indicators developed by this group are of particular interest as they are multi-dimensional

talking at least two different aspects for each indicator. Additionally, the exercise was run so that each

practice is compared with the other practices when considering one of the indicators or criteria. This

greatly increases the value and reliability of the scores provided by the group.

The overall impact on livelihoods (which is seen as the combination of the indicators chosen by the

group) is shown under the ‘total” column. From this, the participants clearly consider the Conservation

Agriculture (CA) process as the most significant, followed by gardening, small businesses, savings and

livestock – in decreasing order.

6.3 RESILIENCE SNAPSHOTS

The resilience snapshots are individual questionnaires that provide an in-depth assessment of the

impact of the implementation of CRA practices on a person’s livelihood. Proxy indicators for resilience

are built up from the interview.

Below is an outline of the questionnaire

6.3.1

The individual climate change resilience questionnaire

RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT

Date

Province

Village

Increased

farming (Size)

Before

(Size in

sqm

)

Now (Size in

sqm)

Comment: Percentage increase

Gardening

Field cropping

Livestock

Trees, natural

resources

Increased

diversity in

farming

Y/N beforeY/N now Comment:

Gardening

Field cropping

Soil;

health

and

fertility

Money;

income

and

savings

Productivity;

acceptance

of practice,

saving in

farming –

equipment,

labour

Knowledge;

increased

knowledge

and ability

to use

Food; how

much

produced

and how

healthy

Water;

use

and

access

Social

agency;

Support,

empowerment

Total

Conservation

Agriculture

22 21 26 28 18 23 18 156

Savings 6 15 14 1512 11 15 88

Livestock 19 11 187 5 12 11 83

Gardening 14 15 1213 15 17 21 107

Crop rotation 16 12 13 12 12 15 10 90

Intercropping 12 13 1512 11 11 9 83

Small

businesses

11 17 15 10 20 11 9 93

Livestock

Trees, natural

resources

Increased

diversity (1)

Manageme

nt and

practices

before

now

What has

changed; new

crops

What has

changed; new

practices

What has

changed; ,

new

managemen

Gardening

Field cropping

Livestock

Trees, natural

resources

Types BEFORE:

Quantity

(Kg, No)

NOW:

Quantity (Kg,

No)

Percent

age

increase

Increased

productivity

Gardening (Amount in

kgs/tonnes, 10,20,50

kg bags/containers,

no of meals (for a

family)

Field cropping

Livestock

Trees, natural

resources

Increase

Access

Inc

RWH

Inc water

holding

Inc water

productivity

(

irri

ation

)

SCALE

Increased water use

efficiency (including

RWH, water holding,

water access, water

productivity)

0= same or worse than before; 1=

somewhat better than before, 2=

much better than before

Increased livelihood

security (income)

Income before (Ave

monthly in Rands)

Income now (Ave monthly

in Rands)

Comments

Increased livelihood

security (Household

provisioning and

food security)

Food types (staples, veg,

livestock, fruit

)

Quantity/

week

(

No of times/

week

(

1-7

)

Sales/week

(

in Rands

)

Comments

Increased

livelihood

diversity/option

Income

options Before

Income

options

Now

Comment; name new

options, e.g. which crops,

etc.

Scale

1=social grants; 2= remittances;

3=farming income;4= small business

Amount per

month Before

Amount per

month Now

Use of savings Scale

Savings (safety,

security,

achievement)

1=food; 2=household use; 3=education;

4= production; 5=other

Increased

growing season

Yes/no

Before

Yes/no Now Comment

Gardening

Field cropping

Livestock

Trees, natural

resources

Collaborative

actions/social

agency

Activities in groups Before –

name

Activities in groups

Now

E.g. savings, church, learning groups,

coops, farmers associations, work teams,

selling, inputs, farmers centres water

committees …

Informed

decision

making

Information used to choose

activities before

Information used to choose

activities now

E.g. other community members,

learning in groups, written info,

radio, facilitators, extension

officers, etc.

Positive

mindsets

Rate your

mindset Before

Rate your

mindset

now

SCALE: 0=less positive about the future, 1=the same, 2=more

positive about the future, 3=much more positive

6.3.2

Example of a resilience snapshot assessment for 12 participants in Bergville, KZN April 2019

Here the individual resilience assessments for 12 participants have been combined and summarised.

Summaries of the responses to specific questions are summarised in bullet points and tables.

6.3.2.1Learning and change

What have you learnt about dealing with CC and climatic extremes?

¾I have learnt that practices such as trench beds and CA provide good growth and yields, despite

difficult weather conditions. Also, these practices are cheap. We get more food than we did

before and will now be able to continue farming

¾Adaptive practices like mulching help to deal with increased heat and water stress

¾Practices such as trench beds, eco-circles, mulching and mixed cropping enables the soil to

hold moisture for longer and withstand the heat and dry spells.

What is your experience regarding the impact of CC on your life?

¾This season we had drought; the beans did not grow and maize is stunted. I fear we will not

have enough food

¾Cattle have been negatively impacted – more disease and deaths as grazing diminishes

¾The climate is changing: Low rainfall during the planting season and high temperatures are

affecting farming activities

¾I have not experienced climate change – I do not have water issues (participant in Midlands of

KZN)

¾Climate change has destabilised our planting patterns and has created a lot of uncertainty about

planting dates for both summer and winter crops

Do you share your knowledge and experiences with the learning group or community

members?

¾Yes, I talk to my neighbours about the gardening practices, so that they can also try and

revive their gardens

¾Yes, I have talked to neighbours, some come and visit to see the garden and experiments

and some have even taken pictures.

¾Yes, I talk to my neighbours and friends and invite them to the learning group sessions if

they are not members yet.

How do you share the knowledge gained with other members of your community?

¾Discussions at savings meetings, at the springs when we collect water

¾When people visit, I show them my garden

What helps you to learn more about new innovations and information?

(N=6)

Comments

Listening to other farmers experiences

and experiments

6 I get motivated by other farmers’ work, get new ideas such as

planting potatoes in bags

By doing and experimenting in own

garden

4 This helps me to know how good the practices are. have tried

a no of experiments and included my own ideas

Motivated by other farmers work and

experiences

5 Learnt about raised beds in Msinga

Learning workshops 5 I find them useful because I always hear new information and

experiences from the facilitator and farmers

What new things have you added into your practices? How has it worked?

¾I have not tried anything else new, outside of the practices we were taught: CA, trench beds,

mulching, mixed cropping, RWH, greywater management, seedling production

¾I have tried a u-shaped garden which helps to collect water, helping plants to grow better.

¾I have used some of the maize and sunflower seed I grew in the CA trials to feed my indigenous

chickens; this has helped for a better survival rate and even the ability to sell a few.

6.3.2.2Climate resilient practices

Impacts and lessons learnt

Past issues Past Practice Present Practice Impact and lessons

Livestock Low

production

Bartered

indigenous

chickens

Selling indigenous

chickens locally

Feed too

expensive

to buy

Fed chickens’

scraps

Feed of sunflower

and crushed maize

seed from own

production

More chickens survive and grow

well making sales possible

Gardening Low yield

and dry

beds

Raised beds Trench beds and

raised beds

Better growth and yield,

increased water holding, beds

remain moist during hot periods,

beds hold water for a long time,

fewer pests and diseases,

Fetched water from

communal taps and

springs

Also, RWH and grey

water use (unfiltered)

Saves water and time in fetching

water to irrigate

Mulch (dry grass) Mulch retains moisture, but can

encourage termites

Buy seedlings Seedling production Increased number and types of

crops;

Standard veggies New veggies and

herbs

There is demand in the village for

the new crops; kale, Chinese

cabbage, carrots, More and

different food for longer periods

in the year

Short season for

planting, or no

planting due to lack

of water

Winter planting Grow crops in garden and in the

fields (sweet potatoes, potatoes)

Field

cropping

CA Increased water holding and less

run-off, increased ability to

withstand drought

Intercropping Increased availability of more

types of food,

Legumes Increased yields

Cover crops Increased soil health, Feed

availability for livestock

Assessment of impact for CRA practices tried out using local indicators

Note: Scoring: -1 = worse than normal practice; 0 = no change; 1 = some positive change; 2 = medium positive change; 3 = highly

positive change

Name of practice

Soil

Water

Productivity

Labour

Pest and

disease

control

Cost and

maintenance

Livelihoods

Adaptation

1 Trench beds 2 2 3 -1 2 0 2 3

2 RWH 0 3 1 -1 0 -1 1 3

3 Mulching2 2 3 0 3 0 1 2

4 Tower garden2 3 3 2 0 0 2 2

5 Planting basins 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 1

6 Raised beds, with mulch1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1

7 eco-circle2 3 2 -1 1 0 1 1

8 CA; w intercropping, legumes,

cover crops 3 2 3 1 1 0 2 2

9 Using goat manure

(composted in a kraal)3 1 2 0 1 0 1 1

Resilience snapshot

This table is a summary of the overall questionnaire (in this case for 12 participants combined).

Resilience indicators Rating for increase Comment

Increase in size of farming

activities

Gardening – 18%

Field cropping – 63%

Livestock – 31%

Cropping areas measured, no of livestock

assessed

Increased farming activities No Most participants involved in gardening, field

cropping and livestock management

Increased season YesFor field cropping and gardening – autumn

and winter options

Increased crop diversity Crops: 12 new crops

Practices: 8 new practices

Management options include; drip irrigation,

tunnels, no-till planters, JoJo tanks, RWH

drums,

Increased productivity Gardening – 72%

Field cropping – 79%

Livestock – 25%

Based on increase in yields

Increased water use

efficiency

25% Access, RWH, water holding capacity and

irrigation efficiency rated

Increased income 13% Based on average monthly incomes

Increased household food

provisioning

Maize – 20 kg/week

Vegetables – 7 kg/week

Food produced and consumed in the

household

Increased savings R150.00/monthAverage of savings now undertaken

Increased social agency

(collaborative actions)

2 Villages savings and loan associations and

learning groups

Increased informed decision

making

5 Own experience, local facilitators, other

farmers, facilitators, extension officers

Positive mindsets2-3 More to much more positive about the future:

Much improved household food security and

food availability

7 REFERENCES

Africheck, 2018. FACTSHEET: South Africa’s official poverty numbers. URL:

https://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-south-africas-official-poverty-numbers/ Accessed

2019/04/05

Arslan, A. (2014).Climate Smart Agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security. EPIC,

FAO. Centre for Development Innovation, WUR. September 17, 2017. Powerpoint.

AWARD. (2017). Progress Report. Quarter 2. 2016-2017 FY. Resilience in the Limpopo – Olifants.

Association for Water and Rural Development. Available: www.award.org.za/project/resilience-in-the-

limpopo-basin

Batty, C. (2017). The New Face of Governance: How to Coactively Manage the New Sourcing

Relationship. ISG White Paper. Information Services Group, Inc.

Brock, K. and Pettit, J. (2007). Springs of Participation: Creating and Evolving Methods for Participatory

Development. Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action

Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. and Suji, M. (2014). Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide.

Somerville USA. Feinstein International Centre, TUFTS University.

Cousins, B. (2016). Why South Africa needs fresh ideas to make land reform a reality. The

Conversation: May 31, 2016. http://theconversation.com/why-south-africa-needs-fresh-ideas-to-make-

land-reform-a-reality-60076

Dale, E. (1969) Audio visual methods in teaching, third edition. New York: The Dryden Press; Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Flagship Research

Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Summary for Policy-Makers. Pretoria, South Africa.

DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2017. National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. South Africa.

Denison, J. and Manona, S. (2007).Principles, Approaches and Guidelines for the Participatory

Revitalization of Smallholder Irrigation Schemes. Volume 2 of 2. WRC, Pretoria, South Africa.

Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 4

(pp. 962-1023). Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable. URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231294 Accessed 2019/03/26

FAO (2013). Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations. 2013.

Fenton, A., Reid, H. and Wright, H. (2015). Ten principles to help assess funding for local climate

change adaptation. IIED Briefing, pp. 1-4.

Hansford, B. (2010). Adaptation-protecting natural resources. Footsteps No 82, pp. 12-13.

Poggenpohl, S. (2015). Communities of Practice in Design Research. She Ji: The Journal of Design,

Economics and Innovation, Vol 1, Issue1, pp. 44-57.

Hartmann, M. (2009). Participatory Innovation Development and Extension in Ethiopia: A Case Study.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, InterContinental San Juan Resort. Puerto Rico: AIAEE.

IPCC (2014). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A.

Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow,

T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New

York, NY, USA.

Kruger, E. and Gilles, J. (2014). A Review of Participatory Agricultural Research and Development in

South Africa and KwaZulu-Natal.www.mahlathini.org.

Kruger, E. and Selala, S. (2017). AWARD. Resilience in the Limpopo-Olifants Programme. Agricultural

Support Initiative. Joint community-based review of learnings to date and local facilitator training.

Sedawa_20170424 -Internal report.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991).Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42374-0.

Lotz-Sisitka, H. and Pesanayi, T. (2019). Mediation Processes to support systems approaches to

knowledge flow in Water for Food Social Learning Networks. Rhodes University, South Africa. WRC

Project No K5/2713/4. Project Title: Amanzi [water] for Food': Developing a social learning network

approach to knowledge dissemination and uptake in the agricultural learning system, focusing on the

management, use and conservation of water for small scale farming and household food production.

Manderson, A., Kubayi, N. and Drimie, S. (2016). The impact of the South African drought as

experienced by smallholder farmers over the June 2015-February 2016 period in the Mopani District of

Limpopo, South Africa. (pp. 1-8). Stellenbosch: Agroecology Awareness Project, South African Food

Lab.

McCarthy, N. and Brubaker, J. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture & resource tenure in Sub-Saharan

Africa: a conceptual framework, Rome, FAO.

National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (2002). Retrieved from Community of Practice Design Guide:

a step by step guide for designing and cultivating communities of practice in higher education.

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf

Nay, J., Chu, E., Gallagher, D. and Wright, H. (2014). A review of decision-support models for

adaptation to climate change in the context. Climate and Development (6:4, DOI:

10.1080/17565529.2014.912196), 357-367.

New, C. (2007). Structure, Agency and Social Transformation. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behaviour. 24(3) (pp. 187-205). DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1994.tb00252.x

Rai, S. and Shrestha, P. (2006). Guidelines to participatory innovation development. Accessed 4 April

2019. http://www.eldis.org/documents/A45474

SARVA (2013). South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (Department of Science and Technology,

Pretoria 2013)

Shaxson, L., Bielak, A., Ahmed, I., Brien, D., Conant, B., Fisher, C., Gwyn, E., Klerkx, L., Middleton, A.,

Morton, S., Pant, L. and Phipps, D. (2012). Expanding Our Understanding of K*. In UNU-INWEH. K*

2012 Conference, Hamilton, ON, Canada, April, 2012.

StatsSA (2017). Key findings: 03-00-14 – Food Security in South Africa, 2017. URL:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1856&PPN=03-00-14&SCH=7665 Accessed 2019/04/05

Thompson, K. (2012). The five major theories of how people "learn": a synopsis. In Think Differently.

URL: http://www.bioteams.com/2012/11/05/the_five_major.html. Accessed 2019/03/26

Ulrichs, M., Cannon, T., Newsham, A., Naess, L. and Marshall, M. (2015). Working Paper 108: Climate

Change & Food Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-led adaptation.

Biodiversity International & Institute of Development Studies, CGIAR/CCAFS.

Wettasinha, C., Wongtschowski, M. and Waters-Bayer, A. (2009). Recognising local innovation:

Experience of PROLINNOVA partners. Silang, Cavite, the Philippines: International Institute of Rural

Reconstruction / Leusden: PROLINNOVA International Secretariat, ETC EcoCulture. 66pp.