MDFWRC-00746. Deliverable 1. August 2022
Temakholo Mathebula
Betty Maimela
Ayanda Madlala
Nqe Dlamini
EnvironmentalandRuralSolutions (ERS)
Associationfor WaterandRuralDevelopment(AWARD)
Project Number: C2022/2023-00746
Project Title: Dissemination and scaling of a decision support framework for CCA for smallholder
farmers in South Africa
Deliverable No.1:Desk top review of progress and present implementation of South African policy
and implementation frameworks and stakeholder platforms for CCA.
Date: 1 August 2022
Contents ...................................................................................................................................................2
2.South African policy, strategy development and implementation .................................................5
3.Integration of DSS in scaling (up and out).......................................................................................7
a.International decision support tools and platforms................................................................9
b.Adaptation platforms and decisions support Frameworks for South Africa...........................9
4.Further conceptual Development: Considerations .......................................................................10
a.Methodological approaches to adaptation...........................................................................10
b.Knowledge co-production .....................................................................................................13
c.Vulnerability assessments.....................................................................................................14
d.Adaptive Management ..........................................................................................................18
e.Local Food Systems ................................................................................................................19
f.Agroecology ...........................................................................................................................21
5.Multistakeholder platforms...........................................................................................................23
a.CbCCA conceptualization of stakeholder platforms..............................................................28
b.Process planning and progress to date..................................................................................30
c.Work plan: August-December 2022......................................................................................32
6.References .....................................................................................................................................33
Figure 1: Frames to understand adaptation effectiveness range across a continuum of being process-
or outcome-based. Source: (Singh, et al., 2021) ...................................................................................11
Figure 2: Critical processes to foster co-productive agility in each of the four pathways to
sustainability transformations...............................................................................................................14
Figure 3: The component of climate vulnerability and climate risk, adapted from IPCC AR5 ( (GIZ, with
EURAC and Adelphi, 2017).....................................................................................................................15
Figure 4: Conceptualization of stakeholder platforms at multiple levels to support CbCCA ................29
This section provides a brief summary of the project vision, outcomes and operational details.
Vertical and horizontal integration of this community- based climate change adaptation (CbCCA) model and
process lead to improved water and environmental resources management, improved rural livelihoods and
improved climate resilience for smallholder farmers in communal tenure areas of South Africa.
1.Scaling out and scaling up of the CRA frameworks and implementation strategies lead to greater
resilience and food security for smallholder farmers in their locality.
2.Incorporation of the smallholder decision support framework and CRA implementation into a range of
programmatic and institutional processes
3.Improved awareness and implementation of appropriate agricultural and water management practices
and CbCCA in a range of bioclimatic and institutional settings
4.Contribution of a robust CC resilience impact measurement tool for local, regional and national
monitoring processes.
5.Concrete examples and models for ownership and management of local group-based water access and
5.Chronology of activities
1.Desktop review of CbCCA policy and implementation presently undertaken in South Africa
2.Set up CoPs:
a.Village based learning groups: A minimum of 1-3 LGs per province will be brought on board.
b.Innovation platforms: 3 LG clusters, one for each province consisting of a minimum of 9- 36
LGs will be identified to engage coherently in this research and dissemination process.
c.Multistakeholder platforms: Engage existing multistakeholder platforms such as UCPP, LCP,
AN etc
3.Develop roles and implementation parameters for each CoP
a.Village based learning groups: CCA learning and review cycles, farmer level experimentation,
CRA practices refinement, local food systems development, water and resource
conservation access and management and participation and sharing in and across villages.
b.Innovation Platforms (IP): Clusters of LGs learn and share together with local and regional
stakeholders for knowledge mediation and co-creation and engagement of Government
Departments and officials (1-2 sessions annually for each IP)
c.Multistakeholder platforms: Development of CbCCA frameworks, implementation
processes (including for example linkages to IDPS and disaster risk reduction planning and
implementation at DM and LM level), reporting frameworks for the NDC to the CCA
strategy, consideration of models for measurement of resilience and impact (1- 2 sessions
annually for each multi stakeholder platform)
4.Cyclical implementation for all three CoP levels (information provision and sharing, analysis, action,
and review) within the following thematic focus areas: Climate resilient agriculture practices,
smallholder microfinance options, local food systems and marketing and community owned water
and resources access and conservation management plans and processes. Each of these thematic
areas is to be led by one of the senior researchers and a small sub-team.
5.Monitoring and evaluation: Consisting of the following broad actions:
a.Focus on 3-4 main quantitative indicators e.g. water productivity, production yields, soil
organic carbon and soil health
b.Indicator development for resilience and impact and
c.Exploration of further useful models to develop and overarching framework.
6.Production of synthesis reports, handbooks and process manuals emanating from steps 1-4 with the
primary aim of dissemination of information.
7.And refinement of the CbCCA decision support platform, incorporating updated data sets and
further information form this research and dissemination process.
Deliverable Title
Target Date
Desk top review for CbCCA
in South Africa
Desk top review of South African policy,
implementation frameworks and
stakeholder platforms for CCA.
R100 000,00
Report: Monitoring
framework, ratified by
multiple stakeholders
Exploration of appropriate monitoring
tools to suite the contextual needs for
evidence-based planning and
R100 000,00
Handbook on scenarios and
options for successful
smallholder financial
services within the South
Summarize VSLA interventions in SA,
Govt and Non-Govt and design best bet
implementation process for smallholder
microfinance options.
R100 000,00
Development of CoPs and
multi stakeholder
Design development parameters, roles
and implementation frameworks for
CoPs at all levels, CRA learning groups,
Innovation and multi stakeholder
platforms; within the CbCCA
R133 000,00
Report: Local food systems
and marketing strategies
Guidelines and case studies for building
resilience in local food systems and
R133 000,00
contextualized - Guidelines
for implementation
local marketing strategies towards
sustainable local food systems (local
value chain)
Case studies: encouraging
community ownership of
water and natural
resources access and
Case studies (x3) towards providing an
evidence base for encouraging
community ownership of natural
resource management through bottom-
up approaches and institutional
recognition of these processes.
R134 000,00
Case studies: CbCCA
implementation case
studies in 3 different
agroecological zones in SA
CbCCA implementation case studies in 3
different agroecological zones within
South Africa
R133 000,00
Refined CbCCA decision
support framework with
updated databases and
CRA practices
Refined CbCCA DSS database and
methodology with inclusion of further
viable and appropriate CRA practices
R133 000,00
Manual for implementation
of successful
multistakeholder platforms
in CbCCA
Methodology and process manual for
successful multi stakeholder platform
development in CbCCA
R134 000,00
Final Report
Final report: Summary of all findings,
guidelines and case studies, learning
and recommendations
(Feb 2026)
R400 000,00
Deliverable 1, being a desk top review of progress and present implementation of South African policy
and implementation frameworks and stakeholder platforms for CCA is meant to be an update on the
desk top review conducted for this process in 2017 and aims to review all relevant documentation
about the latest strategy and policy implementation frameworks forCCA both within Government and
multistakeholder forums and toprovide a SWOT analysis to develop a coherent methodology for
multistakeholder engagement.
Given the present fragmented state of multistakeholder platforms a SWOT analysis has not been seen
to be appropriate. Further analysis will be undertaken in the next deliverable.
Written by Betty Maimela
According to the LTAS (Long Term Adaptation Scenarios) factsheet on Agriculture “adapting
agricultural and forestry practices in South Africa requires anintegrated approach that addresses
multiple stressors and combines indigenous knowledge and experience with the latest scientific
insights. For large-scale commercial farmers, adaptation needs to focus on maximising output in a
sustainable manner and maintaining a competitive edge in changingclimatic conditions. For rural
livelihoods, adaptation needs to focus on vulnerable groups and areas and include promoting climate-
resilient agricultural practices and livelihoods. Promoting alternative, sustainable sources of income
will be important for subsistence households that are unable to continue farming.
As an overall adaptation strategy, benefits would come from practices based on best management
andclimate-resilient principles, characteristic of concepts such as climate smart agriculture,
conservation agriculture, ecosystem- and community-based adaptation, andagroecology. Such
practices include restoring and rehabilitating ecosystems tooptimise them for future climatic
conditions, minimising soil disturbance, maintaining soil cover, maximisingwater storage, multi-
croppingand integrating cropand livestock production to optimise yields, sequestering carbon, and
minimising methane and nitrous oxide emissions(DEA, 2019)
Diversification in the agriculture sector is seen to include in-
field and off-field water harvesting and storage to assist with
increased irrigation requirements (without compromising
water availability), finding new, climatically suitable
locations for crops and commercial forests, growing
indigenous species and farming indigenous and locally
adapted breedswhich are heat and drought tolerant,
harvesting less often to prevent nutrient depletion, using
local techniques to decrease wind erosion (such as mulch
strips for shelter belts of natural vegetation), and planting
climate-resilient crop varieties, such as drought-resistant
maize varieties, alternative crops or late-maturing fruit trees.
Climate advisory services could usefully communicate key
messages from the latest available science in an appropriate
format to government, agri-business, extension services and
farmers. Communication and trust should be increased
between authorities and all farmingsectors (commercial, small-holder and subsistence) to
disseminate relevant knowledge on climate change and promote adaptation (DEA, 2019).
Adaptation strategies are to be integrated into sectoral plans, including: The National Water Resource
Strategy, as well as reconciliation strategies for particular catchments and water supply systems; The
Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture; TheNational Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan, as well
as provincial biodiversity sector plans and local bioregional plans; The Department of Health Strategic
Plan; The Comprehensive Plan for the Development ofSustainable Human Settlements; and the
National Framework for Disaster Risk Management (DEA, November 2021).
The recently submitted Climate Change Bill, lendslegal muscle to this process(Draft Climate change
Bill, 2021. The draft law aims to establish a Ministerial Committee on Climate
Change tooversee and coordinate the activities across all sector departments. Under the proposed
legislation, the Minister responsible for Environmental Affairs together with the Ministerial
Committee on Climate Change would have to set sectoral emission targets (SETs)for each GHG
emitting sector in line with the national emission target, every five years and carbon budgets would
be allocated to significant GHG emitting companies. Carbon budgets would put a capon emissions
and make it mandatory for companies to constrain their emissions.
In addition, the bill places a legal obligation on every organ of state to coordinate and harmonise their
various policies, plans, programmes, decisions and decision-making processes relating to climate
change. Local officials including mayorswill be required to undertake a climate change needs and
response assessment within one year of the publication of the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan.
The bill furtherrequires a climate change response implementation plan to be developed within two
years of undertaking the climate change needs and response assessment. However, the disconnect
Adaptation refers to adjustments in
ecological, social, or economic systems in
response to actual or expected climatic stimuli
and their effects or impacts. Itrefers to
changes in processes,practices, and
structures to moderate potential damages or
to benefit from opportunities associated with
climate change. (UNFCCC 2014) (DEA,
November 2021).
Climate resilienceis thecapacity of social or
ecological systems to recover orbounce back
from disturbances, shocks and extreme loads
or to absorb these disturbances while
retaining the same basic structure and ways of
functioning (UNDP 2005; UN/ISDR2004; IPCC
2007; Rockefeller Foundation 2009; Arctic
Council 2013 referred to in IPCC 2014).
between the higher echelons of government and the more localised organisations (both public and
private) who are meant to do the implementation, persists even here.
The DALRRD has been allocated as the lead department for climate adaptation action in South Africa.
The internal orientation and vision of this department however focuses on generation of “equitable
access and participation in a globally competitive, profitable and sustainable agricultural sector
contributing to a better life for all, with a very strong focus on profitability, investments, equity and
governance. CCA is not a central theme (DALRRD, 2013).
The basic approach of the agriculture CC adaptation and mitigation sector plan is climate smart
agriculture, which entails theintegration of land suitability, land use planning, agriculture and forestry
to ensure that synergies are properly captured and that these synergies will enhance resilience,
adaptive capacity and mitigation potential(DAFF, 2015). The assumption is that if the smallholder
farming sector can deal with issues ofpoor commercialisation, poor infrastructure and low farm
productivity, with “strong extension services and good communication and trust between local
government and the entire farming community (commercial and emerging) to bring about concrete
changes, … this would facilitate preparedness for climate change(DAFF, 2015).
As such the main response of the Department for CCA is seen to be their LandCare programme which
is a community based and government supported approach to the sustainable management and use
of agricultural natural resources. The overall goal of LandCare is to optimise productivity and
sustainability of natural resources so as toresultin greater productivity, food security, job creation and
better quality of life for all. In budgetary terms the entire function of natural resource management
and disaster management is provided with around 17% of the total annual budgetof around R16,8
billion for 2022, which means an annual budget for LandCare which is at best around R360 million for
the whole of South Africa, around 4% of the total budget.For this year, the budget is to beused within
the Department only and no callsfor proposals from communities have been put forward (Pers comm.
Mrs T Naidoo -KZN LandCare Unit, July 2022).Any implementation can thus be regarded as minimal
and indicates a severe disconnect between policy, strategy, and implementation for our public service
A quote from a paper written in 2014 is as relevant today as 8 years ago. “Adaptation responses are
emerging in certain sectors. Some notable city-scale and project-based adaptation responses have
been implemented, but institutional challenges persist. In addition,a number of knowledge gaps
remain in relation to the biophysical and socio-economic impacts of climate change. A particular need
is to develop South Africa's capacity to undertake integrated assessments of climate change that can
support climate-resilient development planning.(Ziervogel, et al., 2014).
Efforts have been focused on the policy and legal processes of the NCASS and the Climate Bill and
sectoral integration under Government Departments, with DALRRD (Department of Agriculture, Land
Reformand Rural Development)being the leadand including biodiversity and ecosystems, health,
energy, transportation, human settlements and disaster risk management. The intention of these
documents and the white paper is to enable adaptation planning across and between all Government
sectors and Departments and mainstreaming of climate action into theintegrated development
planning process (DEA, 2017). In addition, a focus on vulnerability assessments as well as information
and data provision related to different sectors, as per the Let’s Respond Toolkit(Sustainable Energy
Africa and Palmer Devlopment Group., April 2012)and the more recent GreenBook- an online toolkit,
(CSIR, 2019), at Local Municipal level, would provide the specific context for integration of climate
actions into the development planning. In practice, very little progresshasbeen made and a policy-
practice decoupling has been noted through various case studies where resources are prioritized to
service delivery issues that politicians deem as more important than responding to climatechange
(Mankolo, 2016), (Chademana, 2019), (Santhia, Shackleton, & Pereira, 2018), (Pieterse, du Toit, &van
Niekerk, 2021).
A review of success factors for CbCCA through the Community Adaptation Small Grants Facility
provides weight to this argument (CA-SGF, 2018). Their learnings were summarized as follows:
1.A holistic approach is required to address the complexitiesof the challenges
experienced by local communities and designing interventions that address, or at least
acknowledge, the multitude of factorsthat contribute to climate resilience. Integrated
interventions can be used to leverage multiple benefits effectively
2.Partnerships with external stakeholders at multiplelevels and in various forms were
critical for success allowing for skills transfer, leveraging of expertise, and flexibility to
access resources as needed
3.Participatory, inclusive and locally drivenprocesses arerequired for climate
adaptation intervention success.Locally determined interventions, based upon
community priorities and supported by local leadership, can bolster achievements
4.Projects must plan for sustainabilityfrom the outset and account for a range of
climate change impacts based upon scientific projections, including the sustainability
and maintenance of assets developed during a project
5.Adopting adaptive management practices promotes the responsiveness and
customization requiredfor Community-Based Climate Change Adaptation projects.
6.Capacity building is an integral componenttocommunity-based interventions, as
new technical information becomes available. The breadth and level of capacity
building span various technical expertise and includes financial and administrative
skills as well as project management.
This means that approaches and processes for integration of climate action planning and
implementation at municipal and provincial level still need to be found, despite the comprehensive
national policy and reporting processes. One way to undertake such assessments, linked to climate
resilient development planning is the use of the CbCCA adaptation platform designed under the WRC
brief (K5/2719/4): Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies for the dissemination of
water and soil conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems
(2017-2020). This model provides a reasonably comprehensive process for climate vulnerability
assessment including socio-economic, biophysical, climate and weather and agricultural data to
provide options and practices forimplementation of climate change adaptation (CCA) strategies which
are context based and can be used in local and regional planning processes.
It can provide a local, practical engagement process with Municipal Governance Structures and other
stakeholders tointegrate climate action intotheir agendas. A quick trawl of recent literature for South
Africa indicates that this is still the only bespoke process of its kind in South Africa.
a.International decision support tools and platforms
Effective adaptation to climate change requires support for sound decision making and good practice.
Over the past two decades, a proliferation of decision-making
resources and tools has emerged (Street, Pringle, Lourenço,
& Mariana, 2019). Mostly, these are online tools andrange
fromsimple climate data delivery platforms to complex risk
management frameworks providing data, guidance, tools and
other documents to support adaptation. They are usually
targeted geographically andby sector and are designed for a
particular clientele.
There are some challenges in designing and disseminating
effective decision support tools, some to do with the tools
themselves in that they need to be accessible useable, useful
and reliable and needto remain relevant in a fast-changing
environment, which all mean that the developers need to
have a good understanding of their audience. Other
challenges may include unrealisticexpectations from users,
lack of sustained funding forreviewing, updating and addition
of new content and a changing policy context that may
require more targeted support for modest interventions
rather than comprehensive system wide plans (Street &
Palutikof, 2020).
This need for flexibility requires a design andimplementation
process based on continuous learning and improvement,
consisting oftailoring the platforms to match the capabilities
and needs of the intended users, sustained monitoring and
evaluation, developing partnerships that enhance the
ownership by users and user communities and understanding
the factors that motivate use of the tools and enable or act as
barriers to implementation of the resulting plans (Palutikof, Street and Gardiner 2019);
Latest trends have shown an interest in:
-Developing and implementing effective strategies for coproduction of decision support
resources, involving practitioners at all stages of the process.
-Linking climate change adaptation, disaster riskreduction and the sustainable development
-Embedding technical innovations to increase functionality and user friendliness, including
more attention to navigability, accessibility, legitimacy and relevance.
-Providing examples of good practice related to supporting evolving user requirements and
-Supporting a broader range ofusers (Street & Palutikof, 2020).
b.Adaptation platforms and decisions support frameworks for South Africa
Most decision support processes for planning climate action are online processes designed to provide
information and planning support at the level of policy, strategy and high- level government
interventions, both internationally and nationally. For South Africa the LTAS (Long Terms Adaptation
Scenarios) is a good example of high-level provision of information for decision making and planning.
The first report was published in 2013 (DEA, 2013). Six individual technical reports have been
Adaptation Platforms: Enabling
environments, equipping decision-makers
with the data, tools, guidance, and
information needed to adapt to a changing
climate. Content is usually, but not always,
delivered online and may include facilitation
of knowledge and capacity building through
networking, learning opportunities, and case
studies on adaptation planning and
implementation. They are intended to
provide the user with everything required to
undertake adaptation, from scoping the
challenge through to monitoring and
evaluating adaptation outcomes.
Decision-Support Frameworks (also known
as a decision support systems): A risk
management framework for climate change
adaptation together with the decision
support tools necessary to implement the
framework. The tools may include case
studies demonstrating the application of the
Decision Support Tools: Methods and other
knowledge resources that facilitate decision-
making for adaptation to climate change.
They may be free-standing, or components
of Adaptation Platforms.
Climate Services: Covers the transformation
of climate-related data together with
other relevant information into
customised products
(Street &Palutikof, 2020)
developed to summarize the findings from Phase 1, including onetechnical report on climate trends
and scenarios for South Africa and five summarizing the climate change implications for primary
sectors: water, agriculture and forestry, human health, marine fisheries, and biodiversity.
This work was followed-up by the two online climate action planning support online toolkits; the Let’s
Respond toolkit and the South African Green Book.
The Let’s Respond Toolkit (DEA and GIZ) has beendeveloped tointegrate climate change risks and
opportunitiesinto municipal planning, building on the initial LTASresearch process and providing an
online resource of information as well as tools to respond to climate change at a local level as part of
the Local Government Climate Change Support Programme (DEA, 2017). It includes a vulnerability
assessment toolkit, climate change response plan templates and a stakeholder engagement toolkit.
The South African Green Book is an online planning support tool that providesquantitative scientific
evidence on the likely impacts that climatechange and urbanisation will have on South Africa’s cities
and towns, as well as presenting a number of adaptation actions that can be implemented by local
government to support climate resilient development. The Green Book was co-funded by the CSIR and
the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), between 2016 and 2019. The CSIR has
partnered with the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) and co-developed this product
with universities, government departments, NGOs and other peer groups.
It provides evidence of current and future (2050) climate risks and vulnerability for every local
municipality in South Africa (including settlements) in the form of climate-change projections,
multidimensional vulnerability indicators,population-growth projections, and climate hazard and
impact modelling. Based on this evidence, the Green Book developed a menu of planning-related
adaptation actions and offers support inthe selection of appropriate actionsfrom this menuto be
integrated into local development strategies and plans.
Reframing anddevelopment of new frameworks, methodologies andperspectives is an ongoing
process in development and CCthinking. Below short summaries are provided of progress in aspects
relevant to the overall CbCCA models.
a.Methodological approaches to adaptation
There are still conceptual and methodological challenges in defining adaptation goals and in what
effective adaptation looks like, with anumber of seemingly divergent approaches being used.
Assessments, implementation and impact measurements are not thesame across these approaches,
notwithstanding calls forstandardization on nationallevels towards coherent reporting of the NDC
(Nationally Determined Contributions). Since the Paris Agreement nations are required to consider
their contributions towards theglobal goalonadaptation as well as adequacy and effectiveness of
their adaptation responses. A recent comprehensive review of these concepts within a very wide
range of literature by a group of international experts, has outlined eleven guiding principles for
adaptation research and practice (Singh, et al., 2021).
The frames underlying the principles, outline thedifferent views in understanding and
operationalizing adaptation effectivenessand suggest that opening up thinking about the purpose,
processes, and outcomes of adaptation from different perspectives can lead to(1) better
conceptualized and designed adaptation processes, which acknowledge the inherent biases and
strengthsof different effectiveness approaches, and (2) adaptation outcomes that are better aligned
to the overarching SDG objective of ‘leaving no one behind’” (Singh, et al., 2021).
These framesare: (1) maximizing economic benefits;(2) improved wellbeing; (3) vulnerability
reduction or adaptive capacity enhancement; (4) enhanced resilience; (5)sustainable adaptation; (6)
avoiding maladaptation; (7) ecosystem-based adaptation; (8) community-based adaptation; (9)
adaptive governance; (10) ensuring equity and justice and (11) transformation.
Figure 1:Frames to understand adaptation effectiveness range across acontinuum of being process- or outcome-based.
Source: (Singh, et al., 2021)
The authorsthen linked these frames to a statement of principle that summarizes and defines the
1)Minimize costs and maximize benefits(Efficiency/Utilitarian): which looks at adaptation
interventions from financial and social cost perspectives and assumes that benefits can be
estimated and calculated.
2)Support achievement of material,subjective,and relational wellbeing goals(Improved well-
being): which broadly covers material, relational and subjective well-being, emphasizing the
agency of actors in determining their well-being, tending to focus on the individual
3)Reduce vulnerability and/orincrease adaptive capacity, especially of themost vulnerable and
those most at riskto climate change(Reduced vulnerability): which focuses on enhancing
capacities to adapt to, avoid, reduce, or capitalize on risk. Indicator-based vulnerability
assessment methods or participatory approaches, serve as metrics to monitor vulnerability
reduction over time. Projects of this nature dominate the adaptation landscape at present.
4)Increase resilience by building functional persistence over long timescales so that systems have
the ability to bounce back from climaticshocks(Enhanced resilience): which originates in the
Ecological Sciences and outlines three fundamental constituents of resilience within socio-
ecological systems theory as functional persistence, self-organization, and adaptation. Depending
on the scale andscope of the system being considered, the resilience framing helps focus on
temporal and spatial trade-offs and trade-offs between objectives (e.g.human well-being vs.
environmental services).
5)Be economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable, explicitly looking atlonger-term, cross-
generational viability of adaptation actions(Sustainable adaptation): which focuses on climate
change vulnerability and gaps in adaptive capacity and adheres to the principles of sustainable
development, moving towards goals of social equity and environmental integrity, looking
primarily at the confluence of vulnerability and poverty reduction.
6)Take into account unintended negative consequences and explicitly look atthe cross-scalar,
long-term impacts of adaptation actions(Avoiding maladaptation): which defines maladaptation
as action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate changethat impacts
adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups. It calls for
thinking of the most vulnerable, but lack of assessment metrics is a big gap in this approach.
7)Invest in ecosystem conservation, management and restoration toenhance ecosystem services,
and hence reduce impacts of climate change on humansystems(Ecosystem based adaptation):
Which highlights that human wellbeing and adaptive capacities are deeply dependent on
biodiversity and functioning ecosystem services and focuses on sustainable used of natural
resources and ecosystem functioning. Metrics includequantification of ecological limits and
indicator-based assessments of how adaptation strategies are benefiting/eroding ecosystem
8)Be co-produced with communities toensure inclusive and sustainableadaptation(Community
based adaptation): Which is a bottom-up approach that focuses on increasing the participation
and agency of vulnerable communities in adaptation prioritization and implementation. It argues
that co-producing adaptation solutions can facilitate more effective adaptation.CbA explicitly
focusses on mainstreaming community priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities into
adaptation thereby aiming to empower people to adapt more effectively. Participatory
vulnerability assessment tools before and after adaptation interventions are often used for
evidence-based adaptation planning and tracking adaptation outcomes.
9)Be oriented towards achieving transparency, accountability andrepresentation in governance
through multi-scalar, participatory, and inclusive processes(Adaptive governance): Whichdraws
fromresearch on managing complex, dynamic social-ecological systems to argue for institutions
that are flexible and forward-looking, have the capacity to prepare for uncertainty, and explicitly
address current climate change impacts, while planning for future risks. It includes also the
concept of good governance. A key assumption of this framing is that unequal powerstructures
can be balanced by greater participation and inclusion. While policy learning is seen to be
important in the multi-level governance literature, social learning is identified as critical in the
adaptation literature.
10)Be oriented toward socially just and equitable processes and outcomes(Equity/justice): Which
is a normative, people-centered approach that explicitly focusses on winners and losers from both
climate change impacts and adaptation action. It frames effective adaptation as redressing
imbalances to achieve more equitable adaptation and reduce socially unjust outcomes. It makes
the case for ensuring that the most vulnerable areshielded from climate impacts and thattheir
well-being is not compromised further through actions taken to respond to climate change. It
includes the concepts of gender equity and empowerment. Lack of good metrics is agap in this
11)Be a process that fundamentally changes human thinking and practices inthe face of climate
change and overtly challenge the powerstructures thatgenerate vulnerability to its impacts
(Transformation): Which generally assumes that climate change brings risks that are beyond
society’s ability to manage through ‘business-as-usual’ (or incremental)approaches to adaptation,
and that fundamental change is both feasible and desirable.Itis centrally concerned with reducing
marginalization and strengthening capacities of the most vulnerable
The frames and principles fall along a continuum and can simultaneously be process- and outcome-
based. The authorsargue that in practice, recognizing the strengths and blind spots of each frame
could mean funders and implementing agencies use combinationsof frames when tracking adaptation
progress (Singh, et al., 2021).
The adaptation platform developed in MDF’s pervious WRC brief includes element ofthe community-
based adaptation, reduced vulnerability, enhanced resilience and sustainable adaptation frames.
Issues related to adaptive governance as relates to water and natural resources aswell as
transformation through a focus on local food systems are to be considered within the present research
work package.
b.Knowledge co-production
Knowledge co-production or co-creation is a further important tenet of this research and the
smallholder farmer adaptation platform produced for community-based adaptation. A group of
international researchers analyzed32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action
to foster sustainable social-ecological relations (Chambers, et al., 2022).
Co-production, the collaborative combining of research and practice by diverse role players, is argued
to beimportant in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to
navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. These authors argue for four distinct pathways
towardscollaborative co-creation leading to what they refer to as co-productive agility.According to
these authors “co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively
engage inreflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from
the outset. It relies on embeddingknowledge production within processes of change to constantly
recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities (Chambers, et al., 2022).
“It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize,
reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways
to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity
and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways
that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transforminterlinked
paradigms, practices, and structuresand (4)exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual
respect for a plurality of perspectives.”
The authors provide a framework for navigating tensions and power dynamicsamong diverse actors
to create broad ownership for different types of co-production processes.
A lot of attention has been given tothe concepts of scaling up andscaling out, butany bottom-up
transformation process is likely to encounter active resistance by those with power and there is limited
understanding of how to work within and across scales to break down such resistance.
The constructive exploration of tensions and conflict is increasingly recognized as a catalyst for social
learning and transformation. These concepts move beyond ‘defensive’ approaches to managing
tensions, to a willingness to understanddifferent positions and agendas as complex
interdependencies rather than competing interests, where the primary purpose of a discourse is not
to seek consensus and resolve tensions, but rather to learnto “stay with the trouble”of difference
and the discomfort it brings.
In the review the authorsfound that co-production initiatives were constantly challenged to find a
middle space between and within creating space for all views, yet also bringing a critical angle and by
not unjustly imposing agendas, but also not romanticizing others’ agendas. They found that fostering
such agility among these roles depended on creating processes that weave together and balance
power amongboth critical and solution-oriented perspectives. The way the authorsconceptualized
fourpathways for co-production and the six processes to navigate these pathways, is shown in the
diagram below.
Figure 2: Critical processes to foster co-productive agility in each of the four pathways to sustainability transformations
These concepts have been developed to mitigate againstthe well-known experience where research
and practice may spend too much time debating which agenda for change is best, and too little time
considering how to facilitate betterinteractions among different agendas. The tendency to close down
debate over co-production agendas and cover updisagreements for the sake of convenient consensus
is linked to the standards of “success” by whichscientists and practitioners are held accountable,
alongside pressure to show immediate tangible outcomes. According to the authors, such time
pressure can incentivize the rapid creation of large ‘inclusive’ multi-stakeholder platforms; yet co-
productively agile initiatives consistently limitedparticipation in important ways to effectively balance
powerrelations. They found that embedding research into practice moved initiatives into spaces of
co-productive agility. Enabling cognitive, relational, and organizationalaspects of co-productive agility
may therefore necessitate shifts in institutional environments and funding criteria, to recognize the
value of processes thatcarefully and iteratively navigate tensions and cultivate safe spaces (Chambers,
et al., 2022).
These perspectives provide valuable insight and design options towards developing appropriate
spaces for co-creation across disparate role players with differing agendas, within this research brief.
Aspects of this analysis are to be considered within a number of the related work packages
/deliverables within this research process.
c.Vulnerability assessments
As with decision support resources a wide range of global and nationalrole players have developed
and proposed frameworks and tools. Vulnerability assessments are the first step towards framing the
context forimplementationofadaptation measures, especially within the broader understanding that
building of resilience requires longer term, participatoryand holistic approaches, rather than purely
technical, short- term responses, to address allof theunderlying structural vulnerabilities in our
Understandably, the developed frameworks are thus quite complex and comprehensive and require
considerable capacity and resources to undertake.In most cases, the level of vulnerabilities was
determined using the IPCC endorsed framework (Exposure + sensitivity = Potential Impact + Adaptive
capacity = Vulnerability).
Figure 3:The component of climate
vulnerability and climate risk, adapted from
IPCC AR5 ( (GIZ, with EURAC and Adelphi,
In South Africa, the National Risk and
Vulnerability Framework (NRVF) is
intended to provide an overarching
approach and guidance towards
undertaking risk andvulnerability
assessment using asuite of available
methodologies and tools.
It intends to provide
stakeholders/decision makers with an
integrated diagnostic framework that
can assist to analyse if and how the dynamics of climate
risk is addressed in practical assessment cases, and to also
enhance a common approach/ a shared responsibility
approach in conducting climate risk assessments across all
sectors and to provide decision makers with a selection of
methods and tools to assess the different components
that contribute to key questions such as the type of
planning required for a vulnerability assessment, which
tool to use and how to carry out a vulnerability assessment
(DEFF, 2020).
“The need for this framework stems from the mounting set
of demands for various public, private and non-
governmental organisations to undertake climate risk and
vulnerability (CRV) assessments for policy, planning,
funding, insurance and compliance reasons. These include
requirements under the National Climate Change
ResponsePolicy (2011), the Climate Change Bill, the
National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy andthe
Disaster Management Amendment Act 16 of 2015, as well
as international funding processes and reporting under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC)(DEFF, 2020).
The variety of assessments being undertaken by a range of
organisationshas proved problematic for evaluating
assessments and for aggregating across them to inform planning and decision making at larger scales
and higher levels of governance, underpinning the need for this framework.
Vulnerability: The degree to which someone or
something can be affected by a particular hazard
(from sudden events such as a storm to long-
term climate change).
Vulnerability depends on physical, social,
economic and environmental factors and
-Physical vulnerability relates to the built
environment and may be described as
-Social vulnerability is caused by such things as
levels of family ties and social networks literacy
and education, health infrastructure, the state of
peace and security
-Economic vulnerability is suffered by people of
less privileged class or caste, ethnic minorities,
the very young and old etc. They suffer
proportionally larger losses in disasters and have
limited capacity to recover. Similarly, an economy
lacking a diverse productive base is less likely to
recover from disaster impact which may also lead
to forced migration
-Environmental vulnerability refers to the extent
of natural resource degradation, such as
deforestation, depletion of fish stocks, soil
degradation and water scarcity that threaten
food security and health. (IFRC, 2007)
The NRVF also offers step-by-step guidance for designing and
implementing a vulnerability assessment which covers the entire life
cycle of adaptation interventions, using consistent methods proven
on the ground and covers the concept of participatory vulnerability
For the lattertwo processes of linking vulnerability assessments
through projectimplementation to impact assessments and also
working in a participatory manner, more research andexplorative
processes are still required to assess the potential forstandardisation.
This is one of the intended work packages of this research briefand
will be explored within deliverables 2,4,7 and 8 in more detail
In terms of participatory vulnerability assessments, the following non
exhaustive list of tools from a range of international, civil society and
institutional role players, provides some examples:
-CARE (2019) Climate Vulnerability and Capacity
AnalysisHandbook Informing community-based
adaptation, resilience and gender equality Version 2.0.
(Available in English and French versions):
-IFRC and the Red Cross RedCrescent Climate Centre (2019) Climate Training Kit:
-IISD (2012). CRiSTAL -Community-based Risk Screening Tool Adaptation and
Livelihoods. (Available in English, French and Spanish versions):
-IISD & UNEP (2018). Adaptation, Livelihoods and Ecosystem (ALivE) Planning Tool:
User Manual. (Available in multiple language versions): alive-
-The PVA tool (Action Aid) draws on exercises similar to the PACDRl process (e.g.
hazard map and seasonal calendar) but adds some specific guiding questions on vulnerability.
In addition, it includes further exercises (problem tree and concept mapping)which focus
more concretely on vulnerability. It also gives guidance on which aspects of vulnerability
should be discussed anddocumented. The PVA also includes steps to carry the results from
the analysis to the district and national levels to create ownership and develop advocacy
-PACDR (Bread for the World) hasdeveloped the following process:
Participatory Assessment of Climate and Disaster Risks (PACDR): A Tool for Integrating
Climate and Disaster Risks into Community Planning and Development s to systematically
integratethe consideration of climate and disaster risks into community planning and
development.’This tool explicitly incorporates both disaster risk reduction andadaptation
into one framework. Participatory Assessment of Climate and Disaster Risks (PACDR)
PACDR (Bread for the World)
This tool most closely resembles the participatory vulnerability assessment process developed
through our 2017-2020 WRC process for development of an adaptation platform for smallholder
Resilience versus vulnerability
and risk
The concepts of vulnerability and
risk focus on differentiating
between who or what is exposed
to climate hazards and why they
are impacted in different ways
and to varying degrees.
Resilience places a stronger focus
on whole systems and their
combined capacity to function
and change in the face of climate
hazards, pressures or
Reducing the climate vulnerability
and risks of various communities,
businesses, sectors and
jurisdictions contribute to
increasing the resilience of South
Africa’s social, economic, and
environmental systems (DEFF,
farmers in South Africa (Kruger, 2021). As this tool is also actively being promoted in South Africa, the
respective organisations have agreed toexplore commonalities and future reviews and adaptations
to these respectivetools through theAdaptation Network Vulnerability Assessments Webinar and
follow up process (About - The Adaptation Network), planned for 2022-2023.
The idea behind the tool is that communities can apply their local knowledge incombination with
general knowledge related to disasters and climate change in a way that suits their specific needs and
situation. The tool provides a simple, easy-to-use structure and guidance to follow in the step-by-step
development of a community assessment of climate and disaster risks and opportunities. It has been
developed over roughly 10 years and has been tested and implemented in Africa, Asia andLatin
America. The assessment can then inform ongoing or planned projects and programmes, and, more
generally, community planning.The tool relieson localparticipation to identify hazards, to prioritize
risks and to develop the strategies necessary to respond effectively to the risks (BfdW, 2020).
More specifically, the tool enables users to:
-Understand how climate and other hazards affect lives and livelihood resources
-Learn how local people currently respond to these hazards
-Identify adaptation strategies to strengthen thethreatened livelihood resources and to
enhance people’s resilience and
-Include gender considerations throughout the assessment of climate and disaster risks.
The PACDR tool consists of7 modules:
1.Context: Preparation of background material and compilation of information on the communitynational policies
(CC and DRR), CC information and information on appropriate adaptive responses. (What changes in weather
patterns have occurred, what hazards, what impact and how were different people and livelihoods affected).
2.Climate change and hazard analysis: Participatory mapping, seasonal calendar, prioritization of hazards
3.Vulnerability assessment: Vulnerability matrix
4.Response to the impacts of hazards: Survey and assessment of local response
5.Adaptation strategies: review of CC scenarios, Identification of community adaptation goals, strategies (obstacles
and opportunities)
6.Co-benefits of adaptation strategies: Matrix
7.Community adaptation and planning: Action plan - Identification of activities for individuals,
groups, community and other stakeholders, advocacy plan, presentation to the wider community (BfdW, 2020).
Already one area of cooperation lies in the better integration of the PCDR tool into implementation
and impact assessment processes- an area wherein the WRC developed tool is stronger.
Adaptation and disaster risk management
More and more these two areas are being considered jointly, despite the distinct and different policy,
strategy development and government implementation trajectories.
A multi stakeholder thinktank developed a policy brief (Dept of Env Sci Rhodes uNiversity, 2017) with
the following 6 key messages:
1.The extreme weather events that have dominated the news in 2017 are what we can expect
to see under climate change. Drought, storms, fires and floods will become more frequent and
more intense, giving rise to the expression 'the new normal'.
2.Climate change and weatherevents cannot cause disasters in isolation. A disaster occurs when
extreme weather events collide with impoverished communities, dysfunctional governance
and poorly maintained infrastructure.
3.There are two spheres of discourse dealing with theresponse to extreme hydro-
meteorological events - Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate ChangeAdaptation (CCA).
There is overlap in the theory and policy dimensions of DRR and CCA, but little actual
integration of decision making, governance and practice, especially at the local level.
4.The bureaucratic challenge of defining and declaring a 'disaster' often leaves the most
vulnerable either without much needed support or support that comes too late.
5.Technical fixes and emergency responses are not enough on their own, and sometimes make
things worse.
6.Building resilience and preparing adequately forclimate related disasters requires
transdisciplinary, trans-institutional, trans-sectoral approaches, that clearly identifythe
synergies between CCA and DRR.
These policy recommendationsstill hold and are in fact more urgent five years down the line. A recent
review of factors hindering effective integration revealedchaotic institutional arrangements, unlinked
stakeholder activities, lack of political will, haphazard nature of funding, and interrupted knowledge
transferas the critical factors that hinder the integration of CCA and DRR around the globe(Dias,
Amaratunga, Haigh, Clegg, &Malalgoda, 2021). Best practice includes among other factors, risk
assessments which include disaster and climate risks, vulnerabilities and coping capabilities and
considering systemic interlinkages and dependences.This will be kept in mind in further activities
involving the design of vulnerability assessments and monitoring process.
d.Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is not new but has become increasingly relevant in response to rapidly
changing situations, including the COVID-19 pandemic and weather-related disasters. It involves
implementing a management strategy, closely monitoring its effects and then adapting future actions
based on the observed results. In this way, planners simultaneously apply management practices and
learn from those management practices.
In brief, adaptive management can be broken into six general steps:
1.Assess the current conditions; identify any problems; determine goals
2.Design a management plan that incorporates these goals
3.Implement the management plan
4.Monitor the impact(s) of the management plan
5.Evaluate the results of the monitoring process and
6.Modify the plan asneeded to respond to changingconditions, as identified through the
monitoring and evaluation process.
Adaptive management is a cyclicalprocess, running continuously through these steps. The first two
steps involve establishing goals for the management process, while steps three through five represent
the actual implementation and evaluation of the process. In practice, many adaptive management
plans run through steps 3-6 several times before returning to steps 1 and 2, which may involve a
reassessment of the entire management plan, including target goals. It is important to evaluate results
and modify management strategies as needed to respond to changing conditions (Land Trust Alliance,
Adaptive management involves continually monitoring a process to evaluate its effectiveness, and
improving the process based on this evaluation. It requires transparent planning systems and
implementation strategies, and a strong emphasis on monitoring and reviewing to ensure emerging
information is reflected in future planning (Rogers & Macfarlan, 2020)
This methodology is to be used in one of the multi stakeholder platforms within which the research
team is involved namely the Living Catchments Project (SANBI and WRC) in the uThukela River
Catchment. The project has the aim of establishing better-CoPs that are involved with managing the
built and ecological infrastructure within important water catchments.
Stakeholders inthe upper uThukela are working together towards a shared vision of equitable and
sustainable water resources management in the catchment. Warmly welcomed by Okhahlamba Local
Municipality Manager, Nkosingiphile Malinga, on 14th June 2022, almost 40 stakeholders who live,
work or have an interest in the water resources in the upper uThukela catchment, met in Bergvillefor
a one-day Adaptive Planning Process (APP) workshop. This second multi-stakeholder engagement
built on the first workshop of the Living Catchment Project in the upper uThukela in May 2021 and
included a structured process to collaborate towards creating a shared vision between a wide and
diverse range of stakeholders (Letty, 2022).
The APP process is to be continued under this research brief; more specifically under deliverables 4
and 9.
e.Local Food Systems
Food systems has developed as an area of enquiry that explores the political economy of theagri-food
system and focuses on food security and food sovereignty, highlighting issues of agriculture, nutrition
and health related to the food system. This work in South Africa
has been spearheaded by the Southern Africa Food lab since 2009
(Southern Africa Food Lab | Food Security Initiative).
A systematic literature review looking at the future of South
Africa’s food system was undertaken in 2014 (Pereira, 2014).
Food security is the outcome of a complex interaction of multiple
factors on multiple levels, from the production of food to its
consumption, including elements of food availability, food access
and food utilisation. A sustainable food system is regarded as one
that takes into consideration environmental, social and economic
impacts and that provides nutritious food for all.
The concept of the ‘nutrition transition’ has become aconcern in
the food system, especially in developing countries, which is
related to overconsumption ofrefined foods and meatin South
Africa this transition is causing undernutrition in young children
and overweight and obesity in older children and adults(Pereira,
According to Pereira, “poorer South Africans, especially in rural
andinformal urban areas, are less ableto afford healthy, nutritious
meals on a daily basis. An increasing reliance on purchasing food
instead of growing it has also meant that consumers are more vulnerable to price shocks. In the poor
rural areas the emphasishas shifted from growing one’s own food to buying it at local stores and
supermarkets, often with money received from social grants”. In general, nutrient-dense foods such
as lean meat, fish, fruit and vegetables cost far more than processed food products, further skewing
consumption towards these types of food.
The South African food system has been radically altered by the effects ofrapidurbanisation, the
globalisation of the food trade and the subsequent concentration of agribusiness. Climate change and
Food security is when all people,
at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious
food that meets their dietary
needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy lifestyle.
Food sovereignty is the right
of each nation to maintain and
develop its own capacity to
produce foods that are crucial
to its own food security, while
respecting cultural diversity and
diversity of production methods.
A local food system is a
collaborative network that
integrates sustainable food
production, processing,
distribution, consumption, and
waste management to enhance the
environmental, economic, and
social health of a particular area.
weather variability, water scarcity, a failing land reformprocess, depletion of fish stocks and food
waste pose the biggest threats to the SouthAfrican food system. The duality of the current agriculture
system, where large commercial farmsproduce food for the formal value chain and smallholders are
marginalised is another important concern, which has undermined our food system’sability to provide
livelihoods and has accelerated and deepened the processes that are driving poor people off the land
and fuelling rapid urbanisation.
According to Pereira anoverarchingtheme in many of the papers in the review was the need for multi-
stakeholder engagement in the governance of the food system. The food system isbeing contested on
manylevels and by many different groups. What is generally being advocated is the need to bring
various points of view together to chart a way forward for a food system that is both sustainable and
equitable’(Pereira, 2014).
Greenberg and Drimie state in their review that ‘in summary, the South African food system is highly
contested with the legacy of apartheid leaving a dualisticagrarian system. Theadvent of democracy
coincided with rapid liberalisation of the agricultural sector leading to the consolidation of larger
players including agri-businesses, food processors, retailers and other actors in the food value chain.
Green Revolution approaches to smallholder support have become the dominant paradigm with
powerful actors supporting and entrenching this throughout the food system. As such, agroecology
largely has been marginalised. Despite this, important initiatives, particularly those led by civil society,
have emerged to advance an agroecological agenda. Pockets have alsoemerged within government
(in particular in DALRRD and DFFE) who are willing to support this agenda(Greenberg & Drimie, The
state of the debate onagroecology in South Africa. A scan of actors, discourses andpolicies. Final
Report, 2021).
In a recentreport, looking at sustainable and inclusivetransformation of the South African food
system (FAO, European Union, CIRAD and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security (CoE-FS).,
2022), four core challengeshave been identified for the country to transition towards asustainable
food system: Improved nutrition; sustainable agricultural production systems; levelling the food
system playing field, and improved food system governance.
Policy recommendations made in this report are:
-In food insecurityand nutrition: reducethe cost of nutrition dense food and increase the
range, scale, and coverageof child-centred food system interventionsin the built environment
-In food production: support the transition towards agroecological food systems, and link land
reform with place-based farmer support
-In market functioning:reform and enforce food system regulatory policies,adopt an
integrated approach to building an inclusive food system and
-In food system governance: improve inclusivestakeholderparticipation and enhanced
engagement and adopt a two-pronged place- and issue-based approach to food system
It is within this context that promotion of local food systems using sustainable production and land
use practices is being promoted primarily through thecivil society sector with some private and
academic partners. Concepts such as community food systems, local food economies and food
sovereignty are coming into play, linking intothinking around just transitions and transformation of
the food system. In terms of food production agroecology and regenerative agriculture are being
Agroecology is a way of redesigning food systems, from the farm to the table, to achieve ecological,
economic, and socialsustainability. Through transdisciplinary, participatory, andchange-oriented
research and action, agroecology links together science, practice, and movements focused on social
Greenberg and Drimie conclude that ‘given the reality of agricultural practice in South Africa, the wide
range of existing definitions of agroecology canbe considered as aspirational. As such, the accent is
placed on diverse ecological production techniques and their integration at farm andlandscape levels.
We propose these be considered as acontinuum of practices, with “entry level” requirements for
stepping onto the path ofagroecology as no use of genetically modified (GM) seeds, synthetic fertilizers
or pesticides that are toxic to humans, animals and the soil. The list of practices offersa range of
opportunities for building change practically from the “grassroots” level. Recognizing agroecology as
a movement, we also propose the integration of participatory methods of dialogue, research,
experimentation and learning as defining features of agroecological practice(Greenberg & Drimie,
The state of the debate on agroecology in South Africa. A scan of actors, discourses and policies. Final
Report, 2021).
The authors developed a table outlining the main discourses around agroecology in South Africa, as
shown below.
Corporate food regime
Food movements
Food enterprise
Food security
Agroecological practice
Food sovereignty
Core approach based on
food coming from
Key strategies include
increased corporate-led
industrial production;
Green Revolution;
high levels of external
inputs such as fertilisers
and agro-chemicals;
expansion of GMOs;
partnerships; market
access (especially export
Small scale producers
(especially those using
natural techniques) are
seen as an anachronism,
otherwise as cheap
labour and land for
production of mass
commodity crops.
Large-scale commercial
agriculture still at the
base of food production
and distribution, but
some role for
smallholder producers
through value chain
integration, some
recognition of
environmental limits and
constraints, especially
water and soil.
modernisation /
intensification within a
capitalist market context
(e.g. CA/CSA).
Diverse viewson
production from within
the reformist group:
i) Organics as a premium
niche market
ii) Natural farming as a
hobby but notfor bulk
iii) Agroecology is
equated with
subsistence production /
Core approach based on
food coming from an
open set of dynamic and
interconnected practices
on a continuum from a
set of “entry level”
practices to integrated
systems at farm,
landscape and territorial
Core/entry level
practices are no GM
seeds;use of only
organic/natural soil
fertility methods; and
use of only
organic/biological pest
management and
Key role for smallholder
production and small
enterprises throughout
supply systems.
Sustainable food
systems, fair and short
distribution networks,
food systems embedded
in local economies.
Social and ecological
integration, popular and
Core approach sees food
coming from
agroecological practice
based on organised
collective agency and
democratic control of
food systems.
Radical nature of
approach characterised
by radical redistribution
of land and other
resources, active
organised resistance to
corporate and other
extractive encroachment
/ occupation of
agricultural, foodand
wider systems.
‘traditional’ / backyard
agriculture or homestead
gardening with a welfare
and poverty relief
indigenous knowledge,
key role for women, right
to food.
Collective and
participatory practices.
A trend in the food movement is towards practice “in the shadow of policy” with efforts to work
‘beyond’ the state in thecontext of state capture and lack of responsiveness. Recent literature
details how embedded this form of corruption facilitated by powerful figures withinthe state has
been and how state capture has exacerbated institutional decay. State capture has undermined
the social contract that was intended at the advent of democracy in 1994 (Greenberg & Drimie,
The state of the debate on agroecology in South Africa. A scan of actors, discourses and policies.
Final Report, 2021).
Principles for implementation of agroecology have been defined by theFAO andthe United
Nations HLPE (Wezel, et al., 2020). These are shown in table format below
FAO’s ten elements
Improve resource efficiency
1. Recycling. Preferentially use local renewable resources and close as far as
possible resource cycles of nutrients and biomass
2. Input reduction. Reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased inputs
and increase self-sufficiency
Strengthen resilience
3. Soil health. Secure and enhance soilhealth andfunctioningfor improved plant growth, particularly by
managing organic matter and enhancing soil biological activity.
4. Animalhealth.
Ensure animal health and
5. Biodiversity. Maintain andenhance diversity of species, functional
diversity and genetic resources and thereby maintain overall agroecosystem
biodiversity in time and space at field, farm and landscape scales.
Part of diversity
6. Synergy. Enhance positive ecological interaction, synergy, integration and
complementarity among the elements of agroecosystems (animals, crops,
trees, soil and water)
7. Economic diversification. Diversify on-farm incomes by ensuring that
small-scale farmers have greater financial independence and value addition
opportunities while enabling them to respond to demand from consumers.
Part of diversity
Secure social equity/responsibility
8.Co-creation of knowledge. Enhance co-creation and horizontal sharing of
knowledge including local and scientific innovation, especiallythrough
farmer-to-farmer exchange.
Co-creation and sharing of
9. Social values and diets. Build food systems based on the culture, identity,
tradition, social and gender equity oflocal communities that provide healthy,
diversified, seasonally and culturally appropriate diets.
Parts of human and social
values and culture and food
10. Fairness. Support dignified and robust livelihoods for all actors engaged in food systems, especially small-
scale food producers, based on fair trade, fair employment and fair treatment of intellectual property rights.
11. Connectivity. Ensure proximity andconfidence between producers and
consumers through promotion of fair and short distribution networks and by
re-embedding food systems into local economies.
Circular and
solidarity economy
12. Land andnatural resource governance. Strengthen institutional
arrangements to improve, including the recognition and support of family
farmers, smallholders and peasant food producers as sustainable managers
of natural and genetic resources.
Responsible governance
13. Participation. Encourage social organization and greater
participation in decision-making by food producers and consumers to support decentralized governance and
local adaptive management of agricultural and food systems.
Source: (Wezel, et al., 2020).
As a part of the TAFS (Transitions to agroecological food systems) project, a range of stakeholders
involved in agroecology took part in a number of different conversations (Greenberg, Fastenaktion
agroecology survey results., 2022).From this survey Greenberg summarized that there is growing
societal awareness of the need for systems change across multiple dimensions, and a ‘natural’ role for
agroecology in responding to waves of shocks and stresses.
Agroecology is seen as a clear response to multiple shocks and stresses(e.g., Cyclone Idai, Covid 19,
the July social unrest, rising food prices and deepening poverty). Some specific areas where
respondents perceived growing societal awareness are:
-Climate changeawareness of the need to adapt, linked to wider awareness of environmental
degradation, and funding is available for climate resilience in food production.
-Nutrition consumer demand for healthier eating, Covid 19 and healthy eating, indigenous
crops, crop and seed diversification.
- Resonances with traditional practices and indigenous knowledge, availability of reliable local
seed that can survive through water stressed conditions.
-Interest in the wider society on food sovereignty, landredistribution, local food markets,
growing own food, buying from local growers, seed exchanges, and self-sufficiency.
-Deepening and longer term agroecological practise to provide evidence and
-Greater interest within civil society on networking and collaboration, working across sectors,
other sectors aligning with healthy food movement, resulting in stronger voice and effective
resource use. Respondents proposed local initiatives and collective submissions, and
collaboration at national and regional / continental levels.
Written by Ayanda Madlala (MDF)
a.What are Multistakeholder Platforms?
There are varies ways in which people or groups come up with solutions for complex situations or to
explore new and promising opportunities that require working in partnership. These partnerships and
interactions are expressed in different ways ranging from coalition, alliances, networks and platforms
to participatory governance, stakeholder engagements and interactive policymaking. The term multi-
stakeholder platform (MSP) is an overarching concept for partnerships highlighting a vision that
different groups sharing a common goal can work together(Surminski & and Leck, 2016). These
different groups include government, both local and national, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), Non-
Government Organizations (NGOs), private sector and academia (Forino, 2015).
Definitions of MSPs by numerous stakeholders/authors who have thoroughly engaged with the
concept are as follows:
-Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2020) describes an MSP as a concept of partnership that
seeks to be forward thinking, to make voluntary and collaborative relationships possible regarding
issues between various parties. They include both public and non-public entities that can achieve
common purposes, offer a neutral space for policy dialogues or undertake specific tasks and as
mutually agreed, share risks and responsibilities, resources as well as benefits.
-The Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (CDI) views MSPs as a form of governance,
a way in which groups of people can make decisions and take action for a collective good (Owili,
2021). These decisions may be taken at local, national or at an international scale. One ofthe
objectives for this development approach is to allow for different stakeholders to learn from one
another, to hear others while allowing their voices to be heard and explore pathways more likely
to meet interests for all.
-MSPs assist in providing the realization that transformation in complex systems cannot be
achieved through simple or technical solutions as they are likely tohave insufficient orunintended
results. For change to take place, newforms of governance are required where new stakeholders
will come together to plan and act in innovative ways (Thorpe, Guijt, Sprenger, & Darian, 2021)
They are defined as potential means to promote deliberative decision making as an organizational
tool to open and create political spaces fostering inclusive institutional innovation.
- MSPs are defined as potential means to promote deliberative decision making as an
organizational tool to open and create political spaces fostering inclusive institutional innovation
(Adekunle & Fatumbi, 2012).
-The term multi-stakeholder platform is broadly defined as an approach of building synergies and
partnerships with key actors, such as civil society organizations, governments, private sector, and
the community, all groups who are crucial to engage in addressing food system problems.
Multistakeholder partnerships support the development of long-term relationshipswith partners
in knowledge exchange, sharing risks and benefits, human andfinancial capital, and the
innovative ideas that effect change for the common good of the society” (Mutenje & al., 2022)
All the above definitions have something in common which looks at stakeholders at different levels
with a shared vision or aim to resolve a complex issue coming together, learning and sharing
knowledge amongst each other in order to reach a collective resolution. Thisrole is centered on a
multi-stakeholder platform, an initiative that is slightly more than a partnership as it is broader in
scope while catalyzing structural changes and coordinating activities of different stakeholders over
longer periods.
b.What characterizesanMSP?
Multi-stakeholder platforms are not a one workshop or multi-actor gathering, instead they are viewed
as a semi-structured process supporting people to work together over a shorter or longer period. In
the interim different groups or peoplewill engage with one another in different ways. MSPs will be
diverse in practice, however a well-functioning MSP is most likely to possess most ifnot all of the
following characteristics (Herman Brouwer, Woodhill, Hemmati, Verhoosel, & van Vugt, 2015):
-Shared and defined ‘problem-situation’ or opportunity;Stakeholders need to have a sense of why
they form part of the MSP. This usually emerges during the development process of the platform.
-All key stakeholders are engaged in the partnership; actors who have an influence or are affected
by the problem at hand need to be involved from the beginning or the MSP can be easily
-Works across different sectors and scales; underlying causes of the problem and possible solutions
are usually found across different disciplines therefore is important to for the MSP to work across
different sectors and scales.
-Follows an agreed but dynamic process and timeframe; It is vital for the stakeholders involved to
understand the process in which they are invited to form part of and how long it will take.
-Involves stakeholders in establishing their expectations for a good partnership; actors in the MSP
need have create clearly defined rules explaining howthey will be working together.This may
include means of communication, decision making, roles and responsibilities.
-Works with power differences and conflicts; if those with power dominate while leaving those
with less or no power feeling excluded, the partnership will not be constructive. This also applies
to conflict, if left unresolved it will result to a destructive influence.
-Fosters stakeholder learning; good MSPs promote a supportive environmentwith interactive
learning processes.
-Balances bottom-up and top-down approaches; MSP are required to find a balance between
working with structures and decisions that emerge from the top while supporting inputs from
diverse stakeholders from the bottom.
-Makes transformative andinstitutional change possible; there is a need to focus on
transformative change to erase underlying institutional blockages.
c.Effectiveness of MSPs
The agricultural and climate change sectors are increasingly facing complex, systemic problems
requiring structural change at multiple (global, national, local) levels. Multistakeholder platforms
(MSPs) are a recognition that transformation in complex systems cannot be achieved through simple
or technical fixes, which are likely to have insufficient or unintended results. Instead, change requires
new forms of governance which bring stakeholders together to plan and actin new ways (Thorpe,
Guijt, Sprenger, & Darian, 2021).
Multistakeholder involvement is considered crucial for horizontal and vertical scaling of
implementation processesand practices that show promise for broader implementation and to
facilitate inclusive governance coupled with regional and local development mechanisms. Howthese
multistakeholderplatforms are to be set up, function and operate however is a much more
complicated question to answer. Presently there are a number of models for engagement with a
mixture a statutory processes and volunteerism. The requirement of collective action at all levels,
working towards a shared vision is however an important underlying principle (PCC, 2022), as is cutting
across traditional public, private and civil society boundaries.
The effectiveness of multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) remains poorly understood, particularly in
relation to their intended purpose and goals, and relative to approaches to achieve these goals. This
is, at least in part, due to the difficulty of assessing MSP effectiveness in a meaningful and robust way.
The relationship between individual MSP activities and intended system level effects is neither simple
nor direct. Generally, MSPs focus on tracking what can be measured, rather than reflecting on whether
and how MSPs are contributing to system level results (Thorpe, Guijt, Sprenger, & Darian, 2021).
According to these authors“the problem is that our usual tools for measuring effectiveness are not fit
for this purpose. They rely on a linear logic generally involving trackingchanges in key performance
indicators which is poorly suited for acting systemically. They are often applied retrospectively, in an
attempt to account for the results of an MSP, rather than for real time learning. They put the focus on
what we can measure our activities and outputs… but many different economic and political factors,
includingbut not limited to the MSP, collectively shape food systems.
Successful MSPs are observed through the following principles:
-They are able to achieve lasting outcomes
-They involve wide variety of actors
-They have the ability to create sustainable working groups and
-They work towards finding common solutions.
If these principles are in place, then MSPs have the ability to facilitate and promote policy and legal
reforms, create neutralspacesforclimate and other related issuesand promote buy-in for responsible
governance. The manner in which the partnerships are setup, the processes used, the capacity for
leadership and the skill of facilitation are important underlying considerations for success.
MSPs need a specific vision towork towards, as well as atheory of change within which to
contextualize their activitiesand impact. They need to also have a clear understanding of their
definition of a stakeholder, outlining who needs to be involved and how.
In the context of agricultural development, MSPs havebeen identified as having the potential to
address climate change focusing on a 3-legged approach mitigation, adaptation as well as food
security (Rosenstock, Nowak, & Girvetz, 2019). It is through recent studies that MSPs are viewed has
engines to facilitate climate change policy makingin East Africa particularly Uganda and Tanzania.
Case studies executed in these two countries where MSPs were established at both national and
subnational levels prove to be effective. This integrated approach is of utmost importance because,
even though climate change effects are feltlocally, change happens most effectively within an
enabling policy environment.
d.VSTEEP Methodology
This is a methodology developed originally in the business sector to assess solutions to
environmental and economic problems and stands for ‘Social,Ttechnical, Economic, Environmental
and Political Values’. It has been adapted and used more recently in our context within the Strategic
Adaptive Management (SAM) and Adaptive Management stables to enact a joint visioning and
theory of change upon which to base multistakeholder actions (Palmer, Rogers, Holleman, & Wolff,
2018). This work was done in the context of integrated water resources management in catchments
to work towards catchment management forums.
These authors suggested that use of SAM is important because:
-Existing management procedures are not protecting the biodiversity and function of aquatic
ecosystems or ensuring fair household water supply.
-Climate change is affecting ecosystems and society must be able to adapt to these changes.
We have a responsibility to protect our environment it supports all life: human, animal,
and plant.
-Balancing the protection and use of freshwater ecosystems is difficult because all users need
a reliable supply of water of a particular quantity and quality. They also usually want more
than is available, and sharing is hard and difficult.
-Freshwater ecosystems need a holistic management approach because all the elements of
the system (people, other species, and the structure of the system) are connected. Every
action has multiple effects some of them unexpected and whatever happens upstream
always affects what happens downstream.
-The adaptive planning process (APP) of SAM provides a set of objectives for action.
Management actions to achieve the objectives can be tested and adapted in the full SAM
-APP embraces uncertainty and uses it as a learning opportunity. Managers using Adaptive
Planning recognize that they are constantly ‘learning by doing’and
-APP recognizes that demands on an ecosystem such as a river often compete with each
other. Fair sharing can emerge from consensus. Taking account of social-ecological
connections increases adaptive possibilities ( (Palmer, Rogers, Holleman, & Wolff, 2018).
The methodology takes a broad range of concerned stakeholders through a participatory process to
define their values and concerns and outline the specific context of their catchment towards
developing a joint vision for the future of the catchment. This is followed by identifying the key
strengths of the catchment towards defining objectives; it identifies the fundamental purpose of
managing a specific resource. Once the special features of these resources are defined, then an
exploration of threats and constraints can lead to prioritizing certain sets of activities and processes
and lead to an action plan, which can be implemented and reviewed. This is an ongoing, cyclical, and
adaptive process.
e.Stakeholder analysis
An important aspect of any multistakeholder process is understanding who the stakeholders are and
how they are or could be involved.
Stakeholder analysis in development and the natural resources management literature has focused
on understanding power dynamics and enhancing the transparency and equity of decision-making in
development projects. The 4Rs tool for example analyses how people relate to one another over
natural resource use by splitting stakeholder roles into rights, responsibilities and revenues
(benefits), and then assessing the relationship between these roles (Reed, et al., 2009) These
analyses have often focussed on inclusivity, being used to empower marginal groups, such as
women, those without access to well established social networks, the under-privileged, or the
socially disadvantaged, and those who are not easily accessible, because for example they live far
away from main roads.
Natural resource management typically deals with conflicting interests of various stakeholders since
they use the same resources for different purposes. It is therefore important to understand the
different perspectives of the actors involved. For this reason, in the development and natural
resource management literature it is often argued that sustainable management of natural
resources requires a soft system, i.e. a space or platform that facilitates a learning among
stakeholders by sharing, and intersubjectively validating, their understanding of the situation in
order to reach consensus. Stakeholder analysis in itself does not create this platform for negotiation
but can be used as a tool to contribute to this negotiation or learning between stakeholders. This is a
normative model.Instrumental stakeholder research is more pragmatic, and largely devoted to
understanding how organisations, projectsand policymakers can identify, explain, and manage the
behaviour of stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes. This has been used instrumentally to
overcome obstacles to the adoption of new technologies, adapt technologies to relevant user
groups, or to disseminate the same technologies in different ways to different groups. It also has
been used where consensual targets need to be met across stakeholder groupings. It may also be
particularly important for identifying existing conflicts between stakeholders.
The authors propose a stakeholder analysis typology. This consists of methods for: i) identifying
stakeholders; ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders; and iii) investigating
relationships between stakeholders. A number of different methods for undertaking these steps are
suggested by the authors.
For the purposes of the adaptation platform and this research brief, stakeholder engagement is
conceptualized on three levels: Micro-, Meso- and Macro-levels. These are briefly described below.
1st LEVEL: Practical implementation (micro)
The first level of CoPs (Communities of practise) is to work with individual small-scale farmers through
their village-based learning groups (LG) where awareness raising, training, farmerlevel
experimentation, implementation, monitoring, review and re planning takes place. This is where the
CRA practices are introduced and implemented. Seasonal implementation is undertaken:
-Summer: Conservation Agriculture (field cropping), fodder production
-Winter: Intensive homestead food production, poultry production and fodder supplementation.
-Spring and autumn: soil and water conservation and management activities and other resources
conservation activities.
This is done to ensure that implementationfits into thelabour and production patterns within the
communities where work is undertaken and that participants are not over-burdened by programme
activities. Onto this basic platform is scaffolded the village savings and loan associations (VSLAs), the
local marketing initiatives, the local food systems development activities (nutrition, value adding, seed
saving networks etc), the exploration of collaborative actions related to water and resource
conservation and interaction with stakeholders.
These are basically farmer research networks and fit well into the latest thinking around how such
structures could function (Richardson, et al., 2021), where diverse farmersparticipate in the whole
research process. Research is rigorous, democratized, and useful. It is focusedon agroecological
intensification knowledge creation that provides practical benefits tofarmers based on their social
and biophysical contexts and networks are collaborative and facilitate learning and knowledge-
2nd LEVEL: Communication & Innovation (meso)
The second level of CoPs are the Innovation platforms, which consist of clustersof learning groups
from a particular area,or site coming together toshare information and insights and engage with
external stakeholders inthematic events to explore social agency, advocacy and further
implementation aspects related to CbCCA.
These farmer research networks can be used to support research and action ata systems level (such
as a landscape, agroecosystem, or food system). Working in networks that include actors besides
farmers may catalyse and strengthen systems thinking. Networks create opportunities to
link farmers to other actors, bringing in perspectives, knowledge, and technologies from others in the
farming and broader food system. This can be done by researching multiple components
of the agroecosystem and supporting farmers in making informed choices about how tobest sequence
and combine a variety of AE techniques to suit their own needs, farming system, and
resources. Additionally, landscape-level management practices can be encouraged, as well as support
for value chain research to facilitate the gradual transition to a sustainable system (Richardson, et al.,
3rd LEVEL: Multi-sectoral involvement of relevant institutions & stakeholders (meso & macro)
The third level of CoPs consist of multi stakeholder networks and processes that provide the platforms
for national and international learning and collaboration and also upscaling the CbCCA work and
provide for further collaborations and potential funding opportunities.
Figure 4: Conceptualizationof stakeholder platforms at multiple levels to support CbCCA
Further exploration of the categories of stakeholders and the roles and relationships between
stakeholders is important for the present research brief.
Innovation and
multistakeholder platforms-
Communication and
Smallholderfarmers in CRA
learning groups (LGs)
National Networks e.g. Adaptation
network, Agroecology Network
National organistions e.g., PGS-SA
Regional forums e.g., Water Source
Areas forums (WWF) Living
catchments Forums (SANBI)
Cluster of LGs within and between
areas learn and implement CRA
These clusters ineteract with external
stakeholders e.g., NGOs, Government
Deparments, Local and District
Municipalities, traditional authorities
and Water Service authorities
Individual farmers in LGs learn and
implement CRA together
LG's set up other interest groups and
committees e.g., water committees,
viallge savings and loan assocations,
marketing groups, livestock
associations and resource conservaiotn
The intention is threefold:
Expand introduction and implementation of the CbCCA DSS framework within the areas of
operation of MDF with a number of different communities. Work with existing communities
as the basis of the case studies in specific thematic areas.
Introduce and implement the CbCCA DSS framework with a range of other role-players
expanding into new areas, including different agroecological zones and
Work at multistakeholder level to introduce the methodology as an option for adaptation
planning and action, both within civil society and also including Government stakeholders.
This is the first step towards institutionalization of the process and will involve mainly working
within existing multistakeholder platforms and networks as the starting point.
To date the research team has participated in a range multistakeholderplatforms, networks and
communities of practices (CoPs) towards developing a framework for awareness raising,
dissemination and incorporation of the CbCCA-DSS methodology into local and regional planning
processes and developing methodological coherence for a numberof the themes to be explored in
this brief.
Presentations have been made to: The Adaptation Network, The Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership,
TshintshaAmakaya, Adaptation Network, the South African Mountains Conference, The Tsitsa Project,
the WWF-Freshwater Programme and the Agreocology Network of South Africa.
Planning meetings have beenheld with research collaborators; Nqe Dlamini, Nicky mcCleod and
Derick du Toit to outline work programmes for various deliverables and to develop Memorandums of
Understanding (MoUs) for each work package.
Introductory meetings with other civil society organisations, with a view to expand implementation
horizontally and into new agroecological and institutional environments have been held with The
WildlandsTrust (Northern KZN), Sociotechnical Interfacing (Gauteng and Northwest), Environmental
and Rural Solutions (Eastern Cape).
Conceptual discussion on a range oftopics including vulnerability assessments, the role of agroecology
in CCA, methods for monitoring and evaluation of multistakeholder processes, development of
stakeholder platforms and inclusion of volumetric water benefit accounting as a tool for
implementationof integrated water resources management have been undertaken in the last 4
months and will be continued into the next deliverable.
The table below outlines actions and meetings to date.
Organization and
Tsitsa Project- Laura
Informal conversation around
implementing the DMF developed
adaptation platform to help in a short-
term implementation and review process
of the project
Further discussions with the tam
around how to incorporate different
aspects as well as the resilience
snapshots into their process
Presentation of TOC for desktop review
for inputs by writing team
Interns and field team members to
assist with specific sections of the
desktop study
AWARD Derick du
Meeting in Hoedspruit to discuss
AWARD’s contribution
Focus to be on local food systems
case study, youth engagement
StratAct Nqe
Introduction of topic and discussion of
Deliverable 3 (Handbook on scenarios and
options for successful smallholder
financial services within the South Africa)
Nqe Dlamini is registered for a PhD in
Adult education at UKZN under the
theme of micro finance for
smallholders and is to lead this
aspect of work
Interfacing- Marna
de Lange
Discussion with STI re the CbCCA model
specifically incorporation of climate
change action in foodsecurity
implementation sharing of resources
Meeting with STI team in Polokwane to
present model and discuss potential
implementation collaboration
The intention is to run workshops
with STI staff and communities to
incorporate climate action into their
Amakhaya Winile
Discussions for presentation of the CbCCA
model to 9 partner organizations, with
the intention of implementation in WC,
EC, Limpopo and KZN
Still to be followed up change in
national coordinator
Discussionsand subsequent joint
proposal for inclusion of CbCCA into
resource conservation programming
Proposal submitted forIsimangaliso
Wetland Programme
SAMC conference
Presentation of a paper: CbCCA improves
Climate change resilience for smallholder
farmers in central Drakensberg
Submission of full academic paper by
WWF-Water Source
Negotiation for MDF CRA implementation
to be part of the water stewardship
programme in the upper uThukela
Inclusion in a pilot for volumetric
water benefits for smallholders; CA
and water access (2022-2024)
Partnership Nicky
McCleod, Sissie
Presentation of CbCCA DSS at 34th
quarterly meeting of the UCP(~120
participants). Development of MoUand
work programme with ERS
Ongoing involvement in UCP.
Collaboration onissues of
governance and multi stakeholder
Karen Kotshky
Learning in M&E interest group meeting
Continued involvement for academic
framing of new modalities for M&E
LCP Convenors
workshop Erna
Kruger (MDF),Brigid
Letty (INR)
Learning and sharing workshop for Living
Catchments Multistakeholder platform
Part of SANBI-WRC partnership and
LCP- Upper
VSTEEP stakeholder analysis exercise for
role players in upper uThukela as part of
and Adaptive Planning Process
Visioningfor multi stakeholder
Presentation of MDF vulnerability and
resilience assessment tool toCoPfor
vulnerability assessments convened by
Indigo Development and Bread for the
Ongoing interaction in sharing and
learning. Next CoP meeting in August
Adaptation Network
Capacity building
Meetings of newly set up CoP for design
of capacity building process within multi
stakeholder network implementation of
a capacity development process funded
by the Govt of Flanders
Ongoing involvement
networking (AESA)
-Farming forClimate Justice-part research
in solidarity networks with Coventry
University (UK).
-Joined webinar by CGIARon measuring
impact of CSA across their CCAFS
-Focus group discussion on agroecology in
CCA SIDA research process.
- Ngo focus group and farmer focus group
discussions for agroecology cast study for
Role of agroecology in CbCCA
conceptual and development of case
‘Fastenaktion’ research process managed
by Stephen Greenberg
-Presentation to the Agroecology
research working group on Agroecology
transitions towards exploring transition
Group certification and coordination of
organic/agroecologicalfarming inputs
working group meetings
Ongoing involvement in CoP
The following broad activities are to be undertaken during this period:
1.Planning for implementation of CbCCA in MDF supported Climate resilient Agriculture (CRA) learning
groups across three provinces (2x CRA groups per province).
2.Initiation of CbCCA methodology with new CSO partners in two provinces
3.Ongoing involvement in CoPs; Vulnerability assessments, capacity building and learning in monitoring
and evaluation, PGS-SA,
4.Ongoing involvement in LCP programme and Water Resource multistakeholder forum development
5.Progress towards Handbook on smallholder microfinance options
6.Onboarding of minimum 1 Masters Student into the programme to start in early 2023
7.Desktop review on monitoring tools for evidence-based planning and implementation
8.MoU for the Institute of Natural Resources work package.
Adekunle, A., & Fatumbi, A. (2012). Approaches for setting up multi-stakeholder platforms for
agricultural research and development. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(7), 981-988.
BfdW. (2020). Participatroy assessment of climate and disaster risks (PACDR): A tool for integrating
climate and disaster risks into community planning and development. Version 9. Brot für die
Welt, HEKS/EPER, Bread for All. Retrieved from
CA-SGF. (2018). Community-Based Climate change Adapatation: Waht does success look like? Case
Study 8. Cpte Town, Soutth Africa: SANBI.
Chademana, S. (2019). Mainstreaming climate change adapatation practice into integrated
development plans in South Africa: A case of City of Cape Town, Westcoast District and
Swartland municipalities. UKZN, Public Administration. UKZN, KwaZulu Natal, SA. Retrieved
Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., . . . Reid. (2022). Co-
productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. . Global
Environmental Change, 72, 102422-102439.
CSIR. (2019). Green Book: Adapting South African settlements to climate change. Retrieved from
Available at:
DAFF. (2015). draft climate change adaptation and mitigation plan for the South African agricultural
and forestry sectors. Retrieved from
DALRRD. (2013). The strategic plan for South African Agriculture. Retrieved from
DEA. (2013). Long term AdaptationScenarios: Together developing adaptaiton repsonse for future
climates. Summary for policymakers. Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from
DEA. (2017). Lets Repsond Toolkit. Local Government Climate Change Support Prorgramme.
Retrieved from http://environmental-
DEA. (2017). National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Republic of South Africa. Pretoria,SA.
DEA. (2019). Climate change and the agricultural sector. Climate and Impacts Factsheet 4 of 7.
Pretoria: DEA. Retrieved from
DEA. (November 2021). South Africa's 1st Annual Climate Change Report. Theme B. South Africa's
Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation System. Pretoria.
DEFF. (2020). National Climate Risk and Vulnerability (CRV) Assessment Framework summary
document. Pretoria, South Africa.
Dept of Env Sci Rhodes uNiversity. (2017). Integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster
Risk Reduction (DRR) for greater local level resilience: lessons from a multi stakeholder think
tank. Grahamstown, South Africa: Policy Brief No 16. Rhodes University.
Dias, L., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Clegg, G., & Malalgoda, C. (2021). Critical factors that hinder
integration of CCA and DRR:Global perspecitve. In F. W. Leal, & D. (. Ayal, In: Handbook of
Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from
FAO. (2020). Multi-stakeholder Platforms: Building on FAO’s experience for improved governance of
tenure. . Retrieved from
FAO, European Union, CIRAD and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security (CoE-FS). (2022).
Food System Profile South Africa. Catalysingthe sustainable and inclusive transformation
of food systems. Rome, Brussels, Montpellier, France. Retrieved from
Forino, G. e. (2015). A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and disaster
risk reduction integration . International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 6., 372-384.
Retrieved from
GIZ, with EURAC and Adelphi. (2017). The Vulnerability Sourcebook. Concepts and guidelines for
standardised vulnerability assessments. Bonn: GIZ. Retrieved from
Greenberg, S. (2022). Fastenaktion agroecology survey results. Guateng, South Africa: Fastenaktion
International Programme on Food Justice.
Greenberg, S., & Drimie, S. (2021). The state of the debate on agroecology in South Africa. A scan of
actors, discourses and policies. Final Report. Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems
Herman Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2015). The MSP
Guide: How to designand facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen: Centre for
Development Innovation.
IFRC. (2007). Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Guide. Retrieved 06 24, 2022, from downloads/files/RCRC_climateguide.pd
Kruger, E. (2021). Climate Change Adaptaiton 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. Pretoria, South Africa: Water Research
Commision Report no. TT841/2/20.
Land Trust Alliance. (2021). Adaptive management. Retrieved from Ccnservation in changing climate:
Letty, B. (2022). Project Status Report: Living Catchments Project. December 2021-June 2022.
Pietermarizstburg, South Africa: Internal report. PROJECT NO. K5:2984: Institute of Natural
Mankolo, L. (2016). Inclusion of climate change strategies in municipal integrated devleopment
plans: A case from seven municipalities in LImpopo province, South Africa. Jàmbá - Journal
of Disaster Risk Studies, ISSN: (Online) 2072-845X, (Print) 1996-1421.
Mutenje, M., & al., e. (2022). Multi-stakeholder Dialogue Space: Together Scaling Climate Smart
Agriculture andClimate Information Services in Zambia - Concept Note. Retrieved from
Owili, J. e. (2021). Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) and food systems policies in Bangladesh,
Ethiopia, Nigeria and Vietnam; Mapping of MSPs and policies to promote a shift towards a
food system framing for healthier diets. Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for Development
Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Report WCDI-21-156. .
Palmer, C., Rogers, K., Holleman, H., & Wolff, M. (2018). How to use Strategic Adaptive Management
(SAM) and the Adaptive Planning Process (APP) to build a shared catchment future. Pretoria:
The publication of this report emanates from a project titled Water Resources Management
in South Africa: Towards a New Paradigm (WRC Project No K5/2248).
PCC. (2022). Multistakeholder Conference on South Africa’s Just Transition: Chair's Summary.
Retrieved from
Pereira, L. M. (2014). The Future of South Africa’s Food System: What is research telling us?SA Food
Pieterse, A., du Toit, J., & van Niekerk, W. (2021). Climate change adaptation mainstreaming in the
planning instruments of two South African local municipalities. Development Southern
Africa, 38(4).
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., K, H., Joe Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009). Who’s in
and why?A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management.
Journal of Environmental Management 90, pp. 1933-1949.
Richardson, M., Coeb, R., Descheemaekerc, K., Haussmannd, B., Wellarde, K., Mooref, M., . . .
Nelson, R. (2021). Farmer research networks in principle and practice. International Journal
of Agricultural Sustainability. Retrieved from
Rogers, P., & Macfarlan, A. (2020, September). Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive
management. Working paper series. Number 2. Retrieved from BetterEvalutation:
Rosenstock, T., Nowak, A., & Girvetz, E. (2019). The Climate Smart Agriculture Papers: Investigating
the business a productive, resilient and low emission future. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
Nature Switzerland AG. Retrieved from
Santhia, D., Shackleton, S., & Pereira, T. (2018). Mainstreaming sustainble adaptation to climate
change into municipal planning: An analysis from the Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Development Southern Africa, Volume 35, Issue 4.
Singh, C., Iyer, S., New, M., Few, R., Kuchimanchi, B., Segnon, A., & Morchaing, D. (2021).
Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for
adaptation research and practise. Climate and Development, Reivew Article. Retrieved from
Street, R., & Palutikof, J. (2020). Adaptationdecision support tools and adaptation platforms. Science
for Adaptation. Policy brief no1. Nairobi: The World Adaptation Science Programme (WASP)
Secretariat, UNEP.
Street, R., Pringle, P., Lourenço, T., & Mariana, N. (2019). Transferability of decision-support tools.
Climate Change 153, 523-538. Retrieved from
Surminski, S., & and Leck, H. (2016). You never adapt alone the role of Multi-Sectoral Partnerships
in addressing urban climate risks. Available at:
232-Surminski-and-Leck. Retrieved from
Sustainable Energy Africa and Palmer Devlopment Group. (April 2012). Let's Respond: Guide to
integrating climate change risks and opportunities into municipal planning. South Africa:
Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Cooperative Governance,the South
African Local Government Association in partnership with Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammernarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Thorpe, J., & al., e. (2021). Multi Stakeholder Platforms as System Change Agents: A guide for
assessing effectiveness. Wageningen: IDS Institute of Development Studies and Wageningen
University & Research.
Thorpe, J., Guijt, J., Sprenger, T., & Darian, S. (2021). Multistakeholder platforms as system change
agents: A guide for assessing effectiveness. Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for
Development Innovation. Retrieved from
Wezel, A., Herren, B., Bezner Kerr, R., Barrios, E., Goncalves, A., & Sinclair, F. (2020). Agroecological
principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems.
A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40:40. Retrieved from
Ziervogel, G., New, M., Archer van Garderen, E., Midgley, G., Taylor, A., Hamann, R., . . . Warburton,
M. (2014).
tation_in_South_Africa. doi: 10.1002/wcc.295