Deliverable 3 Report on Decision Support System for CSA in Smallholder Farming

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

Waterand Soil Conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming

systems.

Deliverable No.3:Report-Decision support system for CSA in smallholder farming developed

Date: January 2018

Deliverable

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 2

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

Institute of Natural Resources NPC

Jon McCosh

Rural Integrated Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Christiaan Stymie

Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre

Lawrence Sisitka

WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation       3
CONTENTS
FIGURES 6
TABLES 6
1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE7
Contract Summary7
Project objectives7
Deliverables 7
Overview of Deliverable 38
2decision support system methodology10
Introduction 10
Decision Support System for CSA in smallholder farming systems21
Issues, constraints, risks and vulnerabilities23
Community level climate change adaptation analysis23
Farmer typology24
Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment24
Practices 26
Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation28
Monitoring, review and re-planning28
Indicators 28
3Process framework30
Climate Smart Agriculture: Process Facilitation30
Introduction 30
Design of the CCA community level workshop outline33
Testing the process38
4Site selection40
Introduction 40
Work Plan for measurements for KZN and Limpopo for 2017/2018 season40
Plot layout40
Participants for dryland cropping and gardening in KZN and Limpopo41
Soil and Water Measurements42
Budget for quantitative measurements43
5Communication strategy45
Introduction and Background45
Levels of Communication45
The Need for a Communication Strategy50
Partners and Stakeholders51
Promotion and Sharing of the Decision Support System53
Potential Users of the DSS53
Sharing with Smallholder Farmers54
Sharing with NGOs, Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services and other Training 
Institutions/Organisations 54
Sharing Internationally54
Communication with and between the facilitators and farmers55
Introduction 55
Participatory videos55
WhatsApp 56
Radios 58
Audio cassettes59
Community Group meetings60
Demonstrations 60
Farm visits/ homestead visit61

WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation       4
Farmer-to-farmer Extension model62
Office Calls62
Telephone calls63
Informal contacts63
Internet-based platforms63
‘Hard Copy’ Materials63
Considerations in determining appropriate educational and communication methods65
6Capacity building66
Team Capacity building66
Postgraduate students66
Sanelisiwe Tafa-Fort Hare University (EC).66
Khethiwe Mthethwa (University of KwaZulu Natal)67
Mazwi Dlamini (UWC-PLAAS)67
Palesa Motaung (University of Pretoria)68
Sylvester Selala (UKZN)68
7Appendix 1: WRC PLANNING MEETING:  09-11 October 201769
DAY 1: AGENDA69
Decision Support System69
(Part 1)69
Decision Support System (Part 2)69
Decision Support System (Part 3)70
Deliverable 3 Outcomes70
1. Practices 70
2 Categories70
3Decision support system: implementation method71
AWARD CASE STUDY –An example of CC dialogue facilitation at community level71
GrainSA Conservation Agriculture72
First Rand Foundation /WESBANK/FS Funding72
DAY 2 Agenda72
1. Presentations 73
Infrastructure/ engineering Practices: Chris73
AMANZI FOR FOOD: Lawrence74
Agroforestry: John75
Conservation Agriculture: Sylvester75
Coming up with a Decision Support System75
Categories 75
Group work: Technical aspects: Report back77
3. Quantitative measurements78
Site selection80
ToC for Deliverable 381
8APpendix 2: DICLAD Modules 2 & 3 with AgriSI stakeholders in the Lower Olifants 
:24th to 26th Oct 201781
Overall purpose82
Expected outcomes82
Agenda 82
Participants 82
Recap of concepts covered in DICLAD Module 182
Botshabelo CSA practices85
Lepelle, Oaks and Finale CSA practices87
Sedawa CSA practices89
Learnings 90
Future CC actions91
Planning for DICLAD-AgriSI Module 3 (2018)91

WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation       5
9APpendix 3: WRC-CCA Community workshop: Sekororo (Lima)_20171128-29 93
Introductions 93
Impacts of CC94
What is CC94
Impacts 94
Past, present future of farming activities in the area94
Past: 94
Present 94
Future 95
CC predictions and understanding95
CC impact mind mapping96
Assessment of potential practices98
Practices 99
Criteria for assessing practices100
10 References 102

WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation       6
FIGURES
Figure 1:Disaggregated prioritisation of practices (CIAT CSA_RA, 2016) .............................................14
Figure 2: decision making process (Adapted from Heinemann, 1988).................................................18
Figure 3: Dimensions of Vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)................................................................19
Figure 4: Schematic for DICLAD; Facilitating Understanding of Climate Change and Adaptation
(AWARD, 2017).....................................................................................................................................20
Figure 5: The DSS for smallholder farming systems .............................................................................23
Figure 6: Simplified model of the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network, Middledrift Area, Eastern Cape
..............................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 7: Audio cassettes......................................................................................................................60
TABLES
Table 1: Excerpt from the Amanzi for Food Navigation Tool, 2015......................................................15
Table 2 :Community level criteria for assessment of CSA practices; Nov-Dec 2017............................25
Table 3: Community resource map description and uses.....................................................................31
Table 4: Seasonal calendar description and uses.................................................................................32
Table 5:Seasonal calendar ....................................................................................................................32
Table 6: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo...............................41
Table 7: Measurements to be taken for the gardening trials...............................................................41

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 7

Report-DecisionsupportsystemforCSA

insmallholder farming developed

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 Africansmallholder

context (Outputs 2,3)

4. To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identified through the DSS by pilotinginterventions

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

resilience (Outputs 3,4)

5. Visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Payment for 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

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 8

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 3

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

parts:

➢Practices: Collation, review, testing, and finalisation of those CSA practices to be included.

Allows for new ideas and local practices to be included over time. This also includes

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

soils, water management etc and how this will be done;

➢Process: Through which climate smart agricultural practices are implemented at

smallholder farmer level. This also includes the facilitation component, communities of

practice, communication strategies and capacity building and

➢Monitoring and evaluation: local and visual assessment protocols for assessing

implementation and impact of practices as well as processes used. This also includes site

selection and quantitative measurements undertaken to support the visual assessment

protocols and development of visual and proxy indicators for future use in inactive based

support schemes for smallholder farmers

Activities in this four month period have included:

-Team planning meeting(9-11 October 2017)

-Dialogues in climate change adaptation- including assessmentof practices –Limpopo (25-27

October 2017)

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 9

-Design and implementation of process methodology for introduction of climate smart

agriculture and practices at community level; 4 villages across KZN and Limpopo(27Nov-1

Dec and 4-8 Dec 2017)

-Training of trainers process for introduction of process methodology(20 Nov 2017)

-Visual and descriptive outlines of all practices in the database; Attached as a separate

document

-Set up of sites for quantitative measurements: KZN–field sites(Ezibomvini, Eqeleni,

Mhlwazini); garden site (Ezibomvini), Limpopo –field sites (Sedawa, Mametje, Botshabelo)

garden site (Sedawa)

-Capacity building and publications: Research presentations and chapters,newsletter

articles (GrainSA), conferences (PLAAS postgraduate conference) and awareness raising

events (Swayimane Conservation Agriculture day); Attached as separate Documents.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 10

2DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM METHODOLOGY

By Lawrence Sisitka

Introduction

Section 2.3.3 in Deliverable 2 provided a broad introduction to and analysis of some existing

Decision Support Systems (also known as Decision Support Frameworks) in the global agricultural

sector. It was made clear that most such DSS have been developed to inform policy making at

national or regional levels. The developers of the framework “targetCSA” for example are very

specific that: The spatially-explicit multi-criteria decision support framework “targetCSA” … aims

to aid the targeting of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) at the national level(emphasis added)

(Brandt, Kvakić, Butterbach-Bahl, & Rufino, 2017)

Similarly the CCAFS Climate Smart Adaptation Prioritisation (CSAP) toolkit is intended to: … arm

policymakers with the information that they need to choose the best climate-smart interventions

in the short, medium and long term under varying climate scenarios(emphasis added) (Corner-

Dolloff, 2015).

Such wide-scale DSS can certainly provide a broad picture of where particular crops and particular

CSA practices may be most appropriate, according to bio-geographic and climatic zones, climate-

change predictions and other metrics such as soil types and fertility. In this way they can frame

the options for farmers in different areas.

In Deliverable 2 it was also made clear that South Africa currently does not have a DSS, or

equivalent, for agriculture in relation to climate change, at either national or provincial levels,

although it has been proposed that the National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) (DEA,

2011) can, together with the Climate Change Sector Plan for AgricultureForestry and Fisheries

(CCSP) (DAFF, 2013) provide something of a framework for CSA. However it has also been suggested

that these are both too broad and too commercial in focus to be of much value to the small-scale

and emergent farmers who are the focusof this CSA project. This is not to say that they have no

value, and any development of a DSS within this project must certainly correlate with these

policies. But without clear national and provincial frameworks within which decisions can be made

at a local level, such decision-making will inevitably be based on understandings of local

conditions, augmented by knowledge of wider-scale climate predictions. In relation to the latter

South Africa is fortunate to have the South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (SARVA) portal

(www.SARVA.dirisa.org), through which up-to-date information on climate predictions for all parts

of the country, and a host of related information, can be accessed. However, in the form presented

in the portal, much of this information is perhaps not readily accessible to the majority of farmers,

or indeed, many people working with them.

As a DSS at a more local level, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has

developed a Climate Smart Agriculture Rapid Appraisal (CSA-RA) methodology, described as “A tool

for Prioritisation of Climate Smart Agriculture across Landscapes”(Mwongera, et al., 2016)(. This is

designed for use at the household-farm, community-landscape, and sub-regional scales, and is

based on a participatory approach, with farmers and external specialists, to the identification of

site-specific CSA interventions.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 11

Access to information of all kinds is absolutely essential for effective decision-making, and much of

the information generated and used in formal DSS, such as those described above, is highly

technical and captured in ways inaccessible to most farmers. Many national and regional-scale DSS

are internet-based, and involve complex analyses, using sophisticated modelling and computational

tools considerably beyond the capacity of all but the specialists who develop such tools to grasp.

While such information and analyses can to some degree be mediated through careful facilitation,

the ownership of information, and process and indeed the decisions themselves is often left

strongly in the hands of the specialists. In developing DSS for farmers, the more information is

directly accessible and understood by them, and the more open and comprehensible the analyses,

the better, as they will then have stronger ownership of these, and of the decisions taken through

them. The CIAT approach, described above, draws strongly on information from the farmers

themselves, although also incorporating specialist technical information on climate change

predictions and would appear to place the ownership of decision making quite firmly in the

farmers’ own hands.

Criteria

DSS require the identification of a range of technical and social criteria relevant to the context,

which decision-makers need to analyse in order to reach their decisions. The basis of the analysis

in Decision Support Systems is often an assessment of vulnerability. TargetCSA, for example uses a

range of ‘climate change vulnerability indicators’ as follows:

Biophysical

•Annual precipitation (as an indicator for water availability and ecosystem productivity)

•Soil organic matter (as an indicator of soil fertility and ecosystem productivity)

Social

•Percentage of households with access to safe water sources (as an indicator of household well-

being)

•Literacy rate (as an educational indicator for adaptive capacity, i.e. for making informed decisions)

Economic

•Female participation in economic activities (as an indicator for women’s empowerment and

gender equity)

•Connectivity through transport infrastructure (as an indicator of farmers’ accessibility to markets)

It is worth remembering that targetCSA is a DSS developed for a broad spatial analysis, at either

national or regional levels, with the decision makers being mostly policy-makers, albeit with input

from some farmers. These fairly broad indicators are essentially proxies for complex biophysical,

social and economic realities, and are prone to considerable variation when applied on such a broad

scale. Their relevance in some situations may also be questionable, such as with literacy levels as a

proxy for adaptive capacity, suggesting that farmers with some formal education are more likely to

have this capacity than those without education. There is also the issue that on this scale farmers

are seen as a homogenous entity, rather than, as is the reality, a group of individuals with

individual circumstances, needs and aspirations.

In targetCSA these vulnerability indicators are linked to a range of generic CSA practices, or

practice approaches considered appropriate responses in the light of particular combinations of the

indicators. The practices identified, with their suggested links to the indicators are:

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 12

CSA Practices

•Improvement of soil fertility and soil management–linked to: soil organic matter and literacy rate

•Identification and distribution of drought tolerant cereal crops–linked to: annual precipitation

and literacy rate

•Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from thelivestocksector–identified as a mitigation

measure, linked to all the vulnerability indicators

•Improvement of water harvesting and water management–linked to: annual precipitation;

percentage of households with access to safe water sources; literacyrate; and connectivity

through transport infrastructure

•Identiﬁcation and establishment of agroforestry practices–linked to: soil organic matter and

female participation in economic activities

•Implementation of livestock insurances–linked to: annual precipitation; percentage of households

with access to safe water sources; literacy rate; and connectivity through transport infrastructure

On the scale at which targetCSA is intended to operate as a DSS these generic practices can provide

useful guidance for which specific practices might be most appropriate in different areas.

For example, in Kenya, where target CSA was piloted, areas were identified for their suitability for

different generic practices:

Improvement of soil fertility and soil management

Improvement of water harvesting and water management

These show clearly that while improved soil management was important across almost the entire

country, it was particularly appropriate in some western, many southern central, and some eastern

areas. Improved water management is also appropriate across the country, but particularly vital in

the northern and eastern parts. When working at a local level, this DSS may help focus attention on

those specific interventions and practices most allied to the broad requirements identified by the

DSS for any particular area.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 13

The CIAT CSA-RA methodology involves a rather different set of criteria, which are more locally

relevant, with the information for most of them coming from the farming communities. The process

was therefore more inherently participatory than that of targetCSA which was very expert-driven.

The focus is more on the existing situation in terms of farmingpractices, livelihoods and the

challenges faced by the communities. Although the criteria are neither clearly defined, nor

conveniently categorised, the main ones are:

•Current farming practices (farm size, inputs, yields crops, livestock)

•Community resources

•Community organisation and organisations

•Income sources, including off-farm income

•Household food security

•Challenges to current and changing practices

Much of this information is derived through the use of a range of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

techniques, such as resource maps, cropping and climate calendars, and institutional mapping.

Some practices identified as CSA practices for prioritisation by farmers are:

•Seed selection

•Timely planting

•Improved varieties

•Broadcasting

•Controlled burning

•Crop rotation

•Intercropping

•Correct spacing

•Wetland conservation

•Agroforestry

•Improved breeds

It can be seen that while some are specific others are more generic, and perhaps some would not

necessarily be considered CSA practices, but rather basic farming practices. However it appears

that these practices were identified with the farmers in Northern Uganda, one of the sites where

the methodology was piloted. This provides a useful lesson in that we cannot, as outsiders, be too

prescriptive in terms of what should be considered CSA, and that farmers themselves may interpret

other practices as being appropriate.

The prioritisation itself was disaggregated in terms of gender and agro-ecological zone, and showed

extraordinary differences in the responses:

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 14

Figure 1:Disaggregated prioritisation of practices (CIAT CSA_RA, 2016)

This suggests that achieving a consensus on prioritisation may be extremely challenging, even

impossible, and that an individual approach, where each farmer decides on their own priorities is

may be more achievable.

Other DSS or DSS-related models developed in relation to CSA use a range of criteria which while

related can differ quite widely from each other. This difference often arises, as in the two

examples above, from the different scales at which they are targeted, with the broader scale using

more generic criteria or indicators, and the more local scale approaches able to be more specific in

focus.

A form of DSS has been developed by the ‘Amanzi for Food’ project (Amanzi for Food, 2015) to

assist farmers in selecting rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) practices in which they

were interested, and wished to learn more about from the WRC materials which the project was

intended to make more accessible. This DSS is known as the ‘Navigation Tool’, as it is intended to

aid navigation of the materials to find the specific information which was being sought. However,

the basis of the Tool is an initial selection of RWH&C practices, for which some basic information is

provided, for example:

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 15

Table 1: Excerpt from the Amanzi for Food Navigation Tool, 2015.

Collecting, Reducing Loss and Holding Rainwater

Practice (and other

names)

Type and Scale (1,2 or

Main Purpose and

Description

Other Factors

WRC Materials: Text (T),

Case Studies (CS),

Handouts (H)

Roofwater Harvesting

Harvest

Mainly used for

domestic supply.

Surplus can be used in

home gardens. (1)

Collecting water from roofs for household and

garden use is widely practiced across South

Africa. Tanks and containers of all types –from

brick reservoirs to makeshift drums and buckets

–are a common sight

in urban and rural areas.

Low to medium technology, low

to medium skillsand

understandings, medium cost,

medium maintenance

WH&C (T: Pp156-165),

AWHGS (T: Vol.2,

Part2,Pp5-83 to 5-90

and H: Vol.2,Part2,

Chap.5,H1, Pp9-11),

Swales (Bunds, contour

ridges, berm ‘n basin,

contour ditches)

Harvest, conserve and

use. Often used

with diversion furrows

and mulching.

(1 and 2)

An earth bank constructed along the contour

with a furrow on the up-slope side –this is filled

with dry leaves, compost and soil. The top of the

earth bank is levelled off to allow planting. The

swale intercepts runoff, spreads it out and helps

it infiltrate deep into the ground.

Used in home-gardens and smallholder fields.

Widely used within permaculture systems. Good

groundwater recharge.

Low to medium technology,

medium skills and

understandings, low to medium

cost (mostly labour), medium

maintenance

WH&C (T: Pp145-146

&H), AWHGS (CS: Vol2,

Part2,P5-25 and H:

Vol.2,Part2, Chap.5,H1,

Pp6-7),

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 16

The Scales (column 2) are categorised (typologised) as follows:

1. Umzi (garden/homestead) –fundamentally subsistence level production. This is the smallest

scale band, and includes homestead gardens and shared community gardens, with the focus

very much on production for own use, although with potential for sharing, barter, and limited

sales. Entirely fresh produce for local consumption. Can include small numbers of small livestock.

The production sites are either attached to or relatively close to the farmers’ (or gardeners’)

homes. Unlikely to involve employment of farm workers from outside the family. Low input

costs, with little or no gross profit margin in the form of financial income. Areas involved rarely

more than 1ha.

2. Small arable (Field) –small-scale commercial production. This mid-scale band encompasses

larger shared community/co-operative gardens, and dedicated arable plots, with the emphasis

on production for income generation, with some for own use, sharing and bartering. Generally

producing fresh produce, although with potential for processing and value-adding. Supplying

local and nearby, and potentially some national markets. Can include small livestock production.

Production areas may be some distance from the farmers’ homes. May involve employment of

workers from outside the family. Increased input costs with generation of some gross profit.

Generally areas of 1 –2ha

3. Large arable and livestock (Farm) –Full commercial arable production, differing levels of (small

and large) livestock production. Essentially focussed on production for income generation, with

little if any for own consumption. Some fresh produce, but also produce grown for mass

processing. This can include production of crops not consumed locally, for national or

international markets. Production areas may be some distance from the farmers’ homes. Almost

invariably involving employment of workers from outside the family. Relatively high input costs,

with reasonable gross profit margins. Generally areas of more than 2ha.

And the Other Factors (column 4) are described:

Low:

•Technologies –basic gardening equipment;

•Skills and understandings –as required for basic gardening;

•Cost R0 –R1000;

•Maintenance –none or one or two days a year, simple repairs

Medium:

•Technologies –simple testing or measuring kits, tanks, pipes;

•Skills and understandings –as required for small-scale business;

•Cost R1000 –R10,000;

•Maintenance –regular but infrequent checking/repair, 7 –10 days/year, technical repairs.

High:

•Technologies –specialised equipment (tractors, mechanical pumps, laboratories etc.);

•Skills and understandings –as required for professional specialists;

•Cost >R10, 000;

•Maintenance –essential regular and frequent checking and repair, up to 50 days/year, complex

technical repairs

The Tool is divided into four (4) broad categories of practice:

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 17

•General Skills, applicable to and underpinning many of the practices

•Collecting, reducing loss, and holding rainwater (as in example, above)

•Storing rainwater

•Using rainwater (irrigation)

Essentially here the criteria used for decision making are:

•Category of practice

•Type of practice

•Scale of farming operation

•Required technologies

•Required skills and understandings

•Cost

•Maintenance requirements

These do not include any bio-geographic or climate criteria, as most RWH&C practices are

considered appropriate in most except the very wettest (maybe not necessary) or very driest

(probably not realistic) areas. The aim is for farmers themselves to be able decide on the practices in

which they are most interested, according to their own context and needs, without requiring any

external support, and then to access more information on these from the materials.

While this last example does not include some criteria which may be crucial for a CSA DSS, and the

farming typologies may differ from those adopted by the WRC-CSA project, the fact that this is

designed for use by very much the same types of farmers who are the focus of the CSA project

suggests that the simplicity and immediate accessibility of this model may provide a valuable guide

to a CSA DSS.

Process

DSS in general comprise both technical and social elements, each of which has both qualitative and

quantitative dimensions. DSS are essentially processes, involving recognition of the need to make a

decision; identification and collection of appropriate information (based on the criteria selected for

the particular DSS); analysis of this information; identification of available options; selection of best

option and decision-making. A generic decision-making process followed by a DSS, initially presented

in Deliverable 2, can take the following shape:

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 18

Figure 2: decision making process (Adapted from Heinemann, 1988)

This suggests that while qualitative information, both technical (i.e. soil types, climate) and social

(i.e. availability of skills and resources) is essential for the process to be effective, this is not

necessarily the case for quantitative information (i.e. precise rainfall predictions, or specific market

requirements); indeed the latter may be extremely difficult to access.

One aspect of a decision-making process is the prioritisation of criteria, as those with the highest

priority may well provide the starting point for decision-making. For the targetCSA DSS, described

above, the clear priorities are climate predictions and soil types, the combination of which, in

concert with social criteria such as literacy level, according to the developers of this DSS determine

which practices might be most appropriate. The CIAS CSA-RA methodology is less clear about

prioritisation, and appears to leave this more to the farmers themselves, which is entirely

appropriate at the local level. The Amanzi for Food Navigation Tool, while not being prescriptive in

this respect does suggest that the scale of farming is quite a strong priority in terms of criteria, as

some practices , such as Saaidamme, are really only appropriate on a larger scale, while others, such

as mulching are most appropriate at the smaller scales. However, as with the CSA-RA approach, it is

the farmers themselves who mostly identify their own priorities in relation to the criteria.

Facilitation

An important tool in relation to understanding the social context within which farmers are operating

is a vulnerability assessment, for which a valuable toolkit is the CGIAR/CCAFS Working Paper 108:

Climate Change & Food Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-level

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

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 19

potential for adaptation to climate change(Ulrichs, Cannon, Newsham, Naess, & Marshall, 2015).

This toolkit, as discussed in Deliverable 2 is premised on 5 dimensions of vulnerability (DoV):

Figure 3: Dimensions of Vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)

Such an assessment provides a strong foundation for determining the capacity of farmers for

adaptation. This approach has been adopted by different programmes globally, and is often

combined with a specialist, or external expert-driven process.

However, the broader aim of any facilitation in regard to the use of a DSS is to empower the farmers

to be confident in their decision-making with the support of the DSS. Any DSS at the local level must

be fully and easily accessible and useable by the farmers themselves with minimal facilitation long

after the project has finished. So while a facilitation process may begin with an analysis of

vulnerability, it must also, and very importantly, move to a recognition of opportunity and

developing farmers’ recognition of their own capacities to rise to challenges and grasp opportunities.

The Appreciative Inquiry approach of the Taos Institute, USA and the Voluntary Organisation for

Rural Development (VORD) in Bangladesh, takes very much this positive approach and their “…guide

on ‘Appreciative Inquiry to Promote Local Innovations among Farmers Adapting to Climate Change’

is prepared for the development workers who would like to facilitate a community learning and

adaptation process, especially for farmers in agriculture; facing challenges of climate change. This

guide is not about agricultural technologies which would help farmers to adapt but it is about

facilitating a process of sharing knowledge and technologies farmers are continuously innovating to

overcome challenges.” (Saya, 2012)

They define Appreciative Inquiry as:

“Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us;

affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give

life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems. 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has

appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 20

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To ask questions; to be open to seeing

new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION,

STUDY.”

The process is promoted as a positive alternative to the problem-solving approach to development,

and is described as a 4D (Discovery, Dream, Design, Destiny) Cycle, centred on an Affirmative Topic.

The Dialogues in Climate Change and Adaptation (DICLAD) process developed by the Association for

Water and Rural Development Resilm programme on the Oliphants River (AWARD, 2017), takes a

similar approach, which informs the following explorative process concerning climate change and

adaptation:

Figure 4: Schematic for DICLAD; Facilitating Understanding of Climate Change and Adaptation(AWARD, 2017)

The facilitation process appropriate for introducing the WRC-CSA DSS is described in Section 2 and 3

, below, and draws on the more participatory and positive approaches exemplified by the

Appreciative Inquiry and the DICLAD processes.

DSS for this project

The main aim of the DSS is for individual farmers or farming collectives to be capacitated to

strengthen their farming practices in the light of potential climate change impacts. A subsidiary aim

is to encourage farmers to support each other in this enterprise, and to encourage others, including

agricultural extension officers and personnel from local agricultural training institutions to also

support the process. Such support can be provided through the establishment of learning networks

as described later in Section 6.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 21

The WRC-CSA project DSS process follows a fundamentally participatory approach with emphasis on

farmers’ own experiences and understandings of climate change. Through a closely facilitated

process they identify trends, which they ascribe to climate change, which have impacted their

farming activities in recent years, and are encouraged to extrapolate from these to make predictions

about possible future impacts. In this they are supported by climate change and agricultural impact

predictions developed by the specialists. Following this there is an exploration of the farming

typologies in terms of scales of operation, the crops and livestock produced, and the specific

resources, natural and other, to which the farmers have access for their operations. Issues affecting

the natural resources are also explored.

These preliminaries lay the ground for discussion of what options are available to farmers to

improve their situation, particularly in the light of the predicted climate change impacts, and for the

introduction of a wide range of farming practices considered appropriate for increasing resilience in

the face of climate change. Based on their own understandings of their contexts, their skills,

knowledge and aspirations they can then select from the available practice options those they feel

are most appropriate and relevant to their situation. They can then besupported in the

implementation of these practices both by the facilitating organisation, initially the WRC-CSA team,

and indeed by other farmers and other members of their learning network.

At this stage in the project the idea is that the project team itself facilitates the DSS with the farmers

in the different areas, but the aim is, following extensive piloting of the process and the inevitable

refining that will follow, for the DSS to be developed as a complete package which can be facilitated

anywhere in the country by suitably skilled NGO or agricultural extension service personnel.

Decision Support System for CSA in smallholder farming systems

By Erna Kruger

The process of implementing the decision support system at farmer level is to follow the six steps

outlined below. Within each, there is a further process/ methodology for how this can be achieved.

Basically, the decision process moves from; Farmer typology AspirationsFarming systems

PracticesPrioritized practices for experimentation.

This is a cyclical review, planning and action process.

1. Climate change:

a. Hotter, drier

b. Rain variability, more intense

Summarise external information and baseline assessments: agro-ecological zones, climate

regimes (predictions, rainfall distribution, temperatures etc), socio-economic data social

issues, land use options (farming systems)

2. Issues, constraints, risks, vulnerabilities, aspirations/priorities

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 22

Community level climate change adaptation analysis

Farmer typologies (A,B,C)

Aspirations: Gardens, fields, livestock, trees

3. Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment

5 Categories of farming system (water, soil, crops, livestock, natural resources)

4. Practices

List of practices –filtered for farmer typology, aspiration, farming system

5. Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation

Ranking for implementation of farmer experimentation within existing practices using;

-Farmer criteria

-Biophysical and climate criteria(rainfall, temperature, topography, soil)

6. Monitoring, review, re-planning

Choice of visual (qualitative) and quantitative indicators for assessment by farmers and researchers

Assessment of adaptation and also impact

The diagram below summarises the above information

•Size

•Resources:physical,

environmental

•Resources: socio-

economic

•Social/institutional

•Management

capacity/technolog

Farmer

Typology: A,B,C

•Gardening

•Field cropping

•Livestock

•Trees, incl fruit

Aspiration

•Water

management

•Soil health

management

•Crop

management

•Livestock

management

•Natural resoruce

management

Farming system

•Water flow management

•Infiltration

•greywater management

•RWH

•Irrigaiton

•Soil erosion control

•Irrigation

•increased organic matter

•microclimate management

•crop diversification

(including varieties,

calendars

•improved tillage

•agroforestry

•fodder/feed management

•..........

Practices

•Labour

•Cost

•Ease- techincal

•Productivity

•Soil health

•Water use

efficiency

•Knowledge

Prioritzation -

criteria

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 23

Figure 5: The DSS for smallholder farming systems

Issues, constraints, risks and vulnerabilities

Community level climate change adaptation analysis

In these community level workshops -dialogues; facilitation tools are to be designed that can assist

in the analysis. These are to be carefully chosen to ensure an ability to differentiate between

weather and climate change, unpack changes in the environment and livelihoods and those affected

by climate change and impacts of these and current practices and adaptations already being

implemented to respond to these changes.

Facilitation steps proposed are as follows:

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

KZN/EC/Limpopo, and discuss with people how these will affect them. Also look at the

difference between variability in weather and climate change. NB! There is variability in

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

certainty (Tools; impact picture, role plays,

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

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

changing)

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

present and future)

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

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

5. Current practices and responses (effectiveness of responses) (Tool: outlining adaptive

measures on mind map)

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

summary of the workshop outline:

1. What we are seeing around us, what has been happening (nature, economy, society, village,

livelihoods, farming) (list main issues (biophysical, social, economic) –with ranking of

vulnerability, organisational mapping, financial flows and services mapping,

2. Past, present, future of farming activities and livelihoods (timelines and trends)

3. Climate vs weather(role play)

4. Scientific understanding of climate change (Power point input)

5. Seasonality diagrams of temperature and rainfall –generally what it is, what is changing

(seasonality diagrams)

6. Reality maps (choose temp, or rainfall): draw up mind maps of impacts (mind mapping)

7. Turn impacts in to priority goals (positive statements) and think through adaptive measures

that we know of or think could work

8. Introduce a range of practices (facilitation team) related to these goals to broaden potential

adaptive measures(A4 picture summaries and power point presentations)

9. Walkabouts and individual interviews (transect walks, key informant interviews, mapping of

local innovations/adaptations)

10. Prioritization of practices –matrix using farmer level criteria for assessment (matrix ranking

and scoring)

11. Planning of farmer experimentation, learning sessions and implementation of practices

(Individual experimentation outlines, lists)

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 24

This process framework is explained in more detail in Section 3 below.

The facilitation process (Steps 1-10), have been piloted in four villages:

•2 in Limpopo (Tzaneen, Hoedpsruit): Sekororo (Lima RDF - Mahlathini), Turkey- Sedawa Ext

(AWARD-Mahlathini)

•2 in KZN midlands (Estcourt, Bergville): Thabamhlope (Lima RDF-Mahlathini), Thamela

(GrainSA-Mahlathini)

These villages were chosen so that 1 village in each province is already implementing food security

and some CSA practices and the other is new to the idea of considering climate change adaptation in

their farming.

Farmer typology

Individual interviews (10-20minimum), transect walks, household visits

Summarise and present in focus group discussions for review

Here farmers choose a category (A,B,C)within which they feel the most comfortable based on the

following criteria;

•Head of household (male/female)

•No of adults

•No of children

•Dependency ratio

•Income sources

•Level of income

•Scale of operation; 0,1-1ha, 1-2(5) ha, > 2 (5) ha

•Farming activities; Aspirations –gardens, fields, livestock,trees

•Market access

•Other activities

•Resources

•Water access

•Infrastructure

•Knowledge and skills

•Literacy rate/ level of schooling

•Social organisation

This process was initiated and a sample of household interviews conducted in the four villages

where the process has been piloted. From here the work will continue in fleshing out farmer

typologies that make sense to local participants.

Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment

The matrix ranking exercise was conducted in two of the four pilot villages; the two villages where

food security implementation is already under way. The practices chosen by the groups were

assessed against the criteria using a simple scale of 1-3 where 1 is little/bad, 2 is medium or OK and

3 is good or a lot.

Below is a small table that compares the different criteria used by the participants in Limpopo and

KZN. As can be seen there are a number of criteria used by all three groups and across both

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 25

provinces; including increased water availability, increased water access, costs, increased crop

quality and labour requirements.

Table 2 :Community level criteria for assessment of CSA practices; Nov-Dec 2017

CRITERIA

Sekororo

Thabamhlophe(2 groups)

Increased water availability/ water use efficiency

Increased water access

Increased soil fertility

Costs

Increased crop quality

Labour

Time taken for implementing practice

Tools

Availability of materials

Fewer pests

From these exercises it will be possible to outline a number of criteria which are common across

different groups in different areas and work with these to fine tune categories of practices for the

DSS. Criteria will also differ slightly depending which sets of practices are being compared.

Practices chosen by participants(as shownin the photos below)included: tower gardens, keyhole

gardens, eco-circles, trench beds, mulching, intercropping, No -till (with planters and using hand

hoes), underground storage tanks, jo-jo- tanks, diversion furrows, furrows and ridges, tunnels,

lizard hotels (promotion of pest predators)

Clockwise fromtopleft: Sekororo matrix of

practices assessed against criteria and

matrices for 2 groups in Thabamhlophe.

For the two new villages, it did not make

sense to compare practices against each

other without participants knowing much

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 26

about them. Here a slightly different process to elucidate criteria for assessment from participants

would need to be designed. We tried out an exercise where participants did an assessment of

practices they are already aware of in the village and asked them whether it works and if not why

not to begin to tease out some of the criteria participants would use.

In Turkey for example the participants came up with the following analysis:

In this picture participants looked

at rainwater harvesting, sand

dams, cutting grass and storage

for fodder for livestock, tunnels

and planting indigenous trees in

their gardens for shade.

Criteria they used here to assess

how well these practices work in

the village were; costs versus

benefit, labour and safety.

Right: Picture of an analysis of

local climate adaptation measures

in Turkey (Hoedspruit, Limpopo,

Nov 2017)

This is an ongoing process and will be explored further in the next round of workshops.

Practices

The database of practices that has been developed throughout deliverables 1 and 2 has been

slightly expanded and tidied up.The inventory of practices has been updated and practices related

to livestock management have been given some attention, as it is clear already from our

interaction with communitiesthat this is going to be a more central theme than initially

anticipated. See Attachment: DSS Flowchart_20171218

Practices that have been suggested by participants which are not yet in the database (but will be

included) are:

-Windbreaks

-Spring protection

-Strip cropping

-Fodder production (dryland and irrigated) and

-Biogas digesters

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 27

An A4 summary of each practice with pictures and criteria. These can be presented initially as an

overview of options(related to what participants are prioritizing) and later used as the basis for

information provision in learning events. A few examples are shown below

The process of working with the facilitation team to choose a small selection 5-8 practices to

present to the participants in the workshop situation has worked well. Some form of prioritization

is required (this will eventually happen through the DSS), as all practices cannot presented all at

once to the group. These practices are based on the discussions on impacts and adaptive measures

done on the first day of the workshop.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 28

Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation

A process will be designed to assist individual farmers to prioritize practices for themselves that

they would like to try and implement. This is likely to occur within the five categories (water

management, soil management, crop management, livestock management and natural resources).

Implementation of some practices of course require join activities, social organisation and agency

and will be introduced and discussed in the learning group situation and supported through the CoPs

in each site. These aspects will be focussed on in the deliverables following on from here. Aspects

that will be considered include:

- Farmer experimentation

- Learning groups

- Individual choices of practices

- Discussion around researcher managed trials

- Local level monitoring

-Learning needs and sessions planning

- Associated issues; stakeholder relations

- Financial issues; VSLA (Village savings and loan associations)

Monitoring, review and re-planning

We need to clearly outline how the practices relate to the three principles of CSAand then how

these three principles are used in monitoring

A. Increase in productivity

B. Increase resilience to climate change and variability

C. Reducing agriculture’s contribution to climate change

To monitor indicators, use benchmarking/ validation/ threshold values. Develop ranges and scales

for determination of applicability and impact.The initial steps in setting out experiments for both

qualitative and quantitative measurements (for gardens and fields) have been put in place. This is

discussed in more detail in Section 4 (Site selection) below.

Indicators

Physical and quantitative indicators (potential- to belinked to researcher managed trials)

Productivity

➢Yield

➢Soil fertility/ nutrient availability

➢Water availability

➢Infiltration rates

➢Moisture holding capacity

➢Soil carbon/ soil organic matter

➢Diversification

Resilience

-Trends over time

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 29

-Diversity of practices

-Social agency

-Adaptability- awareness and response, system and farmer flexibility

-Robustness- soil health

-Reduced risk- reduced water demands

Carbon

-Soil management practices

-Crop and animal husbandry management

-Reduced carbon emissions-reduce mechanization, Extensive livestock production

-Increase carbon capture- reduction of veld burning, increase in SOM

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 30

3PROCESS FRAMEWORK

By Temakholo Mathebula

Climate Smart Agriculture: Process Facilitation

Introduction

The introduction of climate smart agriculture (CSA) requires a clear understanding of its suitability,

costs and benefits, and environmental implications in a local context. Hence, the approaches that

aim to identify and prioritize locally appropriate CSA practices will need to address the context

specific and multi-dimensional complexity in agricultural systems. When addressing complex

challenges that cannot be solved by formal research alone and for which various stakeholders are

required to identify solutions, more participatory and learning orientated approaches need to be

applied. Stimulating stakeholder participation (government, NGO’s, community members,

researchers, extension practitioners) in the different stages of research will result in more relevant

and effective solutions to challenges that will be addressed. Participation includes people’s

involvement in the decision making processes, program implementation, and information sharing as

well program evaluation. Participatory tools can be used to incorporate people’s ideas into

development plans and empower them to acquire skills and knowledge to make more informed

decisions. Incorporating participatory approaches will be of importance in the WRC CSA project as

it will allow for deeper understanding of the realities in the communities across the three

provinces, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), Limpopo and Eastern Cape (EC) and thus the identification of

relevant and context specific practices.

Process Facilitation

The initial phase of implementation of the WRC CSA project will include a study of climate change

databases for KZN, EC and Limpopo to gain an understanding of the change in rainfall patterns and

temperatures in the three provinces, which will be discussed with participants. Participatory Rural

Appraisal (PRA) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) tools will be used in the contextualization of the

realities and issues relating to climate change, local resources, farming practices and socio-

economic status. The PRA/RRA tools to be used include a focus group discussion, community

resource map, seasonal calendar, historical timeline, village walk and the ranking matrix. The

expected outcome will be a greater understanding of farmer perceptions towards climate change,

current practices and responses, prioritization of issues and the identification of the most relevant

practices.

The process facilitation will be conducted over a period of two days. The first day will commence

with a focus group discussion on climate change, its impacts and farmer responses to changes. The

focus group will be followed by a group exercise of community resource mapping with the objective

of graphically presenting the access to, control and distribution of resources. The third tool is a

seasonal calendar of farming activities, depicting seasonal variations and periods of vulnerability.

Lastly, a historical timeline will be used to depict changes in crop production over time and the

factors driving these changes.

Day 1

Focus Group Discussion

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 31

A focus group discussion consists of people with similar concerns, share a common problem and

purpose. It is used to obtain information that would not be expressed in a larger setting and the

advantages of this tool are that a lot of information can be collected in a short space of time, the

information gathered is grounded in the local setting, different views and perspectives are shared

on one platform and sensitization and awareness raising to decision making on specific topics. The

focus group discussion will seek toanswer the following:

-What are the farmers’ current understanding of climate change?

-Do farmers know the difference between climate change and weather variability?

-What does research say about climate change in their local context?

-What practices are they currently using?

-How effective are their current practices in mitigating the effects of climate change?

-What do the farmers foresee happening in the future based on what they are currently doing?

-What are their biggest challenges and who do they think can assist in addressing those

challenges?

The focus group discussion will serve to give background information on existing paradigms

regarding climate change and will allow for exploration and cross checking of different views.

Community Resource Map

A Community Resource Map is used to depict the occurrence, spatial distribution access to and

utilization of resources. The group will draw a map showing rivers, forests, livelihoods, households

and infrastructure and will include information they find relevant starting from a main reference

point. The facilitator will not intervene once the drawing has begun as the purpose of this exercise

will be for participants to depict their current situation as they see and perceive it. The map will

be used for further analysis during the transect walk to help gain an understanding of how the

participants picture their situation compared to what is actually taking place. The outcome of

resource mapping will be to identify local resources and strengths within the community.

Table 3: Community resource map description and uses

Name of Tool

Community Resource Map

Description

Depicts information regarding the occurrence, distribution, access to and

distribution of resources from the perspective of the participants

Uses

To identify links between resources, landmarks, households and activities

Allows people to picture their resources and show their significance through

drawing

Identify resources, challenges and opportunities

Information

gathered

Graphical presentation of how people view their environment, participants’

analysis of their natural environment

Complementary

tools

Transect walk, seasonal calendar

Time

1.5 to 2 hours

Seasonal Calendar

A seasonal calendar reflects the participants’ concept of time and seasonal categories. The tool is

useful in identifying main crops, planting sequences and the associated activities. It also allows for

a plenary discussion regarding access to and control of resources between men and women and how

gender roles impact uptake of practices. A period of a year is covered using a seasonal calendar,

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 32

but ideally a longer period of up to 18 months or more will give the full seasonal variations.

Symbols can be used to show the different seasons. The facilitator will ask which phenomena

(production, climate, social, economic, resource distribution etc.) fluctuate on a seasonal basis and

these will be listed. Priority will be given to aspects which are clearly linked to the mainfocus of

the research.

Table 4: Seasonal calendar description and uses

Name of Tool

Seasonal Calendar

Description

Visual method of showing the distribution of seasonally varying

phenomena related to and influencing production

Uses

Gives insights into seasonal differences

Highlights cause-and-effect relationships between seasonally varying

phenomena

Identify periods of the season where social groups are more or less

vulnerable

Identify coping and mitigation strategies used by participants to

minimize risk

Information gathered

Seasonal variations in vulnerability, control of and access to resources,

activities

Complementary tool

Ranking Matrix

Time

1.5 to 2 hours

Table 5:Seasonal calendar

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Temperature

and Rainfall

Crops

Livestock

Income and

expenditure

Social

activities

Illness and

diseases

Employment

Historical Timeline

The historical timeline gives insight into specific changes over an extended period of time. The

advantage of using this tool is that it links different issues in time, and helps participants identify

significant changes in agricultural production over time. The timeline should return to the most

distant point in time or as far as participants can remember as a starting point. Events are placed

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 33

in a vertical line that represent the timeline with the oldest event placed at the top. When the

timeline is concluded, trends and important events will be discussed, i.e. changes in crop varieties,

weather conditions, significant changes in yields and other important factors.

Day 2

Village Walk

The village walk is a walkabout with the aim to raise participants’ awareness on the spatial

distribution of agricultural resources and their management. A transect diagram depicting soil,

topography, water access and natural resources is drawn up with their different uses and

variations, associated challenges and opportunities. The walkabout is conducted along the largest

diversity of areas and land uses. Questions to be answered during this activity are:

-Which resources are present (land uses, vegetation, crops)?

-Why are these resources present?

-How is labour distributed and who benefits from these resources?

-What changes have the participants observed in the past?

Design of the CCA community level workshop outline

By Erna Kruger

A number of smaller preparation session were undertaken prior to the joint process planning

workshop –designed to set out the community level methodology and process for introducing the

Climate Change concepts and the decision support process.

At the workshop a joint methodology was agreed upon and a process outline was developed.

The table belowindicates the outline for 2 workshops to be conducted in KZNand thus names the

team involved there. As a generic outline the team members will change, but the rest is meant to

remain similar throughout.

Community level climate change adaptation exploration workshop outline

DAY 1

Time

Activity

Process

Notes

Materials

Who

9:00am

INTRODUCTION

9:00-

9:45am

Community and

team

introductions

In pairs, take 5 minutes

to talk to each other.

Then introduce each

other to the group.

Choose a person you

don’t know well (both

team and community).

[include Name and

surname, farming

activities (garden, field,

livestock natural

Depending on the

size of the group,

this can take a long

time. If time is short,

then just do a quick

round of intro's.

Attendance register

- with columns for

farming enterprises

(so that each

participant can tick

what they do) - in

English and

Zulu/Pedi. Name

tags; stickers, kokis

Nozipho

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 34

resources), income from

farming]

Purpose of the

day

Introduction of the

organisation/s and

purpose of this

workshop- link to

already ongoing

activities if possible and

introduce visitors and

other stakeholders

involved

Talk to CC

necessitating

adaptation from us -

we may need to

change how we do

things and what we

do to - This w/s is to

help us explore

options for such

changes

Flipstand, newsprint,

kokis, data projector,

screen, extension

chords, plugs -

double adaptors.

Black refuse bags

and masking tape

(for blacking out

windows), camera-

and one person to

undertake to take

photos throughout

the day. Extra

batteries for camera

and sim card

Materials:

Nozipho,

Nonka

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

9:50am

PRESENT SITUATION

9:50-

10:30am

Present

livelihoods and

farming situation

- discuss impacts

related to CC

Use a series of impact

pictures- from the local

situation . Include the 5

categories (and describe

them to the group) -

water management

(increased efficiency

and access), soil

management (erosion

control ,fertility, health),

crops, livestock and

natural resources

Impact pictures-

either ppt or printed

on A4 to facilitate

dialogue (or both)

Record community

comments)

Power point

presentation

pictures

Mazwi - ppt

Facilitation:

Mazwi

Nozipho,

Nonka

10:30am

PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE

10:30-

11:30am

Discuss farming

activities as they

have changed ,

what they are

now and what

may happen in

the future if the

present trends

continue

SMALL GROUPS (5-

10people): facilitated

discussion on farming

activities (include the 5

categories) - prompt for

all five and keep

conversation focussed

Facilitate a shorter

plenary discussion on

how things are changing

( if time is pressing)

Important to note

and record any

discussions around

changes and

adaptations- so

things people are

already doing to

accommodate for

changes - also where

they are not sure

what to do

Small groups; each

needs a facilitator

and recorder

(Mazwi, Phumzile,

Lindelwa, Madondo)

(Nonka, Nozipho,

Tema),

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

11:30am-

12:00pm

TEA

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

plates… Generous helpings - and lots of juice if it is hot. Find someone to

be in charge of food and refreshments, while the rest of the workshop

continues

Nozipo,

Nonka, Tema

12:00am

CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 35

12:00 -

12:50pm

Summary of

predictions for

the locality (from

scientific

basis)[15min]

Present to group - using

flipchart or power point

- Keep it simple with

brief bold statements

that can be

remembered. Include

concepts of certainty -

and CC scenarios -

unmitigated, neutral

and mitigated

Facilitation:

Mazwi/Tema

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

Weather vs

Climate [10min]

Role play; phone

conversation - weekend

visit for weather,

relocating to an area for

seasonality/climate.

check in with

participants how

they understand the

difference from the

role play

Facilitation:

Mazwi, Nonka

Seasonality

diagrams

[25min]

SMALL GROUPS (5-

10people): facilitated

discussion on

temperatures for each

month of the year- in a

normal year and then

discuss how this is

chaning and going to

change. Start with the

hottest month and then

the coldest month as

reference points

Do temperature frist

or if the group is

small and works

quickly inlcude

rainfall then on the

same chart.

Easy to use kebab

sticks bought from

supermarket for this.

Small groups; each

needs a facilitator

and recorder

(Mazwi, Phumzile,

Lindelwa, Madondo)

(Nonka, Nozipho,

Tema),

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

1:00pm

REALITY/IMPACT MAPS

1:00-

2:00pm

Impact of CC

mind map

SMALL GROUPS (5-

10people): facilitated

discussion - MIND MAP

of livelihood and

farming impacts (using

the 5 categories) using

Hotter (drier) as the

starting point -

LINKAGES between

cards on the mind map -

make arrows (and

include more cards if

need be and discuss

(e.g. hotter soils, lead to

poor germination lead

to poor yields lead to

hunger)

Prompt for social,

economic,

environmental

impacts as well if

these don't come up

in the group…

Small groups; each

needs a facilitator

and recorder

(Mazwi, Phumzile,

Lindelwa, Madondo)

(Nonka, Nozipho,

Tema) CARDS-

Coloured paper of

differnet colours cut

into squares

Nozipho -

prepare cards

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

2:00-

2:30pm

Possible adaptive

measures

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

things that people

know, have changed,

have tried and or are

trying to deal with the

changes. Use different

coloured cards to attach

these solutions to the

mind map. If

participants are

struggling then rephrase

Also make a

separate list on

newsprint of names

of people trying

things plus the

innovation they are

trying (this is to

facilitate h/h visits

on day 2)

The cards need to be

written in local

language with

smaller translations

in English written in

on the cards as well

(to avoid the need

for alter translations)

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 36

the -ve impact

statements into a +ve

outcome and ask what

actions are possible.

2:30-

2:45pm

CLOSURE

REPORT BACKS - of

possible solutions

PLANNING FOR DAY 2 -

choose 3-4 participants

for household visits and

ask for a small group of

other interested

individuals to join.

Decide on venue and

time (12 noon) for

continuing with

practices

Households to be

within walking

distance hopefully.

Otherwise drive

these 3-4

participants around

and meet for focus

group thereafter

Rapporteurs need to

be chosen from the

group to summarise

the solutions in the

report backs

[5min/group]

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals -~R45 per head (Riceand stew with one veg…

or something similar- )

Tema, Nonka,

Nozipho

DAY 2

9:00am

HOUSEHOLD VISITS

9:00 am-

12:00pm

To look at local

adaptations and

innovations To

assess the household

situationsTo start to

elucidate criteria people

use to make choices and

decisions

Use questionnaire

and fill in through

semi structured

interview and

observations

Questionnaires to

contain the following

info: • Head of

household

(male/female)

•No of adults

• No of children

(dependency ratio)

• Income sources

• Level of income

• Scale of operation;

0,1-1ha, 1-2(5)ha, >

2 (5)ha

• Farming activities;

Aspirations –

gardens, fields,

livestock ,trees

• Market access

• Other activities

• Resources

• Water access

• Infrastructure

• Knowledge and

skills

• Literacy rate

• Social organisation

Nozipho

finalise and

print out

questionnaires

Facilitation:

Mazwi,

Lindelwa,

Phumzile

Recording:

Tema,

Nozipho,

Nonka

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

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

that came from the household visit discussions

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 37

TEA

Packed tea for on the go to share with household members

12:00

PRACTICES

12:00-

1:00pm

New ideas/

practices/

innovations

Recap and summary of

day 1

Introduce a selection of

new practices _power

point and A4s (chosen

the night before by

facilitation team to

match the general sense

of what participants

need ideas for or what

they are trying (to

improve upon those).

Provide descriptions and

get questions and

comments

Select the 5-10

practices beforehand

and make sure there

are 3-4 copies of the

A4s for the small

groups and or a

power point

presentation -

record comments

from participants

Sets of practices (A

4s), attendance

registers

Materials:

Nozipho

Facilitation:

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

1:00-

1:20pm

Criteria for

selection of

practices

In plenary present

criteria, discuss with

group and add more

(prompt for criteria to

relate to five categories

(e.g., saving and using

water well, increasing

access to water,

improving organic

matter, increasing soil

health, increasing

natural resources.... etc)

along with criteria like

cost, labour, time....

Choose 5-7/8 criteria

max. Some criteria

can be made from

two into one…

Flipchart, newsprint,

kokis

Facilitation:

Mazwi/

Lindelwa

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

1:20 -

2:00pm

Prioritization of

practices

SMALL GROUPS: Choose

a selection of practices

from their own

suggestions and new

ideas presented (5-10)

and assess them using

the criteria chosen in a

matrix.

Let the group

decided for each

square using a scale

of 0-2 where 0 = bad

or little, 1=ok to

medium and 2 = a lot

to good.

Newsprint, kokis.

Small group

facilitator and

recorder (Mazwi,

Phumzile, Lindelwa,

Madondo) (Nonka,

Nozipho, Tema)

Facilitation:

Mazwi/ Tema

Recording:

Nozipho,

Nonka

2:00pm

WAY FORWARD

2:00-

2:30pm

Each individual choses

their practices

Set up sessions in

January to refine

choices and start on

demonstrations and

training in

implementationof

practices and farmer

experimentation

Choose 'volunteers' for

the 4 proposed tunnels

for joint /group

Learning sessions 16-

24 January, tunnels

training sometime in

February (Order by

December)

Put together a list for

each small group for

each individual to

record their name,

surname, tel /cell

phone and practices

Tunnels:

Sylvester -

order collect

Practices list:

Nozipho

Facilitation:

Mazwi/ Tema

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 38

experimentation per

site

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

veg… or something similar- )

Tema, Nonka,

Nozipho

CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS:

Hotter

1-4 degrees Celcius

For every month of

the year

HIGH probability/

Certainty

Less rain

Similar amount of rain

but over a shorter

period of time (fewer

rainy days per season)

This will lead to an

overall drying effect

in the environment

MEDIUM certainty

Ggreater intensity of

rainfall

More rain in spring and

or more rain in summer

Storms

LOW certainty

Longer term

Greater frequency of droughts under scenarios

1 and 2

Scenario 1 - Business

as usual;Scenario 2

- Stabilise emissions;

Scenario- 3-Reduce

emissions

Greater frequency of extreme rainfall events

under scenarios 1 and 2

This was followed by a Facilitation Learning event(training of trainers), to train facilitatorsfrom all

three NGOs presently involved in use of the methodology and process

This included specific practical learning of the participatory techniques such a seasonality diagrams,

mind mapping, ranking and matrices.

One session was held with facilitators in KZN(13 November 2017)-(Lindelwa Ndaba (Lima), and the

Mahlathini team (Mazwi Dlamini, Phumzile Ngcobo, Temakholo Mathebula, Nozipho Zwane, Khethiwe

Mthethwa and Nonkanyiso Zondi) and one in Limpopo (27 November 2017)-( Karabo Makgoba (Lima)

and the Mahlathini team for Limpopo (Sylvester Selala, Nozipho Zwane and Temakholo Mathebula).

Testing the process

As mentioned this was done in four villages; 2 in Limpopo and KZN respectively, where 1 village in

each area has been implementing CCA or food security projects and one is ‘new”

See Appendix 3 (Section 9) for an example of a workshop run in Limpopo (Sekororo).

In summary the process has helped to elucidate and analyse a wealth of information from smallholder

farmers and it has worked well as the beginnings of a decision support process around practices;

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 39

especially in areas where participants have some familiarity with at least some of the practices. Next

steps are to strengthen the process and continue with the informed decision making and farmer

experimentation process.

In KZN, in one of the “new” villages we worked in Thamela in Bergville –participants had noconcept

of climate change to work from. Their conception of weather variability is locked into local belief

systems of weather magic. In this case it was not possible to employ the process designed to it’s best

benefit and alternate processes need to be put in place for such situations in future.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 40

4SITE SELECTION

Introduction

Site selection for the first iteration (2018) or cycle of testing the DSS has been done.

Province

Site 1

Site 2

KZN

Bergville: Eibomvini,Thamela

(Mahlathini, GrainSA)

Estcourt: Thabamhlophe (Lima,

Mahlathini)

Limpopo

Hoedspruit: Sedawa,Turkey

(Mahlathini, AWARD)

Tzaneen: Sekororo (Lima, Mahlathini)

Fort Cox: ImvuthoBuboni Learning

Network (Amanzi for Food, Mahlathini)

Quantitative measurements for garden and field cropping are to be conducted in KZN and Bergville in

this coming season

Work Plan for measurements for KZN and Limpopo for 2017/2018 season

By Sylvester Selala

Three mother sites for both dry land farming and vegetable gardening will be selected in each province

(KZN, Limpopo and EC). A mothersite is described as semi controlled experimental site where

experimental units are selected following specified methods (e.g. randomized block design) which are

also supported by the farmer. Several indicator sites will be selected in each of the villages where

there is a mother site. Indicator sites are those sites where farmers are experimenting with similar

concepts but under uncontrolledenvironments.Indicator sites will allow us to developproxies or

indicators which can be used to measure some of the parameters locally.

Plot layout

The mother sites for dry land farming will be selected in three different villagesand the plot layout

shown below is an example of the experimental design, designed following a randomized block design.

This example is based on the design for CA plots in the mother site in Sedawa village and plots

highlighted in greyindicate where runoff plots will be installed. One of the runoff plots will be installed

in the control plot (conventional tillage plot). At a minimum, most of the soil water measurements

(e.g. gravimetric water content) are going to be taken in the highlighted plots. Measurements for soil

properties (e.g. bulk density, texture, structure, fertility and health) will be taken for all ten plots.

The layout for the mother site in KZN, in Ezibomvini village is as follows

Maize +

Cowpea

Maize + Beans

Maize

+cowpea

Maize sole

crop

Sunflower

Maize sole

crop

Maize +Beans

Maize + Cover

crops

Maize sole

crop

Maize +

groundnuts

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 41

Lab-lab beans

Beans sole crop

SCC (summer

cover crops)

Maize sole crop

Participants for dryland cropping and gardening in KZN and Limpopo

The table below outlines the sites selected for both dry land farming and vegetable gardening in KZN

and Limpopo. Conservation Agriculture (CA) plots in KZN were plantedin the last week of November

while the ones in Limpopo were planted in early to mid- December 2017.

Table 6: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo

Province

Category

Name of participants

Name of village

Date of planting

Limpopo

Field

cropping

Koko Maphori

Sedawa

05/12/2017

Moruti Sekgobela

Mametja

06/12/2017

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

07/12/2017

Gardening

Christinah Tobetjane

Sedawa

11 –15 Dec 2017

Norah Malepe

Mametja

11 –15 Dec 2017

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

11 –15 Dec 2017

KwaZulu-

Natal

Field

cropping

Ntombake Zikode

Eqeleni

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumelele Hlongwane

Ezimbomzini

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumzile Zimba

Mhlwazini

20-24 Nov 2017

Gardening

Smephi Hlatswayo

Eqeleni

27-30 Nov 2017

Phumelele Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

27-30 Nov 2017

Thamela

27-30 Nov 2017

Table 7: Measurements to be taken for the gardening trials

Parameter

Instruments

Dates

Soil moisture

Chameleon water sensors

On going

Amount of water applied

Measuring cylinder

On going

Rainfall

Rain gauge

On going

Weighing of the harvest

Weighing scale

On going

Rand value of the harvest

Local market price

At harvest

Lab-Lab beans

Maize sole

crop

Maize sole

crop

Maize +Beans

Maize sole

crop w WCC

Maize

+Cowpeas

Maize

+Cowpeas

Beans sole

crop

SCC –summer

cover crops

Maize sole

crop

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 42

Soil and Water Measurements

The diagram bellow shows different stages of crop development at which gravimetric water content

will be taken. The table following the diagram shows the dates when measurements are going to be

taken.

The workplan with specific dates for gravimetric soil samples is shown below

Soil property measurements to be taken are shown in the small table below

Dates

Planting

End of

establishment

(20-30days)

Vegetative

growth

phase(40-

50 days)

Tasseling

(60-70

days)

Physiological

maturity

(120-150

days)

Limpopo

4 –8 Dec 2017

8 Jan 2018

20–22 Jan 2018

8 –9 Feb 2018

9 –13 April 2018

KwaZulu-

Natal

20 –27 Nov 201

4 –8 Jan 2018

20–22 Jan 2018

8 –9 Feb 2018

9 –13 April 2018

Sampling

(at

Sampling

Samplin

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 43

Property

Lab/ Field

measurements

Frequency

Instruments /

equipment

Soil structure

Lab

Once off

Mean weigh diameter

Soil texture

lab

Once off

Hydrometer

Bulk density

lab

At the beginning

and at harvest

Cylindrical cores

Soil fertility

Lab

At the beginning

and at harvest

Cedara

Soil health

lab

At the beginning

and at harvest

WARD labs

Infiltration

field

Once off

Double ring infiltrometer

Saturated hydraulic

conductivity

Once off

Guelph permeameter

Retentivity curve

Lab

Once off

Biomass

lab

At harvest

Weighing and drying

Progress to date

-Gardening experiments for KZN have not be designed yet (this would be design after a

workshop on tunnel and drip kit design)

-Installation of runoff plots automatic weather station and runoff plots in KZN sites is yet to

happen

-Installation of weather station in KZN site, to confirm with Jon

-Installation of rain gauges in KZN is completed, farmers are taking rainfall measurements

-Measurements for soil properties and soil moisture content (gravimetric water content) in

KZN is delayed (this will only take place in the week of the 4th to 8th December 2017.

-Planting of trialand Installation rain gauges and runoff plots, as well as collection of

gravimetric water content samples in the Limpopo sites to take place in the week of 4th to 8th

December 2017.

-Installation of automatic weather station in the Limpopo site (week of 11th to 15th December

2017)

-Installation of water sensors in tunnels in theLimpopo site (week of 11th to15th December

2017)

Budget for quantitative measurements

This budget has been adjusted to suite the overall budget available better. Instrumentation has been

bought and installed in the Limpopo site and will be finalised in KZN by end -January 2018

WRC Quantitative measurements budget November 2017

Equipment

Item

unit price

Quantity

Total

Hydrometer

R0,00

Cylindrical cores

R0,00

Double ring infiltrometer

R620,00

R1 240,00

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 44

Geulph permeameter

R0,00

Watermark

R855,00

R0,00

Temperature Sensors

R996,00

R0,00

Loggers

R135,00

R0,00

Hobo Pro Software and USB cable

R2 200,00

R0,00

Davis Weather Station

R20 557,50

R41 115,00

Repair anemometeron Davis Weather

station

R580,00

Rain gauges

R125,50

R1 882,50

Runoff plots

R1 062,50

R47 812,50

Soil fertility test

R90,00

100

R9 000,00

Auger

R1 200,00

R2 400,00

Soil health indicators (GrainSA)

R1 000,00

R0,00

R104 030,00

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 45

5COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

By Lawrence Sisitka, Temakholo Mathebula and Khethiwe Mthethwa

Introduction and Background

One way to describe communication is that it is a process of acquiring, interpreting, and

disseminating information to all relevant stakeholders. Communication is the lifeblood of any

project as it allows the project team to collaborate, share, integrate and organise information in

order to realise project objectives (Ylitovia, 2015). In the WRC-CSA project, which involves many

different stakeholders, i.e. government departments, NGO’s, community participants, extension

practitioners and researchers, effective communication is of vital importance as collaboration will

be pivotal in the successful implementation of the project. At the most basic level, communication

consists of three different components, namely the transmitter, communication medium and the

receiver. The effectiveness of communication is determined by how well the transmitter/sender

communicates a message and on how well the receiver decodes/interprets that message.

Communication includes message transmission as well as feedback on the messagethat was

transmitted. Feedback is important in communication as it lets the sender know that the message

was transmitted successfully. If feedback is delayed, or not transmitted, communication

interventions will be required to enhance communication in order to prevent ineffective

communication (Zulch, 2014).

In order to come up with effective communication processes for the WRC-CSA project, there first

needs to be an understanding of what the project requires from its communication system and

which channels or communication methods will be most effective in meeting these requirements. A

communication plan can be used as a systematic and practical way of keeping all stakeholders

informed and making the project visible throughout its duration (Kerzna and Belack, 2010). There

are five primary questions asked in the communication plan to give clarity about the flow of

information.

1. Who is the transmitter/sender/primary source of information?

2. What information needs to be communicated?

3. When does this information need to shared/disseminated?

4. What feedback has been received on the information that was transmitted? This step is

important as it provides insight as to whether the information was communicated

successfully and presents an opportunity to enhance/improve communication

5. What are the mediums of communication?

Levels of Communication

Internal Communication

According to Zulch, 2015, internal and external communication are the two primary levels of

communication. Internal project communication is made of the project team which is responsible

for carrying out the goals and objectives of the project. The project team requires more regular

communication at every phase of the project and is usually made up of a diverse group of

stakeholders that can be geographically dispersed, have different educational backgrounds, speak

different languages and have different working methods and habits. A diverse project team means

that there may be more challenges in implementing the project successfully, especially if some

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 46

project team members have not met each other. Project communication becomes more challenging

with bigger and geographically dispersed project teams(Karzner & Belack, 2010). The WRC-CSA

project is being implemented in three different provinces, namely KZN, Eastern Cape and Limpopo

and has diverse team of engineers, researchers, field workers and community participants from

different organisations. The challenge for the project will be integrating the project goals with

existing programs and schedules of each organisation. Effective communication methods will thus

be pivotal in the successful implementation of the project. Effective internal communication

requires that every member of the project team is aware of the project goals, their specific roles

and responsibilities as well as the relevant internal communication channels. Being aware of and

adhering to time frames is important in internal communication. Internal communication involves

various communication tools such as oral, written, electronic and visual communication (Ramsig,

2009).

External Communication

Communication does not function in isolation but is a process. External communication which is the

second level of communication refers to how the organisation responsible for project

implementation interacts with the outside world which includes external stakeholders, media and

the general public (Ylitovia, 2015). External stakeholders are individuals/organisations outside the

organisation that affect or are affected by the project. Disappointments in many development

projects occur as a result of poor stakeholder collaboration during project implementation. Working

with external stakeholders is never an easy process as it comes with added challenges of different

goals and interests, different timelines, budget allocations and even political affiliations. This adds

to the complexity of effective project implementation (Zulch, 2014). Effective communication with

external stakeholders can be achieved by clearly outlining the interests of the different

stakeholders at the beginning of the project as well as the roles and responsibilities of each

stakeholder. External stakeholders for the WRC-CSA project include extension workers, NGO’s,

local councillors, local authorities (chiefs) as well as local/district municipalities. Communication

through media and the general public is the component of external communication that conveys

the image of an organisation to the outside world which is also known ascorporate communication.

Corporate communication is crucial in disseminating important information with outside audiences.

Often this type of communication requires institutional communication, good networking skills and

exceptional writing skills.

Communication for Community Development

FAO, 2014 defines communication for social development (ComDev) as a communication approach

that involves the systematic use of participatory rural appraisal tools and methods, combined with

community media and ICT’s with the aim to maximizeimpact, cost effectiveness and the social

sustainability of community development programs.ComDev is important in multi-stakeholder

projects involving rural communities as the success of these projects is highly dependent on the

local’s people’s perceptions and willingness to change. ComDev communication ensures that the

local people’s cultures, knowledge and capabilities are taken into consideration when formulating

project plans. If the project aims to empower rural stakeholders at the field level, then ComDev is

an appropriate approach to communication. The skills of rural practitioners with solid experience in

addressing rural issues are essential in the ComDev strategy (FAO, 2014)

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 47

In order to successfully address the present challenges in agriculture solutions must be shared

based collective decision making. Historically, top down approaches to development have been

ineffective in bringing about meaningful change. There is a need for deliberate and systematic

involvement of various stakeholders, especially rural participants in every phase of project

implementation (Zulch, 2014). In terms of climate change, coping with shocks and stresses from

unfavourable weather conditions requires a significant amount of information and relevant

knowledge as well as collective efforts to make rural farming systems more resilient to the negative

effects of climate change. Access to technology is not an end to itself but aims to bring out the

beliefs and perceptions of rural people which inform their current practices and livelihood

strategies (FAO, 2014). Community Development can be integrated into the whole project cycle

and if applied effectively it will be instrumental in project accountability and effectiveness.It will

serve as a means for rural participants to make their voices heard and thus contribute to bringing

about meaningful change. Moreover, Community Development is flexible enough to be incorporated

into a project at a later stage or even at the end but is most effective when integrated into the

project from the initiation phase.

WRC K4/2719

Mahlathini Development Foundation 48

Table 1: Different types of Communication in Project Implementation

Type of Communication

Purpose

Functions

Limitations/challenges

Core Competencies

Internal Communication

Facilitate communication

within a project. The flow of

information between project

team members

Punctual and effective

sharing of information

Enhance synergy

Avoid duplication

Integrating project plans into existing

projects/programs

Different educational backgrounds,

interests, work methods and habits

amongst team members

More difficult to manage for diverse

project team in different geographical

areas

Institutional

communication, good

writing skills, internet and

web skills

External Communication

Facilitate the flow of

information between project

team and external

stakeholders that affect or

affected by the project

Improve stakeholder

relations

Establish new

relationships

Mutual program support

Avoid duplication

Different stakeholders have different

goals, interests, timeframes and

budget allocations

Becoming territorial

Competition

Political affiliations

Excellent written and verbal

communication

Diplomacy

Patience

Corporate communication

Communication of project

mission to external

audiences

Use the media

To promote project

mission, share relevant

information with external

stakeholders

Media platform used may not reach all

the intended participants.

Institutional

communication, media

contacts, good verbal and

writing skills

Communication for

Development

Aims to bring about meaning

change through

empowerment of key

stakeholders

Allows Equitable access to

information

Encourages participation

Multi stakeholder dialogue

Collective action

Not as effective when introduced later

in project cycle

Communication research

Participatory approaches

Community media,

communication and

facilitation skills

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201749

Channels of Communication

There are three main channels of communication which are important in understanding the flow of

information in a project, mainly upward, downward and lateral communication. At the initiation

phase of every project it is important to identify how informationwill flow and how it will be

managed as well as which type of communication medium will be used in disseminating information

(Zulch, 2014). According to Ylitovia 2015, downward communication flows from top to bottom is

the most important in terms of internal communication as it involves communication with all

project team members involved in the project. Downward communication involves a lot of direct

communication through face-to-face discussion and project meetings between the project manager

and the project team. Upward communication flows from the bottom to the top and its primary

function is to keep the decision making parties informed. Lateral communication refers to

communication between the project leaders and the external stakeholders involved (Ramsing,

2009).

Upward

Communication

•Communication

from project

team to project

management,

•highlight of

issues, risks,

changes,

updates

Tools:

•Reports

•E-mails

Downward Communication

•Communication

from management

to project team,

•Communication of

meetings, tasks,

important dates

etc.

•Tools: Project brief,

project plan,

minutes, emails,

verbal

Lateral Communication

•Communication between project team

members

•Communication between project team and

community participants

•Communication between project team and

external stakeholders

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201750

The Need for a Communication Strategy

The full title of this WRC-CSA project is: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies

for the dissemination of Water and soil conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in

smallholder farming systems. This indicates clearly that collaboration and mediation are key

components of the project as is the dissemination of the outcomes of these processes. The

implication is clearly that the project will interact with and need to communicate with a range of

different groups.

One of the critical factors determining the effectiveness of any participatory research activity, such

as the WRC–CSA project, is the strength of communication both internally, between project

partners, and externally in terms of sharing the lessons from the project.Without effective

communication much of the value of any research programme can be lost, and in particular, where

the programme includes a practical implementation component, the effectiveness of this is very

likely to be compromised. The very notion of ‘participation’ itself implies the need for good

communication, as real effective collaboration is impossible unless communication between the

partners is clear and consistent.

The means of communication between different parties in different contexts can also vary

considerably, and while there are ever-increasing opportunities for communication, especially

through various ICT media, these are not always either accessible or favoured by all groups or

individuals. It is therefore important to understand which communication media are most used and

most trusted by different parties. For example, at a local level, between farmers, a face-to-face

discussion is generally the preferred means of communicating; indeed this is perhaps true for most

people. However this is rarely possible, and more distant communication media need to be

employed as appropriate in the many different contexts in which the project is functioning.

While much discussion of communication here will focus on the technical means through which

communication can be maintained, the critical factor is not the technology, although that is

important, but rather the willingness and openness to communicate. Communication cannot simply

be left to chance and needs to be approached proactively, based ona good understanding, as

discussed above, of the different preferences of the various partners and stakeholders.

Communication should be viewed as a vital element in any collaborative venture and approached

with the rigour applied to all other aspects. This will also require identification and allocation of

specific responsibilities among the project team in relation to establishing and maintaining

effective communication with different interest groups. For the WRC–CSA project, therefore, it is

necessary to establish clear guidelines for communicating with the various partners and

stakeholders. Hence the need for a Communication Strategy.

While such a strategy will focus primarily on communication between the project and partners and

stakeholders, an important additional element will be the opportunity to establish communication

between the partners themselves and between them and other stakeholders. It is through such a

communication matrix that a dynamic Learning Network can be developed.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201751

Figure 6: Simplified model of the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network, Middledrift Area, Eastern Cape

At this stage in the project the finer details of the communication strategy cannot be completed,

until all partners and their preferred methods of communicating have been identified, but the

foundation can be laid with a discussion of the key options, including direct contact, various cell

phone/smart phone options, computer and internet-based options, and local/community

radio/television and print media.

Partners and Stakeholders

The WRC-CSA project will interact with a wide range of people, both as collaborative partners,

and, more widely, as interested parties and stakeholders in the agricultural and academic sectors.

While it is not possible at this stage in the project to identify each of these groups specifically, it

should be possible to highlight the key groups likely to fall within the project’s ambit.

Collaborative Partners

It is intended during the implementation of the project to work directly with a number of different

groups:

Smallholder Farmers –these are the primary partners in the project, and it will be crucial to

maintain continuous and consistent communication with them. As they will be based in 3 distinct

and separate areas a number of different communication media will need to be utilised.

Farmer Associations and other Community Based Organisations (CBOs)–Many of the smallholder

farmers will be members of farmer associations or other groups such as women’s groups, youth

groups, church groups etc. While not all members of such groups willbe collaborating directly with

High Schools

Agric NGOs

Agric CBOs

Agric

College

University

Agric Extension

Services

Private training

providers

Farmers

Farmer

organisations

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201752

the project, they can be considered secondary partners, and it will be necessary to develop means

of communicating with them, as part of the dissemination component of the project

Agricultural Extension (or Advice

) Services –these have the mandate to support smallholder

farmers, and their direct involvement is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the activities and

practices developed through the project. They may have a key role to play in monitoring progress

with the practices. They have internet access which provides more options for communication.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) –Many of the smallholder farmers are likely to be

supported by other projects facilitated by agricultural and rural development focussed NGOs. Their

involvement, too, is vital for the effectiveness of the project activities, as they are likely to be key

partners in developing relationships with the smallholder farmers and facilitating the processes

leading to the implementation of the practices. They may also have a role to play in monitoring

activities. NGOs may be connected through quite sophisticated communication media.

Agricultural Training Institutes (ATIs

), University Agricultural Faculties, Agricultural High Schools

–In some areas it may be that the smallholder farmers are interacting with and being supported by

different agricultural training institutions, and where this is the case it is essential that these are

also brought into partnership with the project. Where this takes place, there will need to be good

communication with the institutions, which should have effective internet connections to facilitate

such communication.

The Water Research Commission (WRC) –The WRC is clearly a key partner, and the formal channels

of communication are enshrined in the contractual relationship between the commission and the

project. However there may be other opportunities for less formal but valuable communications

between the two.

Interested Parties and Stakeholders

The dissemination of the experiences and understandings gained through the project’s activities is

a central component of the project’s work. This will involve making these available to a wide

audience of parties with interests in and responsibilities for agricultural development, particularly

in South Africa, but also possibly within the SADC region and beyond.

Academic and Research Institutions, including the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) –such

institutions with a particular focus on agricultural development and/or food security should benefit

greatly from access to the experiences and outcomes of the project. These need to be

communicated appropriately in both formal and informal ways.

Government Departments –Agriculture is a provincial and national mandate, although local

municipalities will also have officials with an agricultural brief. The national departments of Water

and Sanitation (DWS) and Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and their provincial counterparts

should also have interests in the outcomes ofthe project. Departments concerned with social

development and local economic development at all government levels would also benefit from the

project’s experiences. It is important that as many relevant officials in these and other

departments have access to information generated by the project.

There is a current trend for Agricultural Extension Officers to be known as Agricultural Advisors

Formerly Agricultural Colleges. Some are also called Agricultural and Rural Development Institutes(ARDIs)

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201753

The NGO community–while the project is likely to interact directly with some local and even

national NGOs active in the areas where the project is working, other NGOs, including international

NGOs, operating in related fields would benefit from the lessons learned by the project. The

communication strategy should ensure that they, too, have access to the key findings.

International research and development organisations –the project is responding to a growing

interest in CSA being explored and promoted by a range of international players, from the Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, to the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food

Security (CCAFS) research programme under CIAT (InternationalCentre for Tropical Agriculture)

and other global research programmes. Links to these and other such organisations need be

included within a comprehensive communication strategy.

Promotion and Sharing of the Decision Support System

One of the key outputs of the WRC-CSA project is a Decision Support System (DSS). This is the main

focus of this Deliverable and the key elements of the DSS are described in detail in different

sections of this report. The aim of the project is to develop the DSS, pilot it with the farmers’

groups with which it is working and then make it available to others who wish to use it. As

described elsewhere in this document, the DSS comprises essentially two distinct components: a

technical component providing technical guidance onthe selection of appropriate CSA options for

farmers; and a facilitation component guiding the process for facilitating farmers’ use of the DSS.

While ideally farmers should be able to access and use the DSS independently, the reality is that

many, if not most of them, will require some facilitated support in order to do this effectively. It

therefore becomes necessary to identify means of promoting and sharing both components of the

DSS as widely as possible.

Potential Users of the DSS

The ultimate end-users of the DSSare the smallholder farmers themselves, and they will need to

access it in forms which are appropriate to their various contexts and situations. They may do this

as individuals or as collectives such as farmers’ associations, or in concert with local community-

based organisations (CBOs). Other key users are likely to be the facilitating agencies which may

support the farmers in their use of the DSS. These will include primarily agriculture and rural

development focussed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government agricultural

extension and advisory services. It is hoped that Agricultural Training Institutes (ATIs), agricultural

high schools, and university agricultural faculties will also see value in the use of the DSS in their

teaching programmes. Further afield, given the growing interest in CSA globally, it can be expected

that the DSS will be of interest to regional and international NGOs, various government agricultural

agencies and perhaps even the relevant United Nations agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture

Organisation (FAO).

Means of communicating with these varied and wide-ranging audiences have been discussed in

detail in sub-section 5.1 and it will just be necessary here to identify the key ways in which the DSS

itself can be shared. Although it will be possible to share information about the DSS, and promote

its use through almost every medium available and discussed above, the sharing of the actual

product will inevitably be more constrained.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201754

Sharing with Smallholder Farmers

The piloting of the DSS with smallholder farmers will relyvery much on direct interaction with

them, with the project team facilitating and supporting the use ofthe DSS. In this situation the DSS

will be presented in the form of hard-copy materials, translated into the appropriate languages.

The facilitation by team members will be guided by a facilitation manual again in hard copy, but

also stored on the facilitators’ computers, as, of course, will be the technical component of the

DSS.

Making the DSS accessible directly for smallholder farmers and their associations and CBOs

following the project may prove something of a challenge, as the only realistic means will be to

ensure that the two components are downloadable, probably in pdf format, from at least one

website, preferably from a number of websites, including perhaps the WRC website. It may also be

possible to persuade the WRC to print large numbers of hard-copies, which can be sent out on

request. If access is through a website the farmers will almost certainly need support from either

their local NGOs or agricultural extension and advisory services to access, download and print the

materials.

Sharing with NGOs, Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services and other Training

Institutions/Organisations

It can reasonably be expected that all NGOs and agricultural training institutions/organisationsnow

have access to the internet, the use of computers, and access to printing facilities. This would

suggest that having the DSS as widely available on the internet in a downloadable format would

make it accessible to all such organisations. The development of a WRC-CSA project website would

be the first step, and all materials and information can be made available there. This can be linked

to any social media site such as a Facebook page, to draw in more people. The project website can

then be linked to other sites used by the extension services, NGOs and others. The challenge here

will be to identify which websites are most appropriate, either to upload the DSS components

directly, or to link to sites on which they have been uploaded.

Three obvious sites would be the WRC website (http://www.wrc.org.za), the Manstrat

Extensionsuite online website (http://www.manstratais.co.za/Extensionsuite.aspxused by the

agricultural extension and advisory services), and theManstrat Agrisuite online website

(http://www.manstratais.co.za/AgriSuite.aspxdirectly accessible to everyone). In order to be

able to use any of these sites, of course, a partnership contract will need to be developed with the

siteholders; the WRC for their site, or Manstrat Agricultural Information Systems for the latter two.

However, many NGOs are linked to different sites and some research will be needed to identify

websites most commonly accessed by agriculture and rural development NGOs.

Sharing Internationally

The idea of sharing the DSS internationally is perhaps further down the road, and will probably only

be appropriate when the DSS itself has been tested and evaluated thoroughly and shown to be truly

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201755

effective. However, it is worthwhile identifying some of the key regional and global linkages, via

the internet.

Much of the information drawn on in the development of the DSS has come from the Climate Smart

Agriculture page of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) website

(http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/) and there may be potential for establishing

links with this. More specifically the FAO run a massive database of resources called AGRIS

(International System for Agricultural Science and Technology) accessible through

http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/index.doon which the DSS could be placed. Very recently, in

November 2017, the FAP launched a new website which they describe as a Climate Smart

Agriculture web platform. Essentially it is an updated on-line version of their CSA Sourcebook

(http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/) and CSA Strategy

http://www.fao.org/climate-change/en/ from which many other resources can be accessed. It may

be possible to agree links to the DSS through the Publications related to CSA.

The CIAT/CGIAR Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) programme has also been a

valuable source of information and inspiration, and there may be the possibility to negotiate the

sharing of the DSS through their website: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/.

Communication with and between the facilitators and farmers

Introduction

Effective communication is an absolute prerequisite for any participatory process, and particularly

where these involve a range of stakeholders, and especially where stakeholders are spread across a

number of provinces. In the WRC-CSA project the central relationship is between the project team

and the farmers, and those working closely with the farmers. The approaches to communicating

and sharing ideas described in this section, while focussing very much on the facilitator/farmer

links are entirely appropriate for the wider range of partners operating together in the field.

Inevitably the strongest form of communication, and indeed most people’s preferred means is face-

to-face, but clearly this is not always possible. Sharing ideas across wide geographical areas

requires the adoption of a creative approach employing a range of media appropriate to the various

individuals and groups involved.

Participatory videos

Participatory videos are examined in the context of documentary filmmaking, visual studies and

community development (Yang, 2016). This isan easy and fun way of making videos within the

community (Benset, 2010). It is a participatory culture that has developed since the age of

interactive digital media and technology began(Yang, 2016). The approach helps in getting people

to unite and plan together to make a change in the community. At the beginning, the community

learns to use the video through playing games or exercises. Anyone can gain the skills to make the

videos, and they teach each other how to do the filming. The community has a full control of the

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201756

process and the video. It is the community who decides what to keep on the video and who they

will share it with (Benset, 2010).

The following are the steps showing how participatory video take place:

•Firstly, set up a circle - farmers are orientated about basics on camera switch it off, on and

pause.

•The microphone is introduced –people are shown how to hold it and how far it needs to be

from the person speaking. Allow the community-learning to flow.

•Introduce the tripod – show how this helps stabilise the camera and reduce ‘shake’

•Help them decide what and how to film- use existing videos as examples of how to choose

informative visuals.

•Encourage the farmers to work in pairs –one in charge of the camera, and the other asking

questions and taking notes, as a journalist. Let them practice andmake the film.

•Participatory Editing –this is one of the most difficult parts of the process, where the film

and the sound have to be edited down to produce the most effective video. Considerable

support is usually needed for this and often a specialist is asked to do the editing with

guidance from th3e facilitators and farmers.

After their film is the ready help them organize a community screening –use this to evaluate the

process from the filmmakers’ and the audiences’ perspectives. Ask for permission, especially from

the people featured in the video, to show the video to others (Benset, 2010).

Participatory videos are valuable for recording communities’ discussions of their issues and

solutions. The videos can then be shared with the whole community. The videos are not only shared

within the local community but can also be shared with neighbouring communities or other

communities around the world. The videos can be easily shared at international conferences. They

can also be published on the internet in order to reach the influential audiences like donors and

enablers or policy makers (Benset, 2010). It is sometimes difficult to speak to powerful people face

to face therefore using the videos is the best way in which community members can share their

opinions and ideas (Benset, 2010). This method recognizes that we all have a valuable knowledge

and we are all agents (Benset, 2010). The process potentially reduces the power imbalance

between the researcher and the participants. It also contributes to empowering participants (Yang,

2016).

WhatsApp is an instant messaging system for smartphones, it uses the internet to send a text

message, documents, images, videos, location and audio messages to other users. To install, one

needs an android phone and a mobile number, it can be installed using an app store or a link shared

by another user. WhatsApp has a user-friendly chat wall which displays both received and sent

messages. In the same wall, audio clips, photos, and videos are displayed and are downloadable. It

also has an advantage that itshows a notification that message has been received and seen. Voice

recording is done by tapping on a red button on a chat wall, recordings can be sent instantly and

are stored in phone storage. WhatsApp is particularly useful for sharing information among groups

of people, and is primarily used for this purpose. The Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network (IBLN) in

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201757

the Eastern Cape, part of the WRC ‘Amanzi for Food’ project, uses its WhatsApp group almost

constantly to exchange ideas and photographs of the workthey are doing, and to ask advice from

each other.

In a study which was conducted in Nkhotakota district in Malawi of a group of women who was

involved in Agriculture, WhatsApp messengers were installed on their mobile phones and group

chats were created. Firstly, the training of women was facilitated, involving training the farmers on

the basic technical issues and management of Android phones to provide technical backstopping. An

orientation of women’s roles in moderating group chats to achieve their objectives was provided

and also it was ensured that farmers were conducting the right interviews. A schedule was

developed indicating dates, topics, and groups which would contribute their voices each week- The

schedule was developed to make sure that all communities participated and contributed their

voices. In each group, two women were identified by fellow members to be the representative of

their group on android smartphone, recording audios, capturing photos and videos as well as

conducting interviews(Banda, 2016)

WhatsApp was chosen because it was seen thatit has lower internet costs than other networks such

as interactive voice response. It was also chosen because one of the studies found that by February

2016 WhatsApp had a users’base of one billion, showingthat the app is one of the most popular

means of communication. There are many WhatsApp users and even people in rural areas use

WhatsApp these days, therefore, it was going to be easy for women in this project to seekhelp on

technical issues from other individuals in their areas who use the application without having to

depend on broadcasters or extension agents(Banda, 2016).

The study showed that most women were interested in gaining newskills on using mobile phones

and internet platforms. It was realized that there were unexpected innovations that evolved on the

WhatsApp group. In Nkhotakota the WhatsApp group has evolved into a "virtual learning

community". External agents were also added to the group. More farmers with mobile phones

wanted to be included in the group chats, therefore there were more discussions topics that were

being conducted, farmers were seeking agricultural advice fromtheir fellow farmers and expertsin

the group chat. Agricultural experts indicated that social media is a good way of providing

agricultural advice services since farmers areable to take and share pictures and ask questions.

Extension workers were able to know what was happening in other extension planning areas, and

the chat group also helps expects to know each other and know the activities they are doing within

their locations. Extension workers were able to orientate how farmers communicate agricultural

messages with their fellow farmers. Pictures that werebeing shared in group chats were able to be

used on fields days and farmer’s days to display what has been happening. Mr. Chizimbi who is a

local extension worker highlighted that farmers were able to post pictures on WhatsApp of their

Conservation Agricultural fields which allowed other farmers to seeand emulate how to implement

conservation agriculture practices (Banda, 2016).

A study conducted in India further explainsother WhatsApp advantages as:

Increases the scope and coverage of Agricultural Extension - In most communities, where few

people receive agricultural extension services, the use of mass media such as WhatsApp helps in

increasing the number of households receiving information and advice. Extension workers are able

to disseminate information to a large number of people without having limitations of time and

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201758

geographic boundaries and at the same time, they are able to receive a feedback through using this

tool (Devesh, 2017).

It is an easy and convenient way of communicating with the farmers - WhatsApp is easy because

it does not require high level ICT skills or expensive equipment. It can be operated through the

mobile internet rather than computer-based like other web-based portals. Communication is

flexible in a way that it can take place at any time and in any place with reasonable internet

connection (Devesh, 2017).

It usually requires less internet data- Compared to other applications, WhatsApp requires fewer

internet data bundles. This serves as an advantage since farmers may have limited internet data

available (Devesh, 2017).

It is an information enriched medium of information delivery - In other methods of

communication such as television and radio, information can be initially be well understood, but

later on, it can be forgotten, with WhatsApp information can be stored. In addition, with WhatsApp

information can be delivered in multiple ways which include audios, texts, photos and audio-

visuals, therefore this way of communication provides many possibilities for sharinginformation

since it is delivered in many ways(Devesh, 2017).

It is more participative and encouraging peer learning - As farmers are able to give feedback

through using WhatsApp, it encourages two-way communication between the facilitator and the

farmer. Even shy farmers are able to participate in WhatsApp. This tool promotes farmers’

networks and interactions. Farmers are able to communicate among themselves and also with the

facilitator. Farmers are often the ones who end up answering queries from other farmers. In that

case, farmers are able to build networks and trust one another(Devesh, 2017).

WhatsApp Limitations

WhatsApp usage requires careful management, and the goals of and objectives of using WhatsApp

in chat-groups should be clarified so that people do not lose enthusiasm, or abuse the system. Most

of the time in developing countries there is limited data pack available for usage, and it should not

be wasted on unnecessary messages. For example, there should be a strict rule that when a person

repeatedly sends jokes or any other form of unnecessary information, they will be removed from

the group (Devesh, 2017).

Radios

In many rural areas, radio programmes are used successfully to create a platformfor social learning

among and between local and neighbouring communities. Farmers who are involved in a certain

intervention can talk on radios, where they can be interviewed about their experiences of a new

technology. The World Bank in 2011 emphasizes that it is more convincing to other farmers to learn

about new innovations from another farmer than from an ‘outsider’, even if they are an expert.

The study which was conducted by Sailas Nyareza and Archie L. Dick revealed that community radio

services were most preferred as a medium of communication for rural farmers since there are not

enough facilitators to reach all farmers. Facilitatorsalso do not always have adequate

communication skills to effectively interact with farmers, therefore, farmers endedup lacking the

motivation to carry on with their work. Community radios covering rural areas, often broadcast

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201759

farming programmes in the local language which are relevant to farmers’own agricultural

activities. (Dick, 2011).

Radio programmes should be designed to be community centred, and farmers should feel involved

and responsible if (Khanal, 2011).

The advantages of using a radio as a communication tool are that radio does not require literacy

because radio requires farmers in listening ratherthan in reading(Dick, 2011). Rural populations

are generally familiar with radios because they are affordableand rural people can own them.

According to Zijp in his 2003 study, he found that in one of the projects in Malawi radio-training of

farmers in new agricultural techniques cost 3000 times less per hour than face to face extension

services (Dick, 2011). Radios are relatively cheap, portable and thelistener can get the message

while engaged in other activities(Kumar, 2000). When used in conjunction with cell phones radio

programmes can be highly interactive, enabling farmers to ask questions and share ideas.

However, radios also come with their limitations, which can include:

•Not everyone in the community owns a radio (Dick, 2011),

•Radios use batteries and batteries are expensive for rural farmers(Dick, 2011)

•Other people can misuse radios since it is accessible andavailable for the free expression of

ideas which if abused can lead up to building communities of hate(Hartley, 2000)

•There are few repair facilities for radios in rural areas(Oakley, 1997)

•If a farmer does not switch on the radio during the time in which the programme is

transmitted, there will be no further opportunity for the farmer to listen to the programme

(Oakley, 1997).

•The farmer cannot rewind the programme if he or she did not understand something

properly (Oakley, 1997). However this can be overcome to some extent through interactive

programmes, where farmers can call in with their questions either during or after the

programme.

Audio cassettes

Facilitators involved in many projects with farmers found audio cassettes very useful for the storing

and sharing of information, especially where information is very specific to one area for it to be

broadcast by radio. Alternatively, CDs can also be used for farmers who have CD playing

equipment; cassettes and CDs serve the same function.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201760

Figure 7: Audio cassettes

Advantages of audio cassettes

Audio cassettes (and CDs) are more flexible than radio. The tape can be stopped andreplayed, it

can be listened to at any time of the day, and the same tape can be used over and over again (new

information recorded and unwanted information being removed). For many copies, information can

be recorded in the studio, or a blank cassette can be used to record information in the field.

Cassettes can also be used for updating the facilitator’s technical information, sharing experiences

between farmer’s groups and between communities-interviews of individual farmers can be

recorded in one village and can be shared with other villages and also provide a commentary voice

that can be used in videos (filmstrips and slides set) to create a clear picture of what is being said

(Oakley, 1997).

Disadvantages of audio cassettes

Cassette recorders are less common in rural areas than radios, Rural people are less familiar with

cassettes recorders as a source of information, the cassette has to be distributed physically,

cassettes and cassette players need to be maintained, and should be kept free from dust as much

as possible (not always easy in rural areas). Recording heads should be kept clean by the use of

fluids such as white spirits, which are not always available in rural areas(Oakley, 1997).

Community Group meetings

This is a common extension method where a group offarmers in the local communityand a

facilitator come together to exchange information and ideas.There are different purposes for

which community meetings can be conducted. They can be for the purpose of information sharing

where a facilitatorcommunicates a specific new kind of information to farmers. It can be for the

purpose of planning where farmers review a particular problem and suggest potential solutions to

solve it. Meetings can also take place for discussing a specific topicof interest, e.g horticulture, or

beekeeping and these topics can be discussed in detailat a level of relevance to those

participating. Sometimes meetings can take place to discuss topicsof general interest to the

community.

The disadvantage of community meetings is that sometimes farmers may feel that their time has

been wasted in coming to meetings in a way that they end up not attending meetings. It is

therefore vital that all meetings have a clear purpose which is likely to be of real benefit to the

farmers

It is also very important that the facilitator makes thorough preparations and arrangements for the

meetings.

Demonstrations

To ‘demonstrate’ means to show. There is a clear difference between demonstration and

experimentation, although it is possible to combine the two. Ademonstration is showinga proven

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201761

technique; how it is implemented and its value. Anexperiment is trying out a new idea, sometimes

under artificial conditions, although experiments can also be conducted in real field conditions.

Demonstrations are often used to show different methods of doing things, or different practices,

and the results of these(Kumar, 2000).

The main goal of extension services is to demonstrate useful and practical information. On-farm

demonstrations are regarded as one of the most effective extensioneducation tools.

Demonstrations often require a lot of time and effort, but their fruit comes when the farmer is

ready to adopt the practice, when they consider it to be appropriate intheir real environment, this

is known as "seeingis believing" and also farmer who observes demonstrations and then applies

them to their own particular situation is regarded as a present and future extension leader

(Hancock, 1997).

For farmers who cannot read, demonstrations are the most appropriate method that can be used to

communicate. Farmers like to see how a new idea works through demonstrations(Oakley, 1997).

Demonstration makes every step to be easy to understand, It makes use of visual aid like charts,

posters, farmers become convinced and are encouraged to try a new practice(Kumar, 2000).

In the WRC Amanzi for Food project ‘Productive Demonstration Sites’ play a central role in sharing

knowledge of different practices. The name is derived from the need for the demonstration sites to

be productive to show the effectiveness of the practice. This also requires the sites to be well-

maintained to ensure continued productivity.

As mentioned above, there are times when demonstrations are linked to experiments. In such

cases there can be five steps in which the demonstrations are conducted:

•Diagnosis of the conditions, practices, and problems of farmers. Once the problem is

identified, there should be:

•Participatory design of a research demonstration program which will have the purpose of

solving the problem.

•The experimental demonstration is then conducted on farmer's fields

•The experiments are evaluated using the farmers’ criteria

•Recommendations are made based on the results of the evaluation(Hancock, 1997).

Farm visits/ homestead visit

This is a very commonway of communication, and farm or homestead visitsshould always have a

clear purpose and should be planned carefully. Farm visits can make a facilitator be familiar with

"What a man hears, he may doubt;

What he sees, he may also doubt; but

What he does, he cannot doubt."

Seaman A. Knapp

Agriculture Extension Pioneer

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201762

the farmer and his family (Hancock, 1997). The method helps in building trust between the

facilitator, organization, and farmers(Kumar, 2000). The facilitator gives information and advice

which is specific and relevant to farmer’s problem, the facilitator is familiar with the area of the

farmer and the problems she or he is facing. This method makes monitoring of the farmers’

practices easier and allows new recommendations to be made. This method promotes a good

partnership between the facilitator and the farmer, andstimulates farmers’involvement in

extension activities(Hancock, 1997). However, farm visits also have some limitations:

•They take a lot of time, much of it spent travelling, and choosing a time which is most

convenient to farmers is difficult.

•It is always possible that a date and time agreed with farmers is not honoured, as other

activities intervene, leading to considerable loss of time and costs

•They can be very costly, with much of the visit concentrated on a few, more responsive

farmers (Kumar, 2000)

•They require considerable organisation in terms of logistics, materials, catering etc.

Farmer-to-farmer Extension model

This is a model where farmers are fully involved in the in the generation and dissemination of

information and technology. The model allows farmers to be able to take full ownership of the

intervention. Farmers are involved in all the relevant processes of development and assimilation of

new technology rather than technology simply being transferred to them (Semakula, 2011). The

farmer to farmer extension approach is described as aprocess which gives respect to farmers’

traditional knowledge, it also emphasizes farmers’experimentation, sharing of knowledge and

innovation (Kruger, 1995). The level of adoption of technology introduced by farmers themselves

tends to be higher than if the technology is introduced by outsiders or external organizations.

Farmers become very concerned about the results if they participate fully in the innovation of

technologies (Duveskog, 2002).

Office Calls

This is a method whereby Extension office is placed in a convenient location(Kumar, 2000). This

method is not common in South Africa. Office calls is a method whereby the farmer visits the

facilitator in the office (Oakley, 1997). This can mostly be done when the framers have gained

more confidence with the facilitator. For the facilitator, office visits are less time-consuming.

Office visits need to be prepared(Oakley, 1997). There should be proper arrangements that should

be made, which includes noticeboard communication where there is a clear display accessibility of

the facilitator, useful and up-to-date information (Oakley, 1997). Regular office hours should be

announced and maintained(Kumar, 2000). The office should be neat, orderly and attractive

(Kumar, 2000), there should be visitors’ chairs waiting for appointments(Oakley, 1997). The

disadvantages of this communication method are that the facilitator will not be always willing to be

overwhelmed by farmers visit, instead can also rather prefer going for a field visit and not every

farmer will be able to visit the facilitator. In case a farmer is not able to pay a visit to the

facilitator, letters can be used.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201763

Telephone calls

The facilitator deals with farmers through the telephone, either landline or cell or smartphone.

Telephones are generally used to pass a specific advice or information, with the interaction being

quite short as the phone-call costs are very high. It is very important that the facilitatorspeak

clearly and she makes sure that main points that arebeing discussed are fully understood and are

noted down and kept in the farmer's records(Oakley, 1997).

Informal contacts

This kind of communication can occur when facilitators stay in a particular areafor a period of

time. It becomes more effective as the relationships develop between the facilitators and the

farmers. Otherwise informal interactions can take place at public events, such as a farmers’

market, holiday celebration or a religious events where the facilitatorswill be able to make

contact with the farmers who is involved in the project and talk about their problems. Information

and ideas are passedinformally (Oakley, 1997).

Internet-based platforms

While internet-based platforms such as websites, Facebook and other social media have previously

been considered out of the reach of many smallholder farmers, and are still, perhaps more

appropriate for better-resourced stakeholders, such as academics, researchers and government

officials, this is changing. With the advent of the smartphone and its increasing take-up by farmers

and others in rural areas, these platforms are coming within reach of many more people. This

enables them to engage with social media, and blogs linked to websites. Such media are still not

necessarily the preferred means of communication and information sharing for most farmers, but

they can certainly add to the mix.

‘Hard Copy’ Materials

Traditionally one of the main ways of sharing information, especially within a training context, is

through the use of what are known as ‘hard-copy’ or paper documents. While these can have quite

serious limitations, as described below, they are often favoured by both trainers, and trainees, as

they provide a permanent record of the information being shared, and can be used by trainees in

their work contexts, well beyond the lifespan of the course itself. For the trainers, these materials

can and should help guide them in their training processes. Perhaps the greatest value of such

materials, however, is simply that people like to have real paper documents to work with, and to

take with them from their training into their home and work contexts; they also help trainees to

share the information with friends and colleagues who did not attend the training.

The liking for paper documents is such that although the information in them can be made readily

accessible in various formats on different internet-based platforms, there is a very strong tendency

for people to want to download and print them rather than working with them in a virtual space.

Information to be shared should therefore be in formats which make this easily possible.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201764

Despite the popularity of printed documents, we should not overlook their limitations, the main

one perhaps being that the information in them is fixed in a particular time, and is not easy to

adapt or change according to changing situations or circumstances. Printed documents require

considerable sophistication in their use, with users needing to have the capacity to take the raw

information and adapt it into their own context, which in itself is a high level skill.

The WRC –CSA project will be developing two distinct training components for the promotion and

sharing of the DSS; the DSS itself, and a facilitation process for building farmers’ and others’

capacities for accessing, understanding and using the DSS. Both of these components will be

produced initially in printed form to support the piloting of the DSS with partners, with the longer

term intention being for others; NGOs, extension services and agricultural training organisations

and institutions to be able to facilitate the use of the DSS with their constituencies. The two

components will need to be developed in such a way that they foster and support the building of

adaptive competences not only in relation to the farming practices themselves, but also in the use

of the DSS.

Training manuals

A manual is a book of information or instructions(Tonge, 2010). When designing a training manual

it is very important to use a good content and a good design that makes the manual to be

appealing, credible and easy to read and understand information. Most manuals usually include

background and description of information, directions on how to use the manual, course planning

forms and checklists, guidance on tailoring each particular workshop so that it can match the needs

and wants of the participants. Specific, measurable and realistic learning objectives, clear and

complete programme content, integrated evaluation plan and tools(Hamza, 2012). One of the

limitations with manuals is that they are sometimes difficult to read, or to understand, and can

require quite high levels of literacy and content understanding. Manualare often more theoretical

in approach and fail to provide a practical approach(Tonge, 2010), although this need not be the

case. The level of information provided can be above the reader’s requirement, with writers adding

information they think is needed(Tonge, 2010).

The DSS and accompanying facilitation manual need to be developed in cognisance of the

shortcomings of many conventional training manuals, and

Handouts

Handouts are basically sheets of paper sumarisinginformation based on the topic of interest within

a group of people.It is used to convey key points and ideas from lectures or larger units such as

modules or chapter goals to participants(Bligh, 1998). Handouts come in many different forms,

depending on the people who create them. Handouts canincorporate images, photos and pictures

to help in emphasizing the information being explained. The purpose of handouts is to help people

to catch up and understand information that was not clear during workshops or presentations

(Mayank, 2013). The advantage of using a handouts is that they cancreate audience participation,

in that the information contained in them can be discussed,and it is easy to update and maintain

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201765

handouts. Participants do not easily forget the information that has been shared and also presented

on handouts because handouts are being used as a reference (Guffey, 2011). Creating handouts is

cost effective and it can cover lot of information(Ahead, 2005). A disadvantageof using a handout

is that participants can loseattention to the speaker or else handouts may cause distraction rather

than help in giving a reference(Ahead, 2005). However if the handouts are distributed

immediately following discussion of the topic at hand, in order fortrainees to have a good summary

to share with others in their home and work contexts, they can be very valuable.

Considerations in determining appropriate educational and communication methods

There are many factors that should be considered when choosing communication methods to use in

a given programme. These factors will be based on the preferences or special needs ofselected

participants. Different people have different learning styles and different waysin which they prefer

to share information. These factors can include:

•Literacy and reading level - the level of farmers’ education will influence the choice of

learning tools that the facilitator chooses to use in a learning process. For instance, farmers

cannot be given a case study to read if their level of reading is low(Richardson, 1999)

•Socio-economic - some of these methods requirethe learner to have access to equipment

that they may not be able to afford. For instant, receiving emails requires a farmer to have

a computer or smartphone and access to adequate data. Many smallholder farmers do not

have such access which can be very expensive(Richardson, 1999).

•Lifestyles - it is very important to choose a method that allows flexibility such as home

study kits, for people with very busy lifestyles, who need to be able to work at their own

pace and in their own time(Richardson, 1999).

•Cultural relevance - it is important to learn which are most appropriate education or

communication approaches in different cultural contexts(Richardson, 1999).

•Financing - it is very important to conduct a proper budgeting exercise before choosing a

communication method because some methods are very expensive to deliver(Richardson,

1999)

•Time - it is important to conduct thorough planning since some methods may require more

time to plan and implement. The timeline of a project should be specific(Richardson,

1999).

•Human Resources- some methods can require additional staff or volunteers to assist in

carrying out the learning experience, and they may require specific skills(Richardson,

1999)

•Facilities or Equipment - some methods require a special facility or equipment e.g. making

a participatory video requires computer access for the editing process, therefore a

computer should be made available so that the implementation of the programme becomes

a success (Richardson, 1999).

In most participatory processes a range of communication methods are used at different times,

with different groups, and in different contexts. The idea is to select, with input from all partners

and stakeholders a mix of methods which are practical and appropriate for different groups.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201766

6CAPACITY BUILDING

Team Capacity building

A capacity building process is in place for the implementation team: Field staff for Mahlathini

Development Foundation, the Institute of Natural Resources, The Association for Water and Rural

Development and Lima RDF.

-Field staff, interns (and students) for these organisations are being involved in the design,

planning and implementation of the decision support framework and system through a

number of process:

-Staff members and interns participate in writing and review teams for deliverable reports

including summarising independent research briefs (e. g. desk top review, specific CSA

practices, methodologies, quantitative measurement techniques etc )

-The whole team participates in joint planning sessions

-In these session information provision through small presentations is included for increasing

knowledge around climate change, analysis of case studies and the like

-Small groups undertake specific tasks and

-Write-ups and reports are undertaken by team members

-Sub-teams undertake specific actions such as the design of a community based process,

running workshops at community level and analysis of monitoring data.

-Senior team members provide a mentoring and review role

-Comments from staff members regarding this process have included that it has helped them

a lot to learn to write more formal reports, that they initially were a bit lost and found it

hard to apply the information they found to this particular application, but now are starting

to appreciate the scope of the project and what it entails.

Postgraduate students

Sanelisiwe Tafa-Fort Hare University (EC).

He has completed his Masters in Agricultural Economics, using information provided by the GrainSA

Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme supporting Conservation Agriculture implementation for

smallholder farmers. His work on cost-benefit analysis will be useful as a model for the present

work

He has written a paper entitled: Farm Level Cost-Benefit Analysis: The evaluation of economics

of conservation agriculture in Bergville Town in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province of South Africa

His abstract for this paper reads as follows “On-farm economic benefits between conservation and

conventional agriculture are not thought to be that pronounced. General inferences can be made,

however; a comprehensive assessment of the net private benefits from greater use of conservation

tillage is necessary. With the use of Gross Margin as well as appraisal indicators such as Net

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201767

Present Value, Benefit Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Returns, the study revealed that there are

more incentives for adoption of conservation agriculture(productivity changes and reversal of soil

degradation) over conventional agriculture. The study therefore recommends that the promotion

of conservation agriculture should be encouraged and this is promising more incentives in the long-

run.

Khethiwe Mthethwa (University of KwaZulu Natal)

Khethiwe has submitted her Honours thesis in Rural Resource Management within the Faculty of

Agriculture. She has also worked within the Conservation Agriculture ambit during this year, but has

also been a team member for this research process. Her Honours paper is entitled: Investigating

the sustainability of adoption of conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Bergville.

In summary her study argues that “Farmers have gained necessary skills and knowledge to be able

to sustain the adoption of the CA(Conservation Agriculture), suggesting that farmers can stand on

their own and continue to practice the CA even in the absence of the CApromoters. It was also

found that farmers who adopted the CA are willing to share their experiences and knowledge with

other farmers in the area. This increases the likelihood to expand the adoption of CA. More

research needs to be done to find out communication strategies that can be used to communicate

new innovations, which is technology and knowledge-intensive like CA. It is recommended that

more research be undertaken to find out whether farmers are willing to extend mixed cropping in

their plots. Further research also needs to be conducted to find out more about factors which have

influenced small-scale farmers to abandon CA practices.

She has provided information in her study that suggests that the learning and implementation

process of the CA SFIP supported through GrainSA, namely farmer innovation development and

working with farmer innovation platforms, provides for sustainable adoption of CA among

smallholders.

Mazwi Dlamini (UWC-PLAAS)

Mazwi has now completed 1 year of a 3 year part-time Masters programme through the Programme

for Land and Agrarian Studies at UWC. He has submitted his desktop review and research

methodology sections.Mazwi’s study is to involve a detailed analysis ofr adoption of CA under the

GrainSA SFIP. His study is entitled: Factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of

Conservation Agriculture in smallholder farming systems, and the implications of these for

livelihoods and food security in Bergville, Kwazulu-Natal.

He intends to work within an Action research framework using focus group discussions (including

tools such as well being ranking, social mapping, transect walks, seasonal diagrams, participatory

mapping and spider diagrams for analysis of relationships).Other tools that will be used include

questionnaires(household and individual) and life histories.Household questionnaires will be

administered for the purposes of establishing a baseline of livelihoods and general food security

status in the area, and this will be undertaken both pre- and post- season in order to assess changes

as a result of adoption of CA. Individual questionnaires are to focus on the intricacies of their CA

production processes.Data to be collected will include information of how the households are

composed, sources of income, and how much these contribute to household livelihood and food

insecurity. Information on productive assets within the households will also be explored, along with

their control and use. Rural livelihoods are diverse and change all the time in attempts to manage

risk and improve security in the household and life histories across a certain timeline may help

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201768

capture changes that might have taken place. Data to be collected will look at assets and their use

over time.

Palesa Motaung (University of Pretoria)

Palesa is registered for Masters in the Department of Plant Production and Soil Science and will also

Focus on Conservation Agriculture, albeit a different aspect. Her study is entitled: Quantifying the

restorative effect of Conservation Agriculture on the degraded soils of the upper Drakensberg

area of Bergville, Kwazulu-Natal using qualitative versus quantitative soil quality indicators.

Her study aims to evaluate the various methods that can be used to assess soil quality while

investigating the changes (if any) in soil quality of degraded soil under CA management.She will

also attempt to identify appropriate indicators that can be used to monitor changes in soil quality.

She will be conducting soil heath tests and analysis for a number of farmers in three villages in the

Bergville area, who have been involved in CA for 3-4 years. She will look at a number of different

trials including conventional tillage controls, mono-cropped and inter-cropped plots and plots

where cover crops have also been used in rotation to ascertain the differences in quantitative soil

health indicators. She is intending also to use the VSA (Visual Soil Assessment methodology) to

come up with a soil quality index that can be benchmarked against the quantitative assessments.

Sylvester Selala (UKZN)

Sylvester is intending to register for a PhD that will extend across the disciplines of Crops Science

and Hydrology. He has not written his proposal as yet, but has already started focussing on some of

the quantitative aspects of his proposed research through this programme. He is intending to use

quantitative and qualitative assessment techniques related to water productivity of various CSA

practises as one of the central themes in his research.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201769

7APPENDIX 1: WRC PLANNING MEETING: 09-11 OCTOBER

2017

PRESENT: Erna Kruger, Chris Stimie, Lawrence Sisitka, Jon McCosh, Temakholo Mathebula, Mazwi

Dlamini, Sylvester Selala, Phumzile Ngcobo, and interns Khethiwe Mthethwa and Nozipho Zwane

DAY 1: AGENDA

Trajectory for the year 2018 and milestones that need to be reached

1. Objective of Meeting

Overview of what we going to do in 2018, purpose of meeting is to plan activities and allocate time

for each area, make decisions about overall methodology, criteria we want to use for the decision

support system, look at indicators and explore quantitative deliverables.

2. Output for today

Table of contents for deliverable three, includes practical activities. Deliverable 3 needs to be

submitted by the 15th of January.

Final decision on sites for the WRC project

3. Budget

Deliverable 1 and 2 paid for, WRC was satisfied with submissions. There is also some money from the

First Rand Foundation that will help offset the pressure on the WRC budget.

ACTION: Chris: Chameleons: possibility of obtaining chameleons for free, at least 2 or 3 chameleons in

each site.

Decision Support System

(Part 1)

1. Practices (broad basket>likely)

2. Criteria

We need to have a suite of practices that are suitable in each context, we need to come up with criteria

to use when selecting thepractices (e.g. costs, skills incl. Amanz for food). The criteria will be the basis

for the decision support system. The methodology selected can be applied everywhere but criteria

will be specific to research area, i.e. they will be a set of generic and selective criteria (technical,

weather, facilitation, farmer)

The present list of practices needs to be reviewed, tidied up and finalised in a way that it can support

the overall DSS.

Decision Support System (Part 2)

Methodology: How will the decision support system be implemented/facilitated in a community

setting e.g. PID, people choose something that they compare with what they doing already and select

the best practice based on outcome.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201770

Media Access….how will the information be distributed? Come up with an overall communication

strategy

Decision Support System (Part 3)

Lawrence:Implementation Monitoring (indicators): monitoring review process must be integral to the

whole process, i.e. it must be part of implementationand not left until the end. We need indicators

on the process side and on the practical side.

Deliverable 3 Outcomes

1. Practices

CSA: Climate Smart Agriculture-we need to clearly outline what practices we refer to when talking

about CSA practices. Principles of CSA:

A. Increase in productivity

B. Increase resilience to climate change and variability

C. Reducing agriculture’s contribution to climate change

These are made explicit within the choice of practices for the database-the whole basket and then

again in the monitoring –as they are unlikely to be explicit criteria chosen by farmers

In terms of monitoring- especially related to mitigation one getsinto the debate of carbon –credits,

offsets, tax etc and the very real difficulty of measuring carbon sequestration

Difficulty in measuring Organic Matter in soil: difficult to measure as there are many factors to

consider, e.g. temperatures, moisture levels in the soil, where soil OM tests are conducted. (Indices,

proxies, weighing of criteria)

John: How many CSA practices are we looking at: if we come up with 20 practices, and farmers select

all of them, it will be very difficult to measure the results. Chances of people selecting many practices

are slim.

It also means we need to have a process for farmers to prioritize, according to their criteria which

practices to start with and which are the most important

Erna: From AWARD case studies, people who selected a wide range of practices saw a more coherent

outcome andgot better results than people that selected onepractice. So, it will be important to

somehow group the practices that are synergistic.

2 Categories

a. Vegetable production, Field crop production, Livestock management, Water and soil

management, Indigenous practices (the five fingers according to the AWARD model of

implementation)

Selection of practices,will be based on information dissemination, people will choose based on

familiarity and ease of implementation.

What information base will we use for the decision support system (information sources,

databases, training material, Amanzi for food, WRC SAPWAT, extensionsuite online, local

technical information?)

b. Technical/specialist

Weather: ecotones/ecozones/agro ecological zones: information scaled down to local level.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201771

c. Facilitation: what specialist information is required and what underpinning knowledge do we

require to make informed decisions.

John: ISCW (Inst Soil Climate and Water), a soil scientist is required as part of the team, Piet Nel is

a soil scientist working under ARC that can assist and does not charge a lot, if hired on an individual

basis. Sue Walker: works for the ARC and can be good contact to work with on climate databases.

d. Scale: Farmer segmentation: important to understand context in which practice is applied, e.g.

mulching may not be practical for big fields. Also, practices introduced at garden level may not be

applicable at field level.

e. Budget: R10 000-R20 000 foreach learning group for inputs, to take away the risk from the

farmesr.

Project to be implemented in three provinces: EC, KZN, LIMPOPO

3Decision support system: implementation method

What would you do if you approach a new learning group to introduce CSA?

Look at present activities, agriculture, recent history, discussion of practices i.e. climate smart

agriculture:

-Livelihoods contexts

- Past-present-future

-Start with agric the discussions, resources, issues, present practices, issues, potential

alternatives,

Erna: differentfactors affect approach in introducing CSA. In Limpopo it was easy to introduce CSA

because the changes were more apparent, whereas in Bergville, the change is variability, i.e. irregular

weather outline. So the introduction of CC concepts needs to be more carefully handled toensure

that people can differentiate impacts caused by CC as opposed to those caused by past and present

human and farming activities, and those that are ‘just’ weather related.

There are three related processes that can support this process: GrainSA -CA, AWARD -ResilimO and

Wesbank –Innovation Fund

AWARD CASE STUDY –An example of CC dialogue facilitation at community level

OVERVIEW OF DIALOGUES PROCESS: Have you ever heard about climate change and what is

your understanding of it?

THE BASICS OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SYSTEMS (introduction to core contexts)

Module 1: EXPLORING CC IMPACTS SYSTEMATICALLY (talk about what scientists have found

regarding CC and relate it to local, tools: mind map/seasonal diagrams)-look at different

climate change scenarios to base practices on. And explore impacts of CC on livelihoods and

farming. One day workshop

Module 2: EXPLORING ADAPTATION OPTIONS AND MAKING PLANS, basedon systemic

potential impacts explore systemic adaptation options for a sector

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201772

GrainSA Conservation Agriculture

PARTICIPANTS (existing, positive, aspiring), mainly work WRC project into CA. there are well settled

existing learning groups and sites where measurements are already taking place. These canlink to and

support the WRC process.

The thought here is to introduce the DSS both in existing learning groups under CA-so an expansion

of what they are now focusing on, with the likelihood of doingthe quantitative measurements and

trials with individual members from these groups and in new groups-just starting out. It is likely that

the facilitation process- or at least emphasis of different steps in the process will differ between new

groups and existing ones.

Potential new sites (CA): SKZN: Plainhill and St Elois. It is mportant to stay coherent with the sites.

Existing sites in Bergville: Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Stulwane New Groups: Thamela, Thunzini

First Rand Foundation /WESBANK/FS Funding

Funding is mainly for Innovation (R 250 000, November to March 2018, joint funding for MDF and

Lima)

AREAS:

•KZN :Lima- NtabaMhlophe, MDF-Bergville

•Limpopo: Lima- Sekororo, MDF- Lower Olifants_Memetje

METHODOLOGY:

The intention is to work within the ambit of Food security implementation andwork with existing

learning groups for Lima and MDF tointroduce Climate Change Adaptation concepts, then elucidate

adaptive measures and practices with the farmers and come up with practices to experiment with. So

it is one round of the same process of setting up a DSS within the WRC project. It can assist with field

level facilitation support (money to run workshops0 and also limited funding for the experimentation

(in this instance primarily tunnels and drip kits) along with intensive gardening techniques and S&WC

The idea is to use this process to design and run the first round of facilitator level training to start to

solidify the DSS aspects on that level, develop some training material and start on farmer level learning

materials;

The methodology for this at community level is as follows:

-Context

-CC dialogue

- Practices/principles

-DSS - Matrix: practices vs. criteria

-Farmer Experimentation

It is Important for farmers to be an integral part of monitoring process. Existing groups can help guide

how to adjust the DSS for it to be more effective.

DAY 2 Agenda

Presentations of case studies –from Deliverable 2

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201773

Criteria linked to categories (two groups)

Practices (doable 1 group)

Process (1 group)

After Lunch

CoP: Stakeholders

Quantitative measurements

Capacity building (post grad and social learning)

1. Presentations

Short presentations of what was written up in Deliverable 2 to remind the whole team of what these

are and how they will be incorporated into this work.

Infrastructure/ engineering Practices: Chris

Technology developed in recent years, accessible, doable and replicable. Challenges with accessing

materials from local hardware stores. Two technologies, drip kits and tunnels

Drip kits

This is an old idea that has not worked well in the past, hasalso been tried in Limpopo, but recently

working better –as kits are being developed that farmers can set up for themselves. This removes the

restrictive nature of pre-designed kits and allows capacity building in the community.

Kits consist of a 20l bucket –with sand and stone filter for greywaterand 2x5m long dripper lines-

made up of string drippers that farmers themselves make.

The idea is that a 15mm PVC pipe is used, it is expensive but accessible, plus 1.8 mm/15 gauge surgical

needle (not vet needles), cheaper to purchase in bulk. Needle is put straight through the pipe, through

both sides, and a fish line is threaded through the holes and a piece of bailing twine is hooked and a

knot is made on each side. Bailing twine must be tight, if it’s loose it drips too much. Spacing is 300mm,

and it is then put in a 25 lit bucket, which is placed at 1.5 m height. To make the filter; Mutton cloth is

placed at the bottom of the bucket to ensure sand or particles to not get into the dripper lines, gravel

is placed inside bucket and sand is placed on top (wrapped in mutton cloth with a knot at the bottom

and at the top). When grey water is poured on it, it is filtered. Sand has to be replaced after a period

of time as it becomes saturated with soap. Three different buckets are needed for three trench beds

(1mx5m). Irrigation is done every day and this provides 10 ml a week/ 10 ml in two weeks is not

enough.

John: How bad is soap? Soap is too alkaline, so when it reacheshigh concentrations it killsplants.

Farmers need to put clean water at least once a week to wash out the soap. Ash can also be used to

neutralize soap as it binds phosphates and nitrates found in soap. Grey water works best with mulch,

as mulch helps reduce build up.

Drip kits cost ~R300 each

Tunnels- shade cloth structures

Again, these are kits that are provided that farmers themselves construct. The kits are designed to use

mostly locally available materials and to be highly resistant to wind damage and breakage

The tunnel is 4.2. metres by 5.9 metres,with four arches. Westarted with steel that was bent

commercially, then went to PVC plastic 50ml (not easily accessible). What is usednowis galvanized

(does not need to be painted) conduits which are bent on site (2 halves for each arch). These are then

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201774

joined with conduit links. The arches are pressed directly into the ground in pre-made narrow

cylindrical holes. A hollow steel pipe is used to make holes. Net used is 40% grey/agricultural net.

Maintenance is very important and it is very important to have a very robust system from the get go;

it can last for + 20 years.

Tunnel kit coast ~ R 3000

The above is a commercialprice but if you do it yourself you can get away with half of this amount.

Individual smallholders have got toa point where one tunnel generates at least R10 000/annum which

enables them to be able to buy these materialsfor themselves. There is also a business opportunity

in this because people can supply the kits and assist with construction. This came as a result of the

Mining CSI programme. These kits are available to specification and only thing required is for you to

set it up. The suppliers (Sociotechnical INterfacing) deliver if 10-15 orders come in and also provide

the training.

AMANZI FOR FOOD: Lawrence

WRC realisedthat over the yearsthey have done a lot of research on water conservation andrain

water harvesting but the results of the research was not reaching the people the research was aimed

for. WRC commissioned the Environmental Research Centres (ELRC) at Rhodes UNiversity to assist in

making information accessible for small scale farmers and the public in general.

The concept is based on social learning: communities of practice (CoPs) around rain water harvesting

are set up including stakeholders such as extension officers, government and researchers, awa

farmers. What was developed was the training of trainer’s course, for all stakeholders involved. These

CoPs are learning networks where participants share information and implement practices together.

Media is a critical componenet: local radio, whatsapp, local newspapers, word of mouth, internet (for

those that have access) as communication is vital in communities. Important to have someone

focused on maintaining communication/updates on media platform chosen.

Training material was WRC research.

Categories looked at:

1. Scale (scale bands): bigger scale = higher risk, mainly crop

-Scale 1 (umzi)-homestead garden, school garden, attached or close to homestead less than 1

-Scale 2 (small arable field), more than 1-2 ha, also involves higher levels of technology

-Scale 3 (large arable, livestock): higher level of technology, has employed people

Aspiration: people want to grow in terms of production, but it is not always the case. Up scaling takes

a lot more resources.

2. Criteria

-Subsistence, semi-commercial, commercial

- Labour

-Input requirements

-Technology requirements risk

- Aspiration

3. Indices

- Low-med-high

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201775

NB!! Remove barriers to learning

Different practices are suitable to different levels of production. E.g. saaidamme are a great way of

harvesting and saving water but small scale farmers may not implement it as it is done on a large scale.

Navigation tool very useful in obtaining useful information for rainwater harvesting and soil water

conservation.

Agroforestry: John

WRC research project, implemented in Nokweja and Bergville with Mr Madondo. Field trials have been

going on for two years. Researcher managed trials are focused on two types of systems. Improved

fallow (two legume species, pigeon pea) and legumes intercropped with agroforestry species. Plant

material is worked back into the soil. Measurements of water use, nitrogen fixation (relationship

between nitrogen fixation by legumes and requirements by plants) and a number of other indicators.

The project in Nokweja (intercropping, relay cropping etc), uses Sesbania Sesbanand pigeon peas and

bulgardia albia (used in East Africa, grows leaves in winter and in summer, leaves drop). The Bergville

site was abandoned due to people letting cattle into the fields. Objective of project: measure water

use efficiency of fodder crops and develop a guideline for extension officers. Uses of crops: fodder,

firewood, nitrogen fixation. Idea is for farmers to see the net benefit of increased yield over time, even

though they may sacrifice some of their maize crop yields when planting agroforestry species.

Conservation Agriculture: Sylvester

Three principles, focus is on minimum disturbance, planters don’t disturb soil so impact was not

measured. Soil cover wasmeasured, developed a square which was thrown randomly and the

percentage was measure based. Infiltrometers and spades were used to measure water infiltration in

the soil. Results are highly variable, more measurements need to be conducted. Other measurements,

soil colour, texture, effective rooting depth, tillage pan and rainfall data. Five rain gauges were placed

in community and farmers were asked to record rainfall which worked quite well.Runoff plots were

also done in two households in Bergville, also had mixed results. Percentage germination was also

measured, linked to yields.

Measurements:

-Soil cover

-Infiltration rates

-Visual soil assessment

-Rain gauges

-Runoff plots

-% germination

-Soil fertility and soil health tests.

Coming up with a Decision Support System

We started by working on potential categories to be used in specific situations/localities to decide on

an appropriate basket of options of practices

Categories

•Soil management-soil fertility, soil health, soil erosion control

•Water management-manage available water, increase available water

•Crop management- types, productivity, manage pests and weeds

•Natural resources: landscape management, land use planning,

•Livestock-rotationalgrazing systems, relay cropping and cover crops under CA systems… It

might be more viable to look at integration systems, look at livestock within the CSA context,

information on livestock is availablebut the facilitation component is missing, might be

complicated to look into livestock as there is no one on the team who has expertise on

livestock management.

We reviewed the existing database on practices we put together for Deliverable 1 and made some

comments regarding practices to include/exclude, scope, description etc inorder to finalise the

database. Issues to be considered:

-Modifications to table e.g. improve soil fertility, recommendations were chemical based

solutions, natural based solutions, and then have sub categories specifying practices.

-Introduce a few more ideas e.g Push-pull: pest control planting Desmodium in field and

Napier grass on the sides.

-Criteria: Cost, technical difficulty, labour, maintenance scale.

-Practices: System, appropriate scale, do-ability (can the farmer implement it in their system?

short term vs. long term benefits)

-Ranking according to scale (plot, field, farm)

oLow cost and easy to do= 1

oLow cost difficult to do= 2

oHigh cost and easy to do =2

oHigh cost and difficult= 3

-Suggestion to put criteria into different columns. Most practices were a 2 except for

minimum tillage and then add a column with the scale.

Way forward: reformat table on practices and circulate edited version –Chris, Sylvester, Jon

2. Processes (report back)

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

already some levelof relationshipand interest. These steps work towards building a CoP /learning

group:

-Understanding climate change and impact (our understanding, community understanding)

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201778

-Climate change and agriculture (farmer roles and responsibilities, current practices/challenges)

-Changes, reasons and responses; Responses (what are we doing already, what do we think can

do that will help, willingness to change [* Comfort Zone game- comfort zone- stretch –panic-

growth], discussions around change, most important problems, what do we foresee in the future

based on what we are doing, effectiveness of responses)

-Who do we want to work with- outside organisation, local institutions, learning groups new

relationships, new ways of working together

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

and how well has it worked.

-Introduction of practices

a. Reality map; present agricultural practices and impact

b. Walk about in village

c. Desktop review

d. Focus group discussions

e. Prioritising- defining criteria

f. Practices that mostly match criteria (short visual introductions for likely doable practices

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

practices

g. Ranking exercise linking criteria to practices

h. Learning group members choose practices they would like to implement or experiment

with. This could mean

i. subgroups dealing with different topics (e.g. gardens, fields livestock)

ii. whole learning group doing practices in succession (e,g start with gardens first)

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

then implement diversion ditches and stone bunds etc

iv.Individuals choose an initial set of 5 practices for example and then upon review

decide how to build on that in a following season…

i. Implementation, training and mentoring, demos, cross visits, specialists (sources of

expertise), lead farmers

j. Monitoring and review.

3. Quantitative measurements

(Look at deliverable 2 report, last chapter)

Soil Physical properties

1. Water retentivity/ bulk density: Monitoring bulk density requires info on soil organic carbon, bulk

density is very important, take steel ring, put it in soil, take it out, weigh it wet and weigh it dry,

mainly weighs density when soil is dry, useful in showingsoil health in fields, gardens, forestry,

also important in reviewing porosity over time). Bulk density used to check relevant changes and

track changes over time. Soil bulk density decreases with increasing organic matter. Increased bulk

density is an indication of mismanagement, e.g continued ploughing–Could use this a proxy for

organic matter. Need lots of samples 20-30.

Frequency: Pre planting, at planting and at harvesting.

2. Soil Structure measures-mean weight diameter –a laboratory test indicating aggregate stability.

Loss of OM means loss of structure, aggregate stability is alsoagoodmeasure of soil structure

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201779

and current soil health tests include this. Shatter tests infield can also be used and this will be a

good way tosee differences-drop from certain height and see how the sizes break up,even

distribution of sizes is good. No. of samples for aggregate stability-20-30 sub samples. An M shape

or W shape(of field sampling) is normally used and random samples taken. For trench beds under

a smaller area this could be difficult

Soil Chemical properties

Cedara - (KZN) (Limpopo)

4. Fertility: NPK Ca, Mg, acidity (acid saturation, cation exchange capacity), near infra-red carbon-

soil OM acts a buffer to soil acidity. Samples should be taken to the same labfor a consistent

process-to pick up trends. EC does have a soils lab, Fort Cox however its good practice to take

samples in the same lab. Comparison will be within sites and not across. Different practices and

track changes over different climatic conditions. Samples will all be taken to Cedara for

consistency.

5. Electrical conductivity: -will be done separately(optional) indicatespresence of salts in the soil

which is more important from an irrigation perspective. A Chameleon (red, yellow, green) can

also be used to measure plant available water. This a usually under irrigation conditions and dry

land conditions are not so conducive. They are more suitable in gardening situations .

The more Ca and Mg in soil the better the cation exchange capacity. Difficult to show that the

improvement in OM will also improve the cation exchange capacity. Ca and Mg content in soil can

be changed by irrigation.

Soil biological properties

6. Soil health indicators:Laboratory work, field tests, microbial biomass. Might be more effective to

compare practises with trendsover time. TESTS: SOLVITA TESTS/NEMATODE TESTS: check

medium term availability of nutrients in the soil, can give recommendedon how much to apply

on top of what is already available.

Water productivity

7. We needto have weatherstations if we willbe checking water availability in the soil, weather

station must be at the same altitude as field, about 500 m away or at most 5 to 6km away.

(Measures evapotranspiration, models crop growth according to reference evapotranspiration.

Also rainfall, windspeed, solar radiation, temperature). Weather stations can be used to model

how crops should be growing. Data is needed for water productivity. Water productivity,

multifaceted: looks at all different components of a production system and how they interact

together, more complicated when intercropping is included. For WRC project it can be looked at,

in terms of field crops,data can be used to determine yield values. Water productivity tests will

also help determinewhether planting in tunnels leads to reducedET compared to planting in an

open field.

Soil moisture

Rainfall +irrigation- runoff -percolation

8. Gravimetric water samples (in field) at different levels(0-10cm, 10-30c, 60cm) will help determine

soil moisture levels at different soil depths within a given period of time. Evaporation, high at the

beginning and decreases as crop grows. Water productivity does not tell us whether various

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201780

practices are applicable to different climatic areas. The results are area specific. You can compare

same practices across areas if trials are conducted under the same conditions.

Retention curve: start off in a sand basin, take a soil sample and then subject it to different

pressures. Water easily available when soil is saturated, it will get more difficult to extract when

the water content decreases. Equipment: water mark sensors and physical gravimetric water

sampling (comparing difference between dry and wet, different from bulk density which only uses

the dry sample).

9. Water holding capacity: How does water holding capacity differ? This is also measured using

water mark sensors and can be used to compare practices within a site. Sylvester -suggested

that we measure amount of water applied vs. yield in each site, i.e. look at how much water was

added to obtain a specific yield. Chameleons can be used in the gardens, water mark sensors can

be used in the fields.

-Scenario 1: try idea out in a simple system.

-Scenario 2: try idea out in single and mixed system.

10. Run-off plots:Mostly in field situations to compare effect of different practices.

11. Crop yields: Will need to be determined in gardens and fields

12. Livestock: Full feed analysis (Cedara). Potentially find na Honours student to focus on cover

crops for livestock fodder.

Experimental layout suggestion:

➢Control: vegetable garden watered with a watering can

➢Treatment 1: micro irrigation in an open field

➢Treatment 2: micro irrigation in a tunnel

Site selection

A decision was taken to focus on the process aspects of introduction of the ideas with new learning

groups, where not much implementation has happened as yet and then to focus on the introduction

of practices with existing group- so two slightly different facilitation processes.

KZN (Overlap with First rand Foundation sites)

One day training of trainers: 13 November 2017

Process: Thabamhlophe (Lima), Thamela (MDF) - DATE: 4-7 December 2017

Practices: Ezibomvini (MDC- CA)

Team: Phumzile/Tema/Khethiwe/Interns/Mazwi

Measurements (quantitative research ): Ezibomvini

Check pension dates:Tema/Phumzile

LIMPOPO

Process intro: Sekororo (Lima), Sedawa Ext, New group (MDF-AWARD) _DATE: 26-30 November

Practices: Sedawa (MDAF-AWARD- CSA)

Team: Nozipho, Tema, Mazwi (Khethiwe), Sylvester

Measurements (quantitative research ): Sedawa

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201781

Process facilitation for end Nov-Beg December

-1 day, training of trainers (1st week of December)

-Intro to climate change 1 day

-Ranking and walkabout 1 day

EASTERN CAPE (2-3 days)

(Intro CC, Ranking): Imvutho Bobomi_ DATE: 22-26 January 2018

Team: Lawrence Erna, Sylvester, Tema, Mazwi, Makhethi

Speak to stakeholders in the meantime around formalisation of CoPs, talk about it in the next round.

ToC for Deliverable 3

Table of Contents Deliverable 3: DSSWriting Teams Editorial team

1. Introduction: purpose, objectives etc. ErnaJohn

2. DSS for farmers

3. facilitation

2. Process Framework: tidy up link to Tema, Mazwi, PhumzileLawrence

broader thinking,

Design methods, tools and processes

3. Facilitation; training of trainersErna Lawrence

4. Practices: system appropriate, scale, doableJohn, Sylvester, ChrisLawrence

(AF)/Erna

4. Categories, layers

5. Description, photos (separate section, appendix)

6. Livestock integration, explain issues?

5. Site Selection:

7. Review of quantitative measurementsSylevester, John

6. Communication StrategyLawrence, Tema, Khethiwe

8. Media information diversity of com strategies

7. Capacity buildingErna, Mazwi, SylvesterErna

9. team processMakhethi, Palesa

10. Facilitator and community learning

11. Post graduate

Round 1: 31 October 2017, except communication strategy, process, site selection

Round 2: 8 December 2017

Final due date: 15 January 2017

8APPENDIX 2: DICLAD MODULES 2 & 3 WITHAGRISI

STAKEHOLDERS IN THE LOWER OLIFANTS :24TH TO 26TH OCT 2017

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201782

Overall purpose

To build climate change literacy among stakeholders with regards to climate change adaptation

options related to small scale agriculture.

Expected outcomes

•Re-enforced understanding of climate change impactspertaining to smallscale farming in

the Lower Olifants.

•Identification of tenable adaptation options to some of these impacts, particularly those

that can be further supported through the AgriSI project and other RESILIM-O projects.

Agenda

…

Participants

Botshabelo (13)

Oaks, Finalie, Lepelle (23)

Sedawa, Mametje, Willows (36)

Recap of concepts covered in DICLAD Module 1

Participants were walked through the concepts covered in the 1st Module

Climate change concepts were expressed using temperature and rainfall seasonality charts.

Concepts can be summarised as:

Increased temperatures throughout the year- high certainty

Overall similar amount of rainfall but over a shorter period of time and more variability (intense

rainfall events –storms, floods, droughts) –less certainty.

Participants also went through the five fingers concepts of themes for good agricultural practices

and examples of practices for each theme were elucidated. Examples given were:

Water management: diversion furrows, contour ditches, greywater management, small dams, drip

irrigation, stone lines, garden beds

Control soil movement: reducing run-off, furrows and ridges and planting on ridges (aloes, sweet

potatoes)

Soil health/fertility management: trench beds, eco-circles

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201783

Crop management: mixed cropping, mulching, shade for crops, natural pest control, increased

organic matter, close spacing, tunnels

Indigenous plants: less burning, planting and propagation of indigenous trees, multipurpose plants

(windbreaks, fruit, medicine), careful cutting/ pruning for firewood, rather than chopping down

whole trees,

At Botshabelo, the workshop was held at the Local facilitator’s home (Meriam Malepe) and thus we

could do a walk through the garden to review some the practices. This added to the examples

participants were giving.

Above left to right: Tunnel with mixed cropping in beds for water soil health and crop management;

tower garden for greywater management, soil fertility and mixed cropping; Diversionfurrow with

sweet potatoes, planted on ridges and bananas and paw-paws planted in the furrow for water

management and soil erosion control;and an eco-circle with mulching planted to herbs for water

management, soil fertility and pest control. Herbs include lemons balm, parsley, mint, rosemary and

thyme.

Left: Inlet furrow, silt trap(where Ancois and Sylvester are standing)

and underground RWH tank –circular structure with roof.

One of the main points that came form discussing these CSA

practices is that most of them cover a number of the fiver fingers

e.g.:

Underground RWh tanks; deal with water management and soil

erosion control

Tunnels: deal with water management by reducing evaporation and

temperatures as well as increasing soil water holding capacity, with

erosion control by having paths laid out on contour and deep organic

beds, with soil fertility through the trench beds and with crop management through providing

windbreaks, pest control.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201784

Tower gardens:deal with water management, soil fertility and crop management (mixed cropping,

intensive planting, pest control)

Furrows and ridges with cross ties: Should also have mulching. Deals with water management by

increasing infiltration and reducing run-off, soil erosion control and soil fertility- through

incorporating organic matter in the ridges, and adding manure, leaves and mulch to both ridges and

furrows.

Participants were then divided into small groups to continue with strengthening their understanding

of impact of climate change and to begin to outline potential adaptations that could be

implemented.

Activities in small groups:

Outline impacts

Choose goals (around 5) of priority changes or adaptation strategies

Then look at actions/practices to achieve these goals and for those ones we have already tried

think about how well they have worked

Outlining impacts

Here cards were used from the mind maps created in the first

workshop and the small groups briefly reconstructed a mind

map, discussing in detail the potential linkages and

importance of the issues

Right: A mind map of CC issues reconstructed by one of the

small groups from Okas, Finale and Lepelle.

Water is the over -riding constraint in all cases. Although all

participants save some rainwater, mostly in 210l drums or

large basins, they feel this is not nearly enough and it doesn’t last long. In all three sessions the

participants felt that storage of large quantities of rainwater was about their only option for having

a reliable supply of water, especially if rainfall decreases further. Municipal systems are unreliable

and intermittent at best and individual boreholes are too expensive for most and there are already

cases of boreholes drying out or salinizing. Greywater is used extensively, but not all participants

were aware of options for ‘cleaning’ greywater prior to use.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201785

Some mention was made also of community members working together and working more

cooperatively with Municipalities to increase the efficiency of water supply in their villages.

Examples include:

SUGGESTIONS:

Discussions were held also about improving spring protection in the mountains, that people rely on,

as a matter of priority –making small dams with pipes for gravity fed systems, exclusion of

livestock and making proper livestock watering facilities.

A major priority is rainwater harvesting. Present options give too little water and are expensive

(basins, drums, Jojo’s..)

Using the underground RWH storage tanks, or Jo-Jo tanks, to store water provided by

municipalities, to allow for intermittent provision. Also storage of water collected by hand form the

river

Participants felt that they had no way to access water from the river. They did not seem aware

that they could in fact not be allowed to, but were talking more about pumps and pipes.

In Sedawa however , participants suggested committees need to be formed to work with allocation

of water from the river ( a smaller riverbed- dry for most of the year but with water access in the

sand y riverbed) and also the municipality.

Some groups discussed natural resource management in conjunction with the water management –

judicious cutting of trees, saving of riverine vegetation, preventing veld fires and communal

management of water infrastructure. They felt that the K2C facilitators could also assist in this

process along with traditional structures linked to the learning groups

Tunnels featured centrally as helping a lot, as did trench beds and mulching.

Botshabelo CSA practices

ACTION

CONSTRAINTS

HAS IT WORKED

FUTURE; NEXT STEPS

GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water

Grey water

White soap build up

on soil level, crusting

Yes; works well with

trees, but not tomatoes

and ibece, where the

plants become more

prone to diseases

-More grey water management

practices like loosening soil, tower

gardens

Experiment with different kinds of

soaps and their effect on plants

-try out moringa seed to clean

water

Mulching

If it’s too dry

mulching doesn’t

work

Hard to find enough

material

Yes; retains soil moisture

and crops look better

-Infiltration pits,

-Making compost

RWH :

Underground

tanks

Not done: lots of

labour

Expensive

Yes (for few

demonstrations). Now it

is possible to use multiple

sources of water for the

tank –rain, river and

municipal)

-We should save towards these

tanks and maybe implement in a

step by step way over time to make

them more affordable

-On slopes can have gravity fed

systems that can also irrigate by

gravity

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201786

-Allows for planning for off season

when there is no rain

RWH: 201l drums,

basins

Yes; but the water is

little and does not last

long

Spring protection

Yes, but only few

individuals and limited

attempts

-Need to store a bit of water at the

springs to feed the pipes

-Need water and social

management structures to deal

with pipes and taps and rules

Boreholes

Too expensive

Yes- some ‘richer’

individuals- butsome are

drying up and water yield

is sometimes too low to

justify costs

Not an individual homestead

solution

Farm smaller

areas

Yes; participants adapt

the size of land they use

to the amount of water

they are likely to have

available.

GOAL: decrease dry, hot soil

Trench beds

Hard to find enough

organic matter

Yes, many have tried

this. Provides for

excellent growth of crops

and very good moisture

retention,

-Planning to do more trenches

-Collect thematerials when they

are available to pack the trenches

later

Tower gardens

Need shade cloth and

many participants

still unaware of this

process

Yes; good growth, good

use of greywater and

easy to do

Buy a big roll of shade cloth

together to make it cheaper-

making the net available will allow

for participants to try this out.

Tunnels/shade

cloth structures

Some participants

have dug the trenches

as requested

(3x5x1m) buthave

not received the

tunnel kits

Yes; work very wellfor

crop growth, cooling of

soil, water retention,

windbreaks, and pest

control

-supply more kits as promised

-participants can save together to

buy the kits which are quite cheap

-Train each other in how to

construct as there are small teams

in each village who know how

-Perhaps set up a system where

participants contribute 50% of

finances and MDF or support

organisation contributes the other

50%

Soil fertility

Yes; increase organic

matter, trenches, tower

gardens, furrows and

ridges, using more

manure

Continue with soil fertility

improvement

GOAL: Improve crop productivity

Growing trees for

shade

Yes; a few participants

Plan for afternoon shade as

temperatures increase

Liquid manure

Most participants are

somehow unaware of

the liquid manure.

Thought you could not

do it without bananas

Drought tolerant

crops

Indigenous fruit trees

take too long to fruit

and are no longer

eaten on a daily basis

Mangos are more heat

tolerant but need to

be well fenced-

Yes; tried the bird

resistant sorghum and

millet in the CA plots-

worked well and

participants harvested

seed. Indigenous crops

and trees such as Marula

work well

Plant mangos in furrows to ensure

enough water supply as it gets

hotter

Want more seed of bird resistant

sorghum and millet

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201787

Pest control;

traditional

practices (apply

powder of dried

insects), natural

pest control

brews, pest

repellent plants

and mixed

cropping

Yes-traditional practices

work adequately

Marigolds are pretty and

work against nematodes

and wilting problems in

vegetables

With mixed cropping see

fewer pests and fewer

holes in spinach plants

for example

Continue with traditional practices

Increased mixed cropping

Using natural pest control brews in

the tunnels –this is enough do not

need chemicals.

Lepelle, Oaks and Finale CSA practices

ACTION

CONSTRAINTS

HAS IT WORKED

FUTURE; NEXT STEPS

GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water

RWH : Jo-jo’s,

210ldrums, basins

Building bigger

concrete tanks- Not

done: lots of labour

Expensive

Yes; short time, too

little water

Find types of tanks that use local

labour for construction to make it

cheaper

Store more water

Find partners to assist

Mulching

Yes; doesn’t work when

it’s too hot – still need

water to break down the

mulch

Methods of incorporation of

organic matter into soil may work

better than mulch

Greywater; drip

kits, ash

Yes; but not on food

crops. Helps with pests

in the soil

Bucket filter clogs up

over time

-Methods for cleaning greywater

Spring protection

Not for access for

everyone- used for

religious purposes

N/A

Boreholes;

communal and

home

Too expensive

Irrigation water in Finale

is salty. In Lepelle water

quality is good

This is an expensive option, but is

easy and reliable

Information about how to deal

with borehole water of bad quality

for irrigation

Minimum tillage

Plough smaller and

manageable areas

It works well, it saves

water, but might not

work without some

shading –plants still wilt

at some point

Timing, tunnels, decisions to be

made by observation

GOAL: soil management

Increase organic

matter;

incorporate

leaves, crops,

ash, manure

Trench beds

Yes, but will want to see

also how these perform

under optimal conditions

Set up these with drip irrigation

Erosion control;

contour bunds,

diversion furrows

Yes; requires regular

maintenance- sometimes

they get blocked

Combine this with some of the

water and crop management

techniques

GOAL: Livestock/ grazing management

Reduce livestock

numbers and

plant fodder

We are going to need

water

Planting fodder works

well under irrigation -

good idea as it feeds

both animals and people

Find ways to harvest the seed of

the fodder species so as to plant

again

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201788

The fodder radish is good for

people (morogo) and animals-

grows quickly can be a good idea.

GOAL: Improve crop productivity

Mixed cropping-

vegetables and

herbs

Yes, fewer pests where

mixed cropping was tried

Heat tolerant crops:

parsley, millet,

watermelon, butternut,

different types of

greens- e.g. the kale

introduced

Bird resistant sorghum

quite good.

Find better ways (and more) to do

mixed cropping

Do experiments with different

heat tolerant crops to check

Cross visits to other learning

groups to see what they have

planted and what is possible

Three plantings per year of

different greens to have continuity

in production

Pest control;

traditional

practices (apply

powder of dried

insects), natural

pest control

brews, pest

repellent plants

Do not have access to

the plants; chilli and

garlic

Yes- only a few people

tried, but for those it

worked well

Learn more pest control remedies

Continue with traditional practices

Increased mixed cropping

Using natural pest control brews in

the tunnels –this is enough do not

need chemicals.

This exercise was followed by doing an “Impact matrix “ where we asked the question “How do

you decide whether a practices is working, what criteria do you use? And then discussed the overall

question of how well did these practices work using those criteria.

Summary of criteria from twoworkshops

Botshabelo

Oaks, Finale, Lepelle

Water efficient

Good water management

Increased soil fertility/ organic matter

Better soil fertility

Better growth/health of crops

Better growth

Increased yield

More food

Cheap

Easy/labour efficient

Easy to do

Knowledge

Oaks, Finale, Lepelle: Impact of CSA practices

SCALE: 1=low; 2 = medium, 3= high (agreement between participants)

CRITERIA

PRACTICES

Eas

y to

Mor

food

Better

growt

Good

water

man

Better

soil

fertilit

Scor

Rank

COMMENTS

trench beds

Very good for growth, soil

health and water

management. The best

practice- but difficult to

dig

mulching

Less irrigation providing

more food

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201789

furrows

more moisture, better

growth, carries some

fertility in the water

rock bunds

deep irrigation, catches

more fertile soil

adding

organic

matter to the

soil

easier than trench beds

Crop

varieties

we do not have the

knowledge-but will be

easy once we know

Planting

times

would be nice to have a

calendar to remember.

Participants commented on the scores and ranking and suggested that these could be used to

decide what practices to start with –such as mulching, adding organic matter to the soil as the

quickest and easiest, then moving on to rock bund, furrows and trench beds, and so on.

Sedawa CSA practices

ACTION

CONSTRAINTS

HAS IT WORKED

FUTURE; NEXT STEPS

GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water

RWH : Jo-jo’s,

210l drums,

basins, small

dams,

underground

tanks

Jojos are easy but

expensive –in digging

for dams labour does

not cost so that could

help

Increases mosquitos

Yes; Small dams have

been dug by few- if not

lined they lose a lot of

water.

Water in Jojo only lasts

about 1 month- so it is

not enough for gardening

Plan to do roof structures and

gutters properly

If we do joint saving we can work

together to buy Jojos

There are some challenges with

savings groups, but we are used to

them from burial societies etc

We can harvest water form the

road for the underground tanks

Keep riverine

vegetation

People are still

chopping down trees

next to the river for

firewood

There is knowledge

about pruning trees

rather than chopping

whole trees

Need to work with traditional

authority to ensure we keep

riverine vegetation

Prevent veld fires

Can work with the traditional

authorities and spread the word

through our learning groups

Infiltration

pits/areas/

reconstructing

wetlands

We can get some reeds

form other wetlands to

get the process going

These are joint activities through

community meetings- but there is

now more cohesion through the

learning groups, so it can be

possible

Water

infrastructure

management

Would like to set up an awareness

campaign in the area, so that all

community members take care of

infrastructure

Planting in beds

with Mulching

Trench beds

Yes; reduces watering

form every day to every

2-3 days. Contributes

also to soil fertility,

carrots grow nice and

straight

Provide shade for these beds –

potentially using maize stover to

keep them cool.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201790

Greywater; drip

kits, ash

No- more a

supplementary

activity when there is

no other water

Yes; works at household

level in gardens if you

use ash to clear the

water. The ash residue

with soap then goes into

the toilet to reduce

smells

-Impact not that great, but worth

doing.

Irrigation

methods

Timing- am or pm to

save water

This is a standard practice

GOAL: soil management

Increase organic

matter;

incorporate

leaves, crops,

ash, manure

Trench beds, eco-

circles

Yes, The new bed types

hold water for a very

long time if you can start

by saturating them. Eco-

circles are easier than

trench beds and work

just as well

Plan for continuity in different

circumstances

Erosion control;

stone lines

contours,

diversion furrows

No- not aware of line

levels and how to

measure contours

Yes; plant just below the

stone lines or furrows as

there is more water and

fertility there. Diversion

furrows are good, but

difficult to dig.

-If you add infiltration pits below

the stone lines it works very well –

can plant in that.

-It is easier to make furrows and

ridges in the garden than diversion

ditches

-Continue with improved furrows

and ridges- on contour, with

mulching and planting various

crops.

GOAL: Crop management

Trees in the

garden

Yes –afternoon shade is

important

Close spacing –

linked to

minimum tillage

(CA)

No- not many

participants are

aware yet of this

option

Yes; close spacing in

field crops gives quick

canopy cover –cooler

and wetter, it also helps

with erosions control and

there is still enough air

movement

Include bird resistant sorghum and

millet as good harvests can be

realised from these drought

resistant crops. Cowpeas can be

harvested twice in a seons.

Learnings

These are summarised in point form below:

-Planting trees for shading crops

-Some trees help with pest control

-We are realizing how most of the things MDF has covered fits into CCA- for example the

tunnels

-Some of the practices such as mixed cropping are good; one can see the results you are

working towards

-There are good ideas in terms of practices for CC and extreme temperatures- but it is not

enough

-We learnt about heat tolerant crops from each other, and also when to plant.

-We learnt about promoting pest predators- lizard hotel

-We learnt about the erosion control furrows and what to plant now

-We learnt about planning according to quick wins (from the matrix that was done)

-Water saving techniques –including tower gardens

-Harvesting water from the road using diversion ditches

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201791

-Garden refuse as mulch rather than burning it

Future CC actions

-More focus on access to water (all three workshops)

-More CSA techniques and deepening the implementation of the present ones (in all three

workshops)

-Tunnels and trench beds have worked particularly well (All three workshops)

-Can grow the dryland crops in summer, but need water in winter for vegetable production

-Can try layers; but cost of feed is an issue and access to clean water. Sunflowers and

sorghum can be grown for the chickens. Indigenous chickens are no longer kept - as they are

not very productive and destroy crops

-For broilers there are already a number of projects in the area, but can still do this

competitively –can do chicken pieces as a value add.

-Need also to deal with livestock - the effects of CC on livestock production

-We shouldn’t end here. We tried these ideas under the worst situations (drought) –they

may do a lot better now in a better year

-One of the highlights has been the cost-benefit analysis in our learning sessions; where more

inputs could mean a much better yield- rather than low inputs and low yields.

-Savings can be introduced

-Planting calendars: CC based crop choice calendars (all three workshops)

--Make a committee to continue to explore options for spring protection and efficient

management of water from them.

-Need now to implement the improved erosion control measures that have been introduced.

-Once water is sorted there needs to be more focus on commercial production

-Bulk buying for Jojo tanks- MDF to find potential discount options

-Bring DRD representatives on board with the NGOs already working in these areas (Sedawa)

to see if more things can be brought.

-Also work with the municipality –improve the relationship with the councillors and then set

up a joint strategy with community and NGOs working together

-NGOs must make sure they keep their promises as community members cannot trust them

otherwise

-NGOs need to take more care to help support local produce when catering and also local

caterers.

Planning for DICLAD-AgriSI Module 3 (2018)

•The following themes were suggested for Module 3.

oPlanting calendars, and how climate change could change these (e.g. should we stop

growing maize or look at ways to assist the growth of maize?)

oIntroducing new varieties of crops that are more resilient to the expected impacts of

climate change

oConsider the option of livestock grazing –although this would require a long-term

intervention

oConsider the option of poultry production

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201792

•We should include in the design of the process the farmers’ own knowledge, namely, changes that

they have observed that confirm the reports from the scientists. Information is needed from both

sides.

•The following questionswere raised which will determine the framingof the project within climate

change.

oWe need to consider the following two focus points to guide our activities for 2018.

How is climate change changing what we can do, i.e. what options / alternatives we have?

versus

How is climate change impacting what we are currently doing, i.e. vegetable gardening?

oSpecifically for DICLAD, we need to consider its role.

Is DICLAD used for integration? Then, how can we use it to integrate the science into what

we are doing?

Are we using DICLAD as a “planning tool”?

oOverall, we (DICLAD team, AgriSI project manager and Mahlathini) will have to engage in

further discussions to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each entity. For example, it

was proposed for Mahlathini to focus on implementation at the local level, for the DICLAD

team to open up conversations with climate change as the focus point, and for the AgriSI

Manager to take on an oversight role and link these two. This still requires further

discussion.

•It was proposed to develop learning materials on climate change for farmers–something tangible

we can give them. DICLAD has an allocated budget for this. We can consider developing a process

next year to design such materials with inputs from the farming communities. The process should

be fun and in their preferred local language.

•There was some discussion questioning the usefulness of providing planting calendars to farmers,

as these often just re-affirm what they alreadyknow. Perhaps the real question is how climate

change could impact these planting seasons, and then the repercussion for planning. Also, we

need to ask what do farmers exactly mean when they ask for calendars. Would farmers still plant

high value crops even when conditions become too unsuitable? What approach should we follow

when farmers for example choose to grow irrigated GMO maize which has short-term benefits

but in the long-term has challenges with high heat and limited water resources?

•We also discussed the usefulness of sharing technical information on maps related to climate

change, e.g. shifts in the geographical areas where maize can be planted. Seasonal forecasts can

also be considered, but these are more relevant for dry-land crops and not vegetable gardens

(which always require water).

•We must encourage and improve information sharing within the clusters. (Reference here was

made to the use of bird-resistant millet seed which Mahlathini introduced.)

•We can start by introducingdrought-resistant crops. (Mahlathini has used a round-robin process

in previous projects to introduce seeds for fruit, vegetables and medicinal plants.)

•We also need to create awareness of resource management at the landscape level, e.g.

considering our rivers and trees. This would require the involvement of local Indunas.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201793

9APPENDIX 3:WRC-CCA COMMUNITY WORKSHOP: SEKORORO

(LIMA)_20171128-29

Participants: 30

Village: Lorraine,

Organisations: Lima (Karabo, Mishgirl, Silas), MDF (Sylvester, Erna, Nozipho, Tema)

Introductions

30 participants in Lima’s food security programme

supported by Wesbank attended this workshop. Most have

been active in gardening with Lima for just on one year and

have had introductions to a number of practices; such as

trench beds, eco circles, liquid manure, mulching, mixed

cropping and natural pest and disease control.

A couple of participants are members of communal gardens

who are marketing produce, but most have household

gardens and grow a range of vegetables primarily for

household use; cabbage, spinach, beetroot, butternut, and

also have fruit trees such as mangoes, avocados and litchis

and indigenous fruit and shade trees such as marula and

moringa.

Right above and below: Sylvester and Karabo facilitating

small group discussions

The issue begins with climate then leads to

social problems. We need to keep on trying

different solutions

With all that we are trying out,it is never

enough and never solves all the challenges

we have

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201794

Impacts of CC

What is CC

•CC caused by green house gases, lots of livestock also cause that

•There is a change in rainfall

•It means a change in weather patterns over a long time

•Unexpected floods and droughts

•Big winds and increases in evaporation

•Hail

Impacts

•Increased evaporation means plants wilt easily- lower yields

•Pest outbreaks (such as cutworm) have become worse

•Water scarcity; makes it almost impossible to work –household water is prioritized over

using water for irrigation. Also with municipal water using it for irrigation is frowned upon.

Past, present future of farming activities in the area

Past:

•More rain, more farming

•Enough rain for dryland cropping, we were using oxen to plough- now have no more oxen

•Monkeys were not a problem

•No use of chemicals- healthy food

•Livestock used to roam freely as there was more grass

•Less diseases (in plants, animals and people)

•Everyone grew and had food- less crime

•Had larger yields- even sent maize for storage, used to make ibece jam.

•Grinding of maize was done manually- so meal was more wholesome as a food.

•There was less money

Present

•We have moved from producing most of our food locally to having to buy everything

•The lack of water makes doing anything at all very difficult

•With the municipal water, we can not use that for irrigation as household needs are more

important. In this village the municipal water is only available for 1 day /week

•Now we have to feed livestock –in the past they could just roam –there is not enough grass.

There are too many cows to be maintained by the environment

•Monkeys are moving into the households –there is nothing to eat out there

•With hotter temperatures there are more and different diseases

•With the training from Lima we are feeling more confident and are able to produce with those

methods

•With the bad production years we lose our seed stocks and now have ot buy seed

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201795

•There is increased theft of produce even off the field

•Even borehole pumps are getting stolen

•There are “super pests’ resistant to chemicals

•Birds used to go for millet and sorghum, now they’re even going for maize – we stopped planting

millet and sorghum a long time ago –no longer have seed.

•Droughts are more severe than before

•Deforestation and soil erosion, linked also to bush encroachments

•People are dying younger

Future

•Death

•More drought

•People get more sick

•More hunger

•No jobs

•Shortage of seeds

•Increased crime

•Teenage pregnancy increased

•Soil degradation

•There should be opportunities for those who can continue to farm–as there will be fewer

farmers –those who can could make reasonable incomes

•People will get more educated and hopefully come with solutions

•Opportunity for things to get much better and much worse at the same time

•Land has been wasted in the land claim areas – those people don’t even know about farming

•There is a lack of interest from youth, but if they were to be interested we as communities could

invest in their education so that they can help us plan

•Having a vision of what you want to see is important

•We need to protect and save whatever there still is left to be able to preserve our future.

CC predictions and understanding

Presentation of scientific predictions for the area. And then small group seasonality diagrams for

temperature and rainfall, including an analysis of how these are changing.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201796

Above left: The seasonality diagram produced in Sekororo looking at temperature –the red lines

indicate increased temperature for every month of the year

Above right: the seasonality diagram looking at rainfall and changes. There the red lines indicate

decreased rainfall leaving Aug Sept and Oct almost entirely dry

Comments from the groups agree that temperature is increasing throughout the year. With rainfall

the distribution haschanged and because of heavy rains erosion has increased. Overall, distribution

has decreased-fewer months of rain. There is now a delay in harvesting wild leafy vegetables (morogo)

as this used to be in November. Now that it is drier and hotter, the supply has decreased considerably.

The rain is definitely more unpredictable. Crops like mustard spinach used to be grown in winter, but

with the hotter temperatures it is no longer doing well. It feels as if there is no winter anymore.

Planting dates have shifted and instead of being able to plant in September, we need to wait

sometimes until January for enough rain to plant.

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

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

And also in planting methods –planting now works better in controlled environments such as

greenhouses.

CC impact mind mapping

This exercise is designed for participants

to explore all the impacts on their

farming systems and livelihoods as a

starting point to beginning to identify

potential adaptive measures.

Right: The mind map produced by one of

the small groups in Sekororo

Participants mentioned impacts such as:

•More drought and floods

•Heavy winds and more storms

•Increased veld fires

•Scarcity of water; drop in boreholes

and rivers drying out.

•Decrease in wetlands and natural vegetation –specifically trees.

•Having to produce crops in smaller areas

•Condition of roads deteriorate rapidly.

•More wild animals moving into the homesteads

•And social issues such as increased hunger, increased crime, lack of jobs, increased domestic

violence, theft, divorce, no money to pay lobola, increase in death rate

The table below summarises the impact, linkages and potential adaptive measures mentioned by the

two small groups of participants.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201797

Impacts

Description and linkages

Outcomes

Potential adaptive measure

GROUP 1

Heat

Plants wilt and die

Lack of grazing,

livestock ide

Mulching, controlled grazing,

reduce stock, save/store fodder –

leaves and grasses for dry season

Water

shortages

Rivers drying out,

boreholes drying out

Greywater, purification using

moringa seeds, water storage for

dry season

Soil

Soil erosion (more dongas),

soil fertility decreasing,

Deterioration of

roads-making

access difficult

Planting in tyres, keyhole beds,

tower gardens,

Crop

production,

resources

Lower yields, more pests,

veld fires, reduction of

indigenous trees

Common pests: cutworms,

millipedes, centipedes

Natural pest and disease control,

mulching (but this can increase

some pests), inter cropping, crop

rotation, use of multi-purpose

plants (e.g. marigolds)

Use the wild cucumber (yellow

inside) dry, grind and spray on

crops to control nematodes and

soil pests

Manage cutting of trees and plant

Plant in tunnels

Livestock

Lack of grazing, more

diseases, more damageof

crops

Livestock

decreasing, not

healthy

Control grazing,

Social

repercussions

Poverty, diseases, hunger

Crime, murder

and theft,

domestic

violence,

divorce,

increased death

rate, no money

to pay lobola

GROUP 2

Extreme heat

Veld fires

Use of tunnels, plant heat

resistant cultivars, irrigate in

early mornings and evenings

Lack of water

No grazing, drying of

natural vegetation and

bushes, wilting of plants,

trees do not fruit, extreme

Food shortages,

animals die due

to lack of

grazing,

Water harvesting, earth dams,

grey water and management of

existing water, diversion furrows

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201798

rains destroy

infrastructure,

Soils

Organic matter content is

low, dry soils, roots are

exposed, soil erosion, also

due to use of

mechanisation - ploughing

Liquid manure, make use of

animal manure, trenchbeds and

eco-circles

Plant sweet potatoes to hold soil,

plant across the slope, plant

indigenous crops such as

cowpeas,

Make use of hands and oxen to

plant using conservation

agriculture

Loosen the soil to avoid water

logging and yellowing of plants

Crops

Reduced production

increased pests, medicinal

herbs destroyed in drought

and heat

Plant colourful flowers and plants

to attract pest predators and

bees, companion planting,

making brews form marigolds

Plant medicinal species in

controlled environments with the

vegetables 9tunnels)

Social

repercussions

More diseases and health

problems, poverty food

shortages, low education

standards (because schools

are free)

No transfer of

knowledge,

crime

Plant herbs andvegetables,

entrepreneurship,job creation,

plant your own crops instead of

always buying

Assessment of potential practices

A few practices were selected from the mind map and were further explored in terms of participants’

understanding of how well they would/might work

Practices

Does it work

How well does it work

Tower garden

Yes, works well

Lack of access to materials for making the

towers; leads to growing in small areas-too

little production

Diversion furrows

Yes, facilitates good

infiltration

Only works when you have lots of water and

need to learn to use line levels to make them

Rainwater harvesting

Yes, we use 210l

drums and basins

Not very much water saved–need opt think of

ways to increase this

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201799

Eco-circle

Yes, works well

Hard work, but it lasts and gives good quality

crops

Tunnel

Yes works well

No one has tunnels as it requires lots of money

A short discussion was also held around the question: What do we need to do that will make a bigger

impact in our lives to adapt to CC?

•We need bigger storage tanks- we are not presently saving enough rainwater

•Due to a lack of employment getting inputs is a challenge. We need to use our own labour

and local resources, maybe savings groups can help, but also need assistance

•Biogas digesters could be an idea to get our own energy without paying.

•Practical demonstration of practices will help us to remember, understand better and

implement more of the ideas mentioned.

Practices

Discussion on adaptive measure to CC impacts leads in to a discussion of possible practices (local and

new ideas) that can help with these issues. This is supported by having pictures and descriptions of a

range of potential practices available and discussing those that make sense

In this case it was also supported by a community walk to participants who volunteered their gardens,

doing interesting things trying innovative techniques etc.

Participants also commented that the methods/practices they have learnt about intrainingand

workshops are useful.

PRACTICES WE ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH: mulching trench beds, furrows and ridges,

intercropping, planting herbs, diversification (ore different kinds of crops planted together), small

dams, compost.

Further comments made by the group include:

•Mulching is done, but is not so popular, because of lack of materials

•Earth dams are dangerous for children

•Jojos are expensive - we are using drip irrigation (2nd hand from commercial farms)

•Hybrid seeds are expensive and unreasonable even though they have given very positive

results

PRACTICES GLEANED FROM COMMUNITY WALK: small earth dams, plantinggrass in eroded areas,

planting and keeping seed of old and traditional crops such as shallots, cowpeas, awa indigenous

greens such as cleome, using kitchen scraps in shallow trenches, compost pits, banana circles,

management of mango trees by some pruning, planting green beans under shade of trees rather than

sugar beans as the latter does not pod well in the shade., protecting litchis from birds using netting,

learnt about pollination processes for mangoes-did not know about male and female flowers.

Normally when we seebrown patches on the mango leaves we did not think that this can affect the

fruiting. With the age of the trees, quality and quantity of fruit deteriorates

Bees for pollination –and talking about bee fodder plants, drip irrigation for saving water, diversion

furrows for protecting soil and crops

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017100

Above left to right: Local innovations: small dam, shallots grown and seed kept, banana circles with

compost and furrows and ridges for planting beans

PRACTICES CHOSEN FROM NEW IDEAS: tunnels, underground tanks, and bigger rainwater harvesting

structures more generally, drip kits, growing fodder for livestock, conservation agriculture furrows and

ridges, shallow trenches, natural pest and disease control, seed saving, savings groups, biogas

digesters.

We would like to see practical demonstrations of these practices as just talking about them briefly is

not enough for us to go and try them. Due to lack of employment getting inputs is a challenge.

FURTHER COMMENTS ON PRACTICES:

We want more information on planting dates; We have already adapted to some extent, especially

with the crops that are possible for summer. We are however battling with the winter crops- they are

not doing well, bolting early etc. We want to know about winter vegetables that can deal with drought

and variable temperatures.But with some of these new vegetables we are not used to eating them

and do not know good cooking practices-so we may grow them but then we don’t use them. Also

with the new crops, new pests comein that we don’t know how to deal with. We’ve been taught about

using black jack seeds and sunlight soap. We need more remedies for different situations

Some examples discussed were; turnips, leeks, open headed cabbages and leaf cabbages, rape, kale,

kohlrabies, mustard spinach, Chinese cabbage.

Criteria for assessing practices

•Availability of material

•Increased water infiltration and water holding capacity (water use efficiency)

•Increased availability of water

•Costs- cost efficiency, cost-benefit

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017101

•Labour (labour vs benefit)

•Crop quality (germination, growth)

•Fewer pests

The beginnings of a matrix ranking exercise was put together to give people an idea of the process,

which would be followed up in subsequent sessions

Practice

Availability

Water

use

efficiency

Increased

water

cost

labour

Crop

quality

Fewer

pests

Score

Tower garden

Eco circle

Underground

tanks

Trench bed

Mulching

Lizard hotel

Diversion

furrow

COMMENTS ON THE MATRIX

•Eco-circles are the practice that most participants have tried

•Underground tanks are not really done as they are expensive and difficult to do. They do

however have a huge potential to make a significant difference

•Savings groups could be a way to help with the issue of money

•The matrix is a very useful method for decision making

•It is good to do a number of different things

•The more knowledgeable participants will help the others to try these practices.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017102

10 REFERENCES

Ahead, G. (2005). Advantages anddisadvantages of visual aids.

http://www.getahead.uk.com/gwpr07-advantages-of-visual-aids.htm.

Amanzi for Food. (2015). Navigation Tool.Environmental Learning Research Centre Rhodes University:

WRC Project K5-2277.

AWARD. (2017). Dialogues on Climate Change and Adaptation (DICLAD): Facilitators Agenda.

Banda, M. (2016). Creating channels, connections, and communities: Experimenting with virtual rural

agricultural learning communities in Nkhotakota district, Malawi.Malawi,Nkhotakota:

RUFORUM Working Document Series(ISSN 1607-9345) No. 14 (1): 363-

369.http://repository.ruforum.org.

Benset, G. (2010). Animation: What is Participatory Video .Retrieved from INsightshare.org:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seOstch03j8):insightshare.org

Bligh, D. (1998).The teaching professor.

Brandt, P., Kvakić, M., Butterbach-Bahl,K., & Rufino, M. C. (2017). How to target climate-smart

agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework .

Agricultural Systems 151, 234-245.

Corner-Dolloff, C. (2015). CCAFS Climate Smart Adaptation Prioritisation (CSAP) Toolkit. CIAT.

Devesh, T. M. (2017). WHATSAPP FOR FARMERS: ENHANCING THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF

TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION. International Journal ofScience, Environment and

Technology, Vol. 6, No 4, 2017, 2190 –2201, 2191-2201.

Dick, S. N. (2011). Use of community radios to communicate agricultural information to Zimbabwe's

peasant farmers. Pretoria: Depaertment of Inforamtion Science.

Duveskog, D. M. (2002). Harnessing Indigenous Knowledge and Innovation in Farmer Field Schools.

Indonesia: International Workshop on Farmer Field Schools.

FAO. (2014). Communication for Rural Development: Guidelines for Planning and Project Formulation.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Guffey, M. R. (2011). Business Communication.Birchmount Road, Toronto, Ontario,: Nelson

Education.

Hamza, M. (2012). Training material development. Swedish: Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.

Hancock, J. (1997). Extension Education ConductingEffective Agricultural Demonstrations.USA,

Lexington: Cooprative Extension services.

Hartley, J. (2000). Radiocracy:Sound and Ciitizenship. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 156-

157.

Karzner, H., & Belack, C. (2010). Managing Complex Projects. John Wiley & Sons.

Khanal, S. R. (2011). Role of radio on Agricultural development: A review. An interdisciplinary journal,

201-206.

Kruger, E. (1995). Farmer-to-Farmer: A story of Innovation and Solidarity.Natal, South Africa: The Natal

Printing and Publishing Company.

Kumar, A. (2000). Extension Education for human resource development . INDIA.

Mayank, J. (2013). How to Make a Handout for School. http://www.ehow.com/how_8302821_make-

handout-school.html.

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017103

Mwongera, C., Shikuku, K. M., J, T., P, L., E, A., A, V. A., . . . A, W. L. (2016). Climate smart agriculture

rapid appraisal (CSARA).A tool for prioritizing context-specific climate smart agriculture.

Agricultural Systems 150.

Oakley, P. G. (1997). Guide to extensiontraining.UK: Agriculture Extension and Rural Development

Centre, School of Education, University of Reaing.

Ramsing, L. (2009). Project communication in strategic internal perspective. .Retrievedfrom

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/13563280910980113 Consulted 5.12.2014

Richardson, J. G. (1999). Extension education: Process and Practice. NC State: NC.

Saya, S. K. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry to Promote Local Innovations among Farmers Adapting to

Climate Change: Facilitators Guide. Chagrin Falls, USA: Taos Institute,.

Semakula, E. M. (2011). Effectiveness of the farmer-to-farmer extension model in increasing

technology uptake in Masaka and Tororo Districts of Uganda. South African Journal of

Agricultural Extension.

Tonge, R. (2010). How to wite training manuals. Australia.

Ulrichs, M., Cannon, T., Newsham, A., Naess, L., & Marshall, M. (2015). Working Paper 108 -Climate

change and food security vulnerability assessment toolkit for assessing community level

potential for adaptationto climate change.Bioversity International& Institute of

Development Studies, CGIAR/CCAFS.

Yang, K. (2016). Chapter2: Participatory Video in Practice.Retrieved from Springer:

HTTP://WWW.SPRINGER.COM/978-981-10-1048-4

Ylitovia, F. (2015). Internal Communications in Project Management-Case Company X.Turktu

University of Applied Sciences.

Zulch, B. G. (2014). Communication: The Foundation of Project Management 2014. .Publishedby

Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committeesof

CENTERIS/ProjMAN/HCIST 2014.