Deliverable 2 Report on Stakeholder Engagement Case Study Development and Site Identification

Water Research Commission

Submitted to:

Dr Gerhard Backeberg

Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Prepared By:

Project team led by Mahlathini Development Foundation.

Project Number: K5/2719/4

Project Title: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies for the dissemination of

Water and Soil Conservationpractices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming

systems.

Deliverable No.2:Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site

identification

Date: August 2017

Deliverable

Submitted to:

Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Project team:

Mahlathini Development Centre

Erna Kruger

Sylvester Selala

Mazwi Dlamini

Khethiwe Mthethwa

Temakholo Mathebula

Bobbie Louton

Institute of Natural Resources NPC

Jon McCosh

Rural Integrated Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Christiaan Stymie

Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre

Lawrence Sisitka

3 
CONTENTS
FIGURES 5
TABLES 6
1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE 7
Contract Summary 7
Project objectives 7
Deliverables7
Overview of Deliverable 2 8
2Social and partcipatory methodologies and processes10
2.1Introduction 10
2.2Principles for social engagement 10
2.3Brief review of relevant participatory methodologies 11
2.4Communities of practices (CoPs) 12
2.5Participatory research and intervention methodologies 18
Participatory Action Research (PAR)19
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Learning and Action (PLA22
Participatory Innovation Development28
2.6Reflective practice 30
2.7CSA frameworks, methodologies and processes 32
Frameworks which define criteria for assessing effect/impact of CSA interventions35
Decision Support Systems 41
Considerations for selecting sites and participants48
3technical methodologies 52
3.1Draft method for evaluating the effect of CSA practices on soil, water and yield 52
3.2Visual soil assessment indicators 52
3.4Field research and laboratory measurements / indicators 55
3.5Linking the parameters 56
3.6Way forward 58
4Case studies 59
4.1Climate Change Adaptation, Limpopo 59
Description of the programme59
Problem 59
Rationale 60
Implementation of practices 61
Methodology 65
Outcomes and learnings 67
Future planning71
Suitability of this community as an implementation site for the CSA project71
4.2‘Amanzi for Food’72
Outline of the project72
Pactices 73
Learnings, /outcomes/ results74
Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential contribution to a decision support 
process 77
Analysis of a potential implementation site77
4.3Rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) in Muden and Ntshiqo Case study 
(Implemented by Institute of Natural Resources) 78
Learnings, /outcomes/ results80
Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential contribution to a decision support 
process 81

4 
4.4No-till and agroforestry practices at Ixopo, Highflats case study (implemented by Institute 
of Natural Resources) 81
Learnings/outcomes/results 82
Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential contribution to a decision support 
process 82
Analysis of a potential implementation site82
4.5Conservation Agriculture in Bergville: A Case Study 83
Design of farmer level experiments84
Expansion or out scaling of the farmer innovation process85
Farmer centres87
Research in the farmer innovation process 88
Potential of the CA programme as an implementation site for this research process90
5Methodology of this project 92
5.1Stakeholder engagement and site selection; social considerations 92
Site selection and community level engagement92
5.2CSA framework and processes 94
5.3Reflective processes 95
5.4Social and technical considerations for site selection 96
Proposed Farmer level experiments with CSA practices98
Potential sites for CoPs101
6References 104

5 
FIGURES
Figure 1: The relationships and interplay between research, theory and practice ..............................13
Figure 2: The interplay between researchers, facilitators and farmers, indicating associated
methodologies ......................................................................................................................................28
Figure 3: Reflective Practice (Tripp, 2005) ............................................................................................31
Figure 4: Action Research (Tripp 2005) ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 5: Results based framework (FAO,2013) ...................................................................................40
Figure 6: Conceptual model for DSS development (Nay et al 2014) ....................................................43
Figure 7: The 5 dimensions of vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015) .......................................................45
Figure 8:Decision making process (adapted from Heineman, 1988) ....................................................47
Figure 9: Map showing the location of the project site villages along the lower Olifants River ..........61
Figure 10 Ranges of household income and streams of income reported by participants. .................62
Figure 11 Number of participants with one or more type of produce for different types of farming 
enterprises ............................................................................................................................................62
Figure 12: Percentage of participants who reported growing different vegetables ............................63
Figure 13: Percentage of participants who reported growing different fruit and field crops ..............63
Figure 14: Percentage of participants who reported growing different herbs or multifunctional plants 
or raising livestock ................................................................................................................................63
Figure 15: Soil fertility practices reported by participants ...................................................................64
Figure 16:Local good practice in farming activities ..............................................................................65
Figure 17: Left: A group of participants from the Oaks and Lepelle construct a tunnel together. Right: 
A working tunnel in Sedawa, where the drip kits havealso been installed and crops are planted in 
trench beds. Mulching is in evidence. ..................................................................................................67
Figure 18: Introduction of facilitators (left) and discussion of practices (right) at implementation review
..............................................................................................................................................................67
Figure 19: Demonstration stations at the implementation review workshops. Left: Tunnel and drip kit. 
Centre A well mulched trench bed with mixed cropping (okra, brinjal, onion and swiss chard) and close 
spacing. Right: A diversion ditch mulched with the ridge planted to sweet potatoes .........................69
Figure 20: Implementation of new innovations by a selection of participants in the learning groups
(n=34) ....................................................................................................................................................70
Figure 21: PAR methods used during the rainwater harvesting study .................................................78
Figure 22: Shows the RWH&C treatment on the left and a control on the right ................................. 79
Figure 23: Stone contour bunds in Muden...........................................................................................80
Figure 24: Sediment deposition behind stone contour bunds .............................................................80
Figure 25: An example of a variation on the basic maize and legume intercroppingdesign on Mrs 
Smephi Hltashwayo’s pot in Eqeleni. She has planted a local variety of runner beans in between 
tramlines of maize (2016) .....................................................................................................................84
Figure 26:An example of a summer cover crop (sunflower, millet and sunn hemp) experimental plot 
planted by Phumelele Hlongwane in Ezibomvini..................................................................................84
Figure 27: Phumelele Hlongwane's soil health test results for different cropping practices within the 
CA system for the 2015-2016 cropping season. Yields of maize are indicated in the square text boxes 
for each practice...................................................................................................................................89
Figure 28:Schematic diagram for DICLAD modules, (AWARD, 2017) ...................................................94
Figure 29: Social learning attained in CoPs ...........................................................................................95

6 
TABLES
Table 1: Evolution of approaches to stakeholder participation (Reed cited in Strenger et al, 2009) ..19
Table 2: tools used in Action Research (Loewenson et al, 2014) .........................................................21
Table 3:Example; timelineof seasonal characteristics, challenges and farmers' wishes for climate 
change adaptation ................................................................................................................................25
Table 4: An Example of matrix 4; Identifying response options to vulnerabilities (RECOFTC , 2016) ..34
Table 5: Assessmnet, monitoring and evaluation from a project cylce management perspective (FAO, 
2013) .....................................................................................................................................................36
Table 6: Conceptual frameworks, methodologies and methods for vulnerability assessments (Pearson 
and Langridge ,2008) ............................................................................................................................38
Table 7: examples of planning and M&E frameworks used development initiatives (FAO,2013) .......39
Table 8: A comparison of soil indicators across different VSA methodologies ....................................53
Table 9: Description of the relevance of each indicator and how management affects the indicator 53
Table 10: Keyproduction parameters to be measured through instrumentation and laboratory analysis
..............................................................................................................................................................56
Table 11: Matrix of linkages between VSA and measured parameters ................................................57
Table 12: Summary of monitoring assessments for CSA and good practice implementation by learning 
group members.....................................................................................................................................68
Table 13: Summary of farmer involvement in farmer level experimentation in Bergville, KZN; 2013-
2017 ......................................................................................................................................................85
Table 14: Yield averages in Bergville, 2016-2107 for the CA control and trial plots ............................90
15: Social practices which can support CoPs ........................................................................................96
Table 16:Criteria for site selection ........................................................................................................97
Table 17:Proposed quantitative measurements across sites .............................................................100
Table 18: A proposed budget for equipment to conduct quantitative measurements proposed .....101
Table 19: Practices and organisations involved ..................................................................................101
Table 20: CoPs to be established in year 1 of the research process and their thematic focus areas103

Reportonstakeholderengagement,case

studydevelopmentand siteidentification

1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE

Contract Summary

Project objectives

1.To evaluate and identify best practice options for CSA and Soil and Water Conservation

(SWC) in smallholder farming systems, in two bioclimatic regions in South Africa. (Output 1)

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

South Africa (Output 2)

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

context (Outputs 2,3)

4.To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identifiedthrough the DSS by piloting interventions

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

resilience (Outputs 3,4)

5.Visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Paymentfor Ecosystems based model aretested at

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

of soil physical and chemical properties, and water productivity (Output 5)

Deliverables

Deliverable

Description

Target date

FINANCIAL YEAR 2017/2018

Report: Desktop review of

CSA and WSC

Desktop review of current science, indigenous and traditional

knowledge, and best practice in relation to CSA and WSC in the

South African context

1 June 2017

Report on stakeholder

engagement and case

study development and

site identification

Identifying and engaging with projects and stakeholders

implementing CSA and WSC processes and capturing case studies

applicable to prioritized bioclimatic regions

Identification of pilot research sites

1 September

2017

Decision support system

for CSA in smallholder

farming developed (Report

Decision support system for prioritization of best bet CSA options in

a particular locality; initial database and models. Review existing

models, in conjunction with stakeholder discussions for initial

criteria

15 January

2018

FINANCIAL YEAR: 2018/2019

CoPs and demonstration

sites established (report)

Establish communities of practice (CoP)s including stakeholders and

smallholder farmers in each bioclimatic region.5. With each CoP,

identify and select demonstration sites in each bioclimatic region

and pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range

of CSA and WSC strategies in homestead farming systems (gardens

and fields)

1 May 2018

Interim report: Refined

decision support system

for CSA in smallholder

farming (report)

Refinement of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and

innovations, updating of decision support system

1 October

2018

Interim report: Results of

pilots, season 1

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies , working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

31 January

2019

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

FINANCIAL YEAR 2019/2020

Report: Appropriate

quantitative measurement

procedures for verification

of the visual indicators.

Set up farmer and researcher level experimentation

1 May 2019

Interim report:

Development of indicators,

proxies and benchmarks

and knowledge mediation

processes

Document and record appropriate visual indicators and proxies for

community level assessment, work with CoPs to implement and

refine indicators. Link proxies and benchmarks to quantitative

research to verify and formalise. Explore potential incentive

schemes and financing mechanisms.

Analysis of contemporary approaches to collaborative knowledge

creation within the agricultural sector. Conduct survey of present

knowledge mediation processes in community and smallholder

settings. Develop appropriate knowledge mediation processes for

each CoP. Develop CoP decision support systems

1 August

2019

Interim report: results of

pilots, season 2

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

31 January

2020

FINANCIAL YEAR 2020/2021

Final report: Results of

pilots, season

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies , working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

1 May 2020

Final Report: Consolidation

and finalisation of decision

support system

Finalisation of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and

innovations, updating of decision support system

3 July 2020

Final report - Summarise

and disseminate

recommendations for best

practice options.

Summarise and disseminate recommendations for best practice

options for knowledge mediation and CSA and SWC techniques for

prioritized bioclimatic regions

7 August

2020

Overview of Deliverable 2

The desktop review process for this brief has been divided into three distinct sections:

1.A review of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)practices potentially relevant to this brief

including agroecology, soil and water conservation(SWC), conservation agriculture (CA) and

landscape management approaches.Included here are the policies,strategies and present

best practice internationally, regionally and nationally. These aspects were covered in

Deliverable 1.

2.A review of participatory, livelihoods and socio-ecological approaches relevant to this brief,

including an overview of present methodological and participatory frameworks being used in

vulnerability assessments and climate change adaptation. These aspects are to be covered in

Deliverable 2 along with stakeholder engagement, case study development and site

identification; thus, the present document

3.A review of decision support systems that have been developed to date for CSA assessingtheir

viability and potential for adaptationin our context. These aspects are to be explored, along

with the initial development of the broad outlines of a decision support system (DSS) to be

used in this brief. These aspects will be reported under Deliverable 3.

The reason for this is twofold; the first being the sheer volume and complexity of published material

on these topics and the second is to accommodate for the team writing process being employed. All

team members, including the students and field staff are involved in writing sections of these reports.

The students are mentored by other members of the research team and joint writing sessions and

review processes have been set up. This is an inherent part of the capacity development process for

this research brief. It is also the reason why inthis deliverable the author/s of each section will be

noted.

The layout of the report follows the logic of introducingprocesses and methodologies as a desktop

review and then applying this information into the context of our research brief.

2SOCIAL AND PARTCIPATORY METHODOLOGIES AND PROCESSES

Introduction

By Bobbie Louton

This document builds on the Desktop review of Climate Smart Agriculture and Water and Soil

Conservation (Deliverable 1 for this project) and lays the foundation for the social and technical

methodologies that will be used in this project. In chapters 2 and 3, existing social and technical

methodologies described in the literature are explored for their usefulness to this study. Chapter 4

will look at the selection of sites and participants for the study, with detailed exploration of four

prospective sites in the form of case studies. In Chapter 5, the learnings gleaned from the

methodologies and examples presented in the previous chapters are applied to develop the

methodology that will be used in this study. Based on this methodology, the team will prepare for

implementing the project in the selected communities

Principles for social engagement

By Bobbie Louton

Key principles of engagement can be summarised as follows:

COLLABORATION: Researchers and community members co-create the intervention

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

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

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

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

decisions

Efforts will be made to ensure no one who has stake is excluded from participation or decision making

on the basis of any demographic or socio-political factor. Work for diversity. The research team will

not default to working with visible or influential players. The vulnerable, marginalised, least vocal will

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPECT AND BUILD ON LOCAL AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

People are experts in their own context and what they know is the foundational for new engagement.

The research team must become thoroughly acquainted with the community: culture, social networks,

economic conditions, demographics, history with other interventions –and respond to the realities

and dynamics that exist.

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

everyone will learn

Prior knowledge of everyone is taken into account; life experience is used as the basis for relating to

new knowledge, attitudes or skills. Researchers and participants are equals; all are learners. Peers

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

PRAXIS: Learning is structured through active doing and reflecting

Learners consider new content (skills, knowledge, attitudes) and re-create them to fit their context,

then try it and reflect on how it works. Learning happens with the mind, emotions and muscles. Passive

learning teaches passivity. The process, not only the outcomes, are important.

BUILD A CULTURE OF OPEN DIALOGUE

Encourage expression of different opinions and value minority views and individual insights. Talk

transparently about power dynamics.

FLEXIBILITY

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

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

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

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Work for a culture where researchers and communitymembers operate with transparency and are

accountable for their roles and actions. Work for a culture of accountability to oneself for realising

one’s aims in the process.

BUILD FOR THE LONG TERM

Build into the interventionmechanisms to sustain collaborations over the long term and work to

mobilise community assets to this end; as collaborations mature and grow, their ability to address

complex and long-range issues also grows.

Brief review of relevant participatory methodologies

By Erna Kruger, Bobbie Louton

This section focuses on summarisingparticipatory methodologies in assessment, analysis and action

that support the community of Practice (CoP) in contextualisation, understandingand learning and

involves the broader community in a meaningful way.

The international development communityis giving increased attention to agricultural innovation

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

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

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

implementation processes (Kruger & Gilles, 2014).

Key trends or changes in Participatory Agricultural development thinking are moving from:

Increases in production to improvement in local livelihoods

Technology transfer to local innovation development

Beneficiaries of projects to influential stakeholders within programmes

Technology transfer to co-development of innovation systems

Functional participation to empowerment and

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

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

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

and development is a process of generatingand transferring modern technology to ‘farmers’. And

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

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

perspectives in agriculture AND natural resource management;

Draws upon diverse source of knowledge – from local to global

Provides for meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating

improvements in local situation;

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

oProviding decision support tools and information that enables various types of

users to make strategic choices and actions and

Which results in a wide range of knowledge products (technologicalthrough to socio-

political) for generating, sharing, exchanging and utilizing knowledge.

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

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

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

in existing institutional and research cultures.

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

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

and their overall aims: researcher and innovation; namely Participatory Action research (PAR) and

Participatory Innovation Development (PID. (Brock & Pettit, 2007). These processes are discussed in

more detail in the sections below.

Communities of practices (CoPs)

By Temakholo Mathebula, Erna Kruger

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

creation and learning. It is a type of contextualised learning within the theory of Situated Learning

as proposed by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situated Learning proposes

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

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

context that the learning process occurs.

CoPs are both a theory of learning and a part of the field of knowledge management. It thus

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

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

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

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

Research, theory and practices are interrelated design aspects in a programme. This integration is

supported through CoPs.

There is a need for collaboration. Work on large, complex projects goes beyond the knowledge of

one person to require the knowledge and skills of people from different disciplines. They need to

coordinate their activities and synthesize their knowledge. Cross-disciplinary team participation

requires an ability to negotiate team process and participate in decision-making (Helmer

Poggenpohl, 2015).

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

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

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

are tightly interrelated.

Figure 1: The relationships and interplay between research, theory and practice

©S Poggenpohl,2015

It approaches knowledge in terms of an organism that adapts and interacts with its environment; uses ideas as

instruments or plans of action; and retains ideas that practically work, discarding those that do not. It moves

from primary experience through refined reflection to explanation; moving from the tacit to the explicit.

Communities of practice are important because they:

Connect people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to interact, either as frequently or at

all.

Provide a shared context for people to communicate and share information, stories, and personal

experiences in a way that builds understanding and insight.

 Enable dialogue between people who come together to explore new possibilities, solve challenging

problems, and create new, mutually beneficial opportunities.

Stimulate learning by serving as a vehicle for authentic communication, mentoring, coaching, and self-

reflection.

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

identify solutions to common problems and a process to collect and evaluate best practices.

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

encourage the free flow of ideas and exchange of information.

Help people organize around purposeful actions that deliver tangible results.

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

and technologies.

To design or set up a CoP the following steps of processes are important. Successful and sustainable

communities have focused, well-defined purposes that are

directly tied to the sponsoring organization’s mission.

Purposes should be defined in terms of the benefits to the

community’s stakeholders and the specific needs that the

community will be organized to meet.

Purposes can be categorized into the following four areas of

activity; developing relationships, learn and develop

practice, carry out tasks and projects, create new knowledge

1.Developing relationships: Interaction with and

developing of a wider network of peers working

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

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

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

practitioners’ perspectives. Successful practice development depends on a balance between

“the production of ‘things’ like documents or tools and deep learning experiences for

community members.

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

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

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

databases, heuristics, models, Web sites.

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

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

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

emerging technologies, practices, and ideas.

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

interaction ,learning, knowledge sharing, collaboration, roles and social structures and piloting and

roll out of the processes, as set out below.

1.Inquire: Identify the audience, purpose, goals, and vision for the community. Who is the

community for? What are the key issues and the nature of the learning, knowledge, and

tasks? What is this community’s primary purpose? What are the benefits to the

stakeholders? What specific needs will the community be organized to meet?

2.Design: Define the activities, technologies, group processes, and roles that will support the

community’s goals.

3.Activities: What kinds of activities will generate energy and support the emergence of

community presence? What will the community’s rhythm be?

4.Communication: How will members communicate on an ongoing basis to accomplish the

community’s primary purpose?

Essential elements of a CoP:

-Share experiences and know-how

-Discuss common issues and interests

-Collaborate in solving problems - Analyse

causes and contributing factors

-Experiment with new ideas and novel

approaches

-Capture/codify new know-how

- Evaluate actions and effects

- Learning

5. Interaction: What kinds of interactions (with each other and with the content of the

community) will generate energy and engagement?

6.Learning: What are the learning goals of the community, and how can collaborative learning

be supported?

7.Knowledge Sharing: What are the external resources (people, publications, reports, etc.)

that will support the community during its initial development? How will members share

these resources and gain access to them?

8.Collaboration: How will community members collaborate with each other to achieve shared

goals?

9.Roles and Social Structures: How will community roles be defined (individuals, groups, group

leaders, community administrators, etc.) and who will take them on?

10.Prototype: Pilot the community with a select group of key stakeholders to gain commitment,

test assumptions, refine the strategy, and establish a success stories

11.Launch: Roll out the community to a broader audience over a period of time in ways that

engage new members and deliver immediate benefits.

12.Grow: Engage members in collaborative learning and knowledge sharing activities, group

projects, and networking events that meet individual, group, and organizational goals while

creating an increasing cycle of participation and contribution.

13.Sustain: Cultivate and assess the learning, knowledge, and products created by the

community to inform new strategies, goals, activities, roles, technologies, and business

models for the future (National Learning Infrastructure Initiative, 2002)

Nurturing CoPs

A CoP is not immune to constraints and unforeseen circumstances that may hinder or prolong the

production of practice. These factors are often external and beyond the control of the participants.

In the context of agricultural production, these may include unpredictable weather patterns and lack

of access to resources and information, amongst other challenges. There may also be subconscious

forces that may undermine the best intentions, i.e. a CoP can become dysfunctional and

counterproductive even if practitioners follow the recommended procedures. In reality, the

development of a practice reflects the meaning arrived at by those engaged in it. Therefore, no

matter how much external effort is made to shape or dictate practice, if it does not make meaningful

sense to those engaged in it, it may not materialise. A practice cannot be controlled by external

forces, institutions or research, as it is not merely an implementation output but it is a response to it

based on active negotiation of meaning (Oreszczyn, Lane, & Carr, 2010)

Cross-disciplinary team participation requires an ability to negotiate team process and participate in

decision-making (Helmer Poggenpohl, 2015). Power dynamics are a challenge to nurturing a CoP,

particularly when the CoP is facilitated (Cundill et al, 2009). The learning environment can often

mask power dynamics that may exists between experts and non-experts in a transdisciplinary setting

(ibid). In the case of this study, this would relate particularly to the power which the research team

will have within the CoP to prioritize its needs and agendas over those of other members. Power

dynamics can prevent some actors from playing an active role as well as banish others to the side-

lines with no prospect of joining the core group. It is thus important to create an environment that

enables movement in and out of the core group over time (Cundill et al, 2009). Wenger notes that

successful CoPs create opportunities for those in the periphery and build “benches” for those on the

side lines (cited in Cundill et al, 2009). Building benches for outsiders means opening opportunities

for participants in the periphery to observe the activities of the core group. The CoP should enable

movement back and forth between the periphery and the core, with some members taking more

active roles at certain times or on certain topics (Cundill et al, 2009).

The establishment of a CoP could also create a platform where previously disempowered members

of the community are empowered through the group to address issues they have not been able to

individually. This could result in challenges to local authority structures, with possibilities for conflict

and also for resolution of previously unresolved issues. One issue where members of the CoPs in this

project may find they have common cause is described by one of the authors of this report as

follows:

Normally in late October, when the planting period starts, all farmers keeping livestock in

the community are required to take their livestock to the mountains where the communal

grazing is, and shepherd their livestock there. Farmers who cannot shepherd their livestock

on their own due to other commitments are required to hire a shepherd to take care of their

livestock (the fee may be based on the number of animals, or a straight fee such as

R200/mo). People who wanted to plant at that time are waiting for those who have livestock

to remove their livestock, so that their seedlings will be safe. Farmers who keep livestock

wait for people who are planning to start planting so that they can start collecting their

livestock. This causes tension between livestock and crop farmers because they are both

waiting for each other.

In late May to early June, farmers with crops await instructions to start harvesting from the

community traditional leadership (isiqongo). No one is allowed to harvest until they are

instructed to do so. Once the fields are harvested, livestock are allowed to return and graze

locally in the community and household fields. Some farmers finish harvesting earlier than

others and allow their livestock to return to the community and their livestock eat the crops

of farmers who have not yet finished harvesting.

A farmer who has had their crops eaten by another farmer’s livestock is supposed to report

that farmer to the local leader so that they can pay fine. But normally farmers say it is not

easy to report cases since they are trying to maintain a good relationship with their

neighbours, and they are afraid that they might be killed by the owners of the livestock

which ate the crops in the fields. Sometimes it happens that crops are eaten by livestock of

the farmer who is also a member of a learning group, which also has an impact on the

learning group’s dynamics.

The only real way to be protected against this problem is for a farmer to fence their fields.

Not all farmers can afford to buy fencing, so this creates an inequality between the farmers.

CoP and Learning Networks:

Community learning networks are connections formed and maintained by local people with the aim

to share information and support each other’s learning. They are generally called learning groups or

social support groups. These networks are important in bringing together local people, development

practitioners, researchers and other role players to access and share resources and information that

can encourage communities to take up improved practices. Most importantly, community learning

networks are an effective way for local people to share experiences and assist each other in

understanding and implementing new practices (Steeples & Jones, 2002). Community learning

networks have similar features to CoPs, but may include wider platforms of learning and sharing

such as community engagement forums, information days and farmer to farmer learning through

cross visits. These networks are connected through shared practice and are capable of sharing

knowledge and identity. In the context of climate smart agriculture practices, these platforms

provide farmers the opportunity to share their experiences on the practices implemented to

mitigate the effects of climate change.

CoP and Farmer Field Schools:

Farmer Field Schools (FFS) are hands-on practical learning schools based on adult education

principles and experiential learning. FFS provide a platform for farmers to convene, make field

observations, relate those observations to the ecosystems and apply previous and new information

to make informed decisions. FFS is implemented through groups with a common interest to

investigate a certain topic. Topics can include IPM, organic agriculture, crop production and animal

husbandry amongst others. In FFS, what is meaningful is decided by the farmers through exploration

and discovery, learning is a result of experience, learning is an evolutionary process and each person

has a unique experience of reality. Group managed trials are at the heart of FFS as the learning space

is in the field where the trial is conducted (Duveskog, 2013).

CoP and Participatory Innovation Development (PID):

Local innovation is the process by which people find new and improved ways of doing things and

take initiative to try out these new practices using their own resources. They may be doing this as a

way of exploring new possibilities and discovering alternatives to coping with changes in their

natural resource base, asset availability or other socio-economic contexts which may be a result of

changes in policy, natural disasters or other external factors. Through these processes of exploring,

experimenting and adopting new practices, people come up with local innovations that were

developed and are understood by them. Local innovation can take place at an individual level,

through groups or may include the community at large (PROLINNOVA, 2009). The emphasis is on

people being actively involved in discovering and exploring new ways of doing things. Participatory

Innovation Development which can also be referred to as farmer led joint research is a process

whereby local people work together with researchers and development practitioners to investigate

possible ways to improve their livelihoods. Research in this context entails going beyond on field

trials but also looking at the value chain, community relationships and ways to manage communal

resources. With the current global issue of climate change, PID is of significant importance in helping

farmers explore ways of adapting and improve the resilience of their farming systems through

improved climate smart practices such as those encompassed in conservation agriculture

(Wettasinha, Wongtschowski, & Waters-Bayer, 2009).

CoP and Community Savings Groups:

Community savings groups have been around for a long time and are prevalent in villages is in Africa,

Asia and Latin America where banking services are absent. Savings are also called rotating savings

and credit association (ROSCAs’), savings and credit groups (SCG’s), village savings and loans

associations (VSLAs)and “merry go round” and they all have similar objectives. Community managed

savings and credit groups are a convenient way to save money, gain access to small loans, obtain

emergency insurance and ultimately gain a means of livelihood in order to build economic

empowerment. Savings groups are self-managed and respond directly to unmet financial services of

the rural poor residing in remote areas (Seifert, 2016). In South Africa, savings groups have gained

popularity in over the years, due to their convenience, financial security and ease of access. Financial

exclusion from the mainstream economy has led to the development of community based solutions

for the black population through savings groups where women make up the bulk of the members

(Mathebula, 2014). Community savings groups provide a platform for farmers to learn skills on

financial management, create networks for future business opportunities and improve/expand their

existing enterprises. In this way, they can form an essential component of a community learning

network.

Community of Practice in Stakeholder Engagement:

Communities of practice can play a significant role in linking practitioners, knowledge producers and

policy processes to analyse, address and explore solutions to problems. There are three ways in

which CoPs can link knowledge, policy and practice:

Firstly, they can encourage collaboration between researchers, and practitioners.

Researchers can capitalise on knowledge by practitioners to ensure that the problems they

are working on are relevant. CoPs create an environment for reflection, interpretation and

feedback.

Secondly, CoPs can be useful in creating an environment where researchers can work

together to influence policy.

Lastly, CoPs can play a role in involving policy makers in knowledge generation, seeing that

the domains of research and policy are interlinked by complex social networks.

Other ways in which CoPs can be useful to development practitioners, policy makers and researchers

are when emphasis is placed on fostering learning, rather than trying to control CoP’s. Organisations

can focus on facilitation not technology, understand members’ needs and capacities, recognise the

two faces of communities as some communities can reject new ideas and practices and finally they

need to be sensitive to the different stages of CoP development (Hearn & White, 2009)

The real challenge of communities of practice is to develop the community and the practice

simultaneously. Community development refers to the development of skills of the people involved

in coordination, facilitation and knowledge management of the community. Development of the

practice entails that resources, information and knowledge are captured and enhanced over time. A

community of practice has flexible boundaries, meaning that membership involves whoever is

interested in the practice, members participate in different ways and to varying degrees (Wenger,

1998).

Participatory research and intervention methodologies

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the paradigm used for community-based research and

interventions has moved increasingly towards a prioritising of participation of programme

beneficiaries or research subjects, with stakeholders playing a more central and powerful role.

Strenger et al (2009) note that participation has been motivated by both normative arguments

(equity, democracy, citizenship) and pragmatic arguments (better and more sustainable decisions

are made with stakeholder engagement). The table below illustrates how this shift, since the 1960s

has incorporated new ideas as participation has been used in different ways, with criticism of and

disillusionment with participation eventually arising and incorporating lessons that have been learnt.

Table 1: Evolution of approaches to stakeholder participation (Reed cited in Strenger et al, 2009)

Decade

Phase

Late 1960s

Awareness raising (the anti-modernisation critique of the transfer of technology paradigm

1970s

Incorporation of local perspectives into data collection and planning

1980s

Development of techniques that recognised local knowledge and ‘put the last first’ such as farming

systems research and rapid and participatory rural appraisal

1990s

Increasing normative use of participation in the post-Rio sustainable development agenda

2000s

Subsequent critiques of participation and disillusionment over its limitations and failings: an emerging

‘post-participation’ consensus on beast practice, learning form the mistakes and successes of the past.

The challenges that have been identified in using participatory approaches include the following

(Stringer et al, 2009):

They do not take place in a power vacuum: when previously marginalised groups are

empowered, conflict may arise with existing power structures which has not been

anticipated or planned for and may not be managed successfully

Insistence on consensus can discourage minority perspectives from being expressed,

creating - ‘dysfunctional consensus’

The perception of co-ownership in the project may raise participants’ expectations; if the

project team does not fulfil this suspicion, cynicism and distrust may take root

Participants may lack the technical knowledge to participate at some levels, if required to

make decisions or engage in debates they could feel forced into areas where they aren’t

competent

These challenges should be taken into consideration in the planning and implementation of this

project to optimise the possibility for meaningful participation.

Stringer et al, (2009) notes that a continuum of typologies have been developed to understand the

differences between different participatory methodologies which provide a basis for selecting

methods and levels of stakeholder engagement appropriate for the intervention. They provide an

extensive list of sources for these typologies, which could be useful should the project team need to

grapple further with how to design different aspects of the intervention in ways that optimise the

participation of stakeholders given the objectives and their capacities.

This section reviews participatory methodologies for assessment, planning and action that can be

used by both research teams and CoPs. Building on these methodologies, international agencies

such as USAID, World Vision, Care International, Red Cross, Practical Action and Oxfam have

developed participatory processes for risk and vulnerability assessments, community based analysis

of these risks and participatory action planning which could be of use in this project.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Action research is exactly what the word implies; it combines action and research by learning and

thus coming up with new information and improving a particular practice (Brydon-Miller,

Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003). It is a continuous process where learning is done through

researching certain things so that action is made more efficient and this is done at the same time. As

described by Fisher, action research is “A process in which a group of people with a shared issue of

concern collaboratively, systematically and deliberately plan, implement and evaluate actions.

Action research combines action and investigation. The investigation informs action and the

researchers learn from critical reflection on the action.” (Fisher, 2006)

Discovery learning and empowerment are the two outcomes desired. Research is done at farm level

and farmers have control over the actual research process and this is crucial for community

development. This process is iterative and works effectively when done in a group as it is also

participatory where everyone’s opinion is taken into consideration. In the context of research with

smallholder farmers, this takes the form of a cyclical process where farmers plan, act on the plan,

evaluate action and make necessary adjustments and replan and the process starts all over again.

With specific reference to agriculture, traditional forms of research have favoured the approach of

researchers identifying solutions to problems and these are than “transferred” to the farmer to try

out. Research – the process of generating new knowledge and understanding –is done ‘on’, but not

‘with’, farmers (Lowenson, Laurell, C, & Shroff, 2014). However, adoption levels of technologies

transferred have been rather dismal; often due to lack of consideration for contextual differences.

While the potential benefits of researched technologies should not be overlooked, continuous

testing and evaluation of technologies with the farmers is needed to ensure it meets their own

needs.

There are important things to consider when employing action research. This form of research is

often time consuming. Action research takes time where farmers try out actions, observe and

improve continuously. The tested solutions may not be as responsive as desired and this translates

to more time trying out other possibilities. Action research is collaborative; it involves stakeholders

and implies a culture of sharing, giving and taking where everyone’s say matters and should be

considered. The change which results might even challenge local practice and the knowledge people

have believed for years. Consideration is important in this regard: how people do things needs to be

reflected upon continuously and in context. Action research generally aims to find out information

and answer question to problems, empower community people and strengthen mutual respect and

participation in the process, close the existing chasm between knowledge and practices as well as

validate information collected and disseminated (Loewenson et al, 2014).

Researchers understand that people know their situation so listening and being taught is key in

understanding acting up against issues which is why stakeholder engagement is key (Brydon-Miller,

Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003). Research is located within the community where people are affected

making use of lived experiences people have gone through. People are the main subjects of the

study and have to be self-represented where sampling is omitted and a purposive group of people

faced with an issue are included. However, “community” does not rule out variations on experience

and perceptions based for instance on age, gender, power dynamics and so forth. Therefore

listening to experiences, observations and perceptions will allow rich information where, for

example, people with less power may see things differently from those enjoying more power in the

community. This should be done before a bigger group discussion where information is validated by

consensus; registering observations and experiences the whole group sees as valid. The shift from

individual to group insights seeks to triangulate information; information is then transferred from

words to images or drawings where observations and experiences are analysed for things to be

measured in identifying bad from good, trends in time and any other changes (Lowenson, Laurell, C,

& Shroff, 2014). Some tools used in this process are:

Table 2: tools used in Action Research (Loewenson et al, 2014)

TOOL

Function in the research process

Spider-grams: Visual representations used to analyze

existing relationships. The ‘body’ of the ‘spider’ represents

the issue facing the community while the ‘legs’ reflect

relevant factors

Used to draw evidence on outcomes from a particular

situation, identify problems and link influencing factors to

outcomes.

Participatory mapping: Create a map collectively which

notes physical conditions related to the targeted problem.

Used to draw and validate information on experience and

current conditions. From this, problem sites are identified,

proposals for changes can also be identified. This tool can

be used at different level of the problem solving process

to track changes.

Social mapping: Collective mapping of social

characteristics such as population, social groups

Identify key social groups and processes, needs and

preferences.

Transect walk: Systematic walks across the community to

identify resources and conditions in the area.

Can validate information supplied by the community or

generate similar information.

Wellbeing ranking, preference ranking, matrix ranking:

Different forms of scoring and ranking issues or

representing scales of issues.

These are used for valuing or scoring parameters.

Seasonal calendar: participants draw these to show

seasons or changes annually.

Relates information collected to time periods in the year

and also for the identification of relationships between

factors and outcomes.

Other tools that can be used include questionnaires, problem trees, life histories and narratives, as

well as photographs and videos. However data collected can be problematic to generalize as

research is often area specific.

Akponikpe, Bayala and Zougmore (2015) discuss experiences with community-based CSA

implemented through participatory action research across 5 countries in West Africa. They found

that the most significant challenge faced across the programmes was that while the farmers were

well aware of the impacts in their areas caused by climate change, they attributed these to simple

environmental degradation and so thelinks between proposed actions and climate change often did

not ring true to them. The researchers found that they needed to facilitate an understanding of the

links between meteorology, climate and human activities or else the CSA interventions would not be

perceived as qualitatively different from previous initiatives aimed at addressing environmental

degradation. One of the techniques they used to achieve this was to use a paradigm the farmers

were familiar with– the cause, symptoms, interventions and outcomes of the HIV/AIDs epidemic to

model climate change and CSA. This paradigm would be familiar to most South Africans as well, and

this or other examples, could be useful in communicating the cause and effects of climate change to

smallholder farmers in this study. They found that the most successful CSA activities in the project

were those that were implemented on an individual basis, were carefully planned with enough lead

time with farmers, were inexpensive and were grounded in local values and practices (Sereme,

Macauley, & (Eds), 2012)

Diobass, an NGO in Burkina Faso, has combined the principles of action research with elements of

participatory innovation development in its farmer innovation development. The programme:

Works with farmers to collect and describe farmers’ initiatives and innovations in the domains of

plant and animal production. These are reviewed by a committee with equal representation of

farmers and advisers, and a selection is made on the basis of criteria they predefined together. Men

and women farmers can then enrol in groups for the innovations of their choice with a view to

testing them in field trials. In this case, the farmer-innovators are called upon to formulate open

questions and factors to be considered, which are then translated into an experimental setup and

methodology. All this is documented in a research protocol. The field trials are carried out by the

men and women farmers in conjunction with the research scientists, the state agricultural advisers

and the advisers from Diobass. This multi-stakeholder strategy makes it easier to disseminate farmer

innovations after successful conclusion of the series of trials (Mongbo & Dorlöchter-Sulser, 2016).

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Learning and

Action (PLA

By Khethiwe Mthethwa, Bobbie Louton, Erna Kruger

PRA is ‘a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and

analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act’ (Chambers, 1993). It is primarily a

process of understanding contextualised situations and analysing issues for action. Participatory

rural appraisal (PRA) uses methods that facilitate understanding of the problems and perspectives of

local communities. PRA can focus on an entire community or on specific sections of the community

such as women or self-help groups. PRA methods are used to analyse and understand different

aspects of target communities or groups.

A key feature of PRA is its holistic approach, in which the interaction between different elements in

complex people-environment relationships is an important focus. A common thread in all these

methodologies is their recognition of important inter-linkages between different elements of rural

livelihood and production systems. Unlike earlier methodologies, PRA recognizes that indigenous

people are capable of identifying and expressing their needs and aspirations themselves and in their

own way, such that the role of the researcher is changed to that of a listener, learner, catalyst and

facilitator.

Participatory Learning Action (PLA) evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), an approach which was

popular with development agencies in the late 1970s and 1980s. PLA uses many of the same tools, but

the underlying philosophy and purpose is different: the emphasis is on interactive mutual learning for

development agencies and local people

Examples of how PRA tools can be used in an assessment of climate change adaptation in a

community (Jain, 2011) are shown below as a way of introducing some of the techniques and also

indicating some of the tools that will be useful in this study.

Significant changes in resources and livelihoods over a 10 to 20-year period were discussed

through a Community Historical Timeline. Changes and events contributing to these

changes, were discussed collectively drawing from individual knowledge and experiences.

Using a Seasonal Calendar, the major weather events (precipitation and so forth) were

discussed and noted. Community members were asked to rate the past as well as present

intensity of each weather event on a scale of 1 to 5 (from lowest to highest intensity).

A Seasonal Dependency Matrix was prepared to identify the dependency of communities on

various resources or occupations during the course of the year – at present and 10-20 years’

ago. This facilitated a comparison of changes over time.

Subsequently, the impacts of changes in weather (mapped through the Seasonal Calendar)

on community livelihoods were assessed through a tool called ‘Community Ranking of

Hazards’. Major weather events impacting livelihoods were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 using

a radar chart. The results indicated that the impacts of weather variations on local

communities are increasing.

The dependency of villagers on institutions within the village and outside was ascertained

with a Venn diagram on institutions. Community perceptions about the external help they

needed to overcome the impacts of climate change were identified and documented.

Another example that could be very useful in our present process is one where PRA and PID have

been combined, using some elements of appreciative enquiry (Saha, 2012).

Below is an outline and description of the tools used:

Tool 1: Time Line Seasonal Characteristics: Challenges & Farmers’ Wishes to Climate Change

Adaptation.

The specific objective of this tool is to facilitate farmer’s participatory dialogue on:

• What kinds of seasonal characteristic changes farmers areexperiencing?

• How are those changes of seasonal characters affecting agriculture and livelihoods?

• What challengesare farmers facing in relation to generated effects of seasonal characteristic

changes?

• What are farmers’ wishes to overcome those challenges (leading to determine affirmative topics)

Tool 2: Village Agriculture Innovators Mapping

The specific objective of this tool is to facilitate farmers in identification of:

• Individual actors and groups/organizations in and outside the village who have either created

innovations or who are perceived as potential innovators by the community

• Perceived effectiveness, influence and relationships of those actors

Formation of Farmers’ Group

The main purpose of the group is to planand implement actions to learnfrom each other and practice

adaptation. There areno fixed and pre -determined rules for the formation of farmer’s groups outside

of how itemerges through dialogue and discussions among farmers. Depending on the local situation

and needs a farmer’s organization can be formed. Thefacilitatorhas to allow the natural process of

interactions among farmers and emergence of their organisations in the village.

Tool 3: Discovery Story Telling-Listening toFarmer’s Innovations towards Adaptation

This tool is applied in relation to farmer level analysis of experimentation. The specific objectives of

this tool are to facilitate farmers:

• To listen to the local innovators about how they could do better.

• Listening to the story of success.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201725

Table 3:Example; timeline of seasonal characteristics, challenges and farmers' wishes for climate change adaptation

Season

Timing

Characteristics at the past

Emerging characteristics

Crops

Effects on agriculture and

Past

Present

Livelihoods

Summer

(February-

• High temperature but

•

Extreme/intolerable hit

1. Jute

•

Excessive hit/ temperature

May)

Tolerable

•

Irregular storm during

2. Aus paddy

2. IRRI paddy

makes us tired.

Bengali

• Regular storm during the

the period of last part

3. Aman Paddy

3. Sugar cane

• Increase of hit stroke

Month

period last part of March or

of March or first part of

4. Sugar cane

4. Chili

•

Increase of farming

Falgun-

first part of April ( Kal

April ( Kal Boishakhi)

5. Chili

5.Til (oil

expenditure due to increased

Joishto

Boishakhi)

•

Irregular rain during

6. China

seeds)

demand irrigation , chemical

• Regular rain during the

the period last part of

7. Vuro

fertilizer and pesticide

period of last part of March

March and first part of

8. Kaun

• Nutrition value of food crops

and first part of April ( Bain

April ( Bain er bristi))

9. Cantaloupe

has reduced

er bristi))

• No hailstone rain (shila

10. Water

• Due to excessive rain, drought

• Time to time there were

bristi)

Melon

and rain water flooding –

hailstone rain. I Shila bristi)

•

excessive rain while

11. Til (oil

cannot harvest crops in time

• Farmers used to sow seeds

some times drought

seeds)

• Yield of seasonal fruit has

of aus & aman paddy and

• In the month of April

reduced; increased new

Jute

storm occurs in a small

types of pest attack in fruits

• Plenty of Mango, black berry

place

• Farmers becoming more and

, jack fruit and Banana used

•

Period of summer

more indebted by taking

to grow

season has extended

Loans

• Wind used to flow from the

• No cropping of Aus and Aman

south resulting rain

Paddy

• Less fall of thunder

• Production of mango, back

• Large area coverage by the

berry, jackfruit and banana

Kal Baishakhi storm

has reduced

•

Sometimes formation of

toxicity in fog resulting

destruction of flowers of

Mango flowers drop off

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201726

Discussions & Lessons

Changes in climate:

There are no longer 6 seasons but 3 , there are no more early Autumns , Autumn and Spring seasons have been absorbed in three seasons which are summer, rainy and winter.

Period of summer season has extended

Extreme heat in the summer season

Extreme rain and extreme drought in the summer season

Changes in rain period particularly Kal Baishaki and Amaboti do not happen regularly

Effects on life and livelihoods:

In all seasons crops diversity has reduced

Fish resources have reduced

Fruits have reduced

Amaon and aush paddy replaced by IRRI

Jeopardy of nutrition value and taste of fruits, vegetable and rice

Loss of soil fertility

Increase of pests and pest attack

Reduction of organic fertilizer use

Incremental use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides

Increase of agricultural production costs

Less crop production and increased family level food insecurity

Increase in indebtedness of farmers’ family due to incremental borrowing of money

Farmer’s challenges

What do we want?

In this climate circumstance to be able to do

• Cultivate and grow vegetable without use of chemical fertilizers

Agriculture

• For other crop cultivation and production reduce the use of chemical fertilizer but increase use

of biological fertilizer

• Reduce expenditure of agriculture and agri-products

• Prevent and cure pest attack of crops though collective efforts in the village

• Want to get seeds form the plant prepared without application of pesticides

• Cultivate and grow climate change adaptive crops

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201727

Large international support agencies, both government supported such as USAID and NGOs such as

World Vision, Care International, Red Cross, practical Action and Oxfam have spent time developing

participatory processes in risk and vulnerability assessments, community based analysis of these

risks and designing of participatory action plans.

World Vision for example have focussed on PLA

(participatory learningand action)

methodologies and toolsto combine work

across conflict management, disaster risk

reduction and climate change adaptation.

Participatory Learning andAction (PLA) is an

approach for learning about and engaging with

communities. It combines an ever-growing

toolkit of participatory and visual methods, for

use with interviewingtechniques, and is

intended to facilitate a process of collective

analysis and learning. PLA evolved from Rapid

Rural Appraisal (RRA), popular with

development agencies in the late 1970s and

1980s. PLA uses many of the same tools, but the underlying philosophy and purpose is different: the

emphasis is on interactive mutual learning for development agencies and local people. PLA tools are

intended to help development agencies tap into the unique perspectives of community members, to

help them unlock their ideas concerning the issues they face, and to find realistic solutions. PLA tools

combine sharing insights with analysis, and

provide a catalyst for the community to act on

what is uncovered. PLAs commonly used

include focus group discussions, key informant

interviews, historicalanalysis tools (e.g.

timelines), geographicalmapping (e.g.

community maps), livelihood analysis tools,

and root cause analysis tools (e.g. problem

trees). CCA methodologies often include

seasonal calendars. Two further tools -

systems mapping and scenario planning -

which are not yet commonly used in

vulnerability and capacity assessments and

planning but can add significant value to the

programme design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation processes have been introduced

(Ibrahim & Midgley, 2013).

SYSTEMS MAPPING:

Draws upon systems thinking to help participants and

facilitators understand how a range of different factors

interact with each other to form a system. Systems thinking is

a way to understand a context that emphasises the

relationships between a system’s parts rather than simply the

parts themselves.

To create a systems map, participants are asked to identify a

number of key characteristics or vulnerability factors in their

community. They then identify those factors that contribute to

these characteristics or vulnerabilities. They discuss these, and

draw links between the different factors.

It can be used to identify particular areas of intervention, or

leverage points, that can have botha direct and indirect impact

upon vulnerability in the community.

SCENARIO PLANNING:

Enables communities to explore potential future changes, their

associated impacts and develop locally relevant action plans,

looking at both opportunities, risks and potential impacts of

change.

Participants work together to identify a number of plausible

scenarios utilising local and scientific information and evidence.

The impacts of the developed scenarios are assessed and the

community’s vulnerability is analysed highlighting impacts on

specific socio-economic groups, geographical areas and

livelihoods.

The output of these discussions is the production of a coordinated

action plan agreed by all stakeholders which is relevant to local

priorities.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201728

Participatory Innovation Development

By Mazwi Dlamini, Erna Kruger

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

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

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

problems and testing of alternative farming practices.

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

PLA (participatory learning and action) and Indigenous Technical Knowledge Systems and

incorporates further methodologies such as Farmer Field Schools.

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

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

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

more likely that farmers would share and use (new) knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

services to support community-led initiatives (Hartmann, 2009 ) (Wettasinha, Wongtschowski, &

Waters-Bayer, 2009).

Figure 2: The interplay between researchers, facilitators and farmers, indicating associated methodologies

PRA/PLA

Farmer to Farmer

PTD/ PID

PAR

PRA/PLA

Farming systems

Research

Farmer Participatory

Research

PTD/PID

FFS

PID (Agro-

ecosystems)

FFS

PRA/PLA

researcher

development facilitator/

extension/ innovator

farmer

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201729

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

sums up the imperative for working with these approaches:

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

through innovation and a complex process involving a reorganization of social relationships,

not just technical practice. In this context, technology shifts from something to be applied to

something leveraged for networking and organizing. To ensure the future, the idea of

sustainability as a dynamic process rather than an endpoint offers a route for understanding

and engagement between research, policy and personal spheres. For both research and

extension agendas; in considering traditional agriculture in the context of economic

development we have to create the capacity to co-operate in a way that opens up the

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

social cohesion. Researchers will come to understand that attitude, environment and

relevant issues, not specific tools, achieves participation”. (Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012).

One of the leading authorities on this process is the Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture -

ILEIA based in the Netherlands. ILEIA has described PID as “a process between local communities

and outside facilitators which involves:

Gaining a joint understanding of the main characteristics and changes of that particular agro-

ecological system;

Defining priority problems;

Experimenting locally with a variety of options derived both from indigenous knowledge …

and from formal science, and

Enhancing farmer’s experimental capacities and farmer-to-farmer communication”

(Reijntjes, Haverkort, & Waters-Bayer, 1992)

PID offers opportunities to place smallholder farmers centre stage in the research and development

field, recognising that over time, smallholder farmers have adapted and developed innovations to

allow them to be productive under their own difficult environments. Development practitioners

have realized the need to, not only take this knowledge into consideration but to build upon it

Implementation of a PID process includes the following steps:

1.Preparation phase: The PID group (including researchers/teachers, facilitators and key

farmers) collects primary information and analyses issues and opportunities in village; from

where the topics of PID are identified. This stage includes 2 steps: 1) situation analysis and 2)

selection of the PID topic. At the same time, they also prepare the organizational aspects,

making agreements with the local authorities, clarifying reasons, purposes, meanings, as

well as benefits and responsibilities of local people, and making a plan to involve the local

farmers in PID initiation.

2.Initiation phase: This is an important phase of the process, new ideas are discovered,

appraised and selected for experimentation. The PID group in collaboration with farmer

groups design new selected experiments. Farmer interest groups are formed and start

designing their expected experiments. There are 5 steps in this stage: 1) Generation of new

ideas, 2) Clarification of ideas through idea sheets, 3) selecting prioritized ideas for

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201730

experiments; 4) Selecting households to conduct the experiments; and 5) designing the

experiments with specific reasons, indicators and technologies in experiment sheets.

3.Implementation phase: The stakeholders develop action plans, visiting schedules and

collaboratively implement the experiments. The farmers are implementers; the extensions

are facilitators and supporters; the researchers provide consultancy during the

experimentation process. This stage includes 2 steps: 1) planning and 2) collaborative

implementation.

4.Monitoring and documentation phase: This stage is implemented throughout the

implementation phase. The indicators identified in the experiment sheets are recorded in

the experiment diary by farmers with support of the extensionists and researchers.

Comments of outsiders and other farmers will be

fully recorded in the diary. Documents, regular

reports are produced by the extensionists and

provided to related management staff and other

interested people in and outside the village. One

key step in this stage is participatory monitoring

and documentation of the process.

5.Finalisation phase: The objective of this phase is to

evaluate and identify whether the experiments

were successful or not? A field evaluation is

conducted where farmers who conducted the

experiments prepare and explain to other

stakeholders and farmers their experiences and

results. This stage includes 2 steps: 1) organization

of participatory evaluation in the field, and 2)

documentation, report writing.

6.Dissemination phase: Experiences and innovations should be disseminated. Tools, extension

materials are compiled. "Farmer to farmer" extension techniques are useful for

dissemination and experience sharing with other farmers and villages. This stage includes 2

main steps: 1) develop extension materials and 2) organize different ways to disseminate the

experiment results.

Reflective practice

Reflective practice is an intentional approach to learning from one’s practice/experience by routinely

going through a conscious process of thinking about what you have done or what has happened and

gleaning insights which are used to improve future practice. Reflection needs to be a central element

of the practices of CoPs, research studies and programmes/interventions.

To summarise the PID steps

1.Getting started (getting to know

each other);

2.Joint analysis of the situation – the

problems and opportunities;

3.Looking for things to try to improve

the local situation;

4.Trying them out in community-led

participatory experimentation;

5.Jointly analysis and sharing the

results; and

6.Strengthening the process, often

through improving local

organization and linkages with

other actors in R&D, so that the

PTD process will continue.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201731

Tripp (Tripp, 2005) contrasts reflective practice and action research as follows:

Finlay (Finlay, Reflecting on 'Refelctive Practice", 2008) proposes that reflective practice involves:

examining ones assumptions

becoming aware of one’s implicit knowledge

critically evaluating one’s own responses to practice situations

This could be a valuable tool in a Community of Practice, where smallholder farmers, researchers

and other stakeholders could come into the community with very different assumptions, implicit

knowledge and responses; as the project unfolds new levels or areas of assumptions and knowledge

could come into play, making it valuable to habitually and cyclically examine these, how they differ

between the members of the CoP, and the impact of this.

The basic model to capture the reflective process is a cycle of four steps:

PLAN – ACT – DESCRIBE– EVALUATE – PLAN and so on.

Different theorists have developed this basic idea with different models. Various theorists have

proposed different ‘stations’ for reflection within a perpetual cycle (or spiral) of reflective practice.

In the context of this project, where reflective practice will be needed within the research team, the

CoP, project interventions and could be used beneficially by individual participants and researchers,

a number of different models for reflective practice could prove useful across these contexts.

Rolfe et al (Rolfe, Freshwater, & Jasper, 2001) provides a simple, flexible model for using reflective

practice that is easy to remember:

1.What? - What happened?

2.So what? - What does it mean?

3.Now what? - What needs to happen next?

This could be a useful model to build into the practice of a community of practice due to its

simplicity, perhaps linking it to words or representations that are easy to remember (eg 3 fingers).

This could then be used in a group discussion or by an individual looking at a plant in her field.

Figure 3: Reflective Practice (Tripp, 2005)

Figure 4: Action Research (Tripp 2005)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201732

Later work has added the ideas of critical reflection and reflexivity to reflective practice.Critical

reflection adds the dimensions of looking at social and political elements with an aim to facilitate

transformation as part of the reflective practice, actively questioning assumptions and analysing

power relationships (Finlay, 2008); this can aid members of a Community of Practice – and the

community as a whole – in becoming conscious of their power and that of their networks, and how

they are exercising it. Reflexivity involves practitioners reflecting critically on both the impact of their

own behaviour, assumptions, positioning, feelings and background and the impact of the broader

organisational, ideological and political context (Finlay, 2008). Reynolds and Gough see reflection

(simply thinking about something after it has happened) – critical reflection – and reflexivity

(immediate and dynamic self-awareness) as a continuum.

Tools

Numerous tools and techniques have been developed for using reflective practice, including simple

ideas such as journaling, drawing, mapping, or taking quick audio or video reflections from

participants during or after an activity.

Lynn ( (Lynn, 2012) describes two more structured tools that can be used in tandem for reflective

practice: theories of change and strategic learning debriefs. A Theory of Change (TOC) is a “living”

document which provide the structure for ongoing learning during planning, implementation, and

evaluation, ensuring that “what matters” remains in focus and is not eclipsed by the “measurable”.

Working from a theoretical strategy, key stakeholders work together using backward and forward

mapping to create a visual map of practical strategies which links activities to outcomes in spiralling

cycles leading to the ultimate impact. Strategic Learning Debriefs are sessions held with staff and

stakeholders where the Theory of Change is used as a framework to facilitate reflective practice,

resulting potentially in the evolution of the Theory of Change itself.

CSA frameworks, methodologies and processes

By Erna Kruger, Jon McCosh, Lawrence Sisitka

Processes for the assessments of communities’ capacities and vulnerabilities related to both disaster

risk reduction and climate change adaptation have been developed by the larger international and

national development agencies; most of them based on combinations of methodologies described

above. Elements of Livelihoods analysis have been incorporate into most of these frameworks to

include an analysis of stresses, shocks, vulnerabilities and capacities within communities and outline

potential livelihoods impacts and develop planning frameworks for increased resilience and

adaptation capacity.

Broadly, these tools can be classified by the type of approach they use. There are two types of

approaches: a top down approach focuses on potential changes in the water cycle as a result of

climate change, and designs response options to anticipate and prevent the negative impacts of

these changes. By nature, this approach favours long-term responses. The other approach consists in

assessing the vulnerability of rural populations, and designing solutions that helps increasing their

resilience to external shocks. This bottom-up approach is more generic, not specific to climate

change (but to any shock or crisis) and usually considers short- to medium-term responses. Both

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201733

approaches are necessary when designing management responses in relation to climate change. An

impact-based approach is needed to ensure that long-term investments take into account expected

changes (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013).

More recently, systemic approaches have been developed primarily to also include some empirical

data on climate change into the community based analysis of changes specific to climate change and

weather variability. This has been spearheaded by USAID programmes in Asia and the Pacific

(RECOFTC , 2016), but is also now being incorporated in the Resilience in the Limpopo basin (Resilim)

programme (AWARD, 2017). These tools are interesting and significant for the present research

process, albeit that they are somewhat complicated to facilitate at community level.

The Nepal process for example focusses the vulnerability and capacity assessments trough the five

livelihoods categories, to be able to fully assess adaptive capacity at community level.

Adaptive Capacity: According to the IPCC, adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to

climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damage, to take

advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. CARE International (Care

International, 2009) argued that one of the most important factors shaping the adaptive capacity of

individuals, households and communities is their access to and control over natural, human, social,

physical, and financial resources. Examples of resources that may be important to adaptive capacity

are as follows:

• Human - Knowledge of climate risks, conservation agriculture skills, good health to enable labour;

• Social - Women’s savings and loans groups, farmer-based organizations;

• Physical – Irrigation infrastructure, seed and grain storage facilities;

• Natural – Reliable water source, productive land; and

• Financial – Micro-insurance, diversified income source.

All information is analysed into 4 consecutive matrices that include both community based and

empirical data:

1.Matrix 1 - Identifying Climatic Threats and Impacts: Analysis of empirical and community

based perceptions related to weather and climate

2.Matrix 2 - Assessing Threats and Impacts through an Asset Lens: It lists which sectors (e,g

forestry, agriculture, livestock and water) have been identified by the community as key

sectors of climate vulnerability. Then, for each sector, this matrix assesses both community-

based and empirical information on impacts through the lens of the different asset types

(namely the assets under the sustainable livelihoods approach: social, financial, physical,

human and natural)

3.Matrix 3 – Identifying Vulnerabilities: based on standard vulnerability assessment tools with

a view to listing impacts and adaptive capacities

4.Matrix 4 - Identifying Response Options to Vulnerabilities: This final matrix serves two

purposes. First, it provides a structure through which to arrive at a vulnerability rating,

necessary for later prioritization and selection of adaptation options. Second, it tries to fill a

gap in existing VA frameworks which do not explicitly link vulnerabilities to possible

adaptation responses. This final column is aimed at generating general adaptation option

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201734

‘topics’ in response to identified vulnerabilities (which will be direct responses to climate

threats, but may cut across both threats as well as sectors).

Below is an extract from a synthesis table/matrix produced for the Nepal pilot programme.

Table 4: An Example of matrix 4; Identifying response options to vulnerabilities (RECOFTC , 2016)

CLIMATE

CHANGE

THREATS

(from Matrix

1, Column E &

Matrix 2 and

3, Column A)

FREQUENCY OF

THREAT

VULNERABILITIES

(synthesized from

Matrix3, Column E

SERIOUSNESS

OF IMPACTS

(evidence

according to

indicators)

VULNER

ABILITY

RATING

(by the

commu

nity)

POSSIBLE BROAD

OPTION RESPONSES

result of other tools)*

Temperature

increase ,

more intense

dry season

Prolonged drought,

typically every 2-3

years Temperature

rise is continuous,

but extreme peaks

periodically every 5-

6 years

Fire in sugarcane

fields occurs

periodically every 2-

3 years

Declining

productivity of

agricultural crops

due to decreasing

quality of soil (a

function of

extended periods

of dryness, current

cropping practices

and chemical

fertilizers)Reliance

on a single

monocrop(sugarca

ne)More labour

intensive and

increasing labour

costs associated

with sugarcane

More than 40%

handpumps are

now dry for 4

months of the

year Reduced

cropping cycle

of sugarcane to

2 years from 3

High

Medium

Development of

agroforestry plots on

private land Planting of

fast growing fodder and

multipurpose tree

species Introduction of

no or low till agriculture

practices to reduce soil

evaporation Water

retention pond

construction

Agroforestry within

community forests,

within home gardens

Shift in agriculture crops

to incorporating

integrated farming

systems which include

agroforestry

Changing

seasonality

(agriculture)

Continuously

decreasing

agricultural

productivity Erratic

rainfall Rainy

season being

pushed back several

weeks

Decreasing

agricultural

productivity and

income due to

changing rainfall

patterns

Decreasing income

from sugarcane

due to loss of

productivity(result

of multiple factors

including pests,

weeds, soil fertility

and also capped

prices by the sugar

mill)

Invasive weeds

and

grasshoppers

damaged more

than 50 ha

Declining price

paid per kg of

sugarcane as

result of high

weed

composition

Medium

High

Diversification of

agriculture crops Natural

buffers and pest breaks

by interspersing crops

and/or agroforestry

Natural pest predators

Conventional pest

management Usage of

compost manure as pest

management strategy

Capacity building of local

people in integrated pest

management Enterprise

development to diversify

income Delay of planting

timing by 20to 25 days

* Based on consultations withcommunity members, technical experts, desk research, experiences of project staff and

comparable practices employed elsewhere

Basically, what this process does, is provide a decision support framework for CSA. It This is a very appropriate methodology

and set of tools to use as a starting point to design the decision support system for this research process.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201735

Frameworks which define criteria for assessing effect/impact of CSA

interventions

Climate-smart interventions are highly location-specific and knowledge-intensive, requiring

considerable effort to make CSA a reality. In the context of assessing impact, this means that impact

assessments cannot focus on specific practices, but rather the positive (and negative) impacts of

chosen CSA practices (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013). Furthermore, CSA

technologies and practices are evolving rapidly. These factors mean that assessing the effect of CSA

interventions needs to be well thought out. This section considers frameworks that define criteria

for assessing the effect of CSA interventions.

Impact and effects of interventions

It is helpful to define a number of concepts when considering impact assessments to allow for a

common understanding of terms (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013):

Impact – this refers to effect of climate change on natural and anthropogenic systems

Vulnerability – this is a function of two factors:

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

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

Sensitivity – refers to how affected the system is affected after the exposure

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

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

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

Resilience – the ability of a system to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the

effects of an extreme climate event in a timely and efficient manner.

Assessments are closely related to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities and are found within

most prevailing policies and programmes. The figure below outlines an assessment framework for a

full project cycle, based on the FAO’s CSA sourcebook. Assessments are occurring at a number of

levels (policies and programme impacts; climate impacts; project impacts) and at different project

stages (project preparation; project planning; project implementation).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201736

Table 5: Assessmnet, monitoring and evaluation from a project cylce management perspective (FAO, 2013)

This diagram provides a broad overview of the assessment process, but for the purposes of this

work, we are interested primarily in the local impacts of the CSA interventions from a resilience

perspective and secondarily any mitigation effects that may result from the interventions, supported

by evidence (qualitative and quantitative). Furthermore, the focus of this framework is largely a top

down approach. From a community perspective, bottom up approaches are more appropriate as

they are locally relevant and consider the local socio-economic context – often referred to as

contextual vulnerability.

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

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

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

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

context and will include factors that aren’t necessarily directly linked to climate change or CSA.

Vulnerability and resilience frameworks are different in key aspects (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture

Source Book, 2013)

The vulnerability approach tends to:

Be oriented towards research on hazards and risks.

Be centred on people and more translatable to application and policy outcomes.

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

Be less focused on ecological and environmental aspects.

Assess present and future vulnerability from past information.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201737

The resilience approach, on the other hand, tends to:

Be oriented towards ecological sciences.

Be more focused on complex interactions, feedbacks and processes of social-ecological systems.

Be conceptual and not easily translatable into practice.

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

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

and characterising).

Be less focused on the social aspects of social-ecological systems.

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

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

(moving towards a social-ecological-system framework), while vulnerability frameworks are

including more environmental factors and thus becoming more alike. Nevertheless, both

frameworks are connected through adaptive capacity assessments (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture

Source Book, 2013). Ultimately, the effect of any CSA intervention should contribute simultaneously

to reduced vulnerability and increased resilience.

Vulnerability assessments

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

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

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

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

elderly, women, youth) and provide the basis for developing strategies to increase the resilience of

livelihoods to climate change (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013).

Considering a bottom-up approach, a vulnerability assessment would collect indicators that

represent changes in vulnerability of communities to risks. Such indicators could include socio-

economic, technology, infrastructure, information and skills, biophysical conditions and equity (Desai

& Hulme, 2004). Considering the figure below (Pearson & Langridge, 2008), survey and ethnographic

methodologies are best suited for assessing contextual vulnerability.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201738

Table 6: Conceptual frameworks, methodologies and methods for vulnerability assessments (Pearson and Langridge

,2008)

Within this survey context, three basic approaches are available

Full scope social assessments (key informant interviews, focus group discussions, community

surveys).

Rapid social assessments (checklists of key vulnerabilities, current coping strategies and limiting

factors).

Applying models and project management tools.

Monitoring and evaluation frameworks

There exists a variety of frameworks and manuals for monitoring and evaluation of impacts of CSA

interventions. However, all monitoring and evaluation systems should include the following (FAO,

Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013):

Conceptualisation – conceptualising the intervention, based on available information and

engagements with stakeholders

Preparation and appraisal of the project, which should include:

oHow the project or intervention will contribute to adaptation / mitigation

oDeveloping an adaptation hypothesis or theory of change – what are the expected

changes and result chains between activities, changes in behaviour, outcomes and

impacts. The theory of change should help to define:

Inputs and activities – description of the interventions

Outputs – direct results of the interventions (e.g. increased yield, access to

finance)

Project outcomes – the expected effects of the interventions (e.g. higher food

security, access to credit to purchase inputs)

High level outcomes – the expected effects of the interventions at household

and community scales (e.g. healthier children due to higher food security,

increased income as a result of purchasing inputs for production).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201739

oDeveloping indicators – in relation to the theory of change.

oDeveloping results based management – encourage stakeholders to consider outputs

and outcomes, rather than inputs and activities.

oAppraisals – review the design in relation to risks.

Implementing adaptation actions, with the collection of data on identified indicators.

Evaluation at regular intervals for the design, implementation, outputs, outcomes, impact and

sustainability of the intervention.

The objective of M&E is for continuous learning during the project. Given uncertainties associated

with any intervention, the learning process allows for adaptive management, learning from the

process and builds local capacity. It is critical to include participatory and socially sensitive (e.g.

gender, age, wealth) processes in the monitoring of interventions.

There are many M&E frameworks that can be sued, some of which are outlined the table below.

Table 7: examples of planning and M&E frameworks used development initiatives (FAO,2013)

Framework / Tool

Focus

Logical frameworks

Projects and programmes – specific to interventions being considered

Results framework

Links interventions to results

Project and programme

frameworks

Delineating expected outputs and outcomes from stakeholder participation

Driving forces – Pressure –

State – Impact – Response

(DPSIR)

Captures causal chain from the driving force (the environmental issue) through to

the impact and required responses. Usually applied in the environmental

management context

Outcome mapping (IDRC)

Focussed on institutional change. Delineates outcomes among different

stakeholders and monitors institutional changes, changes in capacity and the

resulting change in the delivery of services.

Sustainable Livelihood

Framework

Multifaceted assessment of livelihood assets and by implication, resilience to

climate change.

Participatory poverty

assessment

Aims to assess who are the most vulnerable in the community as defined by

community members’ own criteria. This helps to identify key intervention target

groups.

Project and programme

baseline assessments

Done through surveys of intervention and control areas, measuring food security,

incomes, basic household assets and services, as well as environmental

parameters.

Regular project monitoring

Gathering of activity and output progress data, financial management

information, and signalling emerging issues or good practices.

Management information

Systems

web-based support systems increasingly managed through remote devices, linked

to financial management and GIS systems.

Agriculture and natural

resource management

monitoring

Measured at frequencies and scales significant enough to provide meaningful

information. The measurements can be done by a range of methods from

structured crop to participatory transect walks.

Process monitoring

Often done in support of regular monitoring to assess project process and

institutional changes and relationships – to rapidly identify management

responses.

Participatory monitoring and

evaluation methods

A wide range of methods engaging communities, not just enhancing information

gathering but also increasing ownership and project adaptation.

Impact evaluation

methodology

Impact evaluation assesses the impact of an intervention using counterfactual

analysis. The estimated impact of the intervention is calculated as the difference

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201740

in mean outcomes between a ‘treatment group’ (those receiving the intervention)

and a ‘control group’ (those who don’t).

Stakeholder, Institutional and

legal assessments

To assess changes in capacity, human resources, organizational

systems, coordination, as well as laws and policies.

Economic and Financial

analysis (EFA):

Using mainly agricultural, environmental and socio-economic data,

as well as detailed market, labour and trade information, analyses are made of

the economic and financial returns at household, farm and system levels.

An example of a results-based framework is provided below. This framework gives a sense of the

kinds of measurable indicators that can be used to indicate impact or effect of adaptation practices.

Figure 5: Results based framework (FAO,2013)

Indicators

For indicators to be relevant, baseline conditions are necessary to provide a benchmark and it is

therefore necessary to ensure that the indicators used can be compared against a benchmark.

Indicators should be Simple, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic and Time-bound (SMART), which is

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201741

well understood by the project team. In addition to the SMART requirements for indicators,

additional guidance for choosing indicators includes (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book,

2013)

1.Validity: Does the indicator measure a change in climate risk or vulnerability?

2.Precise and specific meaning: Do stakeholders agree on exactly what the indicator measures in

this context?

3.Practical, affordable, and simple: Are climate- and adaptation-relevant data actually available at

reasonable cost and effort? Will it be realistic to collect and analyse information?

4.Reliability: Can the indicator be consistently measured against the adaptation baseline over the

short, medium and long term? With regard to mitigation, are the indicators robust enough for

formal auditing under measurement, reporting and verification (MRV)?

5.Sensitivity: When the respective climatic effects or adaptive behaviours change, is the indicator

susceptible to those changes?

6.Clear direction: Is it certain that an increase in value is good or bad and for which particular

aspect of adaptation? Is it ultimately attributable to intervention?

7.Utility: Will the information collected be useful and relevant for adaptive management, results

accountability, and learning? Does it measure achievable results?

8.Owned: Do stakeholders agree that this indicator makes

sense for testing the adaptation hypothesis?

Indicators can be (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source

Book, 2013):

Quantitative (e.g. tonnes per hectare of incremental

crop production, number of days a year a household has

adequate meals, or number of men and women with

increased income).

Qualitative (e.g. beneficiary perception of satisfactory

service delivery by intervention agency).

Proxy indicators, which give an approximation of a

desired measure, where a direct indicator is difficult to

assess.

Indices, which are composed from other indicators to

provide a more simplified aggregate measure of change.

Indicators should relate to the project or intervention

objectives.

Decision Support Systems

Decision Support Systems (DSS) have been developed and used in a variety of contexts, including

business and commerce, and agriculture. Conventionally, they are understood as in the following

definition from www.technopedia (Technopedia, 2017): …a computer-based application that

collects, organizes and analyses business data to facilitate quality business decision-making for

management, operations and planning. A well-designed DSS aids decision makers in compiling a

variety of data from many sources: raw data, documents, personal knowledge from employees,

The question of attribution

A particular methodological issue for M&E is

the question of attribution. This is the

particular challenge faced when attempting

to ascribe observed change and results

specifically to a project while it could also be

due to other external changes and

interventions taking place. This is a very big

concern for climate change programmes

since they are potentially affected by long

term and large scale climate and economic

processes. In thecontext of projects theissue

is dealt with through the design of rigorous

project baselines and impactevaluation

surveys, which take intoaccount external

effects. They do so principally by including

‘control’ areas and households in the survey

samples, against which changes in project

beneficiaries’ livelihoods and land use can be

compared (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture

Source Book, 2013).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201742

management, executives and business models. DSS analysis helps companies to identify and solve

problems, and make decisions.

From this it is clear that a DSS is currently seen as a computer, or perhaps more saliently, internet-

based system, which enables large amounts of diverse information to be analysed in order for

managers to reach rational decisions. The dominance of computer-based models is reinforced by the

1999 UNFCCC publication: Compendium of Decision Tools to Evaluate Strategies for Adaptation to

Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1999). All the decision support tools evaluated here are computer based,

in fact based on now archaic software and operating systems such as Linux and Windows 95. This,

certainly at the time of the evaluation, rendered them inaccessible to smaller-scale farmers, and

many of them, given their complexity require mediation by software specialists. A further factor in

their inappropriateness for such farmers was the focus in the agricultural sector on large-scale cereal

and other field-crop practices. However, this was relatively early days in the development of DSS

related to climate change.

A more recent (2014) publication, developed to provide guidance for the disbursement of the

Adaptation Fund of the Kyoto Protocol: A review of decision-support models for adaptation to

climate change in the context of development(Nay, Chu, Gallagher, & Wright, 2014)provides some

very useful pointers in terms of the different models being employed in developing DSS. These

incorporate both technical, mostly computer/internet-based, approaches and social, participatory

approaches, an orientation which it describes as

‘…balancing community input and technical

tools’

. (ibid.) One of the most telling statements, however, in the document is: ‘The Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that

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

components of (or as modiﬁcations to) existing resource management programs or as part of

national or regional strategies for sustainable development.” Many general development activities,

such as creating more effective and equitable agricultural markets or diversifying livelihood options

beyond rain-fed cultivation, can simultaneously improve the lives of the poor and reduce climatic

risks.’(ibid.) In other words CSA is best seen as integral to broader development processes, an

approach which is entirely compatible with the idea that CSA practices are essentially good

developmental agricultural practices, applicable in and suitable for a wide range of contexts.

The publication, which looks at different types of simulation to develop scenarios relevant to

different contexts, draws on a conceptual model, shown in the figure below, from which different

technical models can be derived.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201743

Figure 6: Conceptual model for DSS development (Nay et al 2014)

The technical models included in the review include:

Equation-based models (EBM) – essentially the mathematical/statistical approach to vulnerability to

climate-change impacts

Agent-based models (ABM) –where Agents are described rather confusingly, as follows: ‘“Agents” in

computational ABMs are autonomous decision algorithms that interact with other agents and their

environment.’ Further reading however reveals that they are essentially talking about people in their

communities, and the interactions between them and between them and their environment.

Geographic-based models (GBM) – self-explanatory, based on extensive GIS mapping of geo-climatic

regions

Participation-based models (PBM) – again self-explanatory, where the simulations and resulting

scenarios are developed through intensive participatory processes with farming communities. This

includes what is described as Role-play Games (RPG), a specific participatory technique enabling

farmers to express what they understand might be the impacts of climate change and their possible

responses to these.

The reviews conclusion is that it is advisable to adopt approaches incorporating both technical and

social components:Community-based adaptation seeks to incorporate current and future climatic

risks into the design of interventions that are key for local economies and overall well-being

(Dumaru, 2010).

While communities have extensive knowledge of local environmental changes, they often have

limited knowledge of the causes and effects of exogenous change. Building and utilizing integrative

models may, in some circumstances, help evaluate and manage trade-offs inherent in local

adaptation options…It is crucial that tools selected for use are appropriate to the situation,

remaining cognizant of the resources available for conducting the effort. Under some circumstances,

a stakeholder- focused approach to cost–benefit analysis has been deployed, which enables

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201744

stakeholders to reach an informed consensus based on analyses that take account of both monetary

and non-monetary benefits(Blanco, 2006)

Whether qualitative or quantitative in nature, however, model and cost–benefit analyses outputs

should be seen as decision-support tools rather than as definitive justifications for particular

interventions (or for any intervention). (Lunduka, Bezabih, & Chaudhury, 2013)

Broad-scale DSS

While the CSA project is particularly concerned with local-level DSS, some of the more complex DSS

have been developed to support national and regional level policy development. This is very much

the case with the TargetCSA project as described in: How to target climate-smart agriculture?

Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA” (Brandt,

Kvakić, K, & Rufino, 2017)

This is aimed specifically at planners and

decision makers that aim to implement CSA at the

regional or national level.The approach taken by TargetCSA includes 3 stages:

Stage 1: structuring the decision-making problem

Stage 2: eliciting stakeholder preferences and consensus building

Stage 3: spatial aggregation and coupling of vulnerability and CSA indices

And identifies critical indicators:

Biophysical indicators: Precipitation; soil organic matter

Social indicators: % households with secure access to safe water; literacy rate

Economic indicators: female participation in economic activities; connectivity through

transport infrastructure

The report identifies broad-brush CSA practices: Improvement of soil fertility and soil

management; identification and distribution of drought resistant cereal crops; reduction of GHS

from livestock; improvement of water harvesting and water management; establishment of

agroforestry; implementation of livestock insurances (ibid.).

The critical process is linking vulnerability in terms of the three kinds of indicators, with selected CSA

practices, suitable for the specific kinds and levels of vulnerability in specific geo-climatic areas. This

process was conducted across the whole of Kenya and informed the agricultural component of the

Kenya National Climate Change Action Plan.

A further broader-scale DSS is the CSA Prioritization Framework, developed by CIAT (International

Centre for Tropical Agriculture) under the CGIAR umbrella, and linked to its Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) research programme. This is described as: A set of filters for

evaluating CSA options & establishing CSA investment portfolios…For National and sub-national

decision makers Donors, NGOs, implementers (Ulrichs, Cannon, Newsham, Naess, & Marshall, 2015)

As yet no CSA specific policies or plans have been developed in South Africa at provincial or national

level in relation to CSA. A scoping study conducted by the University of Fort Hare (Mkeneni &

Mutengwa, 2014) proposes that the National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) (DEA, 2011)

can, together with the Climate Change Sector Plan for Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (CCSP)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201745

(Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2013) provide something of a framework for

CSA. However, criticism of the CCSP by some civil society organisations (CSO) suggests that the

CSA policy is framed in very general and wide terms that can accommodate almost any ‘new’

technology and institutional structure and that it is too biased towards commercial agriculture and

agribusiness and does not question the basic structural imbalances and development paradigm that

created this problem in the first place.

A further tool developed in South Africa with a national focus, is the South African Risk and

Vulnerability Atlas (SARVA, 2013), originally developed as a hard-copy publication and since evolved

as a web-based information portal in the form of an electronic spatial database. This provides the

most up-to-date information available on the climate change predictions for the country, thus

helping with decisions as to which CSA practices may be most needed and most suitable in different

regions.

Local-scale DSS

The scale at which the CSA is working is essentially local, and perhaps one of the most useful local-

scale approaches developed in recent years is the CGIAR/CCAFS Working Paper 108: Climate Change

& Food Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-level potential for

adaptation to climate change (Ulrichs, Cannon, Newsham, Naess, & Marshall, 2015)

While this does not have a specifically CSA focus, vulnerability assessment is critical to an

understanding of climate change impacts and is an essential component of a CSA DSS. The paper

described its purpose aspresenting a toolkit tobe used tounderstand the interrelations between

climateimpacts, foodsystems and livelihood strategies atthe local level.Itapplies a

multidimensionalview of vulnerability of livelihood strategies toclimate change, with a focuson

differentiated accessand entitlementsto livelihood resourcesand food for different groups within

the community (often determined according to gender, ethnicity and socio

economicclass). It is

based on a concept of five (5) Dimensions of Vulnerability (DoV), illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 7: The 5 dimensions of vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201746

For each of these vulnerability dimensions, the paper provides details on what information is

required. There is alsolong section on participatory approaches, techniques and practices, most of

which are fully familiar to the CSA project team, with the activities including:

Transect Walk

Village Map

Historical Timeline and Climate Trends

Well-being Ranking

Livelihood Strategies and Seasonal Calendar

Changing Farming Practices and Crop Ranking

Climate Risk and Coping Mechanisms Matrix

Food System Analysis –Causal Flow Diagram

Institutional Mapping and Venn Diagram

This Working Paper clearly provides a very useful approach to the social component of any DSS, and

is eminently adaptable to specific local contexts, and to a CSA focus.

DSS in this research process

A key decision will be whether to develop an internet or computer-based DSS or one which may be

more readily accessible to the emerging farmers with whom the project is working. It is, however,

worth noting here that experience across the world, as detailed in 2 FAO publications: Success

Stories on Information and Communication Technology for Agriculture and Rural Development (FAO,

2015), and E-Agriculture in Action (FAO, Bangkok, 2017), suggest that emerging farmers, certainly in

the Asia-Pacific countries are using internet technology more than might be supposed. More locally,

the Amanzi for Food (www.Amanziforfood.co.za) project in the Eastern Cape has also found that

internet usage among small-scale farmers is higher than might have been expected, and not only

among the younger farmers (WRC project K5/2277, Grahamstown, 2016).

As discussed above the SARVA is now a web-based platform and is quite essential in terms of the

climate predictions it makes for all regions in South Africa. This critical element of any functional DSS

is therefore already web-based, and mediating access to this is essential to support farmers in their

decision-making in relation to CSA practices.

It would seem inevitable that some components of a contemporary DSS will be internet/computer

based, with the challenge being to identify the most appropriate way in which farmers can access

this. However, other components such as local vulnerability assessments, and local solutions, are

almost certainly best designed for and conducted in the traditional form of face-to-face interactions.

Any effective DSS will therefore be a mix of different processes, media and information sources.

Decision-making Process

Whatever the medium (internet or otherwise) employed for a DSS, the fundamental decision-making

process is the same and is presented in the figure below.

It is clear from this model that information and access to information is central to any DSS, and that

the kind of information required is dependent on the type of decision to be made. Although this is

self-evident it does suggest that the starting point for any DSS to support farmers in relation to CSA

is an understanding of the type of decision they will need to make. The support system must

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201747

therefore include a range of options available in terms of the decisions which can be made, and

making accessible the information needed to support the decision-making

Decisions

The key decisions in relation to CSA will almost inevitably focus on the kinds of agricultural practice

which farmers can adopt in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and in particular

address issues such as changes in rainfall frequencies and quantities, increases in extreme weather

events and long-term shifts in climatic and seasonal patterns. Many of these practice options are

described in considerable detail in Deliverable 1 of this project, and in a wealth of supporting

materials, access to which is essential for farmers to engage with the DSS meaningfully. The CSA

project can therefore provide farmers with a range of options from which, based on understanding

of these options, on the local situation andthe farmers’ needs and aspirations, they can make

decisions regarding which practice(s), if any, they wish to implement.

Information

The available literature on agricultural DSS generally suggests that qualitative information (also

known as ‘expert’ information) is often held by the decision-maker, in this case the farmer, through

their own lived and learned experience. They understand their own context: their soils; the crops

they can and wish to grow; the livestock they can and wish to raise. They also have a good

understanding of the resources (financial and human) they have available, and the skills and

Yes

Implement decision

Select best alternative

Assess/analyse information

Identify options

Begin DSS process

Collect qualitative information

Decision needs to be made

Quantitative

approach/information

needed?

Collect quantitative information

Figure 8:Decision making process (adapted from Heineman, 1988)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201748

technologies to which they have access. They may not, however, have had direct experience of CSA

practices, and the DSS will need to include a component enabling farmers to learn about these, as

they will need to decide which practices suit their context, and are appropriate for their crops their

resources and skills. In addition, farmers may also need advice in terms of the suitability of practices

in relation to soil types, slope, exposure, rainfall, and crop types. This will be provided through

external qualitative information.

In the Amanzi for Food project (WRC K5/2277) a ‘Navigation Tool’ was developed to assist farmers to

access information in 2 key sets of WRC materials: Water Harvesting and Conservation (Denison

et al., 2011); Agricultural Water Use in Homestead Gardening Systems(Stimie et al., 2010),

and 6 supplementary materials. The Tool provides basic information on the main practices

detailed in these publications, including:

The scale(s) of farming for which the practice is suitable

The main purpose of the practice, with a short description

The levels of resources, skills, technologies and maintenance requirements associated with

each practice

Where and in what form information is provided on each practice, and in which materials

This supports farmers to select which practices might be most appropriate for their situations, and

enables them to access easily detailed information on the practices. In essence it can be seen as a

decision support tool. The CSA DSS can either include the Navigation Tool as it stands, or adapt it, or

develop a similar tool specific to the CSA practices the project is promoting, although these are

almost entirely compatible with the Rainwater Harvesting and Conservation practices promoted in

the Amanzi for Food project (see the Amanzi for Food case study in this report).

Analysis

The process of analysing the available (qualitative) information in order to reach a decision is

inevitably, to some degree, subjective, depending on the farmers’ needs and aspirations. However,

it is possible to reduce the subjectivity to some degree by prioritising the variable factors in terms of

their importance in any given situation. This will require further work, but, for example, the

prioritisation could be to place the variables in the following order:

Effectiveness of the practice in any particular context – this will probably require external

input in terms of analysis of the soils, slope, exposure, average rainfall, crop type etc.

Financial cost to the farmer of implementing the practice

Level of technology required for the practice

Maintenance implications

Level of skill required

Considerations for selecting sites and participants

By Khethiwe Mthetwa, Mazwi Dlamini, Bobbie Louton

Participant selection

In qualitative research, Sargeant ( (Sargeant, 2012) explains that -

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201749

Qualitative research is purposeful; participants are selected who can best inform the

research questionsand enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Decisions regarding selection are based on the research questions, theoretical

perspectives, and evidence informing the study. The subjects sampled must be able

to inform important facets and perspectives related to the phenomenon being

studied.

If quantitative research is conducted, however, it requires standardization of procedures and

random selection of participants in order to minimize the potential influence of external variables

and maximise the generalizability of results (ibid). In qualitative research, however, the sample size

is not generally predetermined. The number of participants depends upon the number required to

inform fully all the important elements of the phenomenon being studied. That is, the sample size is

sufficient when additional interviews or focus groups do not result in identification of new concepts,

an end point called data saturation. To determine when data saturation occurs, analysis ideally occurs

concurrently with data collection in an iterative cycle.

Sargeant continues to give a good description of how the rigour of qualitative data can be ensured.

Within qualitative research, two main strategies promote the rigor and quality of the research:

ensuring the quality or ‘‘authenticity’’ of the data and the quality or ‘‘trustworthiness’’ of the analysis.

Authenticity of the data refers to the quality of the data and data collection procedures. Elements to

consider include:

-Sampling approach and participant selection to enable the research question to be

addressed appropriately and reduce the potential of having a biased sample.

-Data triangulation refers to using multiple data sources to produce a more comprehensive

view of the phenomenon being studied e.g using multiple sites and/or disciplines.

-Using the appropriate method to answer the research questions, considering the nature of

the topic being explored, eg, individual interviews rather than focus groups are generally

more appropriate for topics of a sensitive nature.

-Using interview and other guides that are not biased or leading, ie, that do not ask questions

in a way that may lead the participant to answer in a particular manner.

-The researcher’s and research team’s relationships to the study setting and participants

need to be explicit,

-The researcher’s and team members’ own biases and beliefs relative to the phenomenon

understudy must be made explicit, and, when necessary, appropriate steps must be taken to

reduce their impact on the quality of data collected, eg, by selecting a neutral ‘‘third party’’

interviewer.

Trustworthiness of the analysis refers to the quality of data analysis. Elements to consider when

assessing the quality of analysis include:

-Analysis process: is this clearly described, eg, the roles of the team members, what was

done, timing, and sequencing? Is it clear how the data codes or categories were developed?

Does the process reflect best practices, eg, comparison of findings within and among

transcripts, and use of memos to record decision points?

-Procedure for resolving differences in findings and among team members: this needs to be

clearly described.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201750

-Process for addressing the potential influence the researchers’ views and beliefs may have

upon the analysis.

-Use of a qualitative software program: if used, how was this used? (Sargeant, 2012)

Given the team’s decision to work in sites where the organisation and it’s partners are already

active, field staff of Mahlathini Development Foundation did an analysis of pros and cons of this

approach in terms of good community engagement practice. These are outlined below.

PROS:

Already know the peopleand their preferences

Have gained trust

Know what they’re likely to do

Know the dynamics

Better able to work for equal power dynamics, as we know the players

Already have a profile

Already connected to structures in the area, can connect with other players in the area

Especially with the Departments who are not financially limited and can take things forward

An overlap of participants between projects – helps with disseminating, embedding ideas

Already have some technical information and know conditions and problems with soils for

example and know the pitfalls

Better sense of what’s realistic to try because we know the area

We have an understanding of cultural aspects, what is allowed, who does what in terms of

labour

Some people will not try until they see the new ideas –you know the people who will be your

‘bait’ -No one wants to be left out which creates a high rate of acceptance/interest

CONS:

Researcher bias about who they like to work with

Bring in baggage from previous experiences which can excludesomeparticipants and which

skews results

Community members who had a bad experience with the research team in the past will not

be willing to try new ideas

If your powerhouse person doesn’t show the results you wanted, others lose confidence

Can have too many takers – how to do it without leaving people behind

Competition over participants (Pers comm M Dlamini, K Mthethwa, T Mathebula 2017)

It may be easier to work with new groups in existing project areas, than in new communities, as

people would have heard about the interventions in neighbouring villages. This may be a natural

extension of working in existing communities. Starting in new communities have a number of

drawbacks including

It takes a lot of time and money to mobilize people and try to communicate the ideas

It can be hard to convince people to try new ideas and

There are lots of protocols working with traditional authorities and while one is busy with

these issues, not much can be done on the ground.

Criteria for selecting participants have been suggested by the field work team as:

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201751

Household level- rather than group based projects such as community gardens or

cooperatives

Participants should already be producing

Participants should be selected in geographical clusters so that they are reasonably close

to each other to facilitate their interaction

Choices for participants should be gender inclusive

The gardens/fields should be fenced: With regard to this criterium, they felt it is a good

idea for the experimentation side of thins but can cause issues of giving preference to

better resourced individuals in the community. Sometimes these individuals are also not

that keen to used their fenced land for the implementation.

It would be an idea to set up a CoP that is open to all smallholders/ producers, but have

central group or person such as a local facilitator, who liaises and organises, to divert

power from the research team. CoPs need to become strong enough to help members

address issues. These CoPs are also engaged in slef monitoring a collecting and analysing

data; according to the principles of Participatory Action Research

Community members self- select to be part of a CoP using a list of criteria that they have

been involved in setting up.

There should be a selected number for inputs/data collection per site. It does not have

to be everyone involved as long as the criteria for receiving inputs and doing data

collection are clearly set out and are acceptable to the broader CoP.

It is a good idea to map all the stakeholders involved with the CoP and to recognise the

contribution of other organisations in the community – so that different organisations

do not work at cross purposes in one area.

It would also be an idea to create a participatory landscape map (with photos) – such as

a transect walk, that represents the system, the issues, the adaptation and the successes

of the CoP (pers comm M Dlamini, T Mathebula 2017).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201752

3TECHNICAL METHODOLOGIES

By Jon McCosh

Draft method for evaluating the effect of CSA practices on soil, water and yield

This chapter provides an overview of the proposed research approach to evaluate the effect of CSA

practices on soil quality, plant water and crop yield. Firstly, visual soil assessment indicators are

discussed – these are qualitative indicators of soil health. Secondly, crop growth indicators are

outlined. Thirdly, an overview of laboratory and instrument measurements that will be required are

shown. Finally, we seek to link the visual soil indicators to the results from instrument and

laboratory measurements to determine how qualitative indicators compare with the measured

results to evaluate their suitability as indicators of key production and soil health parameters.

Visual soil assessment indicators

This section describes the approach to evaluating the effect of CSA practices on soil health and

quality, soil water and yield. We start by considering various Visual Soil Assessment (VSA)

methodologies. VSAs are used as indicators of soil health (also known as soil quality and soil

condition), which can be defined as:

“… the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries

to sustain plant and animal productivity; maintain or enhance water and air quality; and support

human health and habitation.” (USDA, 2001)

Soil physical properties (e.g texture, minerology) are largely dependent on the parent material from

which the soil is derived as well as climate, topography and time. These properties are inherent soil

properties and are. unlikely to change in the short term. Soil quality on the other hand refers to the

dynamic properties of the soil that can be affected by management practices, which should aim to

improve soil quality. Consequently, the evaluation of soil quality attributes are most suited to

comparing the quality of a given field or area over time, rather than comparing different fields, as

soils have different inherent physical properties.

Various VSA methodologies are available for assessing soil quality. Three methodologies were

reviewed:

Visual soil assessment guide: field crops (FAO, 2008)

Willammette valley soil quality guide by Oregon State University (Oregon State University,

2009)

Guidelines for soil quality assessment in conservation planning (USDA, 2001)

Of the three reports reviewed, all had a similar set of components, namely (1) a set of indicators and

descriptions of their relevance or importance, (2) a set tools and methodologies for assessment of

indicators and (3) a scorecard.

The indicators are very similar across all methodologies as shown in Error! Reference source not

found..Based on a review of the methodologies, the Oregon State University approach was chosen

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201753

as it was considered simplest to apply in the field, was co-developed with farmers, while still

addressing the most important indicators. The single exception is that workability, which refers to

ease of ploughing has been excluded as regular tillage operations are not indicated as a CSA practice.

Table 8: A comparison of soil indicators across different VSA methodologies

FAO (2008)

Oregon State University (2009)

USDA (2001)

Soil texture

Soil structure and tilth

Earthworms

Soil structure

Compacted layers

Soil organisms

Soil Porosity

Workability

Smell

Soil colour

Soil organisms

Surface organic material

Number and colour of soil mottles

Earthworm abundance

Residue composition

Earthworms

Plant residue

Compaction

Potential rooting depth

Plant vigour

Workability

Surface ponding

Root growth

Soil tilth / structure

Surface crusting and surface cover

Water infiltration

Porosity

Soil erosion

Water availability

Crusting

Soil management of annual crops

Water infiltration

Drainage

Water holding capacity

Erosion

Crop vigour / appearance

Plant roots

Root mass

Salts

Sodium

A brief description of each indicator, their relevance to soil health and how management affects the

indicator is provided in 10.

Table 9: Description of the relevance of each indicator and how management affects the indicator

Indicator

Relevance

Management

Soil structure

and tilth

Soil structure and tilth refers to how the soil

particles are arranged. Ideally soils should have

a good ‘crumb’ structure which means that

there are sufficient spaces between the

particles to allow the movement of water and

air.

Increasing plant residue and soil organic matter

improves soil tilth.

Machinery operations that allow compaction and

leaving bare soils over winter result in poor tilth

and structure

Compacted

layers

Compaction limits air and water movement,

which in turn limits root growth. The lack of air

also limits the number of soil organisms.

Compaction can be caused by machinery

operations that compact the top layers of soil. In

addition, plough pans from the action of the

plough on the lower soils can compact the lower

soil. Cover crops and organic matter addition can

reduce soil compaction.

Soil organisms

A healthy soil food web has a high diversity of

soil organisms. The different organisms all have

a rolet to play in nutrient cycling in the soil as

well as soil structure. A diversity of soil

Tillage and the use of pesticides disrupts and

suppresses soil organism populations, while

maintaining organic covers and organic residue

promotes healthy and diverse organism

populations.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201754

organisms also helps to suppress pests and

diseases.

Earthworms

Earthworms are recognised as important

indictors of good agricultural soils. Earthworms

increase the cycling of organic matter, mix up

the soil and break up raw plant material. Their

movements in the soil create passageways that

improve aeration and water infiltration.

As with soil organisms above, tillage and

pesticides suppress earthworm populations, while

organic residues and cover crops promote

earthworm populations

Plant residue

Residue of crops or added organic matter is

critical for maintaining many of the soil health

indicators described in this table.

Cover crops and addition of organic residues

promotes organic matter formation and soil

health.

Healthy soils should have organic matter at

different stages of decomposition, from whole

plant parts, through to plant fibres and dark

humus.

Plant vigour

Refers to the health of plants in the field,

including uniform height, uniform healthy

colour and reaching maturity at the same time.

While vigour can be difficult to assess because of

management practices like fertiliser inputs and

pests that may affect growth, health soils should

show healthy plant growth of both crops and

weeds.

Root growth

Roots provide anchorage for the plant and

exchange nutrients from the soil. Good root

growth indicates a diverse soil organism

population, adequate soil aeration (porosity)

and nutrient cycling. Good root growth also

means that there are no compacted or

impeding layers in the soil.

Practices that encourage good root growth

include good tillage practices that don’t result in

compaction, promoting higher soil organic matter

– factors that promote good plant vigour also

promote healthy roots.

Water

infiltration

Good infiltration means less runoff and erosion,

while more water is available in the soil for the

crop. Good infiltration also means that the soil

drains quicker and that air can enter the soil.

Note: soils inherent texture properties can limit

infiltration, but this can be ameliorated with

management practices.

Tillage should preserve soil structure. Cover crops

and the addition of soil residues should improve

soil aggregate stability and consequently

infiltration.

Water

availability

This refers to the water that is available in the

soil for plant use (i.e. can be extracted from the

soil by the plant). Good water availability also

indicates that soil structure and organic matter

are in a desirable state.

Practices that reduce compaction and lower bulk

density improve water availability.

Crop development indicators

Building from the visual soil indicators, we have also included a set of plant indicators that have been

derived through recent work with small growers through a GrainSA funded project (Kruger E. ,

Conservation Agriculture Farmer Innovation Programme: Final Report, 2016) .These are:

% soil cover at planting (From 0% - no cover to 100% full cover; Cover of the soil looking

from above- can be crop residue, weeds, mulch, grass etc)

% crop cover at 6-8 weeks (From 0% - no cover to 100% full cover; Cover of the soil looking

from above- crop cover/ canopy)

% Weed infestation (0%- very high weed incidence, complete yield loss; to 100%- no weeds

zero yield loss)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201755

% Pest occurrence (0%- very high infestation, complete yield loss, to 100%- no insect pests

and zero yield loss)

% growth (germination, colour, height, health)

The intention of these indicators is to find a way in which field observations can be used to assess

the level of implementation, and change for each participant testing CSA practices. These criteria

have been chosen to have a management element within them, although they would of course be

sensitive also to environmental changes and conditions.

The criteria/indicators need to be robust enough to:

- Be easily observed or measured by;

- A number of different enumerators and

-Across different areas and sites;

But also, sensitive enough to show the effects of changes in management practices by participant

smallholders. In this report, the indicators used thus far are assessed and discussed and

recommendations are made for adaptations into the future.

Field research and laboratory measurements / indicators

In addition to the VSA and crop development indicators, a number of instrument-and laboratory

based measurements will be required. These include soil physical and chemical properties, weather,

soil water and yield, which are described in more detail in Table 11. Included in the table is an

indication of how important the measurement is (necessary, preferred or optional) and the intervals

at which measurements should be taken.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201756

Table 10: Key production parameters to be measured through instrumentation and laboratory analysis

Linking the parameters

A matrix is provided in Table 12 of how the VSA indicators link to the soil physical and chemical

properties and ultimately to yield. Important observations from the matrix are that:

Bulk density is an important measurement across all VSA indicators. Compaction increases bulk

density, which reduces soil aeration and consequently soil organisms. Higher bulk density

equates to lower water infiltration and lower water availability. Conversely, high levels of plant

residue and soil organisms should improve soil structure and consequently bulk density.

Hydraulic conductivity is affected by soil structure – a good structure will improve hydraulic

conductivity; compacted layers will reduce hydraulic conductivity, while a healthy soil organism

population will increase hydraulic conductivity and in the A horizon.

Carbon in the soil can provide information on soil fertility, available nutrients and soil organisms

– this is an important measure for soil health.

Exhangeable bases are an indication of the soil’s ability to hold and exchange base nutreients.

While this is largely dependent on clay content and soil pH (higher pH means more bases

Soil Physical Properties

Importance

(Necessary,

Preferred,

Optional)

Intervals

TextureNecessaryOnce off

Bulk DensityNecessaryAt beginning and after each harvest

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity - surfacePreferredOnce off

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity - below surfacePreferredOnce off

Structure - Mean Weight DiameterOptionalAt beginning and after each harvest

Retentivity CurvesPreferredOnce off

Soil Chemical Properties

CarbonNecessaryAt beginning and after each harvest

N,P,KNecessaryAt beginning and after each harvest

pH NecessaryAt beginning and after each harvest

Electrical ConductivityOptionalAt beginning and after each harvest

Exchangeable Bases / Cation Exchange CapacityPreferredAt beginning and after each harvest

Soil health indicators*NecessaryAt beginning and after each harvest

Weather

Automated Weather Station (AWS)NecessaryResearch duration - constant logging

Rain guagesNecessaryResearch duration - manual recording

Water

Watermark sensor (nests of 3at 300, 600 and 1200mm)

NecessaryResearch duration - constant logging

Soil temperature sensors to go with watermarksNecessaryResearch duration - constant logging

Loggers to go with watermarksNecessaryResearch duration - constant logging

Manual Gravimetric water samplingNecessaryDuring set phases of crop development

Hand moisture tests (numerical scale)NecessaryDuring set phases of crop development

Runoff plotsNecessaryResearch duration - regular manual recording

Yield

Biomass (non-edible) - Dry MatterNecessaryAt harvest

Grain / edible component - Dry MatterNecessaryAt harvest

Leaf Area IndexOptionalDuring set phases of crop development

Leaf nutrientsOptionalDuring set phases of crop development

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201757

available to plants), higher organic and soil organism presence would increase nutrient cycling

and availability.

Measurable yield is linked to all indicators – good soil health will result in higher relative yields,

all other factors being equal.

Table 11: Matrix of linkages between VSA and measured parameters

Soil Physical

Properties

Description

Soil

structure

and tilth

Compacted

layers

Soil

organisms

Earthworm

abundance

Plant

residue

Plant

vigour

Root

growth

Water

infiltration

Water

availability

Texture

Inherent soil property - relative proportions

of sand, silt and clay

Bulk Density

Lower bulk density means higher porosity

and good structure

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity - surface

Rate at which water moves into soil surface

under saturated conditions - the higher this

is, more water in the soil and less runoff

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity - below

surface

Rate at which water moves into below the

surface under saturated conditions - the

higher this is, more water in the soil and less

runoff

Structure - Mean

Weight Diameter

Indicates how well formed the soil peds are -

links to soil structure

Retentivity Curves

Gives and indication of plant available water -

largely an inherent soil property, but can be

improved with better structure and organic

content

Soil Chemical

Properties

CarbonIndicator of organic matter in the soil

N,P,KIndicator of soil fertility

pH pH affects the availability of plant nutrients

Electrical

Conductivity

EC indicates the concentration of dissolved

salts in the soil

Exchangeable Bases /

Cation Exchange

Capacity

This refers to the ability of the soil to hold

bases (e.g. Ca, Mg, Phosphates) and

exchange them with plant roots

Soil health indicators

Weather

Automated Weather

Station (AWS)

Provides rainfall, evapotranspiration

information

Rain guagesRainfall information

Water

Watermark sensor

(nests of 3 at 300, 600

and 1200mm)

Gives and indication of plant available water

by measuring the the matric potential of the

soil

Soil temperature

sensors to go with

watermarks

Used to calibrate watermark data

Loggers to go with

watermarks

Logs matric potential at regular intervals

Manual Gravimetric

water sampling

Manual sampling of gravimetric water

content can be used to calibrate watermarks

and will allow comparison against sites

where watermark sensors are not installed

Hand moisture tests

(numerical scale)

Durign the gravimetric water sampling,

participating farmers will be asked to give a

numerical indication of their perception of

soil moisture content (1 = dry, 5 = wet)

Runoff plots

Used to indicate soil infiltration and erosion

risk

Yield

Biomass (non-edible)

- Dry Matter

This is the oven dried mass of a sample of

biomass (i.e. stover)

Grain / edible

component - Dry

Matter

This is the oven dried mass of a sample of the

edible yield (i.e. grain, pulse)

Leaf Area Index

An indicator of crop growth and canopy used

to indicate crop growth rate

Leaf nutrients

Can be used as a proxy indicator for plant

available nutrients in the soil

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201758

Way forward

The proposed methodology for linking CSA practices on soil, water and yield will be developed

further based on research team discussions to identify the critical parameters that the research

should focus on to inform the Decision Support System.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201759

4CASE STUDIES

Climate Change Adaptation, Limpopo

By Erna Kruger

Description of the programme

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

vulnerability to climate change through building improved transboundary water and biodiversity

governance and management of the Olifants Basin through the adoption of science-based strategies

that enhance the resilience of its people and ecosystems through systemic and social learning

approaches. The programme has been running for four years and is being implemented by AWARD

(The Association for Water and Rural Development) with funding from USAID.

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

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

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

implemented jointly by Mahlathini Development Foundation and AWARD.

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

directly:

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

associated livelihoods through enhancing the capacity of stakeholders to sustainably manage

natural resources of the Olifants River Basin under different scenarios

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

informed adaptation strategies and practices and tenable institutional arrangements.

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

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

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

biophysical characteristics of your environment and how these are changing and how are you able to

respond to that?

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

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

communities of the Olifants River Catchment through:

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

security;

- Livelihood diversification and supplementation through alternative climate resistant

production; and

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

Problem

A key vulnerability which was identified during Phase I of this programme isthe potential for

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

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201760

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

practices impacting production and ecological health and integrity but these impacts are likely to be

greatly exacerbated under the hotter and more erratic rainfall conditions that are predicted for the

Lowveld as a result of climate change. For example, with a 2OC increase maize farming and livestock

production is likely to become marginal whilst with a 4OC increase both will be untenable (AWARD;

internal reports 2016).

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

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

farmed. These form an important component of livelihood security and in particular, offer important

safety-nets in times of crises.

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

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

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

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

there is little evidence of farmers working together to learn from each other or others or to plan for

the future. Collective action and the ability to self-organise are regarded as critical components of

adaptive capacity. Furthermore, although some farmers have indicated that they have heard of

climate change, none expressed a sense of urgency and few voiced any ideas about how to respond.

This suggests that collectively they are not resilient in a way that the magnitude of the impacts of

climate change might demand. Building adaptive capacity for food security is thus a key priority of

the project.

Rationale

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

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

only do agro-ecological farming approaches require minimum external inputs – which may be

expensive and increase dependency if subsidised – but they foster farmers’ sense that they can build

sustainable futures from local inputs and efforts. With knowledge about the potential impacts of

climate change included in the learning journey, farmers can make purposeful decisions around

practices such as seed and crop-type. This approach supports livelihood diversification – also

fundamental for increased resilience –through ‘value-added’ associated activities such as seedling

production, tree nurseries and bee-keeping.

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

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

communities of the Olifants River Catchment through:

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

security

- Livelihood diversification and supplementation through alternative climate resistant

production;

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

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201761

Implementation of practices

Six villages were given priority due to their medium to high vulnerability status with respect to food

security under climate changing conditions and the existence of already active and interested

smallholders. These villages, shown in Error! Reference source not found., are Botshabelo (Mabins

A); Mametja (Mabins B); Lepelle; Willows, The Oaks and Finale.

Figure 9: Map showing the location of the project site villages along the lower Olifants River

In each of the villages a CCA baseline was constructed through group explorations and discussions

dealing with the present situation in the villages, past, present and future agricultural practices and

present and future adaptations that could improve resilience, productivity and diversification.

In addition, a baseline household survey was conducted with 34 (of around 108) participants with

the intention of using this baseline to track changes and livelihoods improvements. The majority of

participants were women between the ages of 18 to 84 years. The household sizes average around 5

members and for the majority of participants (68%) reporting their monthly household income to be

lower or equal to R3200/ month. This equates to around R20 per household member per day.

Around 30% of respondents suggested a household income of between R3200-R6400/ month. See

the figure below for the detailed breakdown.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201762

Figure 10 Ranges of household income and streams of income reported by participants.

Sources of income include social grants as the primary and most common source (62%. Wages from

day labour, selling of local produce, small businesses, support from family members and rentals

provide further sources of income in a descending order of contribution. It is interesting to note that

sale of local produce provides and income source for almost half (44%) of the respondents –

indicating smallholder farming as a central livelihoods’ component in these villages.

Nearly all respondents reported that they grew vegetables (94%) and fruit (4%). The majority also

farmed field crops (91%), herbs and other multifunctional plants (86%) and livestock (68%). In terms

of their diversification of farming enterprises; looking at the number of different products within

these, there was far more diversification of vegetables and fruits than of field crops, livestock or

herbs and other vegetation. Most of the households grew only one type of field crop; none grew

more than 3. The same was true of livestock.

Figure 11 Number of participants with one or more type of produce for different types of farming enterprises

10%

26%

29%

R50-R400

R400-R800

R800-R1600

R1600-R3200

R3200-R6400

R6400-R12800

Household income

18%

38%

44%

50%

62%

Renting

Disability

Family

Business

Pension

Local produce

Wage

Social grant

Streams of income

1 2 3 4 5 6

Vegetables 7 9 4 5 1 2

Fruit 75 11 531

Herbs 17 4 20

Field crops18 6 2

Livestock 12 5 4

Axis Title

Diversification of types of farming

enterprises

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201763

The diversity of types ofvegetables, fruits, field crops, livestock and herbs and other vegetation that

were reported are shown in Figures 6 to 8 below.

Figure 12: Percentage of participants who reported growing different vegetables

Figure 13: Percentage of participants who reported growing different fruit and field crops

Figure 14: Percentage of participants who reported growing different herbs or multifunctional plants or raising livestock

Only 79% of respondents reported using any soil fertility management practices – meaning that 7 of

the 34 respondents just plant their crops without addition of any soil fertility amelioration; believing

that the soils can naturally provide fertility and that addition of manure can burn their crops. Of

those respondents that do practice soil fertility management strategies, the application of livestock

manure was by far the most common practice, reported by 75% of those using soil fertility

41%

31% 28%

22% 19% 19% 19% 16% 16% 13%

6% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Vegetables

77%

55% 48%

32% 26% 16% 13% 10% 6% 3% 3% 3%

Fruit

78%

16% 13% 6%

Field crops

36% 36%

20% 20% 16%

4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Herbs/multifunctional plants

62% 62%

33%

Livestock

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201764

management practices. Other practices that were mentioned were the use of plant residues, use of

legumes, commercial fertilizer, compost and sawdust .

Figure 15: Soil fertility practices reported by participants

Present implementation of good farming practices was explored with the respondents. A number of

different themes were explored See Figure 10 below. These included for example:

The use of dedicated beds and specific bed design practices for soil and water management

– such as the construction of furrows and ridges or planting basins (garden beds). Around

50% of respondents use these practices

 Water management in the form of use of greywater and rainwater harvesting (RWH) are

being practiced by 85% and 35% of respondents respectively.

Propagation in the form of seed saving and nursery management is being practised by 62%

and 47% of respondents respectively

And Multipurpose plants such as propagation of medicinal plants and growing and use of

indigenous fruit trees (such as Marula and Makgogoba) are being practiced by 76% of

respondents.

85% of respondents manage to eat produce from their gardens on a weekly basis, on average 3

times per week and harvesting between 1-3 different crop types in this time. 56% of respondents

make a small income from their production practices- mostly from the sale of fruit and vegetables.

They make an average of around R150-R300/month from sale of vegetables and as much as R6400/

season for sale of mangoes and making of Marula beer, although the average is around R1 500 per

season.

11%

15%

19%

78%

sawdust

LAN

compost

fertilizer

legumes

residue

livestock maure

Soil fertility management practices

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201765

Figure 16:Local good practice in farming activities

Another outcome of this survey was the ability to design methodologies and practices for

implementation that build on the local good practices and traditions and incorporate local

innovations into the learning processes.

Methodology

The methodology of this project involves working with groups of interested farmers (learning

groups) in selected villages by building a local picture of risk and resilience (socio-ecological) using a

systems approach (vision and principles), scenario planning (farm design processes) and a spiral

model of implementation (action and learning). Participants try out new ideas (farmer level

experimentation) individually and jointly and through a process of reflection and adaptation of these

ideas enhance their adaptive capacity.

Emphasis is being placed on methodologies and approaches for improved soil and water

conservation strategies, livelihood diversification (increased and diversified production of

vegetables, fruit and field crops and integration of small livestock) and value adds (such as

entrepreneurial opportunities and diversification of income options).

Monitoring is important and in addition to monitoring being conducted by the facilitators (both

trainers and local champions/facilitators) a local framework for self and peer assessment and

monitoring of progress is employed using the ‘five fingers’ principles (developed by AWARD) for on

farm practices, to enhance abilities for self-organisation and collective action. Local criteria for

assessment of each ‘finger’ (things we are doing and changing) are to be developed alongside an

easy scoring process to track implementation and progress. Each finger represents a principle as

follows:

- Water Management: Manage water movement so as to slow down the water speed so as to

reduce erosion and enhance infiltration

- Soil management:Manage soil movement so as to limit erosion and soil loss

- Soil health: Manage soil so as to maintain or improve soil health (nutrients and structure)

- Plant (Crop) Management: Manage plants and crops so as to ensure plants appropriate for

the area and to meet the vision

- Looking after indigenous plants: Enhance practices that maintain indigenous fauna and flora

and ecosystem health of the area

05 10 15 20 25 30 35

Garden beds

RWH

Nursery

Farming income

Garden

beds

Multipurp

ose plantsRWH Grey

water useNursery Seed

saving

Farming

income

Food

(x/wk)

Good practices17 26 29 12 16 21 19 29

Local good practise (n=34)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201766

A key component of building adaptive capacity

(resilience building) is strengthening peoples’ ability

to self-organise, to learn together and to act

collectively. Aspects included in the design process

are:

- The collaborative identification of

champions/local facilitators in each village

to act as local facilitators and motivators for

change;

- Working with learning groups within and

between villages;

- Networking and meeting with others

(within group and external);

- Building locally appropriate collaborative

activities (such as seedling production, small

nurseries, village level savings groups, joint

work parties, sharing resources and joint

input supply and marketing processes)

Learning and innovation workshops have been

held covering a range of themes within soil and

water conservation, greywater management,

intensive gardening techniques, micro climate

management (tunnels) and improved irrigation

practices.

The box alongside outlines a list of practices

introduced in the learning groups for farmer

experimentation and implementation.

Local facilitators were elected for each learning

group to support the group and undertake the

household-level garden monitoring for each

participant.

The feasibility of implementation of new

practices at a local level with available resources

has been an important consideration. Thus, kits

are provided for the tunnels, grey water

filtration and drip irrigation that are constructed

locally. For the underground storage tanks,

support has been provided in terms of technical

advice and materials, while the construction

itself is done by local teams and individuals.

Climate Smart Agriculture practices introduced in

the AgriSI learning groups in the lower Olifants

River basin.

Soil and Water Conservation

-Cut off drains – ditches across a contour at top

of garden/catchment

-Contours - measured with line level

-Diversion ditches - carry water to the garden

-Stone lines/bunds - made on contour

-Banana pits

-Improved furrows and ridges - made on

contour with mulching and plantings

Gardening practices

-Dedicated paths and beds

-Mixed cropping; companion planting

-Mulching

-Trench beds

-Shallow trenches - an easier version of

trenches incorporating manure and OM in a

30cm ditch or line, covering and planting on

and next to that

-Eco-circles - combines double digging with

bottle irrigation

-Incorporation of manure - large quantities

-Making improved manure - composting

manure with grass and OM and inclusion of

urine fraction from kraaling

-Making compost

-Liquid manures

-Pest control brews: Chilli-soap derivatives,

onion-paraffin derivatives,

-Planting of herbs (mixed in veg beds, incl.

coriander, parsley, fennel, chives, lemon balm,

lavender, rosemary)

-Seed successions; seed beds with a range of

seed (diversification) planted in succession for

continual supply of seedlings, incl. okra,

brinjal, green peppers, Amaranthus, mustard

spinach, Chinese cabbage, kale, leeks, spring

onions, broccoli, cauliflower, among others)

Field cropping

-Conservation agriculture; clos spacing and

inclusion of lime and bone meal with manure

-Diversified crops; maize, millet sorghum, sugar

beans cowpeas

-Intercropping

Associated practices

-Greywater management and use; ash, tower

gardens

-Greywater bucket filter

-Drip kits

-Small nurseries; propagation of fruit and

indigenous crops and trees

-Tunnels

-RWH storage tanks (underground)

-Soil erosion control; check dams, stone packs…

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201767

Figure 17: Left: A group of participants from the Oaks and Lepelle construct a tunnel together. Right: A working tunnel in

Sedawa, where the drip kits have also been installed and crops are planted in trench beds. Mulching is in evidence.

Outcomes and learnings

An implementation and learning review was conducted in April 2017 for all learning groups to

provide an opportunity for members from all 6 villages to visit a good working example of

innovations and good practices in agroecology and soil and water conservation and review their

practices. This also provided an opportunity to mentor the local facilitators and showcase the work

to stakeholders such as AWARD and other NGOs, the local municipality, and representatives from

government. The process and learnings from this review are presented below to illustrate the

potential benefit of both CSA practices and the community based systemic approach.

Figure 18: Introduction of facilitators (left) and discussion of practices (right) at implementation review

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201768

The definition of the five fingers as broad principles in

good practice for climate change adaptation was reviewed

with the group. Participants named the five fingers

(easily!!) and gave a few brief examples of what they

meant. Good practices were elicited from the group and

then assessed using the traffic light method for how well

they are being implemented by the groups in each village.

We arranged the scale as shown in the box alongside. The

table below describes the outcomes of this exercise. Participants were fully engaged and really

enjoyed this process.

Table 12: Summary of monitoring assessments for CSA and good practice implementation by learning group members

Note 1: The percentages in the last column represent the number of participants who indicated they had implemented the practices. This

is indicative only as there were community members present who had not yet been involved as well as a number of visitors.

Note 2: Practices highlighted in light grey are those for which participants felt they needed more input and mentoring.

Principles

Practices

Assessments

(traffic light)

Percentage implementation in

the group

Water

Management

Cut off drains and swales

Not yet implemented by most

participants

Diversion ditches

~20% (10/52)

Greywater (filtration, use)

~8%

Small dams

~14%

Organic matter (incorporation in soil)- leaves,

bones, woodchips etc buried to increase

water holding and fertility

~60%

Drip irrigation

~6%

Saving water; Rainwater harvesting in drums,

management of leaks of communal stand

pipes, no longer letting irrigation water run

24/7 - Lepelle

All participants involved in some

way in saving water

Control soil

movement and

erosion

Stone bunds

~24%

Banana basins and circles

~22%

Strip cropping (aloes, sisal) and planting grass

to reduce run-off

~8%

Contours- water flow for collection

Not yet implemented

Ridges and furrows-planting of crops on

ridges; sweet potato, sunflowers…

~30%

Sacks with sand for rehabilitation of gulleys

~2%

Crop

management

Planting in basins, mulching and direct

watering of basins only

~60%

Close spacing in field crops and vegetables

~20% - Not everyone agreed

with this practice

Planting to provide afternoon shade and

planting windbreaks

~22% - Not everyone agreed

with this practice

Crop rotation and intercropping

~52%

Natural pest control

~18%

Conservation Agriculture

~36% - more ideas to be tried

Soil fertility

Trench beds

~60%

Mulch

~60%

Liquid manure

~20%

Compost

~46%

Application of manure (cattle, chickens)

~70%

Legumes; planting for food and soil fertility

~68%

Looking after

indigenous

plants

Stop burning veld

No one doing and not needed or

all areas

Don’t chop whole trees- just cut branches

Most participants

Plant indigenous trees in the yards to protect

and save them

Most participants

Scale usedfor assessment of practices

and their implementation

RED: We know about this but have not

done very much

YELLOW: We have started implementing

these practices, or a few individuals

already use these, but there is room for

expansion

GREEN: These practices are implemented

by most of the participants.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201769

Small group stations were set up for physical demonstration. The Local Facilitators ran the stations.

The following stations were set up, each with a board of illustrative photographs:

WATER MANAGEMENT:Diversion ditches, waterflow line levels and making furrows and ridges on

contour, planting on ridges and mulching were discussed.

TRENCH BEDS: The packing of trenches was discussed as was mixed cropping, mulching and a micro

drip kit irrigation system. The use of herbs as pest repellent plants and for nutritional and medicinal

purposes was also discussed and demonstrated.

TUNNELS: The Local Facilitators took participants through the construction process of the tunnel and

discussed advantages and potential disadvantages of crop production in tunnels. The larger drip kit

(210 L) was also demonstrated and discussed.

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE AND LIQUID MANURE: the principles and practices of conservation

agriculture including the use of hand planters for no-till situations, close spacing and the importance

of soil cover and diverse crops. Liquid manure from animal and plant sources was explained.

A few other practices were also showcased during the review session including a selection of herbs

and indigenous trees for planting, (such as lemongrass, num-num, marigolds, aloes and fennel. Well-

tended banana circles (a local innovation) were also showcased.

A selection of the feedback collected from participants on the workshop is provided below.

General feedback on the day and process

- This whole process has given people purpose. We are no longer justgoing to wander in the streets and

gossip, but are going to be busy. We are going to see some health improvements in our communities.

- The way we taught ourselves was great - it opened our minds.

- I was a bit overwhelmed by gardening and the difficulties but from these examples shown today things

look doable.

- I liked the idea of waterflows and harvesting water off the road for your fields. I never knew this was

possible.

- I was afraid with this approach that I would be troubled by pests. I now realise I can use the resources I

have to counter pests.

- This has built more relationships between farmers - we can talk about our issues together.

Figure 19: Demonstration stations at the implementation review workshops. Left: Tunnel and drip kit. Centre A well

mulched trench bed with mixed cropping (okra, brinjal, onion and swiss chard) and close spacing. Right: A diversion ditch

mulched with the ridge planted to sweet potatoes

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201770

- (Newcomer) We learnt a lot and I was struck by the idea that one can improve the soil you have and do

not have to rely on a bad soil.

Practices: Water

- I was bothered by my neighbour letting water run into my garden – now I realise I can use that

water.

- I am impressed by the line level - that one can use simple methods like that to measure

complicated things.

- What used to be a burden (gardening) now is going to become gold.

- I used to sweep up the leaf litter mad throw it away. Now I will use it for mulch.

Practices: Trench bed

- Regarding the use of top soil versus sub soil in the trench bed I see now that the top soil is more

fertile and so it is good to use in the bed. I initially thought you just put the soil back as it came out.

- Trench beds are also a way of cleaning the yard.

- Combining the trench bed with the drip kit seems like a very good recipe for saving water.

- Now, with permanent beds, we will not be walking all over our beds and causing compaction.

Practices: Tunnel

- The relationship between the tunnel, the trench beds and the drip irrigation is now clear. Doing all

three things together works well and reduces evaporation.

Practices: Conservation Agriculture

- We learnt how to plant maize using the MBLI hand planter. It works really well and then you won’t

need to plough.

- I have seen the importance of intercropping for soil cover.

The figure below provides and initial assessment (5 months into a 13 month process) of

respondents’ implementation of the new innovations and practices being promoted. This is a work

in progress, but gives an initial indication of new practices introduced that respondents have already

implemented and also in which areas more mentoring would be required.

Figure 20: Implementation of new innovations by a selection of participants in the learning groups (n=34)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Cut off drains

Diversion ditches

Stone bunds

trench beds

Diversified crops

Seed and seedlings

mulching

Contours, line levels

Liquid manure

Green manures, legumes

inter cropping

Nat P&D control

Cut

off

drain

Diver

sion

ditche

Stone

bunds

trenc

beds

Diver

sified

crops

Seed

and

seedli

ngs

mulch

ing

Conto

urs,

line

levels

Liqui

manu

Green

manu

res,

legum

inter

cropp

ing

Nat

P&D

contr

% implmentation of new innovations12% 21% 29% 24% 82% 50% 44%3% 6%29% 32%3%50%

New innovations - April 2017 (n=34)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201771

Future planning

Activities that were discussed for the winter season included:

- Learning sessions would continue in the various villages and specific attention would be

given to topics participants had highlighted for more attention. A refresher mini-workshop

would be held to include the new participants and bring everyone up to speed. Local

facilitators would play an important role here.

- Local facilitators would begin to visit all participants to support and mentor them and also

monitor their progress with implementation of the innovative practices.

- The winter season when people are at home is a good time to start on the collaborative

erosion control efforts in and around the participants’ homesteads.

- The implementation of a process for participants to access tunnels and drip kits was

introduced. In both cases a limited number of kits can be provided by the implementation

team. Participants are required to show their commitment by digging and packing the

required trenches prior to receiving materials.

- For the piloting of underground RWH tanks it was suggested that participants who do not

have access to municipal water in any form be prioritized. Also volunteers are required to do

all the labour and demonstrate an active interest in gardening to be considered. These

criteria were ratified by the group present as reasonable and acceptable.

Suitability of this community as an implementation site for the CSA

project

The community level groundwork used in the AgriSi project serves as a good basis for working with a

decision support system with the smallholders and their supporting originations and stakeholders:

participants are already aware of many of the practices that can be included in a basket of options,

they have experience with trying out a selection of these practices and some ideas about the

potential benefit that each can offer and they are starting to appreciate the concept of synergies

between practices to create a resilient farming system for themselves.

There is good basis for establishing a successful and meaningful community of practice in terms of

organizational collaboration and synergies between programme outcomes.

Aspects of this process that could be useful in designing a decision support system include:

1.The villages are situated in a part of Limpopo that is feeling the effects of climate change;

with increased heat and reduced precipitation already necessitating some adaptations.

These can be recorded and analysed.

2.The traditional practices of the area are unique to these communities and the locality and

will provide interesting options and some good practices examples to work with.

3.The impacts of different CSA practices and combinations of practices can be carefully

compiled, as participants are already implementing some of the techniques and have shown

a willingness and motivation to continue.

4.Participatory analysis learning and monitoring methodologies employed in this programme

are innovative and unique and can be used to good effect in building an overall

methodology.

5.Opportunities for scaling out and scaling up are available and important to consider in the

decision support design process.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201772

6.The impacts of certain technologies and innovations can be measured and criteria developed

to be used in a decision support system.

7.Social organization and collective action and various methodologies and approaches to

support these can be explored.

8.A good opportunity exists for meaningful stakeholder collaboration for building a CoP.

9.Synergies exist also with the Amanzi for Food networking process and options for

embedding this learning into more formal learning processes at Agricultural training

Institutes.

‘Amanzi for Food’

By Lawrence Sisitka

This case study relates to Water Research Commission Project K5/2277: Action oriented strategy for

knowledge dissemination and training for skills development of water use in homestead food

gardening and rain water harvesting for cropland food production

Outline of the project

The Water Research Commission (WRC) contracted the Rhodes University Environmental Learning

Research Centre (ELRC) to assist with the dissemination of information on rainwater harvesting and

conservation (RWH&C) for food production, developed through a range of research projects funded

over a number of years by the Commission.

The main focus of the Amanzi for Food project was to develop an action-oriented strategy for

sharing the information on RWH&C contained in two (2) major WRC publications:

‘Development of a comprehensive learning package for education on the application of water

harvesting and conservation’ (WRC Report No. TT 493/11 from Project No. K5/1776) [WHC

materials]; and

’Participatory Development of Training Material for Agricultural Water Use in Homestead

Farming Systems for Improved Livelihoods’ (WRC Report No. TT 431/09 from Project No.

K5/1575/4) [AWUHGS materials]

While the emphasis was on developing educational and social processes and appropriate platforms

for sharing the information, the project inevitably became quite deeply involved in supporting others

to understand and share practices involved in RWH&C particularly as these related to small-scale

crop farming and homestead garden food production contexts.

The initial phase of the project extended for just over three (3) years; from March 2013 (although

this was delayed due to contractual issues until June of that year), to end of July 2016.

The project had four (4) main aims:

To review available knowledge products, with emphasis on agriculture water and food

production learning materials developed with WRC funding, leading to the design of a

possible training DVD and the design of related knowledge products.

To pilot and design knowledge mediation processes through intensive engagement with

selected Agricultural Colleges to inform a national strategy that will target a wider group

of learning and training organisations.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201773

To pilot and design a mass media strategy leading to a listing of contents of a radio / low

cost media content manual for the effective inclusion of available agriculture water

knowledge into existing low cost media channels.

To develop a national strategy for agricultural water knowledge dissemination for

smallholder farmers and food-growers using the tools and processes developed in the

project. This will enable a large scale roll out of the knowledge dissemination processes

of targeting food-growers, particularly women, directly and learning organisations who

are involved in the training of extension officers and rural-development workers in the

field of food-security and smallholder agricultural production.

In the process of achieving these aims the project embarked on a wide-ranging series of activities:

Conducting an in-depth review of the core WRC materials;

Conducting more superficial reviews of other associated WRC materials;

Conducting reviews of agricultural college curricula; in particular to identify any existing

coverage of RWH&C, and identifying elements of the curricula which could lend themselves to

the integration of RWH&C components;

Engagement with selected agricultural colleges and university agricultural faculties to gauge

their interest in the incorporation of RWH&C components into their curricula;

Identification of potential audiences for the WRC materials, other than the agricultural colleges,

and including: the agricultural extension services; farmers and homestead food producers;

agricultural high schools and universities with agricultural faculties; Non-governmental

Organisations (NGOs) and Community-based Organisations (CBOs) working with farmers; and

agricultural research institutes;

Development and facilitation of a Training of Trainers (ToT) Rhodes University certificated course

to support educators, trainers and farmers to use the WRC materials in training processes for

RWH&C practices in both formal and informal contexts;

Supporting the establishment of a Learning Network involving a wide range of agricultural

trainers and practitioners, working together to learn about and introduce RWH&C practices

(most of the original members of this network took part in the first ToT course);

Exploring and developing a range of media possibilities for the sharing of RWH&C information

from the WRC materials. This included: local and provincial radio; community newspapers;

developing a website - www.amanziforfood.co.za - with associated Facebook page, and a

WhatsApp group linking the Learning Network with the ELRC and others.

Supporting the development of ‘productive demonstration sites’ where specific practices were

implemented as an example for others to learn from

Adapting and enhancing the original WRC materials to ease access to the critical information

they contained. This involved the development of a ‘Navigation Tool’ to guide readers to

specific practices described in the materials, and the production of short summaries of key

practices in the form of info-cards. For a few practices, those implemented at one key

productive demonstration site, posters and videos were developed.

Pactices

The Amanzi for Food project drew strongly on theories of social learning and transformative change

in the design of the ToT course and in working with the course participants and other members of

the Learning Network. The course itself offered options to engage at either National Qualifications

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201774

Framework (NQF) level 5 (mostly farmers and extension officers) or level 6 (mostly lecturers and

more senior extension personnel), or alternatively to simply participate in the course with no

expectation of certification (mostly farmers). This enabled participants with very different

educational and experiential backgrounds to work through the course and learn together and from

each other. The Learning Network brought together a range of agricultural trainers and practitioners

into a mutually supportive learning collaboration, which has continued to operate effectively even

after the end of the initial project. This experience suggests that the establishment and support of

such Learning Networks represents a real opportunity for sharing and collaboration in relation to all

agricultural approaches and practices, including those concerned with Climate Smart Agriculture

(CSA).

While the Amanzi for Food project was concerned primarily with the teaching and learning processes

involved in the sharing of knowledge on RWH&C, there was inevitable engagement with the

practices themselves, in particular the development of ‘productive demonstration sites’ as practical

learning centres. Sites were established in farmers’ own food gardens, in a collective vegetable

garden, and in the agricultural college farm and grounds, providing a wide range of different

circumstantial and practice-focussed demonstrations. Also while these practices were not

specifically articulated as being CSA-oriented, there is little doubt that the principles of low-input

practices, with careful and relatively sustainable use of rainwater for food production, and

adaptation to climate variability are entirely compatible with CSA approaches.

The RWH&C practices, involving collection and storage of rainwater through the use of simple

channels and ponds, and improving infiltration and retention of water in the ground through the use

of mulching and traditional practices such as ‘Gelesha’

are indeed central to many of the CSA

approaches. This suggests that the information provided in the WRC materials which formed the

focus for the Amanzi for Food activities can and should play a major role in developing

understanding of these approaches. There is indeed a place for every one of the RWH&C practices as

described in the various materials and shared on the Amanzi for Food website and elsewhere to

provide a strong knowledge foundation for the CSA project.

Learnings, /outcomes/ results

Key Learnings

The Amanzi for Food project adopted an empirical approach in that, although informed by a strong

and clear social learning and change orientation, it avoided being too pre-emptive in determining

the precise path the project would take. This path would be determined by the needs and

aspirations of the project partners, including the college lecturers, extension officers, and mostly the

farmers themselves. This was a deliberate formative intervention approach to expansive learning

that intended participatory learning related to farmers’ and colleges’ relational contexts to take

Gelesha is a traditional practice involving post-harvest ‘ripping’ orshallow cultivation of croplands in

preparation for receiving and infiltration of the first rains,prior to planting. This is in contrast to the more

conventional practice where the cultivation takes place following the first rains, when much of the water is lost

through both run-off from hard-packed soil, and through evaporation as the soil is turned.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201775

place rather than ‘top down’ intervention with pre-conceived solutions. While there was inevitably

some risk involved in taking such an approach, it did provide some guarantee that the project would

respond to and resonate with the requirements of the key beneficiaries. Indeed, the outcomes

suggest that it was this responsiveness to the realities of farmers’ contexts which enabled them to

connect so strongly with the project.

Similarly the project avoided making assumptions regarding the ways in which farmers acquired

information, rather undertaking research into learning processes with which the farmers were

involved, and the media platforms with and through which they made most connections. While the

outcomes of this research were generally fairly predictable, there was more use made of internet-

based social media such as Facebook and WhatsApp than might have been predicted in rural areas,

even among older farmers, and perhaps less use made of radio for sharing of information except for

fairly passive listening. However, when the opportunity was made available for famers and others to

share their experiences with others through a series of radio programmes, they found this a

stimulating and empowering exercise.

It became clear that a multimedia approach, linking live, interactive radio broadcasts to Facebook

and website visits, combined, where possible, with personal visits, proved the most effective means

of establishing positive and productive relationships between the farming community and others in

the sector. Of all the means of communication available, however, nothing came close to face-to-

face interaction for generating interest and stimulating collaboration, and it is unlikely that without

such personal engagement that real supportive relationships can be built, although these can be

maintained subsequently to a large degree through more ‘distant’ communication channels, such as

WhatsApp. In using the latter it was found important to always remember to connect differently

with those that are in danger of being excluded by electronic media because of the digital divide.

The establishment of the productive demonstration sites proved very central to the project in terms

of in bringing people together to develop the sites and providing physical evidence of practices in

use. Interest in the practices themselves was certainly stimulated considerably by such involvement

and the evidence of their contribution to improving water availability.

The experience of the Amanzi for Food project does however suggest that while such practices are

extremely valuable in relation to buffering the worst impacts of existing and climate change-related

water-stress situations, they cannot, on their own, provide any permanent solutions to the ongoing

issues of lack of adequate water for food production in all areas of the country. In other words, while

making a real contribution, they cannot on their own provide any guarantee of food security,

especially in highly water-stressed contexts. It is therefore essential that the potential benefits are

not overstated, and that the expectations of project partners, including most importantly the

farmers themselves, are not over-inflated.

Outcomes

Some substantial outcomes emerged from the project, laying a strong foundation for future work in

this field:

Establishment of the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network, in the Amathole District of the Eastern

Cape, centred on the Fort Cox Agricultural and Forestry Training Institute (former College of

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201776

Agriculture and Forestry). The network is now self-sustaining with members providing each

other with support in a variety of activities, including, most recently, coming together to repair a

network member’s plastic tunnel damaged by high winds. This action provided ATI students with

the opportunity for field-based learning around a farm structure the college did not have but

that a farmer possessed.

The establishment of the Amanzi for Food website; making much information generated around

RWH&C by the WRC readily accessible to many more farmers, providing a platform for sharing of

other related materials and information.

The development of the Training of Trainers course to support curriculum development and

change in the formal agricultural education sector, and strengthen information sharing in the

less formal extension sector and between farmers. The course also provided the opportunity for

participants to work with and learn with and from each other, developing strong supportive

relationships which previously had not existed.

The establishment of a number of productive demonstration sites supporting food production in

a variety of contexts, from the college, to individual farmers’ lands, and a vegetable gardening

collective. These demonstration sites have become catalytic in that marketing connections have

emerged out of them as they were used to mediate further expansive learning; and new

relations developed between experienced small-scale farmers and youths through working and

learning together at these sites.

Developing the use of local, community radio, as a medium for sharing information on a range of

agricultural issues and challenges. At the same time supporting farmers and others to develop

their skills for using this and other media for information sharing and self-reflection.

A strengthened understanding of the processes of information sharing and learning within the

small-scale farming sector, both between farmers and between them and their training and

support network. This understanding has considerable implications for sharing information

across the sector in relation to any and all agricultural practices, including those connected with

CSA.

Results

Almost certainly the main result of the project, in addition to the intended achieved outcomes, was

the recognition by the WRC itself that the fairly complex processes of social learning and change

followed by the project are almost essential for effective information sharing among and between

small-scale farming communities and their support networks. This recognition has lead to the WRC

funding a second phase, including additional materials and information, and with a more national

focus.

Linked to this is the clear recognition of learning in such situations as being both a social and an

individual process, where a few individual farmers have developed their own understanding and

skills to a large extent independently, while others developed these collectively. The individually

motivated and capacitated farmers subsequently become leaders within their farming communities,

willing to share their learnings and experiences with others. Understanding of the power of a

combination of individual and collective learning should help inform how information is shared

within the CSA project.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201777

Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential

contribution to a decision support process

As previously discussed, almost every aspect of the Amanzi for Food project, including the

information sharing processes and the agricultural practices, are entirely compatible with CSA

approaches. The CSA project can therefore draw on almost every aspect of the earlier project. In

addition, the Navigation Tool (on www.amanziforfood.co.za) provides a valuable model for helping

farmers and others find specific information in complex sets of materials. The Tool was in itself

developed as a decision support process, as it enables farmers to select practices which are

appropriate for their farming situation, their type and scale of operations, their access to financial

and technical resources and their levels of skills and understandings. It is intended to expand the

reach of the Navigation Tool to cover the additional materials to be included in phase 2 of the

Amanzi for Food project, and such an extension could be readily developed for the decision support

process within the CSA project. In addition the co-engagement process itself within a learning

network context was found essential as it brought different stakeholders in regular dialogue with

each other enabling relational thinking. For example the agricultural colleges were able to learn

more about and appreciate the small-scale crop farmer and homestead food producers’ contexts of

work by engaging with them closely, leading them to notice and seriously consider the climate-

adaptation absences regarding water in their own curricula. This way collaboration decision making

and empathetic decision support were possible.

The outcomes of the project show that on the ground farmers, agricultural colleges, extension

officers and LED farmer development facilitators are keen and able to work together in more

productive ways than are otherwise utilised according to mandates. This suggests that more support

is required through decisions at provincial extension offices level that can help extension workers to

integrate CSA in their daily work in supporting small-scale farmers.

Analysis of a potential implementation site

Although any of the productive demonstration sites developed under the Amanzi for Food project

could be considered potential sites for CSA practices, the most secure, in terms of long-term

management and maintenance, are almost certainly the site at Fort Cox Agricultural and Forestry

Training Institute, and those on the lands of the individual farmers (such as in Matole Basin and

Lloyd Village demonstration sites in Amathole District of the Eastern where rain-fed systems are

seriously endangered by increasing drought conditions). The farmers’ sites are working closely with

Fort Cox ATI. It can be expected that the Agricultural Training Institute (college) and the farmers

would welcome the opportunity to showcase CA practices.

In addition, as Phase 2 of Amanzi for Food takes off, with Training of Trainers courses and associated

Learning Networks planned for Mpumalanga and North-West Provinces, there will certainly be

further potential for synergies between the projects, and potential sites in these other provinces

where interest has already been shown.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201778

Rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) in Muden and Ntshiqo Case study

(Implemented by Institute of Natural Resources)

By Zinhle Ntombela and Jon McCosh

This was a Water Research Commission (WRC) funded project implemented over a period of five

years. The objectives of the project were to identify, test and evaluate rainwater harvesting and

conservation systems (RWH&C) in communal areas at two sites. The research approach was a

combination of participatory action research (PAR) and empirical physical sampling of yield, soil

water content to input into crop water use models. The PAR methods used included farmer

experimentation, stakeholder workshops, focused group discussions, farmer field days and learning

exchange visits. The focused group discussions were used to evaluate how farmers view the

technology, while farmers days were used to showcase results obtained from farmers

experimentations.

Figure 21: PAR methods used during the rainwater harvesting study

Ntshiqo, in the Eastern Cape and Muden, KwaZulu Natal were selected as the research sites. At the

Ntshiqo site, five individual farmers tested RWH&C in their homestead gardens. In Muden, RWH&C

was tested with the Mxheleni Women’s Group, a community garden arrangement. A participatory

process was conducted whereby a variety of micro-catchment (in-field) RWH&C options were

presented to farmers, who selected their preferred techniques for testing. In Ntshiqo in the Eastern

Cape, the six farmers who participated in the study selected contour as their preferred RWH&C

technique. Contour bunds were spaced at three metre intervals and maize crops were planted above

and below the contours. Each farmer had an RWH&C treatment and a control, which was current

practice (usually broadcasting seed and ploughing in).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201779

Figure 22: Shows the RWH&C treatment on the left and a control on the right

The yield results suggest that RWH&C is one of the cropping systems that can be adopted to improve

production in low yielding rainfed areas. The empirical research showed that in overall; the RWH&C

treatments in Ntshiqo had higher water productivity and generally higher yields compared with the

controls, suggesting that RWH&C is a viable option in dryland maize production areas. It was noted,

however that while farmers acknowledged the benefits from higher yields, particularly in drier years,

it was found that farmers were unlikely to adopt this practice. The main reasons for this were firstly

the high labour and machinery requirements associated with land preparation costs. Preparing the

contours had to be done on an annual basis, as contours were damaged by rainfall as well as

livestock trampling in the winter months. Secondly, because of the wide spacing between he maize

rows, manual weeding was an ongoing requirement. Farmers considered this to be an onerous task

compared to the their current practice of dense planting of maize and a single weeding when the

plants were at knee height, after which the canopy prevent further weed growth.

In Muden, stone contour bunds were the RWH&C technique selected. As with Ntshiqo, generally

higher yields and water productivity was observed in the RWH&C treatment compared with the

control. In addition, substantial amounts of soil, which would have been washed away, was found to

be contained by the stone bunds (Figure 24).

Massive Food Production Project (MFPP) in Ntshiqo

While conducting RWH&C experiments in Ntshiqo, the team recorded various government subsidised

massification (MFPP) projects that had been implementedin cropping fields. Over a period of

approximately ten years, MFPP projects under a variety of names were implemented.

During the time the research team was working in the area, 54ha of subsidised maize was planted in

two successive years, using glyphosate tolerant varieties. In the third year,the subsidised production

came to an end and only 2ha of maize was planted in these fields. When asked why there was such a

substantial reduction in production; farmers indicated that they considered it too risky from a cost

perspective, given the uncertainty regarding rainfall in the summer months.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201780

Figure 23: Stone contour bunds in Muden

The Mxheleni group acknowledged the benefits of

RWH&C, but during a post-project visit, it was

observed that planting was no longer taking place.

This was attributed to a lack of resources (inputs)

and problematic group dynamics.

While this research project demonstrated to farmers

that there were alternative ways of storing water in

the soil profile, with resultant yield benefits, the

addition cost and labour burdens in Ntshiqo prevent

wider uptake of the RWH&C technique selected,

while in Muden, access to inputs and group

dynamics limited ongoing use of the practice

introduced.

Figure 24: Sediment deposition behind stone contour bunds

Learnings, /outcomes/ results

Rainwater harvesting and conservation was found to be labour intensive especially in areas

where stone contours are not an option. Contours require to be rebuilt every planting

season. This factor limited the upscaling of RWH&C from home garden to crop fields;

farmers mentioned that they could manage to redo contours on their home garden but they

would not upscale to their fields due to amount of work required by this technology.

Although yield improvements were observed with RWH&C; labour requirements

outweighed the benefits.

Contours were associated with a lot of weed infestation due to wide spaces between them.

Recommendations made were to plant on the runoff collecting area to provide good cover

and eliminate the need for multiple weeding, while still maintaining soil and water

conservation in the homestead gardens.

In Ntshiqo a decline in the use of arable fields was noted, when farmers no longer received

subsidies for production in fields, there was a significant decline in production in the fields.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201781

Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential

contribution to a decision support process

Farmer experimentation is great way of demonstrating new farming technologies, however, farmers

can be careless in terms of handling the experiment. For the individual farmer experiments at

Ntshiqo, there was a lack of weeding on the experimental plots. The project team had to improvise a

plan and employed people to do the weeding. Muden was no different; some women in the

Mxheleni woman’s group were not fully committed and did not participate on weeding. Those who

did would eventually lose interest since this was a communal garden. This has a negative impact on

plant growth due to competition. Lesson learnt from this experience was that there needs to be a

backup plan when conducting farmer experimentation; risks of not obtaining results are very high

with this methodology.

No-till and agroforestry practices at Ixopo, Highflats case study (implemented by

Institute of Natural Resources)

By Zinhle Ntombela and Jon McCosh

The Institute of Natural Resources is implementing an Agroforestry project funded by the Water

Research Commission (WRC) over a period of five years. The project includes both controlled

scientific research experiments and PAR with farmer experimenters and farmers days to share

findings and learnings. The Agroforestry concept was introduced by the project team to the

Ubuhlebezwe livestock association in Highflats, KwaZulu-Natal where a number of farmers chose to

test agroforestry at a small scale at their homesteads. These farmers include the Chief Dlamini of

Amazizi K, Mam Joyce Dlamini, Mr TV Dlamini, Mr Mtshali and Mr MKhize. This case study focusses

on one farmer, Mrs Joyce Dlamini (Mam Joyce).

Mam Joyce is part of the Ubuhlebezwe livestock association. She is a subsistence farmer; farming

both livestock and crops for home consumption. In winter she grows vegetables such as spinach,

cabbage, carrots, and in summer she plants field crops including maize, potatoes, beans and

pumpkins for her family. When the team further engaged with Mam Joyce, it was learned that she

practices no-till farming on her bigger fields of maize. She is a proactive farmer and heard about the

no-till farming and its benefits from a farmers’ meeting she attended. She considers no-till to be

better because of the lower labour requirements. Before planting field crops she hires a tooth

harrow to open rows and plant by hand, which is much cheaper compared to ploughing. For weed

control, she uses glyphosate before planting and manual weeding once the crop is established. She

retains her own open pollinated varieties (OPVs) as a seed bank. Where certain parts of the field are

not inherently fertile and she uses chemical fertilisers to improve soil fertility. Her interest in

agroforestry lies in the fact that it could improve soil health and fertility in her no till cropping area

using legume species, while also providing livestock feed.

Mam Joyce is participating in a farmer experimentation investigating the impact agroforestry in soil

fertility. The experimentation has two components i.e. intercropping with agroforestry species

(pigeon pea and Sesbania sesban) and biomass transfer. Mam Joyce reports that she has recognised

that Sesbania trees drop their leaves and create a very rich, fertile environment in the soil. For

biomass transfer, tree branches are cut and laid on adjacent plots to decompose and improve the

soil fertility. This exercise has been performed twice at Mam Joyce’s experiment at different tree

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201782

growth stages. She is enthusiastic about the process thus far, and wants to plant more trees in the

future and use them for fodder. She hopes to save money on fertilizer and fodder with agroforestry

species, and plans to sell any excess fodder.

This site can be considered as a potential implementation site because Mam Joyce is already taking

part in two CSA practices (Conservation Agriculture and Agroforestry). She is an enthusiastic farmer

and she is always eager to learn new things.

Learnings/outcomes/results

With respect to agroforestry, there have not been results yet; biomass transfer benefits are

expected to be observed in 2017 planting season.

Mam Joyce observed improved yields after adopting conservation agriculture. Her theory

with these improved yields is that due to the fact that nutrients are found in the top soil

profile. Conventional tillage turn the top soil upside down, while with CA there is limited soil

disturbance and nutrients are readily available to the plant.

Mam Joyce states that she recognised that conservation agriculture saves money in the

context of land preparation costs. Conventional ploughing costs R750/ha; she used to pay

R1500 for her 2 ha. With CA she buys Glyphosate chemical (±R200 per L) while the cost of

opening rows with a tooth harrow is R250/ha.

Spreading kraal manure into the fields in winter is a method that Mam Joyce uses to save

fertiliser costs; when the first rains come, the nutrients infiltrates the soil and when she is

planting, she does not have to apply a lot of fertiliser.

In terms of climate change Mam Joyce indicated that they are recognising the impacts of

climate change; however she has not figured out new techniques of dealing with it. She

indicated that in 2014 the drought beat them, they tried to change planting dates in 2015

plant season, but this also did not work.

She made an example of planting potatoes; at Ixopo they normally plant their potatoes in

August and they would be ready by December, and this is all rainfed. However, in the recent

years the rainfalls are late and temperatures are too high; the potatoes would lose their

leaves very early before bearing underneath the soil. People residing next to the rivers have

started investing on irrigating but that is because they have water access; whereas this is a

challenge for Mam Joyce since her fields are far from the river.

Summary of potential issues to include; including the potential

contribution to a decision support process

The decision support tool should consider the costs of implementing the technology being

presented. Rural farmers are poor and do not adapt to technologies requiring them to pop

extra money than their traditional methods.

Analysis of a potential implementation site

Ixopo is located approximately 85km south east of Pietermaritzburg and is strategically located at

the intersection of four major provincial routes leading to Pietermaritzburg, the Drakensberg, the

Eastern Cape and the South Coast. The area is under the leadership of Amazizi K and B, Emawusheni

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201783

and Majikane Traditional Authorities. Ixopo is an area composed of a community of people who are

very keen on farming and learning new things.

Mam Joyce is an active member of the Ubuhlebezwe Livestock Association engaging in mixed

farming i.e. livestock, vegetable and field crop production such as maize and potatoes with land size

of approximately 2 ha. She relies heavily on rainfed agriculture which has been quite challenging for

her with recent weather variability. Mam Joyce is quite observant and proactive, she is always open

to learn from other people and also share what she has learned with other farmers. This site has

great potential in terms of CSA implementation; it is easily accessible and characterised by keen

farmers, who are already engaging in some forms of climate smart agriculture.

Conservation Agriculture in Bergville: A Case Study

By Mazwi Dlamin

Bergville; in the upper Drakensburg; is a strong maize growing area both commercially and in the

smallholder context. Maize is an important staple with a large amount of arable fields under dry land

maize production. The Grain SA Smallholder Farmer Innovation Program (SFIP) has been going for five

seasons now, started back in the year 2013 with the aim of sustainingmaize production in the area.

Conventional methods of production have seen a decline in yields resultant of the exploitative nature

of production.

The overall goal of the CA SFIP implementedthrough support from GrainSA andthe Maize Trust, is

promote the use of CA (conservation agriculture) to increase farming production and profitability, to

improve the natural resource status and quality allowing sustained crop production / intensification

and to promote systems for providing appropriate infrastructure.

Specific objectives of this research includes:

Promoting the implementation of CA in the smallholder field cropping systems

Increasing the sustainability and efficiency of CA in the study areas

Scaling out of sustainable farming system scenarios that include livelihood and environmental

criteria of assessment.

And building local innovation platforms

Farmer level experimentation is central to the process as is learning together in the village level

groups. Theselearning groups focus on a value chain approach that includes joint action in analysis

and planning of activities, local level savings groups, bulk buying, labour and equipment sharing, local

marketing and milling and integration of livestock (poultry and cattle) through fodder production.

Volunteer farmers have been participating in the CA approach through a Grain SA funded initiative.

The work involves trying out CA in each of the participant’s plots alongside control for direct

comparison. In the first year trials are designed and participants see them through, this is to allow

participating farmers to get used to CA as an approach. During the second year, farmers have additions

to the list of seeds, different type legumes including summer cover crops, early versus late plantings

and the use of specificfertilizer regimes as per the soil sample results. By the third year farmers are

designing their own experiments within the focusareas of early planting, intercropping versus crop

rotation among others. Below is a protocol from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201784

Design of farmer level experiments

Year 1(1st level) trial outlines

Experimental design is pre-defined by the research team (based

on previous implementation inthe area in an action research

process with smallholders). It includes a number of different

aspects:

Intercropping of maize, beans and cowpeas

Introduction of OPV and hybrid varieties for comparison (1 variety

of maize and beans respectively)

Close spacing (based on Argentinean model)

Mixture of basin and row planting models

Use of no till planters (hand held and animal drawn)

Use of micro-dosing of fertilizers based on a generic

recommendation from local soil samples

Herbicides sprayed before and/or at planting

Decis Forte used at planting and top dressing stage for cutworm

and stalk borer

Planting of cover crops; winter mix in Autumn

Experimental design includes 2 treatments; planter type (2) and

intercrop (2)

Year 2 (2nd level) trial outlines

Based on evaluation of experiment progress for year 1, this

includes the addition of options that farmers choose from.

Farmers also take on spraying and plot layout themselves:

A number of different OPV and hybrid varieties for maize

A number of different options for legumes (including summer

cover crops)

Planting method of choice

Comparison of single crop and inter cropping planting methods

Use of specific soil sample results for fertilizer recommendations

Early planting and

Own choices.

Year 3-7 (3rd level) trial outlines

Based on evaluation of the experimentation process to date this

protocol includes issues of cost benefit analysis, bulk buying for

input supply, joint actions aroundstorage,processing and

marketing. Farmers designtheir experiments for themselves to

include some of the following potential focus areas:

Early planting; with options to deal with more weeds and increased stalk borer pressure.

Herbicide mix to be used pre and at planting (Round up, Dual Gold ,Gramoxone)

A pest control programme to include dealing with CMR beetles

Figure 26:An example of a summer cover

crop (sunflower, millet and sunn hemp)

experimental plot planted by Phumelele

Hlongwane in Ezibomvini.

Figure 25: An example of a variation on the

basic maize and legume intercropping design

on Mrs Smephi Hltashwayo’s pot in Eqeleni.

She has planted a local variety of runner

beans in between tramlines of maize (2016)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201785

Intercropping vs crop rotation options

Spacing in single block plantings

Use of composted manure for mulching and soil improvement in combination with fertilizer, or singly.

Soil sample results and specific fertilizer recommendations

Planting of dolichos and other climbing beans

Summer and winter cover crops; crop mixes, planting dates, management systems, planting methods

(furrows vs scatter)

Seed varieties; conscious decisions around OPVs, hybrids and GM seeds

Cost benefit analysis of chosen options and

Farmer level monitoring of trials for selected individuals.

Expansion or out scaling of the farmer innovation process

The adaptive trials are also used as a focus point for the broader community to engage through local

learning events and farmers’ days. Stakeholders and the broader economic, agricultural and

environmental communities are drawn into these processes and events. Through these events,

Innovation Platforms (IPs) are developed for cooperation, synergy between programmes and

development of appropriate and farmer-led processes for economic inclusion. These IPs also provide

a good opportunity to focus scientific and academic research on the ‘needs’ of the process.

As learning groups mature they engage in a number of additional processes within the value chain

that build social capital and cohesion. VSLAs (Village savings and loan associations) are set up to

provide a mechanism for payment for inputs and for setting up bulk buying groups for production

inputs. Farmer centres are set up and managed locally (at village and nodal level) to provide for local

access to inputs through negotiated agreements with local suppliers and agribusiness, management

of shared tools and advice and mentoring in CA. Learning group members also negotiate joint

decisions around their crop production planning and marketing and engage with stakeholders and

support organisations. To support this process a social compact agreement has been designed to

outline roles and responsibilities of the various role players in these forums.

Table 13: Summary of farmer involvement in farmer level experimentation in Bergville, KZN; 2013-2017

BERGVILLE

Year started with CA

COMMENTS

Villages

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total

Emabunzini

10 (8)

Intercropping with hand hoes and

MBLI planters; Maize, beans,

cowpeas

Emangweni-

Engodini

12 (14)

7(2)

19 (16)

1stand 2ndlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Emangweni-

Emaqeleni

(5)

1stlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Eqeleni

9 (5)

13(3)

7(4)

(1)

29 (13)

1st, 2ndand 3rdlevel

experimentation; MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn planters;

intercropping crop rotation summer

and winter cover crops, late season

beans

Ezimbovini

1 (6)

8 (4)

(10)

19 (20)

1st, 2ndand 3rdlevel

experimentation; MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn planters;

intercropping crop rotation summer

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201786

and winter cover crops, late season

beans

Magangangozi

10(7)

11(7)

1stand 2ndlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Mhlwazini

17(5)

12(13)

29(18)

1st, 2ndand 3rdlevel

experimentation; MBLI’s hand hoes,

intercropping crop rotation summer

and winter cover crops, late season

beans

Ngoba

6(6)

4(5)

10(11)

1st, 2ndand 3rdlevel

experimentation; MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn planters;

intercropping crop rotation summer

and winter cover crops, late season

beans

Nsuka-Zwelisha

11(12)

Intercropping with hand hoes and

MBLI planters; Maize, beans,

cowpeas

Okhombe

6(3)

17(3)

1stand 2ndlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Potshini

1(1)

3rd level experimentation

Stulwane

7(7)

14(4)

3(2)

(2)

24(15)

1st, 2ndand 3rdlevel

experimentation; MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn planters;

intercropping crop rotation summer

and winter cover crops, late season

beans

Thamela

11(12)

Intercropping with hand hoes and

MBLI planters; Maize, beans,

cowpeas

Thunzini

20(24)

Intercropping with hand hoes and

MBLI planters; Maize, beans,

cowpeas

Vimbukhalo

(7)

7(5)

12(12)

19(23)

1stand 2ndlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Ndunwana

14(15)

9(0)

23(15)

1stand 2ndlevel experimentation;

intercropping

Emazimbeni

10(10)

Intercropping with hand hoes and

MBLI planters; Maize, beans,

cowpeas

Grand Total

19(12)

59(27)

81(55)

106(115)

263(212)

~13-14 ha

Note 1: The numbers in brackets are the number of farmers who have managed to complete their trials and realise harvests

Note 2: Villages indicated in grey boxes, are new villages brought on board in this season; 2016-2107

Horizontal expansion from village nodes to surrounding farmers and villages in the area, working

with organised farmer groups in collaboration with stakeholders in the region, has shown great

promise for expansion of interest in and longer-term sustainability of the implementation of CA

practices among smallholders. Successes in the last four years include the following:

•Implementation has expanded from 2 to 17 villages in the Bergville area,

•Direct farmer participants in the CA experimentation process has expanded from 24

to 263 participants,

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201787

•12 Farmer participants have now implemented CA for 4 successive years 27 for 3

successive year and 55 for 2 successive years,

•115 farmer participants have started CA in the last season,

•Implements have been supplied for sharing within learning groups; 57 hand hoes, 55

MBLI hand planters, 8 Matraca jab planters, 2 spear planters, 1 Haraka wheel

planter, 8 oxen drawn planters and 38 knapsack sprayers,

•Average maize yields have improved for farmer participants (from 1,24 tons/ha to

2,8 tons/ha (2016 season results), with yields of more than 11 tons/ha achieved by

some. Average sugar bean yields have improved by about 25%,

•3 Bulk buying groups have been set up for purchasing of inputs (Eqeleni, Stulwane

and Ezibomvini),

•8 Villages savings and loans associations have been established for production input

support,

•Relationships have been strengthened with input suppliers, seed suppliers and

equipment providers to improve access and local transport arrangements and

•Support has been garnered from a number of stakeholders including KZN DARD, the

FAO, The Siyazisiza Trust and ETC-Netherlands.

•Awareness raising and exposure events have been held; over 1 000 smallholder

farmers and many role players including UKZN, CEDARA, the ARC, KwaNalu, NGOs

such as Farmer Support group, Lima RDF, Zimele, Siyazisiza, SaveAct, Farming for the

future, Growing Nations, as well as agribusiness role players such as Afritrac, Inntrac

Trading, Eden Equip, Pannar, Capstone Seeds, Cover Crop Solutions and Soil Health

Systems have been involved,

•Publications have been produced for SA Grain (newsletter) and a book chapter has

been written for CABI - Conservation Agriculture for Africa: Building Resilient

Farming Systems in a Changing Climate.

•Presentations have also been made at the Stellenbosch sustainable soil

management symposium,KZN no till conference and the DARD LandCare

conference.

Farmer centres

The growing numbers of farmers warrant for inputs to be supplied locally by learning groups through

farmer centres. These farmer centres are aimed at promoting local value chains and allows for

farmers to afford inputs better at reduced quantities and prices. There has been great frustration

with inputs and their transport where they are brought from Bergville and Winterton.

Farmer centres mainly supply inputs such as seed and fertilizer and the idea is to sell these off in

smaller weights i.e. from 1kg going up to a whole bag. Dealing with herbicides becomes trickier and

requires that local facilitators provide necessary assistance in using inputs bought effectively; which

is a service rendered as a bonus by the farmer centre. Security of cash and inputs is still a threat,

even more so as the farmer centre is run by women. Due to relations in the area, the farmer centre

at times sells inputs on credit which is a problem when they have to restock and again transport is

an issue in the absence of the organization. Having inputs locally available helps both program

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201788

participants; sourcing inputs for their control plots; as well general community members not

affording bags of inputs.

Extension staff has been doing a lot in getting suppliers to deliver in the villages but order amounts

do not warranty for such. Extension staff has been working with and promoting other farmer centers

where they will order together to build up order quantities and eligibility for local deliveries. Farmer

centers have become victims to seasonality and owners have made use of stakeholder relations to

overcome this. Groups of farmers also work with other institutions inclusive of the local Department

of Agriculture where the department has been working with the farmers’ centers to provide off

season services such as sweet potato vines, seedlings and potato seed. All this is coupled with

promoting Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLA) which are local institutions for financing

agricultural activities and promoting bulk buying of inputs, to date a total of 8 VSLA’s have been

established in Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Ndunwane and Emabunzini.

Research in the farmer innovation process

Along with the development of visual indicators for CA to be used in the learning groups and by local

facilitators and support staff (as mentioned in section 3.3 above been measured over time.

These include:

-Yields

-Soil fertilitystatus; including specific experiments for the impact of liming on crop growth and

yields

-Soil health status; across different experiments such as intercropping, crop rotation and

inclusion of cover crops (both summer and winter cc mixes) and

-Rainfall; linked to runoff and infiltration (for control and trial plots, suing run off plots and

single ring infiltrometers).

The table below provides anexample of soil healthtest results for the farmer level experiments

conducted by Phumelele Hlongwane in Ezibomvini, as an example

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201789

The figure and small table below summarise the average yields across all the villages in Bergville for

this present season. 2016-2017

Control

(maize

under

CA)

Lab lab

maize

and

beans

intercrop

maize

and

cowpea

Maize

and lab

lab

maize

trial

Millet,

sunflowe

r and

sunhemp

Veld

baseline

sample

Phumelele Hlongwane

Average of pH - Ezibomvini5,6 6,0 5,6 5,4 5,7 5,6 6,1 5,9

Average of Soil aggregates - Ezibomvini33 44 44 52 33 58 44 44

Average of % OM - Ezibomvini5,3 3,4 3,1 3,1 2,9 3,2 3,3 2,5

Average of CO2 - C, ppm C - Ezibomvini62,7 90,2 54,5 62,7 52,3 68,7 78,4113,0

Average of C:N ratio - Ezibomvini16,1 14,8 15,2 17,3 18,3 24,2 14,6 14,2

Average of Soil health Calculation -

Ezibomvini 7,2 9,5 7,0 6,4 6,2 5,1 9,111,3

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

Soil health tests- Ezibomvini

8,6t/

7,8t/

ha 3,5t/

7t/h

7,8t/

7,6t/

Figure 27: Phumelele Hlongwane's soil health test results for different cropping practices within the CA system for the 2015-2016

cropping season. Yields of maize are indicated in the square text boxes for each practice.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201790

Table 14: Yield averages in Bergville, 2016-2107 for the CA control and trial plots

Potential of the CA programme as an implementation site for this

research process

This is a well developed farmer innovation programme, with research support that contains a

number of elements of interest for the present process. These include:

-Farmer innovation platforms, stakeholder forums, learning groups and village savings and

loan associations as working examples of CoPs

-Broad based and ongoing farmer level experimentation in various aspects of implementation

of a CA system

-The development of indicators, scales and benchmarks for assessment of impact of

implementation of CA and the beginnings of a design of an incentive system based on PES

(payment for ecosystem services)

YIELDS 2016-

2017

Maize -

Trial

n=141

Maize

Control

n=29

Beans

Trial

n=137

Beans

late

n=13

Cowpeas

n=14

Sunflower

n=10

Millet

n=1

Sunn

hemp

n=1

Average

2,80

2,82

0,91

0,76

0,52

0,97

0,05

0,20

max

11,74

9,69

2,44

2,10

2,80

2,95

0,05

0,20

min

0,28

0,34

0,02

0,07

0,05

Ema

bunz

ini

Ema

ngw

eni

Ema

qele

Ema

zimb

eni

Eqel

eni

Ezib

omvi

Mag

anga

ngoz

Mhl

wazi

Ndu

nwa

Ngo

Nsu

Okh

omb

Stul

wan

Tha

mela

Thu

nzini

Vim

buk

halo

Average of Maize-trial (2016)4,47 1,22 2,16 2,45 4,80 5,02 0,16 2,11 3,15 1,64 1,49 1,94 2,49 2,18 4,28 2,73

Average of Maize- Control (2016)5,12 5,172,52 1,83 2,090,34

Average of Beans (2016)0,16 0,74 1,37 1,50 1,13 0,96 1,02 1,12 0,70 0,55 1,13 0,97 0,41 1,21 1,30 0,51

Average of Late Beans (2016)0,820,43 0,07 1,76

Average of Cowpeas (2016)1,12 0,230,170,20

Average of Sunflower(2016)0,90 0,191,37

Average of Millet (2016)0,05

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

Yield averages across all villages in Bgvl 2016-2017

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201791

-An implementation process based on the whole value chain for improvement of food and

livelihoods security

-And inclusion of quantitative data collection for a selection of participants.

There is potential also to include other elements of CSA practices into these processes; such as soil

and water conservation, intensive vegetable production techniques and livestock management –

given the existing and extensive organisational base in the community.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201792

5METHODOLOGY OF THIS PROJECT

By Erna Kruger

Stakeholder engagement and site selection; social considerations

The planned Communities of Practice are likely to be set up and worked within at a number of levels.

A Stakeholder CoP: Involving implementers, government officials and researchers is to be

set up for each site. The main focus for this CoP will be working with the CSA-DSS to design

and implement learning and implementation activities at community level. This would

involve sharing workshops on methodologies and practices, sessions for introduction, review

and refining the CSA-DSS tools and processes, discussions around implementation options

and possibilities, joint implementation and review sessions. It would also involve discussions

around feeding these processes into existing programmes and the link back to strategies to

implement policy briefs.

A facilitation team CoP: Working with field staff, students and facilitators at each site, to

learn about CSA practices and the complexities and nuances of facilitation of processes

working with a decision support framework/system.

Community level CoPs for each site: Taking the form of learning groups exploring climate

change, adaptation and sustainable land use management througha PID process, as well as

Savings group where applicable …

Bridging between the CoPs and flow of information between farmers, facilitators and stakeholders

will be crucial to the success of the process.

It is envisaged that the process at each site will be managed as a partnership between Mahlathini

Development Foundation and another implementing organisation such as Lima Rural Development

Foundation and the Institute of Natural Resources (KZN– Bergville, Ixopo), Association for Water

and Rural Development (Limpopo), Environmental and Rural Solutions (EC-Matatiele) and Fort Cox

Agricultural Training Institute (EC- Alice). Through these associations the sites and actual villages for

implementation are to be negotiated. Broadly speaking participants are to be drawn from existing

implementation processes run by these organisations.

Other implementers in the areas are to be drawn in through local networks and existing stakeholder

platforms- to set up the CoPs. And the stakeholder Cops will draw from their organisations and

networks to set up the facilitation team CoPs. In this way staff from a number of different

organsiations (including government departments) can become involved in the learning processes

and be provided with assistance and mentoring in implementation of the CSA-DSS at community

level.

Site selection and community level engagement

As mentioned, site selection is to be finalised in partnership with stakeholders involved in the CoP

and entry into the community is to be facilitated through existing relationships between

organisations and communities. Care needs to be taken to ensure that community members are

somehow representative of most to all interests in the community are engaged. This may require

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201793

some conversations and introductions with different community level stakeholders, groups and

individuals. Care will be taken also not to politicise the process and to ensure that community

members are brought on board through interest and their engagement in agricultural activities in

the area.

Livelihoods, vulnerability and capability assessments

This is to be the entry point into the community level processes. These assessments would entail a

combination of focus groups discussions (minimum 25 people) and individual interviews. Presently

the combination of the AWARD and RECOFTC processes developed through USAID (AWARD, 2017)

(RECOFTC , 2016) appear to hold the most promise as they include systemic socio-ecological

approaches, livelihoods framework components, risk, vulnerability and capability assessments and a

way to link impacts and possible adaptive measures into a clear methodological framework.

The process designed by AWARD, called DICLAD – Dialogues in Climate Change and Adaptation

provides as very useful entry point for discussions on climate change and adaptive practices for all

the CoPs envisaged. The aim is to create informed awareness and agency within groups to tackle the

issues by themselves, rather than to await directives from experts or government. These ‘field-

based’ experiences need to inform the wider discourses at both provincial and national level. The

current discourse lacks any systemic, strategic framing and is deeply fragmented in nature, thus

treating adaptation responses on a sectoral basis with little recognition of the linkages between

different sectors and elements in a social-ecological system.

The empirical data for these conversations is based on localised data for the relevant municipalities

provided by the Climate Systems Analysis Group, based at the University of Cape Town.

The outline of the present DICLAD process is provided in the schematic diagram below. The modules

are one day interactive workshops that include:

Presentations and pictorial reviews of present issues in the area (such as lack of water,

erosion, crop failure, etc) to provide contextual information and explore climate change

concepts.

Groupwork using participatory methodologies such as seasonality diagrams for exploring

rising temperatures and rainfall variability,

Role plays and games for exploring concepts such as projections and probability for

example.

Systems analysis using systems diagramming tools, for exploration by small groups of the

potential impacts of climate change for a focus sector (e.g agriculture, water) and then

using this map to further collectively explore of where vulnerabilities, threats and resilience

lie in this system and to compile potential ‘composite’ action plans for the focus sector.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201794

Figure 28:Schematic diagram for DICLAD modules, (AWARD, 2017)

The work done by REFCOTC in Nepal, deepens these exploration and provides a framework within

which climate change impacts and adaptation options can be further explored. The four matrices

mentioned in section 2.7, are copied here.

1.Matrix 1 - Identifying climatic threats and impacts.

2.Matrix 2 - Assessing Threats and impacts through a livelihood asset lens.

3.Matrix 3 – Identifying vulnerabilities and

4.Matrix 4 - Identifying response options to vulnerabilities.

CSA framework and processes

Once the broad response options have been outlined for a community grouping, then an exploration

can start around assessing these options for implementation. Criteria for assessment of options

need to be collaboratively defined and used to assess viability and impact of the prioritised options.

Local innovations and other CSA practices are linked to the prioritised options and again assessed for

viability and impact. Here the design of the decision support framework will be central to facilitate

these processes.

Indicators are to be directly linked to vulnerability and resilience. Attention will be given to three

types of indicators; biophysical, social and economic. They would need to be attributable to the

particular interventions and or based on impact or effect and based on qualitative benchmarks. As

such indictors need to be of a nature that can be assessed collectively and by smallholders

themselves This can be achieved through a coherent farmer level experimentation process.

Recommendation for a CSA DSS

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201795

A reasonable approach would be for this research process to develop a DSS in which the full range of

options for CSA practices is made readily available and accessible to farmers, with all necessary

details provided. The farmers can then provide their own input in terms of their understanding of

their needs, aspirations, resources and contexts through which to analyse the suitability of the

practices for their situation. Regional climate vulnerability information can be provided through use

of the SARVA portal, and local livelihood vulnerability assessments by use of an adapted

CGIAR/CCAFS vulnerability toolkit. This DSS could be both internet-based, using a site similar to the

Amanzi for Food website to access information, or the CSA information could be packaged into a

printed document, in whatever languages are necessary, for the farmers to use directly in making

their decisions. In addition, the external qualitative information in regard to the practices, if not

provided by the materials, will need to be provided by the project, and eventually a supplementary

information source dealing with the variables, and questions to be asked should be developed

Reflective processes

Communities of practice can be viewed as social learning systems where they exhibit characteristics

such as an emerging structure, complex relationships, self-organisation and ongoing negotiation.

Social learning may be described as the process of iterative reflection that takes place when people

share their experiences, ideas and environments with others (Kroma, 2003). In the context of social

learning, engagement involves a dual process of meaning making. This entails learning through

physical participation or by experience as well as learning through words, tools, documents and links

to resources that reflect the shared experience. Through active participation and dynamic

negotiation a practice is formed by those who engage in it (Wenger, 1998) The figure below depicts

the learning process as depicted in social learning theory and also the version of the learning cycle to

be used iteratively in the CoPs within this research process.

Source: (Wenger, 1998 p.5)

In terms of this research project, nurturing a CoP to allow for more effective interaction and

information dissemination can be achieved through platforms such as community learning networks,

e.g. farmer learning groups, which are connections formed and maintained by local people with the

aim to share information and for mutual learning. Field workers can use these platforms for

Figure 29: Social learning attained in CoPs

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201796

workshops and demonstrations and in turn participants assist each other in implementing what was

learnt. However, farmer learning groups are not effective when there is lack of trust between

members.

Events such as farmers’ days and cross visits which are open to the larger community will also serve

as platforms for information dissemination and will also create a space for increased interaction.

These networks are important in bringing together local people, development practitioners,

researchers and other role players together to access and share resources and information that can

encourage communities to take up improved practices (Steeples & Jones, 2002).

15: Social practices which can support CoPs

Social and technical considerations for site selection

By Erna Kruger, Jon Mc Cosh, Sylvester Selala

As the research process will track the socio-ecological processes and systems linked to the CSA

practices as well as the impact/effectiveness of the practices themselves, sites need to be chosen for

both social and technical considerations.

On the social front, the following decisions have been made by the research team to assist with site

selection:

1.We will focus on rural communities in communal tenure land ownership situations. The

parameters for private land ownership and also land reform communities are quite different

and as concepts of ownership and agency can vary too substantially here to be comparable.

Also, those smallholders in communal tenure areas, represent the majority of rural dwellers.

2.We will focus on areas where smallholders engage in gardening, cropping and livestock

management, to ensure that the diversity within the smallholder systems and the range of

activities and farming practices used are included.

3.We will work invillages that a considered reasonably typical for a particular area in terms of

composition and number of homesteads, layout of infrastructure and access to natural

resources, access to services and access to economic opportunities.

Practices

Functions

Farmer Learning Groups

Formed by local people with aim of mutual learning and information exchange, as

well as to assist each other in terms of labour

Farmers’ Days

Platform for practitioners and researchers to disseminate information. Also includes

field visits.

Cross Visits

Cross visits between communities that employ similar practices for learning and

sharing, through practical observations.

Stakeholder platforms: e.g.

inception meetings,

stakeholder engagement

meetings, workshops

Researchers, practitioners and local government etc. have regular meetings to

engage in dialogue on similar subject Encourage collaboration between researchers,

practitioners and community participants

Researchers can capitalise on knowledge by practitioners to ensure that the

problems they are working on are relevant

Provide an environment for reflection, interpretation and feedback between diverse

stakeholders.

Practitioners focus mainly on facilitation and knowledge dissemination based on

understanding of participants’ needs and capabilities.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201797

4. We will work with individuals in these villages who are interested to be involved, are active

smallholder farmers, who belong to different subgroupings within the community such as

youth, older people and women, who live in reasonably close proximity to each other and

where social economic, political or religious barriers to not preclude them from

communicating with each other and working or learning together.

The technical considerations are likely to be far more constraining as at least some of the indicators

chosen are to be measurable. The first level of decision making here is whether to work in

contrasting bioclimatic regions (such as KZN and Limpopo) or work in bio-climatically distinct areas

which may or may not be contrasting, but will be different (such as KZN and the EC).

Decision 1: Start in bio-climatically contrasting areas with measurable indicators in year 1

(KZN, Limpopo) and include a 3rd site for measurable indicators in another distinct site (EC)

in year 2

The next level of decision here is to decide which practices to compare across sites quantitatively. It

is not physically possible to generate quantitative results for all practices chosen by farmer

participants across all sites, or even within one site, given that within one site there would need to

be at least 3-5 farmer participants from whom measurements are taken.

The table below, shows the criteria used to think through the prioritization of the sites. There criteria

were based on the risks associated with each of the sites in terms of items shown in the table. The

scale of risks is used as follows; with 10 being the highest risk and 1 being the lowest risk.

Table 16:Criteria for site selection

Ideally, it would be good to run the experiments in all three sites (KZN-Limpopo-EC) from the start.

However, there is a high risk and a high level on uncertainty associated with the EC sites. KZN and

Limpopo have relatively lower risk and lower level of uncertainty.

Possible options or suggestions to reduce the risk in EC include:

-To find a post graduate student who can be linked to the Fort Cox Agricultural training

Institute, one of the Amanzi for Food implementation sites, to focus on managing the

quantitative measurements of the CSA practices there. If this process can be linked into the

Criteria

KZN

Limpopo

Climate (chances of total crop failure due to extreme weather

conditions, e.g. drought)

Farmer management (ability of farmers to keep records and run well

managed farmer level experiments)

Uncertainty (in terms of who will be involved and how it will be

managed- both at organisational and community level)

Security (for equipment)

Costs associated with monitoring (related to distances to be travelled,

personnel at field level)

Total risk

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201798

curriculum development processes presently being undertaken by the Institute, that would

be very beneficial for all involved.

-To spend time with developing strong CoPs in the EC to leverage resources to assist with the

implementation (both for the UCPP – Umzimvubu catchment Partnership Programme in

Matatiele and the Amanzi for Food processes through ELRC in Grahamstown).

As it stands, KZN (Ixopo) and Limpopo (Mametja villages) are the most likely options. INR has site in

Ixopo, were they are not particularly taking any measurements but have identified potential

participants (Mom Joyce and Chief Dlamini).

Decision 2: Set up quantitative measurements for 2 different practices (e.g. tunnels, SWC)

for 3 participants per site across two sites in year 1 and expand to the 3rd site in year 2.

The understanding is that measurements will be taken by collaborating partners for their particular

focus areas in each of these sites; notably CA for MDF and Agroforestry for INR and that these

results could be combined in the analyses to good effect.

Some preliminary suggestions can also be made for which practices to focus on and which particular

quantitative measurements would be possible or ideal for these practices.

Proposed Farmer level experiments with CSA practices

1.Practice 1: Planting in a tunnel (shade netting structure) vs. planting outside a tunnel

Treatment 1: Planting in a tunnel and irrigate using a watering can (or furrows)

Treatment 2: Planting in a tunnel and irrigate using a drip kit

Treatment 3: Planting outside the tunnel and irrigate using a drip kit

Control: Planting outside the tunnel and irrigate using a watering can / furrows

Parameters to be measured:

Expected results / out come

Measurements

Equipment / instrument

Saves water

Amount of water applied

Calibrated container

Controls pests

Pest types counts

Net and a holder

Improves yields

Record yields

Scale, pen and record book, cost-

benefit analysis

Reduces labour

Time spent in the garden

Record book, cost -benefit analysis

Allows year round planting

Plant in both seasons

Record book

Water productivity

Air temperature, rainfall, wind speed,

wind direction, relative humidity,

solar radiation, rain gauge and soil

temperature measurements

Weather station

2.Practice 2: Conservation agriculture / Agro forestry

The choice was between AF and CA, but it was agreed that AF is argued to be a form of conservation

agriculture. Furthermore, if water productivity (WP) is to be determined, available models for

estimating WP are mostly calibrated for intercropping (e.g. maize and beans) rather than AF (e.g.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201799

maize and pigeon pea). Therefore, CA was chosen as a second practice to be tested. The full

weather station mentioned above would also be required for this practice

Parameters to be measured:

Expected changes

Measurements

Instruments / equipment required

Reduces erosion

Runoff and sediments

Runoff plots

Improves soil health

Soil microbial activity

Lab test

Improves soil structure

Bulk density, porosity, particle size

distribution, soil fertility

Lab measurements

Improves water infiltration

Infiltration measurements

Single or double Infiltrometer

Suppresses the weeds

Weed count

Square

Improves soil water holding capacity

Volumetric water content,

gravimetric water content

Water mark sensors/ TDR sensors, graph

permeameter

Improves yield

Biomass/ harvest index/ Leaf area

index (LAI), yield measurements

LAI measuring device, scale

Water productivity

Air temperature, rainfall, wind

speed, wind direction relative

humidity, solar radiation, rain

gauge and soil temperature

measurements

Weather station

The diagram below shows, seasons for establishment of sites and how each could potentially run. The

KZN site ,isproposed as the main site which will run from three season, while Limpopo and EC will run

for only two seasons. The results for the 2018/2019 are comparable across the three sites, while in

the 2017/2018 season results from KZN site can be compared with those from the Limpopo site and

in the 2019/2020 season KZN and EC sites can be compared.

In summary, two sites (Limpopo (Mametje) and KZN (Ixopo/ Bergville) have been selected to do

farmer led experimentation on two practices (CA and tunnel (controlling micro climate). EC sites are

to be developed and then included in the 2nd year of implementation. These experiments will be

manageable if the number of treatments are kept to a minimum of three treatments (farmers) per

site. The experiments are to be overseen and managed as part of a doctorate study, for which

Sylvester Selala is to register within the present financial year. He will manage data collection in both

KZN and Limpopo. Given the two distinct sites, measurements are to be taken regularly (2x/month).

In any one year it is suggested that there is a main site, which will include all necessary quantitative

measurements and an indicator site where a selection of quantitative measurements will be

Site establishment Continue site Continue site

Site establishment Continue site

Site establishment Continue site Discontinue site

KZN

2017/2018 season

2018/2019 Season

2019/2020 Season

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017100

implemented to augment the main site - to ensure that the research remains manageable and cost

efficient. The table below outlines the suggested measurements for each site.

Table 17:Proposed quantitative measurements across sites

A rough budgeting exercise has been done for the above-mentioned measurements and is shown in

the small table below.

ImportanceMain siteIndicator siteIntervalsField / Lab InstrumentLocation

TextureNecessaryOnce offLabHydrometerUKZN

Bulk DensityNecessary

At beginning and

Lab

Cylindrical

UKZN

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity - surface

PreferredOnce offField

Double ring

infiltrometer

UKZN

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity - below surface

PreferredOnce offField

Geulph

permeameter

UKZN

Structure - Mean Weight

Diameter

Optional

At beginning and

after each

Lab UKZN

Retentivity CurvesPreferredOnce offLab

Suction sand

table /

pressure pots

UKZN

Carbon Necessary

At beginning and

after each

harvest

LabSoil SampleCedara

N,P,K Necessary

At beginning and

after each

harvest

LabSoil SampleCedara

pH Necessary

At beginning and

LabSoil SampleCedara

Electrical ConductivityOptional

At beginning and

LabSoil SampleUKZN

Exchangeable BasesPreferred

At beginning and

LabSoil SampleUKZN

Cation Exchange CapacityOptional

At beginning and

LabSoil SampleUKZN

Soil health indicatorsNecessary

At beginning and

after each

harvest

FieldSoil SampleField

Automated Weather Station

(AWS)

Necessary

Research

duration -

constant logging

Field

Davis

Weather

Stration

INR / Davis

Rain guagesNecessary

Research

duration -

manual recording

FieldRainguage Shop

Watermark sensor (nests of

3 at 300, 600 and 1200mm)

Necessary

Research

duration -

constant logging

Field Watermark

Cobus

Pretorius

Soil temperature sensors to

go with watermarks

Necessary

Research

duration -

constant logging

Field

Temperature

Sensor

Cobus

Pretorius

Loggers to go with

watermarks

Necessary

Research

duration -

constant logging

Field Logger

Cobus

Pretorius

Manual Gravimetric water

sampling

Necessary

During set

phases of crop

Lab

Oven and

scale

UKZN

Hand moisture tests

(numerical scale)

Necessary

During set

phases of crop

FieldField based

Runoff plotsNecessary

Research

duration - regular

manual recording

FieldField based

Biomass (non-edible) - Dry

Matter

NecessaryAt harvestField

Field based

physical

measurement

Grain / edible component -

Dry Matter

NecessaryAt harvestField

Field based

physical

Leaf Area IndexOptional

During set

FieldLAI indicatorUKZN

Leaf nutrientsOptional

During set

Lab LabUKZN

Proposed quantitatve measurments acrosssites

Soil Physical Properties

Soil Chemical Properties

Weather

Water

Yield

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017101

Table 18: A proposed budget for equipment to conduct quantitative measurements proposed

Potential sites for CoPs

These are focussed around arrangements put in place with a number of organisations to engage in

this process and are in some ways focussed thematically according to the project focus areas of

these organisations. This process is the larger DSS process within which the farmer level

experimentation and measurement of indicators will be embedded. Training and learning events for

facilitators and farmers are to be central as would be meetings for analysis, planning and monitoring

for the CoPs at all levels.

Table 19: Practices and organisations involved

PRACTICES

Provinces

Agroecology

Agroforestry

Grazing Management

KZN (S)

MDF

Lima

INR

KZN ( C)

MDF

Lima

KZN (N)

MDF

Lima

MDF

ELRC, UCPP

UCPP

Limpopo

MDF

AWARD

UCPP

Conservation Agriculture

Mahlathini Development Foundation is the national implementer for the GrainSA CA Smallholder

Farmer Innovation Programme. This process is in it’s fourth year of implementation and will

continue for another 2-3 years. It is envisaged as a long term implementation strategy, renewable

presently on a three year contractual basis.

Itemunit priceQuantityTotalCost share

Hydrometer R 0,001R 0,00UKZN

CylindricalcoresR 0,001R 0,00UKZN

Double ring infiltrometerR 2 000,003R 6 000,00

Geulph permeameterR 0,001R 0,00UKZN

Watermark sensorsR 855,0040 R34 200,00

Temperature SensorsR 996,0015 R14 940,00

Loggers R 135,007R 945,00

Hobo Pro Softwareand USB cableR 2 200,002R 4 400,00

Davis Weather StrationR25 000,003R75 000,00

Rainguages R 125,0015 R 0,00GrainSA

Runoff plots R 3 500,0018 R63 000,00

Soilfertility test R 90,0070 R 0,00GrainSA

soil health indicatorsR 1 000,0020 R 0,00GrainSA

R198 485,00

Equipment

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017102

This programme is built on an innovation systems model for awareness raising and scaling out of

implementation of CA in a smallholder context. In addition, research is being conducted to fine tune

the CA implementation processes for smallholder contexts, to deal with some of the complexities of

implementation and to find appropriate indicators, benchmarks and proxy indicators to evaluate the

impact of implementation and to design an incentive scheme (based on PES parameters) for this

process. The approach focusses on the whole value chain, including inputs, production, harvesting

storage and sales and as such also includes bulk buying schemes, village savings and loan

associations, farmer centres, local milling operations and joint marketing initiatives. The primary

focus is on farmer led experimentation both for the learning and the research. Some aspects of the

research include soil fertility, soil health status, water holding capacity (infiltration and run-off), close

spacing, intercropping, crop rotation and cover crops. Attention is given to the supply and use of

appropriate machinery and equipment.

PRESENT SITES

-Eastern Cape: Matatiele – 4 villages - Nkau, Mqhobi, Sehutlong and Khutsong

-KZN, Southern region: Ixopo- Nokweja, Spinrgvalley, Madzikane, Ofafa

-KZN central region;

-KZN central region: Bergville – 17 villages including Ezibomvini, Stulwane, Eqeleni,

Nudnwane, Mhlwazini and Ngoba

Agroecology

MDF and AWARD (Association for Water and Rural Development) are working in partnership under

the USAID sponsored Resilience in the Olifants Basin programme to support smallholders in the

implementation of agroecological farming practices within a process of community based climate

change adaptation in the lower Olifants region of Limpopo.

The programme has been running for 1 year and is to continue for another year and has included a

systemic analysis of understanding of climate change and impacts in the area, an analysis of

vulnerabilities and adaptation options and farmer level experimentation with CSA practices. Farmer

learning networks have bene established in 6 villages in the area (Botshabelo, Sedawa, Willows, The

Oaks, Finale and Lepelle). A baseline has been done for the villages and criteria have been developed

with farmers for choosing and working with particular CSA practices. In addition, work is in progress

for assessment of the impact of these practices.

MDF and Lima Rural Development Foundation are working in partnership on the Aerelemeng food

security programme sponsored through Wesbank. In this process MDF has been involved primarily

in design of the programme and in training of the facilitator across three provinces (EC, KZN and

Limpopo). Training has included the promotion of various CSA practices at food security level both

for vegetable production and field cropping and implementation of soil and water conservation

practices in addition field staff have bene introduced to facilitation processes for inclusion of

nutrition and value adding as well as village savings and loan associations.

A further small brief through the First Rand Foundation Innovation fund will now allow the teams to

focus on climate change and adaptation as part of the food security programming. Sites to be

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017103

involved include KZN (Swayimane and Thabamhlope) and Limpopo (Sekhororo). This process is to

continue to focus on capacity building for Lima field staff and the farmers they are working with.

MDF has also been in contact with the ELRC and the Amanzi for Food implementation team in the

EC. There is considerable interest for this research process to link with the Amanzi for food process

at the Fort Cox Agricultural Training Institute and the surrounding villages through their farmer

learning network there and to incorporate the model and CSA practices into the activities of the

network as well as the curriculums of the college and there is good potential for development of a

practical site or implementation there.

Also in the Eastern Cape, MDF has presented this research process for the Umzimvubu Catchment

Partnership. They are interested in promoting and supporting any programmes implementing

landscape based socio-ecological approaches in the catchment area and have recently set up a CoP

around research for this partnership. The details of which specific organisation within the

partnership cold partner in this implementation and how it can be done still need to be considered.

Agroforestry

The INR (Institute of Natural Resources) have agreed to work alongside MDF in the agroforestry

focus areas and projects that they are presently implementing and to share expertise and results

with this research process. This provides a way to include the agroforestry focus area within CSA into

the overall programme and to be involved in a joint farmer level experimentation process in their

site in Southern KZN (Nokweja).

The small table below summarises present involvement and stakeholder, facilitator and farmer level

CoPS to be established

Table 20: CoPs to be established in year 1 of the research process and their thematic focus areas

CoPs

MDF

MDF, AWARD

MDF, INR

MDF, Lima

MDF, ELRC

Limpopo – Lower

Olifants

Agroecology, CA

KZN (S) - Nokweja

Agroforestry,

KZN (N)- Bergville

CA,

Agroecology

Agroecology, CA

EC – Fort Cox ATI

(Alice)

Agroecology

(SWC)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017104

6REFERENCES

AWARD. (2017). Progress Report. Quarter 2 2016-2017 FY. Resilience in the Limpopo –Olifants.

Hoedspruit, Limpopo: AWARD, USAID.

Blanco, R. A. (2006). Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. Disasters, (30(1), 140-147.

Blignaut, J., de Wit, M., Knot, J., Smith, H., Nkambule, N., Drimie, S., & and Midgley, S. (2015).

Promoting and advancing the uptake of sustainable, regenerative, conservation agricultural

in the maize production sector. Development Bank of Southern Africa. Green Economy Policy

Brief Series.

Brandt, P., Kvakić, M., K, B.-B., & Rufino, M. (2017). Agricultural Systems.234-245: Elsevier

publications.

Brock, K., & Pettit, J. (2007). Springs of Participation: Creating and Evolving Methods for Participatory

Development. Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Action Research.London: Sage

Publications;Volume 1(1): 9–28.

Caister, K., Green, M., & Worth, S. (2012). Learning how to be participatory: Anemergent research

agenda. Action Research , 10(1):22-39. DOI:10.1177/1476750311414737.

Care International. (2009). Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook.Retrieved from

Available at: <http://careclimatechange.org/tool-kits/cvca/>

Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professions; Frontiers for Rural Development.London, UK: IT

Publications.

Chevalier, J. M., & and Buckles, D. J. (2013). Participatory ActionResearch: Theory and Methods for

Engaged Inquir.. UK: Routledge.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (2013). Climate Change Sector Plan for Agriculture

Forestry and Fisheries (CCSP).

Desai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 4(2),

107-128.

Doran, J., & Zeiss, M. (2000). . Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil

quality. Applied Soil Ecology ,15, 3-11.

Dumaru, P. (2010). Community-based adaptation: Enhancing community adaptive capacity in

Druadrua Island, Fiji. Climate Change (1(5), 751-763.

Duveskog, D. (2013). Farmer Field Schools as a Transformative Learning Space in the African Rural

Setting. Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Urban and

Rural Development. . Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

FAO. (2008). Visual soil assessment field guide: Annual crops. Rome: FAO.

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

the United Nations.

FAO. (2017, May 08). What is ConservationAgriculture.Retrieved from Conservation Agriculture:

http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html

Fenton, A., Reid, H., & Wright, H. (2015, November). Ten principles to help assess funding for local

climate change adaptation. IIED Briefing, pp. 1-4.

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on 'Refelctive Practice". The Open University.

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on 'Reflective practice'. The Open University.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017105

Fisher, R.(2006). Whatis Action Research? An introduction to action research for community

development. Australia: Division of Geography School of Geosciences University of Sydney.

Govaerts, B., Mezzalama, M., Unno, Y., Sayre, K., Luna-Guido, M., Vanherck, K., . . . Deckers, J. (2007).

Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and

catabolic diversity. Applied Soil Ecology, 37, 18-35.

Habig, J., & Swanepoel, C. (2015). Effects of Conservation Agriculture and Fertilization on Soil Microbial

Diversity and Activity. Environments 2(3),, 358-384. doi:doi:10.3390/environments2030358

Haney, R. (2017, 05 10). Soil testing for soil health.Retrieved from www.usda.gov:

https://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/past_speeches/2013_Speeches/Haney.pdf

Hansford, B. (April 2010). Adaptation-protecting natural resources. Footsteps No 82, pp. 12-13.

Hartmann, M. (2009 ). Participatory Innovation Development and Extension in Ethiopia: A Case Study.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, InterContinental San Juan Resort.Puerto Rico: AIAEE.

Hearn, S., & White, N. (2009). Communities of Practice: Linking Knowledge, Policy and Practice,.

Overseas Development Institute.

Helmer Poggenpohl, S. (2015).Communities of Practice in Design Research. She Ji: The Journal of

Design, Economics and Innovation, Vol 1, Issue1, Pages 44-57.

Ibrahim, M., & Midgley, T. (2013). Policy and Practice paper.Participatory learning approaches for

resilience: bringing conflict sensitivty, disaster risk reduction and climatechange adpatation

together. Milton Keynes, England: World Vision UK.

Introduction. (2008). In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury, The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative

Inquiry and Practice. (pp. 5–10.). CA: Sage.

Jain, A. (2011). Applications of PRA Tools for knowledge management in climatechange adaptation.

Sustainable Mountain Development No. 58, ICIMOD.

Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, D. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A reivew and

synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32 , 25-48.

Kroma, M. (2003). Participation and Social Learning: Supporting Farmer Innovation in Central Ghana.

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Eduation, Volume 10, Number 1.

Kruger, E. (2016). ConservationAgriculture Farmer Innovation Programme: Final Report.

Pietermaritzburg: Mahlathini Development Foundation.

Kruger, E., & Gilles, J. (2014). A Review of Participatory Agricultural Research and Development in

South Africa and KwaZulu Natal. www.mahlathini.org.

Kruger, E., & Smith, H. (2015). Introduction to Conservation Agriculture.Pretoria: GrainSA

Conservation Farmer Innovation Programme and the Maize Trust.

Kruger, E., & Smith, H. (July 2015). Conservation Agriculture Farmer InnovationProgramme (CA FIP)

for smallholders, Grain SA. Farmer Centred Innovation in Conservation Agriculture in upper

catchment areas of the Drakensberg, KwaZulu-Natal. Pretoria: GrainSA.

Kruger, E., Selala, S., & Dlamini, M. (2016). Smallholder Farmer Innovation Promotes Climate Change

Adaptation in Conservation Agriculture. 7th Biennial LandCare Conference. (p. 4). Kimberley:

DAFF.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42374-0.

Lowenson, R., Laurell, A., C, H., & Shroff, Z. (2014). Participatroy Action Researchin Health Sytems:A

Methods Reader. EQUINET, ISBN: 978-0-7974-5976-2.

Lunduka, R., Bezabih, M., & Chaudhury, A. (2013). Stakeholder-focused cost–benefit analysis in the

water sector: Synthesis report. IIED. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16523IIED.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017106

Lynn, J. (2012). Strategic learning in practice: tools to create the space and structure for learning.

Center for Evaluation Innovation.

Mammatt, J. (2016). Hot Topics. Global warming andclimatechange. Climate smart agriculture; the

second green revolution. Jhb, South Africa: PWC.

Manderson, A., Kubayi, N., & Drimie, S. (June 2016). The impact of the South African drought as

experienced by smallholder farmers over the June 2015-February 2016 period in the Mopani

District of Limpopo, South Africa. (pp. 1-8). Stellenbosch: Agro-ecology Awareness Project,

South African Food Lab.

Mkeneni, P., & Mutengwa, C. (2014). Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Scoping Study: Case Study of

South Africa. University of Fort Hare.

Mongbo, R., & Dorlöchter-Sulser, S. (2016). Farmer Innovation: A hidden treasure for agricultural

research. Small Scale farmer Innovation. A dossier by Misereor, Prolinnova and McKnight

Foundation , 6-9.

National Learning Infrastructure Initiative, E. (2002). Retrieved from Community of Practice Design

Guide: a step by step guide for designing and cultivating communitiesof practice in higher

education.: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf

Nay, J. A., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., & Wright, H. (2014). A review of decision-support models for

adaptation to climate change in the context. Climate and Development (6:4, DOI:

10.1080/17565529.2014.912196), 357-367.

Oregon State University. (2009). Willamette valley soil quality card guide.Oregon: Oregon State

University.

Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The Role of Networks of Practice and Webs of Influences on

Farmers’ Engagement with and Learning about Agricultural Innovations.

Pearson, L., & Langridge, J. (2008). Climate change vulnerability assessment: review of agricultural

productivity. CSIRO: CSIRO.

RECOFTC . (2016).Climate Change vulnerability assessmentreport>developinga demonstration site

in Nepal on community forestry, gender and climate change adaptation.Bangkok, Thailand:

The Center for People and Forests, USAID Climate Change Adaptation Project Preparation

Facility for Asia and the Pacific (USAID Adapt Asia-Pacific).

Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., & Waters-Bayer, A. (1992). Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low-

External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. Amsterdam: ILIEA.

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001).Critical reflection in nursing and thehelping professions:

a user’s guide.. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Saha, S. K. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry to promote local innovation among farmers adapting to climate

change; A facilitators' Guide.63 Maple Hill Drive,Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022, USA: The Taos

Institute.

Sargeant, J. (2012). Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance. . Journal

of graduate Medical Education. Volume 4 ,Issue 1, 1-3.

SARVA. (2013). South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas .Pretoria: Department of Science and

Technology.

Seifert, H. (2016). CBM Livelihood Community of Practice. Retrieved from www.cbm.org .

Sereme, P., Macauley, H., & (Eds). (2012). Empowering the Rural Poor toAdapt to Climate Change and

Variability in West and Central Africa. Proceedings of CORAF/WECARD 3rd Agricultural Science

Week and 10th general Assembly. Ndjamena, Chad.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017107

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

from Case Studies. ConservationAgriculture for Africa: Building resilient farming systems in a

changing climate. Kassam H.A et al: CAB International.

Smith, H., Pretorius, W., Trytsman, G., Habig, J., & Wiese, L. (2015, November). Celebrating the

internaionl year of soils: Exploring some biological indicators. SA Graan, p. 4 pges.

Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (2002). Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. London: Springer.

Technopedia. (2017, 08 10). Retrieved fromTechnopedia:

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/770/decision-support-system-dss

Tripp, D. (2005). Action Inquiry-Action research. Murdoch UNiversity.

Ulrichs, M., Cannon, T., Newsham, A., Naess, L., & Marshall, M. (2015). Working Paper 108: Climate

Change & Food Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-le.

Bioversity International & Institute of Development Studies, CGIAR/CCAFS.

UNFCCC. (1999). Compendium of Decision Tools to Evaluate Strategies for Adaptation to Climate

Change.

USDA. (2001). Guidelines for soil quality assessment in conservation planning.Washington: USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; Thinker, Learning as a Social System. The Systems Thinker.

Wettasinha, C., Wongtschowski, M., & Waters-Bayer, A.(2009). Recognising local

innovation:experience of PROLINNOVA partners.Silang, Cavite, the Philippines: International

Institute of Rural Reconstruction / Leusden: PROLINNOVA International Secretariat, ETC

EcoCulture. 66pp.