Deliverable 4 Report on CoPs and Demonstration Sites | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Water Research Commission

Submitted to:

Dr Gerhard Backeberg

Executive Manager:Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Prepared By:

Project team led by Mahlathini Development Foundation.

Project Number: K5/2719/4

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

Water and Soil Conservationpractices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming

systems.

Deliverable No.4:Report- CoPs and Demonstration Sites Established

Date: May 2018

Deliverable

Submitted to:

Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Project team:

Mahlathini Development Foundation

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 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018
3 
CONTENTS
FIGURES 4
TABLES 4
1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE 5
Contract Summary 5
Project objectives5
Deliverables 5
Overview of Deliverable 4 6
2Cops and demonStration sites established 8
3CSA practices 8
Further practices suggested by local farmers 17
4Outcomes of CC dialogues (Workshop 1): Definitions, changes, present activities, 
impacts 17
Overview 17
Impacts of CC on livelihoods and farming18
5Potential adaptive measures 19
6Continuation of CC dialogues (Workshop 2): Potential adaptive measures, 
prioritisation of practices and experimentation planning22
Ezibomvini (KZN) CCAworkshop 2 25
Alice (Eastern Cape) CCA Workshop 29
7Baseline information 32
Household level questionnaires 32
Farmer typologies 35
Scale of operation42
Walkabouts 43
Tabamhlophe43
Ezibomvini 44
Case Study GrainSA SFIP: Conservation Agriculture builds a better life for Mrs Phumelele 
Hlongwane (Bergville)45
Conservation Agriculture Experimentation47
Yield results47
Run-off results49
Mvuso (Alice) EC51
8Community level prioritization of Practices for Experimentation 52
Collaborative activities in learning groups 60
Experimentation with vegetable production and tunnels61
Individual experimentation 62
Conservation Agriculture experimentation- Limpopo62
Tunnel and gardening experimentation _KZN- Ezibomvini 65
9Capacity building and publications67
Community level learning 67
Organisational capacity building 67
Post graduate students67
Sanelise Tafa:68
Khethiwe Mthethwa:70
Mazwi Dlamini73
Palesa Motaung75
Publications and networking 80

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018
4 
FIGURES
Figure 1: The Smallholder decision support system process ................................................................32
Figure 2:Baseline information for CCA workshop participants .............................................................34
Figure 3: Household, scale of farming and income information for CCA participants .........................35
Figure 4:  CAtrial layout for Koko Maphori’s field (Plots highlighted in brown is where runoff plots have 
been installed) ......................................................................................................................................65
TABLES
Table 1: Deliverables for the research period; completed .....................................................................5
Table 2: CoPs’ established in three provinces........................................................................................8
Table 3: Summary of climate change impacts from community level workshops ...............................18
Table 4: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Turkey (Limpopo) climate change
dialogue process ...................................................................................................................................19
Table 5: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Thamela (KZN)) climate change dialogue 
process ..................................................................................................................................................20
Table 6: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Sekororo (Limpopo) climate change 
dialogue process ...................................................................................................................................21
Table 7: 2nd CC workshop agenda outline .............................................................................................23
Table 8:Climate change dialogues; workshops 1 and 2. .......................................................................24
Table 9: Suggested practices for farmers, categorised into the 5 primary themes..............................26
Table 10: Individual volunteers for trench bed experimentation in KZN (Bergville) ............................28
Table 11:CSA Practices: Prioritization by groups and individuals .........................................................29
Table 12: Farmer segmentation in the Bergville smallholder farming system .....................................36
Table 13: Baseline information related to incomes ..............................................................................37
Table 14: Farmer typology for the WRC-CCA process ..........................................................................40
Table 15:Summary of scale of operation for present participants in the WRC-CCA process ...............42
Table 16  : Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo ...........................60
Table 17:  Participants in the individual CA farmer experimentation in Limpopo ...............................62
Table 18: Individual experimentation with trench beds, mixed cropping and mulching for the 
Ezibomvini Learning Group ...................................................................................................................65

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Report-CoPsanddemonstrationsites

established

1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE

Contract Summary

Project objectives

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

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

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

South Africa (Output 2)

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

context (Outputs 2,3)

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

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

resilience (Outputs 3,4)

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

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

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

Deliverables

Table 1: Deliverables for the research period; completed

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 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

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 4

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:

-Continuation of implementation of the CCA introduction workshops (workshop 1) in KZN

(Ezibomvini _18-19 Jan 2018 and EC, Alice_13-15 Feb 2018);

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

-Initiation of collaborative activities in 6 villages (KZN and Limpopo): Tunnels and drip kits

(Thabamhlophe, Ezibomvini, Eqeleni_29-31 Jan 2018 Sedawa, Lourene, Turkey_9-12 April

2018); CSA gardening practices (Turkey_ Jan, March 2018)

-Team planning meeting; including training of trainers (16 March 2018)_ Outline and

planning for CCA workshop 2 (Prioritization of practices)

-Implementation of CCA Workshop 2 in 3 villages (KZN and EC): Ezibomvini (22,23 March

2018), Thabamhlophe (17-18 April 2018), Alice (16-17 April 2018).

-Dialogues in climate change adaptation- including prioritization of practices – Limpopo (13-

15 March 2018)

-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); weather stations, run-off plots, gravimetric water sampling, soil

health sampling, soil fertility sampling, chameleon water sensors.

-Capacity building and publications:

oResearch presentations and chapters:

▪Khethiwe Mthethwa – Agric Honours( UKZN -Completed cum

laude);Investigating the sustainability of adoption of conservation

agriculture by small-scale farmers in Bergville, Dec 2017),

▪Mazwi Dlamini – M Phil (PLAAS UWC-yr 2); completed proposal and research

methodology

▪Palesa Motaung- M Agric (UP- yr 2); completed proposal and research

methodology

oNewsletter articles: Adaptation Network newsletter, SA Grain Newsletter, African

Farming.Com - Feature

oRangeland learning exchange visit (UCPP_6-8 Feb 2018), Regenerative Agriculture

oConference-Reitz (GrainSA and Landbouweekblad_19-20 March 2018).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

2COPS AND DEMONSTRATION SITES ESTABLISHED

Table 2: CoPs’ established in three provinces

3CSA PRACTICES

A little more work was done on the practices database, providing for a focus on the Agroforestry and

Livestock management options and coming up with the first ideas around these two important

farming system processes.

Province

Site/Area;

villages

Demonstration

sites

CoPs

Collaborative strategies

KZN

Tabamhlophe

- 1st CC workshop

- Collaborative

strategies:

-2nd CC workshop

-Farmers w NGO

support (Lima RDF)

- Tunnels and drip kits

- Individual experimentation

with basket of options

Ezibomvini/

Thamela, Eqeleni

- 1st CC workshop

-Collaborative

strategies

-2nd CC workshop

-CA open days,

cross visits

(LandCare, DARD,

ARC, GrainSA), LM

Agric forums, ….

- Tunnels (Quantitative

measurements

- CA farmer experimentation

(Quantitative measurements)

– case studies

-Individual experimentation

with basket of options

Limpopo

Mametja

(Sedawa, Turkey,

- 1st CC workshop

- 3rd DICLAD

workshop

- Collaborative

strategies:

-Agroecology

network

(AWARD/MDF)

- Tunnels (Quantitative

measurements

- CA farmer experimentation

(Quantitative measurements)

– case studies

- Individual experimentation

with basket of options

Tzaneen

(Sekororo -

Lourene)

- 1st CC workshop

- Collaborative

strategies

-Tunnels and drip kits

Alice/Middledrift

area

- 1st CC workshop

-2nd CC workshop

Imvotho Bubomi

Learning Network

(IBLN) - ERLC, Fort

Cox, Farmers, Agric

Extension services,

NGOs

-Individual and collaborative

experimentation with basket

of options

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Category

Area

Type of

practice

Practice

Description

Farming resource that is targeted

Water

Soil

Crop

Livestock

Natural

res

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

irrigation

drip irrigation

Also called trickle or micro irrigation applying water

slowly and directly to the roots of plants through

small plastic pipes and flow control devices. Emitters

are integral to the functioning where turbulent flow

prevent clogging to a large degree.

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

manage

evaporation

,temperature

shade cloth tunnels

Shade cloth structures (40% grey) assist in managing

water through reduced evaporation, temperature

and pest incidence

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

irrigation

furrows and ridges/ furrow

irrigation

Furrow irrigation is a method of applying water at a

specific rate of flow into shallow, evenly spaced, u-

shaped channels from the top end of the furrow.

Flow occurs because of gravity and the amount of

water applied is dependent on soil type, gradient,

flow rate, evenness and the number of previous

applications.

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

improved

water

retention

mulching

Soil cover refers to vegetation, including crops, and

crop residues on the surface of the soil, covering

ideally the projected surface area of crop roots.

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

improved

water

retention

improved organic matter

(manure and crop residues)

Increased organic matter enhances the water

holding capacity of sandy soils, while it improves the

drainage of clayey soils.

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

irrigation

Greywater management

Irrigation practices involving greywater, including

pre-treatment with ash or using sand filters. Specific

bed designs for greywater include tower gardens and

keyhole beds.

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Diversion ditches

Channel or furrow made across the main slope with

its ridge on the downhill side

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Water

Management

Manage

available

water

control erosion

Grass water ways

Shaped or graded channels with suitable vegetation,

designed to intermittently carry surface water runoff

at non-erosive velocities to stable outlets.

Water

Management

Increase

available

water

harvesting, soil

fertility

infiltration pits / banana

circles

0.7m-1.5m deep pits/basins dug in water flow lines

to control water movement and filled with organic

matter for improved soil fertility. Various planting

regimes including bananas

Water

Management

Increase

available

water

harvesting

rain water harvesting

The collection of run off from rain, roof and other

surfaces for productive use in and outside the field.

Both infield and storage options are available

Water

Management

Increase

available

water

harvesting

tied ridges

Increases the water availability by collecting rainfall

from an unplanted sloping basin and catching it with

a furrow and ridge. Planting takes place on either

side of the furrow where the water has infiltrated.

Water

Management

Increase

available

water

harvesting, soil

erosion control

Half moon basins

These are small semi circular earth bunds for

catching water flowing down a slope

Water

Management

Increase

available

water

harvesting

small dams

2m-5m deep pond constructed to catch water during

the rainy season with a clay core, a wall (for larger

earth dams) and a spillway to let go off excess water

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control erosion

Contours; ploughing and

planting

Ploughing and or planting along the contours of the

land in order to minimize soil erosion. Can use line

levels, A-frames, dumpy levels etc to mark contours

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control erosion

gabions

Rectangular baskets fabricated from a hexagonal

mesh of heavily galvanized iron, filled with stones/

gravel for erosion control steel wire filled with rock

and stacked atop one another to form a gravity type

wall.

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Stone bunds

Used along contour lines to slow down, filter and

spread out runoff water, thus increasing infiltration

and reducing soil erosion.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

check dams

These are small dams constructed across a drainage

ditch, or waterway to counteract erosion by reducing

water flow velocity and allowing sedimentation of

silt.

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Swales

Swales are ditches and bunds constructed on

contour to manage water flow and sedimentation.

Mulching and planting occurs in both the ditch and

on the bunds

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Zai pits

Hand dug 0.6m diameter and 0.3m deep circular

holes that collect and store water for crop use

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Terraces

A terrace is a level strip of soil built along the

contour of a slope and supported by an earth or

stone bund, or rows of old tyres for example

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, water

harvesting

Stone packs

Like gabions and check dams these are constructed

across gulleys or water flow paths to control erosion,

slow surface water flow rate and promote

sedimentation

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, crops,

livestock,

natural

resources

Strip cropping

Strip cropping is a strategy for subdividing single

fields on slopes into strips that follow contours;

where different crops are planted; a mixture of

annual and perennial crops are usually used.

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control erosion

Pitting

Pitting is carried out in large fields or areas prone to

sheet and wind erosion where the whole area is

imprinted with small pits- into which sediment and

seeds can be blown for germination when it rains.

Soil

Management

Control soil

movement

control

erosion, soil

fertility

Woodlots for soil

reclamation

Trees planted in an eroded area will assist with

recuding the flow rate of surface water and thus help

to prevent further erosion.

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility

soil nutrients

Targeted application of

small quantities of

fertilizer, lime etc

Use of site specific fertilizer recommendation and

more efficient use of fertilizer (using the right,

source, at right time, at right place and applying the

right rate) , liming to manage soil acidity (surface

liming and incorporation).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility

soil nutrients

Liquid manures

Brews are made of animal and plant matter as liquid

supplements to soil fertility,

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility

soil nutrients,

livestock

fodder

Woody hedgerows for

browse, mulch, green

manure, soil conservation

Growing leguminous tree shrubs in narrow strips

across the slope and material used a green manure

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

health

manage water,

control erosion

and soil

health, crops,

livestock

Conservation Agriculture

Three main principles of minimal soil disturbance (no

ploughing), soil cover (stover, mulching and cropping

patterns) and diversity ( inter cropping, relay

cropping and cover crops) upheld in the field

cropping system

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

soil health

soil nutrients

Planting legumes, manure,

green manures

Use of legumes , manures (improved) and green

manures in specific combinations to improve soil

fertility and soil health.

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

soil health

soil nutrients,

crops

Mixed cropping

Managing soil health and pest and disease incidence

through crop combinations; mixed cropping, inter

cropping, crop rotation

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

soil health

soil nutrients,

crops

Herbs and multifunctional

plants

Managing soil health and pest and disease incidence

through crop combinations; using herbs and

multifunctional plants - including windbreaks, trap

cropping, pest deterrents, bee fodder etc

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

health

soil nutrients,

crops,

livestock

Agroforestry options

(multipurpose, fast growing

trees and fodder species)

Land use management system in which trees or

shrubs are grown around or among crops or

pastureland

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

health

soil nutrients,

crops

Bed design; trench beds,

eco circles

Intensive beds dug out and filled with a range of

organic matter ( dry, wet manure, bones, ash etc) to

provide for highly fertile beds with high water

holding capacity - e.g. trench beds, shallow trenches,

eco-circles

Soil

Management

Improve soil

fertility and

health

soil nutrients,

crops

Understand soil health

aspects using visual

indicators

Using visual indicators for soil type, soil aggregates,

porosity, soil mottles, infiltration etc can assist in

planning appropriate soil management structures

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Diversification

crop diversification

Addition of new crops to the production system, to

fix nitrogen for example.

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Pest

management

(incl weeds)

push-pull technology

Approach in pest management which uses a

repellent intercrop and an attractive trap plant

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Pest

management

(incl weeds)

Natural pest and disease

control

This is an ecologically based aproach to managing

pests and diseases including chemical, boilogical and

other regulatory means

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Pest

management

(incl weeds)

Integrated weed

management

The use of a combination of weed control practices

thus reducing dependency on any one type of

control. This includes practices such as close spacing,

late season weeding for weeding weeds, soil health

management (structure and porosity), composting

etc

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Improve crop

variety

Breeding improved

varieties (early maturing,

drought tolerant, improved

nutrients),

Improve varieties can be more productive, grow in

drier years and potentially make better use of

nutrients

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Improve crop

variety

OPV and heirloom varieties

OPV's are seeds where pollination occurs by insect,

bird, wind, humans, or other natural mechanisms.

Heirloom variety is a plant variety that has a history

of being passed down within a family or community

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Seed saving

The practice of saving seeds or other reproductive

material (e.g. tubers) from vegetables, grain, herbs,

and flowers for use from year to year for annuals

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Crop rotation

A series of different crops planted in the same field

following a defined order to improve soil health and

to prevent the build-up of soil related diseases.

Crop

Management

Crop

management

Crops natural

resources

Windbreaks

Hedges as shelterbelts and wind breaks in wind

prone areas; can use multipurpose indigenous

species that also assist in erosion control

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Integrated

systems

Trees and bushes lining fish

ponds for optimal pond

conditions and fish

"browsing"

Trees and shrubs are planted on the edge of the

pond to prevent trampling by cattle. Watering points

need to be provided if the pond is used for stock

watering.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Honey

Trees suitable for honey

production

Trees suitable for honey production could be planted

on field edges and unused areas.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Protein rich

trees

Production of protein-rich

tree fodder on

farm/rangelands for cut-

and-carry fodder

production

Protein rich trees like tree Lucerne could enhance

the grazing capacity and assist with soil protection

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Woodlots

Woodlots for timber,

fodder, soil protection, soil

reclamation

Appropriate trees planted in an eroded area will

assist with reducing the flow rate of surface water

and thus help to prevent further erosion. It will also

enhance the soil fertility because of the falling

leaves.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Improved

fallow

Woodly legumious crops

planted and left to grow

during fallow phase to

improve fallow

Deliberate planting of leguminous species primarily

for fixing nitrogen as part of crop fallow and rotation

and secondarily for livestock fodder

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Shade

Trees planted for shading

crops or animals

A plantation of one or more rows of trees for

shading purposes. This can enhance the production

of dairy cows significantly - if the waiting area is fully

shaded.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Broilers

Small scale broiler

production

Grow broilers in naturally ventilated houses made of

iso-wall panels. Free range optional

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Layers

Small scale egg production

Produce eggs in naturally ventilated houses made of

iso-wall panels. Free range optional

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Dairy

Small scale milk production

Good quality cows are milked by hand or a simple

mechanised system. A shade cloth structure is

provided for the waiting area to cool cows down

before milking. Evaporative cooling can also be

utilised.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Beef

Small scale intensive cattle

farming

Good quality cattle are kept in a partly shaded area

where they are fed the normal feedlot fodder with

added fodder grown on the farm. The purpose is to

enhance the condition of cattle before selling.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Goats

Small scale goat production

Hardy goats are grown for meat and other products

like hair.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Stall feeding

Feed animals in stalls to reduce energy requirements

seeking out grazing; links to agroforestry systems,

fallows and improved pastures

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Creep feeding

In cases where young livestock do not have adequate

access to fodder, or are ‘bullied’ by older animals,

enclosures that are only accessible to younger

animals (i.e. small entrances) can be built. High

quality fodder is placed in the enclosure that

younger animals can feed on.

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Alternative

fodder crops

Cultivation of alternative

fodder crops

Use of high value or productive fodder crops (e.g.

legumes, napier fodder, improved pastures)

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Supplementary

feeding

Haymaking

Drying, and storage of surplus fodder for winter

feeding - often made from high value / high protein

fodder crops

Livestock

Management

Integrated

crop-

livestock

management

Harvesting and

relocating

nutrients

manure harvesting

The collection of manure from stall-fed animals or

animals kept in kraals as a fertiliser for crops

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Livestock

Management

Veld

management

systems

Rotational

resting

Resting camps for a full

growing season

Rotational resting is the practice of excluding a

selected area (usually one quarter of the grazing

area) from grazing for a full growing season to allow

for the recovery of a grassland - has ecological and

livestock productivity benefits

Livestock

Management

Veld

management

systems

Even

utilisation

Even utilisation

Introducing systems that prevent a concentration of

grazing close to the homesteads where grazing

pressure is highest. Usually requires introduction of

herders.

Livestock

Management

Veld

management

systems

Fire

Application of fire to remove moribund material and

improve veld condition. A spring burn after the first

spring rains provides an opportunity to improve veld

condition.

Livestock

Management

Veld

management

systems

Supplementary

feeding

Protein licks

Protein licks provide supplements to livestock which

allow them to make effective use of low value

grazing in the winter months.

Livestock

Management

Veld

rehabilitation

De bushing

and over

sowing

De-bushing and over

sowing

The practice of controlling alien invader plants and

encroaching indigenous plants to allow grazing to re-

establish

Livestock

Management

Veld

rehabilitation

Rangeland

reinforcement

Rangeland reinforcement

The practice of sowing productive pasture / fodder

species into grasslands. Best practice is to introduce

these species into old lands, which are degraded.

Livestock

Management

Veld

rehabilitation

Bioturbation

Hoof trampling (a form of “bioturbation”) assists

with ‘kick starting’ recovery of grassland on these

rangelands, through breaking up capped

impermeable soil surface, and depositing nutrients

and grass seed in manure

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Further practices suggested by local farmers

The practices mentioned below are to be added into the database of practices

-Spring protection

-Biogas digesters

-Different seed varieties

-Planting calendars

-Drought tolerant and bird resistant varieties

-Lizard hotel

-More on greywater management

4OUTCOMES OF CC DIALOGUES (WORKSHOP 1): DEFINITIONS,

CHANGES, PRESENT ACTIVITIES, IMPACTS

Initial Climate Change dialogues, to explore concepts of climate change, the impacts on peoples’ lives

and farming activities and tostart discussions on potential adaptive strategies in these communities

have been undertaken for 7 villages across three provinces. Full reports for a number of these

workshops are attached in Appendices 2-5.

Here a summary of some of the outcomes and discussions will be provided.

Overview

It can be considered that farmers always complain about the weather; especially those reliant on the

weather for crop and livestock production. This meant that our first topic revolved around the

differences between general weather variability and climate change. This was achievedthrough role

plays, slide shows and discussions.

The situation differs across the provinces:

-In Limpopo; there was consensus among participants that it is generally hotter throughout

the whole year than it was in the past (10 years ago) and that they are receiving less rain

than before. They feel that the impact of the recent drought has been a lot more severe

because of these conditions.

-In KZN; farmers are aware of changes in rainfall patterns. They experience more extreme

events (storms, high winds and hail) than before. Temperature variability has also increased

with cold weather at unexpected times, snow both earlier and later than usual in the season

and excessive heat in spring, summer and autumn.

-In the EC; farmers are aware of changes in rainfall patterns. They experience more extreme

events (storms, high winds and hail) than before. They feel that winters are colder than

before. There is greater temperature variability from day to day than before.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Impacts of CC on livelihoods and farming

These impacts were first discussed in general terms, then reviewed in terms of comparingthe past

present and future and then interrogated using the impacts mind mapping process.

The table below outlines a summary of impacts mentioned for each province

Table 3: Summary of climate change impacts from community level workshops

Climate change impacts on livelihoods and farming

KZN

Limpopo

Water

Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry

out quickly after rain

Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry

out quickly after rain

Less water in the landscape;

streams and springs dry up,

borehole run dry, soils dry

out quickly after rain

Dams dry up

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable

Municipal water supply

becoming more unreliable;

Need to buy water for

household use – now

sometimes for more than 6

months of the year

RWH storage only enough for

household use.

Soil

More erosion

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils becoming more

compacted and infertile

Soils too hot to sustain plant

growth

Cropping

Timing for planting has

changed- later

Timing for planting has

changed- later

Can no longer plant dryland

maize

All cropping now requires

irrigation – even crops such

as sweet potato

Drought tolerant crops such

as sorghum and millet grow=-

but severe bird damage

Heat damage to crops

Reduced germination and

growth

Reduced germination and

growth

Reduced germination and

growth

Seeding of legumes

becoming unreliable

Seeding of legumes

becoming unreliable

Seeding of legumes becoming

unreliable

Lower yields

Winter vegetables don’t do

well -stress induced bolting

and lack of growth

More pests and diseases

Loss of indigenous seed

stocks

Loss of indigenous seed

stocks

Livestock

Less grazing; not enough to

see cattle through winter

Less grazing; not enough to

see cattle through winter

Less grazing; not enough to

see cattle through winter

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

More disease in cattle and

heat stress symptoms

Fewer calves

More deaths

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Natural

resources

Fewer trees; too much

cutting for firewood

Fewer trees; too much

cutting for firewood

Fewer trees; too much

cutting for firewood

Decrease in wild animals

and indigenous plants

Decrease in wild animals

and indigenous plants

Decrease in wild animals and

indigenous plants

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Increased crop damage from

wild animals such as birds

and monkeys

Availability of indigenous

vegetables has decreased

No longer able to harvest any

resources due to scarcity

Increased population puts

pressure on resources

Social

More diseases

Increased poverty and

hunger

Increased poverty and

hunger

Increased poverty and

hunger

Increased crime and

reduced job opportunities

Increased crime and

reduced job opportunities

Increased crime and reduced

job opportunities

Increased food prices

Increased conflict

Inability to survive

Although many of the impacts are similar across the three provinces, the severity of these changes

are a lot more obvious in Limpopo. Where comments like “we will all die”, “we will need to move

from here to the cities” and “it feels like the end of the world is coming” were not uncommon.

In all the provinces, but more so in KZN and Limpopo people felt that they are being punished by

God for the disintegration of their social fabric. They mentioned that people no longer follow the

old rules or keep to their traditional beliefs and taboos, people do not care properly for their

families and immorality, violence and theft are all too common. There is thus a tacit understanding

that these social problems exacerbate their ability to survive well into the future.

5POTENTIAL ADAPTIVE MEASURES

These were discussed as an outcome of the impact mind map and participants discussed in small

groups possiblepracticesand ideaswhich couldhelp them adapt to the changes and reduce the

negative impacts of these changes.

Being practically minded, most of the participants moved straight from impacts to practices –so

strategies were not really discussed. Some of the groups had many ideas, some of which were gleaned

from working with support organisations and NOGs. Those groups where no external support is

available, such as Thamela (KZN) did not have many ‘new” ideas,but focussed more on doing what

they are currently doing better.

Below are two examples of this discussion:

-for the Sedawa extension village – Turkey in Limpopo (with limited external support)

-for Thamela in Bergville (where participants were in doubt as to whether CC exists and have

received very limited external support)

Table 4: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Turkey (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process

Turkey CC workshop; December 2017

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Impacts

Description and linkages

Outcomes

Potential adaptive measure

GROUP 1

Reduced

water

availability

Dams dry out, boreholes

provide less water, rivers dry

out, less rain

Reduced

production,

hunger, diseases,

no jobs, poverty,

crime, death

More boreholes, more dams, water

management, irrigation in evenings

and early morning, mulching, trench

beds (keep moisture in and soil cool)

Drying of

environment

Soils are hotter and drier,

drought, plants wilt,

increased pests

Save plant residues for animals, buy

fodder, control pests on animals

Reduction of

resources

Deforestation, Fruit trees die,

livestock, wild animals die

Planting of trees after they have

been cut down; make use of paraffin

stoves and electricity, government

involvement in solving the problem,

GROUP 2

Extreme heat

Early fruiting, trees wilt

Poor crop health

Shade netting

Shortage of

water

Rivers dry out, municipal

supply only once per week.

Boreholes dry out

Lack of education

towards saving

water

NGOs and government to assist

Trench beds, mulching, save water

in dams, drip irrigation, irrigate in

evening, boreholes, greywater

Reduction of

resources

Less grazing, seed shortage,

trees are removed,

indigenous animals are no

longer there

Donations for/of seed

Rather use paraffin stoves than

firewood. Only chop down mature

trees to allow others to grow,

planting trees, government

intervention

Taking care of indigenous plants

Plant fodder for livestock

Soils

Poor cultivation practices, soil

erosion, dry soils, sandy soils

Using crop residues and manure

Social

repercussions

Less or no food, health

problems, no jobs

Burning of buses,

divorce,

separation of

families, poverty,

crime

Getting access to health care,

parents must work

Shortage of

implements

Setting up cooperatives for

government support, use animal

drawn traction- oxen and donkeys,

improvise, make our own tools,

make use of hand hoes

Table 5: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Thamela (KZN)) climate change dialogue process

Thamela CC workshop; Dec 2017

Impact

Adaptation

Reddish soils

Weeding, they leave it in the plots, because it helps cover the soil but

others they take it out of their plots

Pests

Chemicals

Increased temperatures our yields

decrease

Their crops need soil fertilizer,

oFertilizer increase soil fertility

oLime lasts for 3 years

oManure

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Livelihoods are affected there is

more hunger

When temperatures are high they

become dizzy anddiarrhoea,

human diseases increase

They take remedies, such as castor oil and garlic

High temperatures affect their

livestock and crop fields

They inject the livestock when they are ill

They give them supplements and vaccination

and dip them

They don’t receive much produce

from the fields to sell

Water

They fetch from the local springs but they mentioned its far and are

able to fetch 20l per trip (some springs dry out some don’t)

RWH for household chores

Potato seed

They buy on pay days

Increase inprizes for farming

equipment

Savings grouping and bulk buying

When these two tables are compared to a community who have beeninvolved in a support

programme, such a Sekoroo where LimaRDF have been running a Food security and livelihoods

improvement programme, the differences in suggestions clearly indicate some ideas gleaned from the

facilitating organisation

Table 6: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Sekororo (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process

Sekororo; CC workshop November 2017

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

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Livestock

Lack of grazing, more

diseases, more damage of

crops

Livestock

decreasing, not

healthy

Control grazing,

Social

repercussions

Poverty, diseases, hunger

Crime, murder

and theft,

domestic

violence, divorce,

increased death

rate, no money to

pay lobola

GROUP 2

Extreme 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 rains destroy

infrastructure,

Food shortages,

animals die due to

lack of grazing,

Water harvesting, earth dams, grey

water and management of existing

water, diversion furrows

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, trench beds and eco-circles

Plant sweet potatoes to hold soil,

plant across the slope, plant

indigenous crops such as cowpeas,

Make use of hands and oxen to

plant using conservation agriculture

Loosen the soil to avoid water

logging and yellowing of plants

Crops

Reduced production

increased pests, medicinal

herbs destroyed in drought

and heat

Plant colourful flowers and plants to

attract pest predators and bees,

companion planting, making brews

form marigolds

Plant medicinal species in controlled

environments with the vegetables

9tunnels)

Social

repercussions

More diseases and health

problems, poverty food

shortages, low education

standards (because schools

are free)

No transfer of

knowledge, crime

Plant herbs and vegetables,

entrepreneurship, job creation,

plant your own crops instead of

always buying

Based on the adaptive measures suggested a selection of the CSA practices summarised as 1 pagers

were introduced to each group. This process was easy for groups that have had some exposure to

agroecological practices and support in implementation and a lot harder where little outside support

has been available.

6CONTINUATION OF CC DIALOGUES (WORKSHOP 2): POTENTIAL

ADAPTIVE MEASURES, PRIORITISATION OF PRACTICES AND

EXPERIMENTATION PLANNING

An outline has been designed for this process and is presented in the table below.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Table 7: 2nd CC workshop agenda outline

Community level climate change adaptation: Prioritisation and planning workshop outline

DAY 1

Time

Activity

Process

Notes

Materials

Who

9:00am

INTRODUCTION

9:00-

10:00am

Community and

team

introductions

In pairs, take 5 minutes

to talk to each other.

Each person names one

practice they know or

are doing that is good

for CCA - a CSA practice.

OR one they would

most like to try out.

Practices to be

summarised on a

flip chart.

Attendance

with column

for CSA

practices - in

English and

Zulu/Pedi.

Name tags;

stickers, kokis

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

Purpose of the

day

Introduction of the

organisation/s and

purpose of this

workshop-Review of

understanding of CC,

Impacts and adaptive

measures. Introduction

to CSA principles

Summarise from

report of 1st

workshop -Use

the 5 categories -

summarise

measures under

each. Use two PP

slides attached

Flip stand,

newsprint,

kokis,

camera- and

one person to

undertake to

take photos

throughout

the day. Extra

batteries for

camera and

sim card

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

10:00am

Prioritization of

practices

10:00 to

11:00am

Review practices

mentioned in

detail - both

community level

and presented

from 1pgers

Divide into small groups

- for prioritization

matrix; Use five

categories (Nat res, soil,

water, crop, livestock).

Supply with cards

where all prioritized

practises are written.

They then prioritize

these in a list under

each category, based on

what to try first, second

and so on - make sure

the criteria used for

these choices are

recorded. Come back

in plenary, present and

get overall choices

summarised for all

small groups

See Community

level

prioritization of

practices Excel

worksheet

Flipchart

paper, kokis,

cards with all

prioritized

practices

written out,

pres-stick

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

11:00 -

11:30am

TEA

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

(lots) and plates… Generous helpings - and lots of juice if it is

hot. Find someone to be in charge of food and refreshments,

while the rest of the workshop continues

Preparation:

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

11:30

Demonstrations

and learning

11:30-

2:30pm

Learning and

practical

demonstration

session on a

selection of

practices - start

with gardening

practices

(appropriate for

present season)

Presentation to group -

discussions etc , then

practical

demonstrations in an

appropriate garden -

preferable a household

garden. Choose 1-4

practices: e.g. trench

bed, mulching, liquid

manure, intercropping

Facilitators to come prepared

with handouts and learning

materials. Also materials for doing

the practical demonstrations such

as mulch, manure, seed,

seedlings, tools, and other e.g.

shade netting, poles, gravel and

ash for tower gardens - depends

on practices and must be planned

for

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

2:30pm

Individual

experimentation

2:30-

3:00pm

Individual choice

of practices for

household

experimentation

After the

demonstrations - Make

a list for individuals to

choose experiments to

try out. Headings are

practises. Each

participant writes their

name under the

practices they will try -

it can be one, a few or

all.

facilitators to discuss how an

experiment works - ie the farmer

compares the new idea to her

usual practice. For example if she

will do a trench bed, she has to

make a bed new to it the same

size the way she usually does and

plant both in the same way on the

same day.. This way she will be

able to see the differences in

growth and yield from her

practice. She needs to monitor

how it is going and be able to

report back to this group what

has happened.

Preparation:

Facilitation:

Recording:

3:00pm

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

with one veg… or something similar- )

Preparation:

Initial Climate Change dialogues, to explore concepts of climate change, the impacts on peoples’ lives

and farming activities and tostart discussions on potential adaptive strategies in these communities

have been undertaken for more than

7 villages across three provinces.

Table 8:Climate change dialogues; workshops 1 and 2.

Province

AREA

VILLAGE

No of participants:

Workshop 1: CCA

No of participants:

Workshop 2:

Practices

Limpopo

Mametja

Turkey

Sedawa

Tzaneen

Sekororo

KZN

Bergville

Thamela

Ezibomvini/Eqeleni

Estcourt

Tabamhlophe

The IBLN in the EC covers +/- 10 villages

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Alice/Middledrift

Imvotho Bubomi

Learning Network

(IBLN) - across a

number of villages

Ezibomvini (KZN) CCAworkshop 2

Below is a summary of some of the

discussions undertaken for the 2ndCC

dialogue workshop undertaken in Ezibomvini

(23 March 2018)

The second workshop, aiming at prioritizing

practice options enlisted in the first work

shop and thereafter starting a farmer's level

experimentation process.

Right: 29 Participants in the 2nd CC dialogue

workshop in Ezibomvini (KZN), 23 March

2018

CCA practices that are familiar to farmers

An introduction session over five minutes took place where farmers were to introduce each other

and their farming activities. Following is the summary of the results from the discussions:

•The use drip irrigation to retain moisture for a long time in the soil.

• Grey water harvesting practice.

•Use of cow manure

•Mulching

•Intercropping

•Bed design

•Rain Water harvesting

•Watering the garden before sunrise and after sunset

•Blue death as pest and disease control measure

•Conservation Agriculture (CA).

oCA farmers receive more yields, the level of pests such as stalk borer and cutworm

has decreased. Farmers are saving on inputs.

Review of participants understanding of Climate change

Farmers still remember that previously there was discussion that historically there is a change in

climate as compared to the current situation. The level of rainfall is now lower and temperatures

are high. The increase in temperature has a negative impact on crop growth. There is the high level

of wind which dries the soils. Historically it was only windy in winter and presently it is windy

throughout. There are no wetlands anymore because there is no rain and people are building houses

where there were wetlands.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

The impact of Climate Change on farmer’s livelihoods

•The outbreak of pests and diseases

There is an outbreak of pests such as aphids, termites, and cutworms, which farmers do not know

how they can solve this problem. Some farmers have ants in their gardens and they used blue death.

•Shortage of animal feed

The high temperatures lead to dry conditions, therefore there is a minimum vegetation growing and

available for livestock to graze on the grazing lands.

•Burning of Grazing veld

Different farmers have the different reason to burn the veld, some burn it to dispose of the straws

left after grazing so that the field can be ready for the following spring, and some burn it for soil

fertility and health purposes. At the end of the day burning of fields leads to disease outbreak to

livestock. Previously our great grand fathers were creating fire banks so that fires do not spread all

over, in nowadays males are lazy and they do not do that.

•Shortage of grazing lands

The population is increasing at an alarming rate, more people are building houses and this has led to

the building of houses in the grazing lands.

CSA practices that were suggested by farmers on the previous workshop

The following table outlines the practices and their categories

Table 9: Suggested practices for farmers, categorised into the 5 primary themes.

Natural RM

Soil

Water

crops

Livestock

1.Tunnels

2.Bed design

3.Mulching

4.Natural pest

and diseases

5.Rainwater

harvesting

6.Trench bed

7.Composting

8.Fodder crops

9.Underground

water tank

10.Mixed

cropping

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

11.Conservation

of wetlands

and streams

12.Burying of

disposable

pampers

13.Reducing

burning of

grazing veld

14.Greywater

Harvesting

Group Prioritisation of practices

After a presentation of practices, farmers prioritized practices as a team. Due to drought conditions

problems the group chose underground water tanks as the first priority. Due to harsh weather

conditions farmers chose tunnels as their second option. The following table shows farmers how

farmer prioritised practices.

Individual choice of practical household experimentation

Farmers were given a variety of seeds. All farmers were given sachets with the amount 5ml

(teaspoon) seeds. The seeds were given to farmers so that they can experiment some of the

practices shared among them in their household.

Out of 29 farmers who were present, 20 farmers considered trench beds as their priority. Farmers

who chose trench bed will therefore also try out mixed cropping and mulching. Most of the farmers

Above: Tema facilitating the prioritization of

practices

Group Priority

1. Underground water tanks

2. Tunnels

3. Trench beds

4. Mulching

5. Pest and disease control

6. Mixed cropping

7. Compost

8. Fodder crops

9. Conserving wetlands and streams

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

from the nine left already has trench beds in their homesteads. The following is the list of

participants who considered a trench bed as their first priority.

Table 10: Individual volunteers for trench bed experimentation in KZN (Bergville)

Name

Village Name

1.Jabulile Nkabinde

Ezibomvini

2.Fikile Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

3.Nonhlahla Zikode

Ezibomvini

4.Landiwe Gamede

Ezibomvini

5.Gcinekile Zikode

Ezibomvini

6.Hlengiwe Ndaba

Ezibomvini

7.Busisiwe Zikode

Ezibomvini

8.Alfred Gumede

Ezibomvin

9. Velephi Zimba

Ezibomvini

10.Sizeni Dlamini

Eqeleni

11.Lndokuhle Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

12.Conastance Hlongwane

Thamela

13.Thulile Zikode

Eqeleni

14.Sibongile Zikode

Eqeleni

15.Dambi Ntuli

Thamela

16.Zanele Hlongwane

Thamela

17.Thokozile Mpambo

Eqeleni

18.Nomalanga Khumalo

Eqeleni

19.Mvelo Zikode

Ezibomvini

20.Sdudla Sibiya

Ezibomvini

Conclusion and Recommendations

•As mentioned earlier, the weather was not favourable for the workshop field

demonstration, therefore the activity was not done. Demonstrations will be done in the

small group within the individual community. This means that the demonstration will not be

done in a collective group of Ezibomvini, EQeleni, and Thamela, but there is going to be an

individual demonstration for each community.

•On the individual prioritization, most farmers demonstrated an interest in trying trench

beds. It is assumed that most farmers are hoping that if they prepare trench beds they will

be in high chances to get a tunnel, more clarity should be made to farmers regarding tunnels

availability after having trench beds.

•Farmers have expectations to be given free tanks, and it was further clarified to them that

the program is based on transferring knowledge.

•Farmers are not certain about individual priorities, therefore, there is a need for an

assessment of individual's needs.

•More demonstrations and workshops are still needed to strengthen farmers understanding

on Climate change and Climate Smart Agriculture Practices.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Alice (Eastern Cape) CCA Workshop

This workshop was intended to explore further the particular CSA practices in which farmers were

interested, and with which they wished to experiment with the support of the WRC-CSA project

team. While this aim was achieved to a considerable degree, the large numbers of participants (42

people registered), many of whom had not been involved with Phase I required that some time was

spent introducing the whole concept of CSA. Of the 42 registered participants, in addition to 17

farmers, there were numbers of students some of whom did not remain throughout the day.

However, the attendance by the Head of Department for Crop Production at Fort Cox, and the

Agribusiness Diploma Course leader together with several of their students, suggests a very strong

interest in the concept of CSA in the college. There were also 5 members of the Eastern Cape

Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Reform (DRDAR) extension services in

attendance.

Given the difference in context between the Eastern Cape situation, where the project is working

with a broad network (the IBLN) of agricultural practitioners, including some commercial-scale

emerging farmers, as opposed to in other provinces where the WRC-CSA project works almost

exclusively with small-scale and household farmers, the programme followed was an adaptation of

that followed elsewhere and outlined in Table 7, above. However, the same key features were

covered, and it included a highly participatory practical activity.

The purpose and scope of the WRC-CSA project was explained, including the farmer experimentation

approach which would require close monitoring of both areas subject to CSA practices and control

plots without these practices.

The first session laid the ground for a group activity in which the participants divided into 4 groups,

each with a computer and the pdf version of the WRC- CSA Practices document. Their brief was to

go through the document and identify which practices they would consider most appropriate in their

contexts and why. Each group provided feedback on the outcomes of their discussions with the

practices they had identified captured on Newsprint. There

was discussion concerning the scales at which specific

practices might be appropriate and it transpired that

although most practices were initially considered as only

relevant at smaller scales, they could be scaled up in

different ways to become relevant on a larger scale.

Right: EC Group discussion on CSA Practices

Table 1, below, represents the outcomes of this activity, combined with the numbers of individual

participants who later identified specific practices in which they were interested in the register.

Table 11:CSA Practices: Prioritization by groups and individuals

NOTE: Groups in this case are the small groups in the workshop settingconsisting of homestead

gardeners, cooperative members and more commercial farmers

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Practice

Scale(s) (Small – homestead,

Medium <1ha, Large >1ha)

No of Groups

No of

Individuals

Swales

All

Greywater

Small

Small Dams

S/M

Fertility Pits

S/M

Contours

M/L

Terraces

ALL

Furrows/Ridges

All

Infiltration pits/

Banana Circles

Small

Raised Beds

All (considerable discussion here, with

some saying just S/M)

Trench Beds

S/M

Tower Gardens

Tunnel

All

Basins/In-field

All

Mulching

All

Close-spacing

Intercropping

Mixed Cropping

Considered to be very closely related

All – in different ways

Crop Rotation

All

Minimum Tillage

All

Herbs

All

Liquid Manure

All

Bucket Drip

All (Drip, although buckets for just

Small scale)

Underground Storage

S/M

Rainwater Harvesting

(general)

All

What was perhaps most interesting about these outcomes was the great difference between the

practices selected by the different groups, with only mulching being identified by all 4 groups, and

just the Bucket Drip and the combination close/mixed/inter-cropping practices by 3 out of 4.

Essentially almost all the practices listed in the document were selected by one or another group.

The individual preferences as recorded in the register were similarly diverse with a similar

concentration on (bucket) drip, mulching and close/mixed/inter-cropping. Swales, tower gardens

and tunnels were also identified as being of specific interest to several participants. Only one

participant identified large-scale furrows and ridges and infield RWH as being of interest to them,

although the hosts at Mavuso village during the Phase 1 workshop are also interested in these

practices.

The outcomes of this exercise suggest that there is certainly scope for the WRC-CSA project team to

establish support programmes for a number of the farmers in the Eastern Cape.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

The Practical Activity

As no specific practices had been previously identified as being of particular interest to the farmers,

and the nature and condition of the land being made available by the College for the activity was not

known, the preparations for the activity consisted of the purchase of a range of vegetable and herb

seedlings. It was also ascertained that tools and mulching materials would be made available by the

college.

The site allocated by the College farm manager was part of an experimental site used also by the

WRC Amanzi for Food project. There was a choice between a small portion of a recently ploughed

land, which had become heavily weed infested, and an area which had been long untilled and had

reverted to grassland. The lecturer responsible for the demonstration site suggested that the

untilled area might be more suitable, and this was agreed.

The practices agreed on for the site were: minimum tillage; close cropping; intercropping; herbs; and

mulching, the idea being to try and develop a mixed area of cabbage, lettuce, carrot, and onion, with

inter-planting of parsley, mint and coriander. The choice of vegetables and herbs had been

constrained by what had been available at the nursery, and while this was not ideal, the principles

underlying these practices could at least be demonstrated to some extent. It was, however,

recognised that a considerable risk was being taken in planting into a grassland, especially as winter

approached.

One major advantage of this site, though, was that 2 postgraduate interns, who would stay at the

college for a full year, were given the responsibility to water and maintain the site.

Above left and right: Preparing the ground for minimum tillage and watering the mixed planting of

vegetables and herbs

Conclusion

The meeting concluded after lunch with individual farmers identifying specific practices with which

they would like to experiment (as recorded in Table X, above). This information would be shared

with the WRC-CSA project team members in KZN who would be visiting the Eastern Cape in August

September to initiate the experimental phase of the project in the province.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

7BASELINE INFORMATION

Initial Climate Change dialogues, to explore concepts of climate change, the impacts on peoples’ lives

and farming activities and tostart discussions on potential adaptive strategies in these communities

have been undertaken for more than

7 villages across three provinces. In addition, baseline

information was gatheredfrom aa number of these groups. This consisted of individual interviews and

village walkabouts and speaks toproviding information for the farmer typology and aspiration parts

of the decision support process as outlined below.

Figure 1: The Smallholder decision support system process

Household level questionnaires

As a part of the initial community level interactions household interviews are conducted while doing

a village based “walkabout” for the following purposes:

1.To glean information for the DSS around farmer typologies and farmer aspirations; - through

a household questionnaire

2.To assess climate related stressors in the environment; thus to do a basic qualitative

assessment of availability of resources, stress on those resources, farming activities and

vulnerability of households; through more general discussions and photographs.

The IBLN in the EC covers +/- 10 villages

•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 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Household level questionnaires (see APPENDIX 1 for an outline of the questionnaire) were

administered to 6 participants in each province (KZN, Limpopo and EC) as a pilot of the process. The 6

participants in each case were randomly chosen or volunteered and were participants of the climate

change dialogue and impact workshops conducted in these areas.

These participants are not seen as representative of the broader community, but are seen as

representative of the interest group in the community willing to tacklethe issues around their farming

practice and work towards improvements.

The questionnaires touched on a range of topics toassist with a farmer typology classification and also

to assess available resources, farming activities and vulnerabilities of the participants including:

-Basic socio-economic and household information

-Access to services and infrastructure

-Social organisation

-Learning and access to information

-Livelihoods and faming activities

-Income and

-Market access

The socio- economic data for the interviewees has been summarised in the figure below. From the

figure we can make the following observations:

-61% of respondents were female (n=18) and the average age of respondents is 49 years.

-The average household size is around 5 members and the dependency ratio for this groups is

66. This is significantly higher than the national average of 44,5. Dependents in this case

include both children under 15 years of age and pensioners.

-The level of education of these participants is Primary school level – 28%; High school level -

56% and tertiary level – 16%. This generally higher level of education is reflected also in the

inclusion of younger adults in this group of participants

-80% of participants belong to social organisations; including learning groups Village Savings

and Loan Associations, school gardening groups and cooperatives

-Regarding incomes, 67% of the households from this group receive social grants and 61%

receive salaries. The average monthly household income is however still low at R3 992. For

households without employment this is MUCH lower at R947/month.

-Access to electricity is common (89%), but access to water is much more restricted with

access to municipal water through household taps and communal standpipes being 50% and

33% respectively. This does not mean water is freely available, especially in KZN and

Limpopo where municipal systems fail often and for extended periods of time.

-56% of these participants have some form of rainwater storage; drums or Jo-Jo tanks (2000l)

are the most common and 11% have their own boreholes (participants from Limpopo only)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Figure 2:Baseline information for CCA workshop participants

An important component of the information, for the purposes of the farmer typologies and the DSS is

the scale of operation. This is different depending on the local situation in the villages – for those that

have undergone betterment planning with tightly laid out villages and fieldsa distance from the

homestead (Limpopo, EC) - most households only have access to small household gardens; for those

within communal tenure areas that have developed independently provide household gardens and

homestead fields between 0,1-1ha). Larger fields are generally only accessible though more formal

arrangements such as cooperatives.

For this sub-group of participants 72% have access to 0,1-1ha of land, 11% have access to 1-2ha of

land and 17% have access to >2ha. Those that have gardens make up 67% of the participants. 61% of

participants keep livestock, but only 16% own cattle.

0 2 4 6 810 12 14 16 18 20

no. of participants

Age (in 10yrs)

Primary school

Tertiary

Savings group

Farmer 's cooperative

No. of children

Grants

Other livelihood activities

Standpipe

RWH storage

Fencing

no.

parti

cipa

nts

Gen

der

(F)

Age

(in

10yr

Hou

seho

head

Pri

mar

scho

High

scho

Tert

iary

Lear

ning

grou

Savi

ngs

grou

Scho

gard

enin

grou

Far

mer

coop

erati

No.

adul

ts in

No.

chil

dren

Dep

end

ancy

ratio

Gran

Sala

Othe

livel

ihoo

activ

ities

Tap

wat

Stan

dpip

Bore

hole

stor

age

Elec

trici

Fenc

ing

Trai

ning

and

advi

Total 18 11.0 4.99510 310 7263.5 2.25 0.612 114 9 6 210 17 15 16

Baseline infromation for households interviewed in the CCA

process; Nov-Dec 2017 (Limpopo, KZN)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Farming related information is summarised in the figure below.

Figure 3: Household, scale of farming and income information for CCA participants

Most of the participants farm by hand, or rent tractors or oxen. Those with direct access (ownership)

are only 17% -and these participants invariably come from households where members are

employed.

Overall vulnerability in farming is HIGH as people have access to small pieces of land, generally rely on

dryland cropping, farm by hand and own small numbers of livestock. Cattle ownershipis becoming

less common with only around 16% of households owning cows. Participants farm mostly for food

production to feed their families, and only around 28% sell produce.

Farmer typologies

Rural dwellers in South Africa, most of whom live under communal tenure arrangements comprise

around 19 million people –around 34% of the South African population. The vast majority of these

people are not actively farming -around 85%. There are presently only around 35 000 commercial

farmers still active.

There are a number of different models for approaching farmer segmentation and a few examples are

already available. Smallholder farmers fall within different categories of resource availability,

capabilities and aims for their farming. The segmentation approach sets out the basis for providing

targeted support to the different segments of the farming community; according to their own

aspirations and abilities. Such models can be useful in the DSS being developed.

0246810 12 14 16 18

Salary

Income (in R1000)- unemployed

1-2 ha

Gardens

Other livelihood activities

Fencing

Traction; incl animal

Training and advice

Salary

Incom

e from

veg

sales

Incom

e (in

R1000

unemp

loyed

0,1 - 1

ha 1-2 ha>2haGarde

Field

size

(0,1-

1ha)

Other

livelih

ood

activiti

Fruit

trees

Fencin

Hand

tools

Tractio

n; incl

animal

Market

access

Traini

ng and

advice

Total 1811 52 13 23 12 1049 15 10310 16

Household, income and farming information for household

interviews_CCA baseline_Nov-Dec 2017

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

One such model has been developed for the GrainSA Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme in

Conservation Agriculture. The outline of this typology is presented in the table below. By far the

largest category of rural dwellers are the non- commercial and semi-commercial smallholders who

make up around 2,5 million people. Commercial smallholders in loose value chains make up around

250 000 people and those in tight value chains only around 10 000.

Table 12: Farmer segmentation in the Bergville smallholder farming system

Category

Non-commercial

smallholders

Semi-commercial

smallholders

Commercial

smallholders in

loose value chains

Commercial

smallholders in

tight value chains

% of people in

each category

Farmer priorities

Most production

consumed by the

household and

additional food is

bought in

Production is

intensified. Selling

becomes more

significant and

supplements

household income.

Consumption and

sale in various

percentage mixes

but moving to more

sales.

Primarily for sale-

working within

existing well

defined commodity

value chains

Gender

Mostly women

(89%)

Mostly women

(96%)

Women, men (40%

♀60%♂)

Mostly men

Resources

Low external input

systems are used

with a minimum

of bought inputs

Mixed (low and

external) input

systems are used

with a minimum of

bought inputs

Mixed (low and

external) input

systems are used

with greater

reliance bought

inputs

Mostly high

external input

systems

Traction

Hand cultivation

Hand cultivation,

animal traction

Animal traction,

tractors

Tractors

Land size

≤ 0.1ha

0.1-1ha.

1-2.5ha

>2ha

Farm

productivity,

including labour

access

Extremely low

Low to high

Access to

improved

agricultural tech

and information

Very limited

Limited

Good

Access to

financial

services

Very limited if at

all

Very limited if at all

Very limited

Informal and some

formal through

buyers

Local

organisation

Almost non

existent

Almost non existent

Informal farmers

groups

Farmers

associations and

cooperatives

Agribusiness

support

Very limited.

Informal but

growing

Reasonable

Cousins, B. (2015). Through a glass darkly: towards agrarian reform in South Africa, in: Ben Cousins and Cherryl Walker (eds), 2015. Land

Divided, Land Restored. Land Reform in South Africa for the 21st Century. Auckland Park: Jacana (250-269).

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Engagements

with markets

Very little;

entirely informal

Limited and still

informal for the

most part

Both informal and

formal

Can be good due

to value chain

farming bundles

Environmental

performance

Generally not

considered

Generally not

considered, some

adoption of

conservation and

sustainable practices

Generally not

considered, some

adoption of

conservation and

sustainable

practices

Some adoption of

conservation and

sustainable

practices

Crop mix

Staple crops

Crop livestock

mixes focussing on

4-5 commodities

Staple crops, some

cash crops, crop

livestock mixes –

focussing on 3-4

commodities

Staple crops, some

cash crops, crop

livestock mixes –

focussing on 2-3

commodities

Mostly cash crops –

focusing on 1,

maybe 2

commodities

Livelihood (Food

Security, Total

monthly

income, assets,

poverty

likelihood,

perceived well

being)

Food Security: low

Monthly Income:

R0-R2000

Assets: minimal

Poverty

Likelihood; High

Food Security: low-

medium

Monthly

Income:R2001-

R4000

Assets: minimal-

starting to build

Poverty Likelihood:

medium

Food Security:

medium-high

Monthly

Income:>R4000

Assets: reasonable

Poverty Likelihood:

low

Food Security: high

Income:

Assets

Poverty Likelihood

This model provides a good starting point for the development of a farmer typology for interventions

in climate change adaptation and similar categories have been used in our process.

The CC baseline survey provides for a number of vulnerability indicators. As a starting point an analysis

of incomes of the interviewed households is summarised in the table below

Table 13: Baseline information related to incomes

MONTHLY INCOMES (in Rands)

Village

Name & Surname

Grants

Salary

Income

from veg

sales

Total income

Ave per

village

Sekororo/

Lorraine

Chenne Mailula

R2 000,00

Lydia Sechube

R1 600,00

Dimakatso

Thobejane

R380,00

Masine Morerwa

R15 000,00

Mdimi Shai

R1 760,00

R4 740,00

R6 500,00

Flora Maimela

R1 600,00

R4 513,33

Tabamhlophe

Winnie Dlamini

R380,00

R4 620,00

R5 000,00

Zanele Ngobese

R8 000,00

R6 500,00

Eqeleni

Ntombakhe Zikode

R1 140,00

Ezibomvini

Nombono Dladla

R600,00

Zodwa Zikode

R600,00

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Phumelele

Hlongwane

R1 530,00

R730,00

R2 260,00

R1 153,33

Alice/Middledrift

area

(+/- 10 villages)

Pheza Makisi

R9 000,00

R1 000,00

R10 000,00

Bongiwe Mxonywa

R380,00

Xolisa Dwane

R7 000,00

Mncadi Mabandla

R1 140,00

R4 000,00

R860,00

R6 000,00

Mandisa Mama

R760,00

R1 040,00

R1 800,00

Siyabulela

Gungqceni

R760,00

R1 240,00

R2 000,00

R4 530,00

AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME

(excluding zero incomes)

R971,54

R5 955,00

R2 318,00

R3992,00

From the table above the following points come to the fore:

1.72% of Households interviewed receive social grants and this is the only household income

for 33% of these respondents. The average ’income’ from grants is R972/ month

2.44% of Households interviewed receive a salary as part of their monthly income. The

average household income from salaries is R5 955/month. The number of households where

there is employment in this interview groups is proportionally much higher than the average

in rural communities around South Africa, where reliance on grants can be as high as 70-

80%.

3.Even so only 28% of these respondents earn an income from farming, with 11% (or two

individuals of 18) earning their entire income from farming. Average income from farming

(both sale of vegetables and field crops) is R2 320/month.

4.Corroboration of information from project related baseline surveys ( see the textbox below)

indicate average income in Tabamhlophe to be around R1 567/month per household. This is

similar to the data obtained for the Bergville area – which is close by. For Bergville there is a

whopping 89% unemployment among the project participants and 72% rely entirely on

grants for their income and 75% of households earn between R0-R2 000/month.

5.In the villages in Limpopo and EC where there is a somewhat higher proportion of

employment, the average monthly incomes are around R4 500/month per household

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

The information around incomes indicate a HIGH LEVEL of vulnerability for rural dwellers engaged in

farming activities. Only about 1/3 of participants make any income from their farming activities and

these incomes are generally subsidised from social grants or other employment.

LIVELIHOODS SURVEYS IN KZN (2017)

In Tabamhlophe, the Lima RDF fieldworker, Lindelwa Ndaba conducted a baseline survey with her 13

participants in the Food Security learning group she is training and mentoring. From this survey the

average monthly income for these participants is R1 567.

In Bergville (which includes Eqeleni and Ezimbomvini) the MDF fieldworkers led by Phumzile Ngcobo

conducted a seasonal review of the Conservation Agriculture support programme in August 2017.

This survey includes information about income sources and incomes for these participants. For a

sample of 21 participants the following information was summarised:

-Income sources are social grants (72%), employment (11%), remittances (7%) and

farming (10%)

-Overall incomes per household are extremely low, with 75% of households earning

between R0-R2000/month. The remaining 25% earn >R3 000 /month. The average

income is R1875/hh/month – a reduction from last year which was around

R2450/hh/month

-Maize and beans used for hh food supply; 53% of participants now have enoughfor 7-

12months, increased from around 33% last season

Child

support

grant 55%

Pension

17%

Employme

11%

Remittanc

Farming

10%

SOURCES OF INCOME

1-3months…

4-6months

39%

7-9months

38%

10-12months

15%

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SUPPLY THROUGH CA

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

The WRC baseline survey further explored incomes for male and female headed households. A third

category consisting of both male andfemaleheadedhouseholds of working age (thus having no old

age grants) emerged. The small table below summarises the incomes

Average monthly income per household

Male headed(39%)

R7 071

Female and male headed (33%)

R 2 068

Female headed (28%)

R 940

Thus, female headed households in these rural areas labour under a VERY HIGH LEVEL of vulnerability

due to their very low levels of income (ave R940/hh/month). Households that cannot access old age

grants make up another category of vulnerability (ave R2 068/hh/month). With an average household

size of 5 members, it is clear that the ability of these households to commit resources towards climate

change adaptation would be severely limited.

The inclusion of other livelihood and vulnerability indicators then assisted us to build a tentative and

initial farmer typology for the smallholder farmersinvolved.This typology is outlined in the table

below.

Both typologies A and B can be considered to have a HIGH LEVEL of vulnerability. Typology C indicates

a much smaller group of smallholder farmers who have better or more reliable access to infrastructure

and support, are generally better educated, have access to larger fields and more livestock and farm

primarily for income generation purposes. They fund these farming enterprises primarily through

incomes earned from employed members within the household, or a combination of employment and

social grants (including pensions). These farmers are also more likely to belong to cooperatives and

farmers associations and to have access to formal market linkages.

Table 14: Farmer typology for the WRC-CCA process

FARMER TYPOLOGY

A (44%)

B (18%)

C (39%)

Basic socio-

economic and

household

information

Gender

100% Female

farmers

80% Female

farmers

5-15% female

farmers

Age range

33-66yrs

27-48yrs

31-78yrs

Household head

Female

Female/male

Male

Dependency ratio

0,7

0,5

Livelihood

activities

Employment

Unemployed

Unemployed/

employed

Employed

Small businesses

80%(Selling in

schools, sewing

etc)

Grants

1-3

Farming activities

Gardens, fields,

livestock

Gardens, fields,

livestock

Fields, livestock

0,1- 1ha

100%

1-2ha

50%

>2ha

50%

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Levels of income

(per hh/month)

R0-R1999

R940

R2000- R4999

R2 100

>R5000

R7 000

Access to services

and infrastructure

Electricity

80%

100%

Water -taps (hh)

50%

100%

Standpipes (100-

400m)

80%

RWH

30%

67%

Farming

infrastructure

Hand tools

Tractors, planters

Social organisation

Groups (for

learning, school

gardening etc)

80%

Saving clubs

100%

60%

Cooperatives

100%

Learning and

access to

information

Level of education

Grade 4-Grade 12

Grade 7-grade 12

Grade 11- Diploma

Market access

Informal

15%

67%

Formal

83%

Farming income

Food only

100%

40%

Food plus income

60%

Mainly income

100%

This typology is specific for people actively involved in rural development programmes/projects.

A few interesting points come to the fore:

1.TYPOLOGY A: Woman headed households are by far the most vulnerable. In this survey all

the most vulnerable households are woman headed households; where the household head

is unemployed, farming only for food production (0,1-1ha, both gardens and fields), have

limited access to water and engages also in other small business activities such as sewing. All

the members of this group belong to savings clubs and have a slightly lower average level of

education than the other two groups.

2.TYPOLOGY B: This category consists mainly of economically active women without access to

old age pensions in their households. They rely on grants and some employment within the

household for their income and have somewhat easier access to water and farm for both

food and income (0,1-1ha, both gardens and fields) – although these incomes are quite low.

3.TYPOLOGY C: This group consists primarily of gainfully employed households with

reasonable incomes and can thus afford membership of cooperatives that provide access to

larger fields and irrigation (1-2ha and >2ha fields). They farm mainly for income generation,

have better access to markets and a higher average education level than the other two

categories.

Categories that do not vary much across the typologies includes:

-Access to tools and farming equipment - a very few individuals in Typology C own tractors

and implements, but most participants rely on hand tools and some animal traction.

-Access to electricity is the same across all three typologies

-Farmers engage in gardening, field cropping and animal husbandry across all three

typologies.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

-Participants across all three categories have equal access to social grants

-The dependency ratio (no of children and pensioners compared to the number of working

aged adults in a household) is quite a bit higher than the national average for 2016 which

was 44,5, at 66. There are however fewer children living in these households than would be

expected, but more economically dependent adults. Again, this situation is the most severe

for Typology A; the poorest households.

Scale of operation

This appears to be more dependent on the area and presently:

-In Limpopo all participants were working in gardens only

-In KZN most participants worked in both gardens and fields depending on the type of village-

in the more urban, planned villages with smaller demarcated plots – only gardens and in

areas where communal tenure arrangements have allowed for fields close to home – then

gardens and fields

-In EC; A 10ha cooperative plot shared by 6 individuals producing crops under irrigation

(vegetables and field crops)

Table 15:Summary of scale of operation for present participants in the WRC-CCA process

Province

Village Name

Description

Scale of

operation

Livestock

Ave income

for village

Ave

monthly

income

from

farming

Limpopo

Sekororo

Village + fields

(further away)

0,1-1ha

Gardens only

None

R4 513 (2/6

employed)

R2000 (1/6)

KZN

Tabamhlophe

Village (no

fields)

0,1-1ha

Gardens only

Chickens

R6 500 (2/2

employed)

Eqeleni

Informal village

(fields around

homesteads)

0,1-1ha

Gardens

Fields (0,1-

1ha)

Chickens,

goats, cattle

R1 140 (1/1

unemployed)

Ezibomvini

Informal village

(fields around

homesteads)

0,1-1ha

Gardens

Fields (0,1-

1ha)

Chickens

goats, pigs,

cattle

R1 153 (3/3

unemployed)

R780 (1/3)

Alice

Cooperative

~10ha -

irrigated

Fields (0,1-

1ha, 1-2ha,

>2ha)

Chickens,

goats, pigs,

cattle

R4 530 (4/6

employed)

R2954 (4/6)

This points towards the main category of farmers to be supported through the DSS being those with

access to household gardens and small livestock such as chickens, goats and pigs and thosewith access

to small (0,1-1ha) dryland fields.

Other categories that still need some attention in terms of a coherent set of CSA practices are

1.Irrigated fields and

2.Grazing management for livestock (cattle)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Walkabouts

Walkabouts in this contextare informal village walks consisting of the facilitators of theprocess and

volunteers or key informants from the local community who have been engaging the climate change

dialogues and can broadly be considered a Rapid Rural Appraisal process.

The village walks included in the CC baseline survey fulfil a number of purposes:

-To provide facilitators with a perspective on the general state of resource availability, access

and use in a locality (soil, water, natural resources, infrastructure)

-To provide a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of CC in the area

-To assess the local farming practices and

-To record and assess potential good practice (indigenous / traditional practices) for climate

smart agriculture

-To review the implementation of CSA practices in the area (if relevant) and

-To interview individual householders for vulnerability and livelihood information

Below are a selection of household visits during walkabouts in Tabamhlope (KZN, Ezibomvini (KZN)

and Mavuso (EC). The full reports can be found in Appendices 2,3 and 4.

Tabamhlophe

Below are images illustrating the walkabout in Mrs Ntuli’s household. She has recently moved into the

area and has joined the farmers’ learning group in the community. What hasdriven Mrs Ntuli in

participating in this learninggroup was thatshe has a son who is not well andthe doctors have

recommended that she gives him fresh vegetables to boost his health. She also attends a church in

the community that feeds the homeless people;

this hasplayeda huge role in herlifeas it

encourages her to take care of her garden so she

can give to the needy people within her

community. She also began to keep chickens with

an intention of selling to generate income as her

husband is the only one working in the household.

Right: Mrs Ntuli next to her shade house which

contains 6 trench beds where she produces,

spinach, carrots, tomatoes, peppers and beetroot

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Above left and right; She uses submerged 2litre bottles for slow subsurface irrigation in her shade

house and keeps a small flock of broilers for sale in corrugated iron hut constructed for the purpose.

The second household wevisited was Mrs Dlamini’s. She has been part of the LIMA learning group

since inception and has made trench beds in her home garden and intercropped her vegetables. She

grows cabbages, lettuce, carrots and beetroot in her trench beds. Mrs Dlamini uses 2 litre bottles to

water her garden by burying them half way into the soil. She has a Jo-Jo tank for RWH.

RIght: Mrs Dlamini’s Jo-

Jo tank. Ditches are

evident to try and deal

with run-off and erosion

close to the house.

Far right: In

intercropped trench bed

with 2l bottles for slow

even irrigation

Ezibomvini

Household 1: Mrs. Phumelele Hlongwane

A 38 year old mother of 6, Mrs Phumelele Hlongwane is passionately involved in her farmingactivities.

In her garden she grows a variety of crops inclusive of; cabbages, spinach, tomatoes, potatoes, and

green peppers. She also keeps livestock inclusive of, 6 goats, 2 pigs and a flock of indigenous chickens.

Apart from her household garden she also plants in her field of 1 ha where she grows potatoes, sweet

potatoes and maize. MrsHlongwane joined the CA learning group in 2014 and is currently a

community facilitator of the learning group. From her vegetable produce she sells the surplus to her

community members.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Right; The pig pen

Far right: A patch

of beans

struggling in the

hot dry conditions

prevalent this

season

Below is a case study done for Phumelele Hlongwane that has been published in “SA Grain”the

February 2018 edition of the GrainSA newsletter, as well as the Adaptation Network Newsletter

(January 2018)

Case Study GrainSA SFIP: Conservation Agriculture builds a better life

for Mrs Phumelele Hlongwane (Bergville)

Authors: Phumzile Ngcobo1, Erna Kruger

1Mahlathini Development Foundation. 2Forresters Lane Pietermaritzburg, 3201.

www.mahlathini.org. Cell: (+27)828732289

Phumelele Thembisile Hlongwane is a 38 year old woman and a mother of 6 from Bergville

Emmaus- Ezibomvini village. She says her passionstems from agriculture’s ability to enable

her to be self reliant, in her case the key is diversification. She has a vegetable garden in her

homestead planted toa wide varietyof crops including brassicas, cabbage, spinach,

tomatoes, potatoes and green peppers. She owns livestock; 03 cattle,6 goats, 2 pigs and a

flock of indigenous chickens. She also plants her fields to field crops such as potatoes, sweet

potatoes, maize, dry beans and soy.

”Maka Ndoza”, as she is affectionately known joined the Grain SA CA project in 2014 and is

now the community facilitator of her Ezibomvini learning group. She is a member of thevillage

savings and loan association, along with other members of her learning group. Here the save

and take small loans for inputs and other livelihood necessities.She is also one of the pioneers

of the programme’s local farmer centre model which she runs jointly with her sister in law

Zodwa Zikode, who is also a member of the learning group.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Phumelele Hlongwane shares that the primary aim of the farmer centre is to be able to provide

production inputs to farmers in quantities and at costs they can

afford. The farmer centre providing seed, fertilizer and chemicals

has really come into good use as according to her the rates of

agriculture activity in her community have improved because

quantities sold at the farmercentre start from as little as 1 kg up

to entire bags of seed/ fertilizer. “Many people in the village had

stopped planting because theycould not afford inputs” said

Phumelele further supporting the importance of the farmer

centre.

The returns derived from the farmer Centre are not large and are

also quite seasonal. To date they have made a profit of around

R300-R600/ monthfrom sales, most of which has been re-

invested to continue to buy stock.

Right: Offerings form the local farmer centre also includes some

local produce, to augment the sale of inputs in the slow periods

The small table below indicates sales and shows also the seasonality of these

Table 1:Ezibomvinifarmercentrerecords fromDecember2016 toApril2017

Date

Fertilizer

Herbicide

Top dresser

Seed

Total

December

2016

R2758

R1400

R480(LAN)

R630(UREA)

R1161(maize)

R80(beans)

R6509

January

2017

R280

R1692(UREA)

R360(beans)

R72(maize)

R2404

February

2017

R24

R336(UREA)

R80(beans)

R440

March 2017

R36(UREA)

R36

April 2017

While her vegetable garden yields some income for her, this is

periodic because she only sells surplus, leaving her

predominant source of incometo social grants for five of her

six children. Field crops also are primarilyfor household

consumption.

Right: Phumelele’s vegetable garden (November 2016)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Conservation Agriculture Experimentation

Phumelele’s trials were continued in this season. The layout of her plots are shown below for

the 2016/2017 season. She is practicing crop rotation as well as intercropping and planting of

cover crop mixes; both summer (sunflower,millet, sunn hemp) and winter (saia oats, fodder

rye and fodder radish).

Figure 1: Phumelele Hlongwane’splots layout for 2016/2017 growing season

Yield results

In the 2015-2016 season, Phumelele out performed almost all the other smallholders and

managed to get rather impressive yields at a time when most other farmers’ crops failed. She

experimented with a number of different crop combinations in her CA plots. Her maize control

was also a CA plot, but with use of her own fertilizer and seed options. Her experimental plots

included:

•Intercropping of maize with beans

•Intercropping of maize with cowpea

•Planting cover crops in between rows of maize (relay cropping)

•Intercropping maize with lablab

•Planting a single crop of maize (control)

•Planting a single crop of Lab-lab (Dolichos) beans and

•Intercropping of maize with Lab-lab beans

Phumelele followedwith a rotation schedule of the same experimentsinthe 2016-2107

season.

(10)

M + B

(5)

Control plot

(8)

M + CP

(6) sunhemp,

millet and

sunflower

(3)

M + B

Contr

ol plot

(9)

M + B

(7)

(4)

(2) M +

runoff plot

(1)

Legend: M – Maize; B – Beans; CP – Cowpea; LL – Lab lab

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Left to right: Phumelele standing in front of her maize and bean intercrop plot, taken on 17 Jan

2017. Her Lab-Lab plot and a SCC plot where she grew sunflower separately and millet and

sunn hemp together.

The table below shows yield comparisons for Phumelele’s experimental plots.

Table 2:MaizeyieldsfromdifferentexperimentalplotsinPhumlele Hlongwane’s

(Ezibomvini)field

2015/2016 season

2016/2017 Season

Plot no

Crops Planted

Maize Yields

(t/ha)

Crops

planted

Maize Yields

(t/ha)

Change in

yield (t/ha)

Maize +Beans

8,3

Maize +

Beans

8,8

0,5

Maize +Cowpea

8,7

Maize +

Beans

8,9

0,2

Maize + Beans

10,4

Maize +

Cowpea

7,7

-2,7

Maize +Cowpea

6,9

Maize

6,5

-0,5

M +SCC+WCC

8,7

Maize +

Beans

10,1

1,4

Maize +Beans

6,9

Maize

6,2

-0,7

The small table below indicates yield averages over the last two seasons.

Table 3:Summary ofdifferent cropyieldsin PhumeleleHlongwane’sexperimental

plots.

t/ha

2016

2017

Maize (Control)-CA

7,8

9,7

Maize Trial CA - combined

6,93

8,3

Beans

0,25

1,81

Sunflower

0,3

0,8

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

NOTE: Yield increases in 2017 were achieved despite reduction in fertilizer application. She

did not apply basal MAP, only top dressed with LAN

Table 4:Rainfallandrunoffrelationship fromPhumeleleHlongwane’splot

Phumelele’s production is very impressive, with yields on a par with or somewhat better than

commercial yields in the area

Run-off results

Two run-off plots were set up for Phumelele; one in her trial plot and one in the conventional

maize control plot. Measurementswere taken by her. Runoff data was collected for those

rainfall events where run-off could be correlated to rainfall

dates. Not all data was useable as there were times when

she forgot to take readings after one rainfall event and thus

run off wasconflated over a number of rainfall events. Or

the bucket was left for quite a while and then emptied at a

point that did not correlate with a rainfall event.These

readings were not included.

Right: A view of the run-off plot set up in Phumelele’s CA

trial plot planted to maize early in the production season

(December 2016)

In general, there was more runoff in the conventional tillage

plot compared to the CA trial plot. The runoff average for the

control plot was 3,1mm per rainfall event and that for the CA

plot averaged 1,1mm. results are shown in table 6 below.

The percentage of rainfall converted into runoff, rangesbetween 11.36% and 38.46% under

conventional tillage, while it ranges between 6.82% and 17.86 % in the CA plot. Again the

average percentage of rainfall converted to runoff is almost double on the conventional tillage

plot at 20,1%, while that for the CA plot was 11,7%. This shows that conservation agriculture

significantly reduces run-off in a short period (2-3 years) even without the increased soil cover

usually associated with CA systems.

Control plot -Conventional tillage

Trial plot -Conservation Agriculture

Rainfall

event (mm)

Runoff (mm)

ratio

% rainfall converted

into runoff

Runoff (mm)

ratio

% rainfall converted

into runoff

3,5:1

28.6

2.5

5,6:1

17.9

2.5

8,8:1

11.4

1.5

14,7:1

6.8

1.25

7,2:1

13.9

9:1

11.1

3.25

6,2:1

16.3

10:1

10.0

2,6:1

38.5

2.25

5,8:1

17.3

2.5

8,4:1

11.9

1.5

14:1

7.1

AVERAGE

3,1

20,1%

1,1

11,7%

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

In addition, the run-off collected from the CA plots were a lot ‘cleaner’ with lesssilt and soil

than for the conventionally tilled

control plot. The two photographs

below are indicative.

Right: Run-offcollected in the

bucket for the CA plot is clear while

that for the conventionally tilled plot

(far-right) is full of silt. These

photographs were taken in mid-

December 2016, on the same day,

after a small rainfall event.

The presence of such programmes

in rural communities not only

contributes toward the introduction of practices for improved productivity and resilience as well

as increased food security but also contributes to a large extent to community building and

social agency. Phumelele’s story is a good example of a localperson who is willing to work

hard so that she not only feeds her family and makes an income for herself, but also plays a

role in mentoring other women in her village to say that “poverty should never be an excuse if

you are able to work. Whatever little you may have can go a long way if one is willing to learn

and work with others”. Her greatest wish is that her children also learn that they can make a

living for themselves from farming.

Household 2: Ms. Zodwa Zikode

She joined the CA learning group in 2014 when it was first introduced in Ezibomvini. She is a widow

and head of her household and stays with her granddaughter. She earns a living by selling snacks in

schools and the foster care grant for her

granddaughter. She mentioned that her cabbages

don’t grow heads andshe does not know what the

cause could be, but suspects the very hot weather

conditions they have had.

Above left and right: Zodwa Zikode in

her vegetable garden. Water has to be

carried by hand form a spring almost

1km away and her CA intercropped plot

of maize and beans showing signs of heat

stress

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Household 3. Ms. Ntombakhe Zikode

Mrs Ntombakhe Zikode is a 50 year old hard working woman. It has been 4 years since she joined the

CA learning group. Apart from farming activities, she works on the Zibambele program under the

Department of Transportand also does sewing to generate more household income. Below are

pictures showcasing her garden, yields of maize and farming infrastructure and tools she has at her

homestead.

Above left and right: Nombakhe’s vegetable garden- mostly unplanted due to hot dry conditions and

her maize field showing very patchy germination – again due to hot dry conditions at planting.

Mvuso (Alice) EC

The walkabouts took place in Alice at a co-operative (NPO Youth Development and Co-operative) land

that has 6 members. Two of themembers were present; Mrs Mandisa Mama and Mr Mncedi Madleni.

The land is used mainly for maize production and currently the area planted is 4ha. They have dragline

sprinkler irrigation and use animal traction for weeding. They do top dressing with LAN although there

is inconsistency in spraying. Fertilizer used is kraal manure and they use OPV yellow maize seed.

Challenges they encounter;

•Capital not enough to buy better (ie Hybrid) seed

•Weeds

•Erosion

•Soil is too loose

They planted cover crops (legumes and fodder crops to protect the soil). It is their first time planting

asa coop and they are interested in growing herbs as well because they believe herbs make more

profit than maize. For now the coop members do all labour by themselves with a wish to hire more

labour in a long run. The Department of Agriculture does the ploughing for them.

Maize after harvest is stored in tanks and during harvest time they hire people in the area to assist

them, for a period over a month. The maize grows out to be uneven due to the issue of fertility. The

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

planted area is affected by erosion – soil being deposited on grassed water way, soil losing nutrients,

depth of soil decreases over time which results in decreased in production. The germination was not

so good due to high temperatures. Stover sold for silage - this is done for economic benefit. They

rotate the maize with herbs and cabbage.

The farmers were advised todo furrow irrigation to evenly distribute water and allow for the use of

rain water.

Above left and right: The irrigated maize plots for the cooperative members. Uneven germination and

yellowing is visible –onedue to high temperatures at planting and the other due to run-off and soil

loss.

Each one of these walkabouts have through discussion, generated ideas for CSA practices that would

be useful at that site. These are then presented to the focus group for discussion and combined with

other suggested practices, including local or traditional practices noticed for prioritization by the

participants.

For futureuse, a form has been designed for summarising information from the walkabouts- See

appendix 5

8COMMUNITY LEVEL PRIORITIZATION OF PRACTICES FOR

EXPERIMENTATION

This exercise concludes the 2nd day of the first Climate Change dialogue workshop at community

level and provides for an action plan and some initial farmer experimentation ideas. This is then

be followed up by a 2nd workshop session where more in-depth prioritization is done and each

individual in the group chooses a basket of CSA practices to work with.

The table below outlines the practices mentioned by each group, those introduced by the

facilitation team as options (in red) and also those prioritized for experimentation by members of

that learning group (community of practice)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Province AreaVillage

Natl resources/

landscape

Water (manage and

increase available

water)

Soil health and

fertility (incl Manage

soil movement)

CropsLivestock OtherEXPERIMENTATION

KZN Bergville

ThamelaRWHMulchingSavings groupsCA: intercropping,

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

seasonal review

Manure and

fertilizerbulk buying

KZNBergvilleEzibomviniSpring protectionCompostNatural P&D controlPlant fodder

CA: Intercropping, crop

roataion, cover crops-

summer and winter

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

seasonal review

raingauges,runoff plots, weather

station, gravimetric soil samples,

soil fertility, soil health

RWH storage tanks;

Jo-jos

Furrows Tunnels

Tunnels

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

seasonal review

Chameleon water mark sensors,

irrigation applied

infield rainwater

harvesting

Contours Mulching

Dripkits

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

seasonal review

Chameleon water mark sensors,

irrigation applied

dripkitsDiversion ditches

Trench beds

greywater; tower

gardens

Line levels

Mulching

infiltration pits/

banana circles

stone bunds

Mixed cropping

small dams

KZNEstcourtThabamhlopheRiver cleanups

RWH storage;

Jojotanks

contoursNatural P&D control

Buying fodder,

licks

Fencing

Planting treesGreywater manstone bundsmulching

Vaccintation,

deworming

Soil testing

Windbreaks

Tower gardens and

keyhole beds

CA, incl cover crops

Social: Nutrition,

mobile clinic

Dripkits Tunnels

Discourage planting

nad slae of

marijuana

Diversion ditchesCrop diversificaiton

SwalesNew varieties; incl traditional crops

Manure, woodash

Compost

Trenchbeds

Seed saving

Liquid manure

Intercropping and crop rotaiton

Community Level Prioritisation of Practices_ Learning and experimentation

No previous exposure to

improved practices

CA learning groups; 3-4yrs

(MDF)

Food secruity learning

groups 1-2yrs (LimaRDF)

MEASUREMENTS

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Province AreaVillage

Natl resources/

landscape

Water (manage and

increase available

water)

Soil health and

fertility (incl Manage

soil movement)

CropsLivestock OtherEXPERIMENTATION

EC ALICE UBLN

Remove aliensRWH storageFurrows and ridgesTrenchbeds

Conserve fodder

(hay)

Value

addition(cooking and

preservaiton

Plant vetiverDripkits

Multipurpose plants

incl flowers

Decrease stock

nos

Crop diversity for

nutrition

Intercropping nad

crop rotation

Vaccination

Mulch

Drought resistant

crops

Natural P&D control

LIMPOPOTzaneen Sekororo

Plant treesRWH storageFurrows and ridgesMulchingCotrolled grazingEntrepreneurship

Manage cutting

of trees

Grey water man:

towergardens and

keyhole beds

Intercropping and

rop rotation

Decrease stock

nos

Job creation

earth damsNatural P&D controlSave fodder (hay)Savings groups

diversion ditches

Multipurpose

plants, incl flowers

Growing fodder

for livestock

biogas digesters

Undergounrd RWH

storage

Tunnels

Planting calendars -

winter( for bolting)

Dripkits

Heat resistant

cultivars

Indigenous varieties

Liquid manure

Trench beds

Eco-circles

Herbs

Shallow trenches

Seed saving

MEASUREMENTS

A4F lerning network 2-3yrs

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Province AreaVillage

Natl resources/

landscape

Water (manage and

increase available

water)

Soil health and

fertility (incl Manage

soil movement)

CropsLivestock OtherEXPERIMENTATION

LIMPOPO Mametje

Turkey (Sedawa

Ext)

Plant trees

More boreholes and

dams

Furrows and ridgesTunnels

Plant fodder for

livestock

Rather use electricity

than firewood

CA: Intercropping, crop

roataion, cover crops-

summer and winter

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

seasonal review

raingauges,runoff plots, weather

station, gravimetric soil samples,

soil fertility, soil health

Manage cutting

of trees

Greywater

management

Stone bundsTrenchbeds

Save stover for

fodder

NGOs and Govt to

assist

Tunnels

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

Chameleon water mark sensors,

irrigation applied

Manage firesDrip irrigation

Use crop residues and

manre

MulchingBuy fodderDonations of seedDripkits

Yields, crop

growth

monitoring,

Chameleon water mark sensors,

irrigation applied

take care of

indigenous plants

Tower gardens and

keyhole beds

CA Access to healthcareTrenchbeds

Propagation of

trees

Household

gardening

techinques

Set up Coops for

Govt support

Mulching

Use animal tractionMixed cropping

MEASUREMENTS

No previous exposure to

improved practices

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

For each village/group –a combined set of practicesto be introduced, both through learning and

mentoring and farmerexperimentation has been compiled from all the information in the group

sessions as well as the walkabouts.This is also negotiatedwith other stakeholders in each area and

includes organisation presently implementing a project/programme. This means that the climate

smart agricultural component can be overlaid onto existing rural development projects to increase

the depth and scope of these programme.

The table below summarises these practices for each of the 7 villages.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

PRACTICES TO BE INTRODUCED

Province

Area

Village

Natl

resources/

landscape

Water (manage and

increase available

water)

Soil health and

fertility (incl

Manage soil

movement)

Crops

Livestock

Other

KZN

Bergville

Ezibomvini

Spring

protection

diversion ditches/

furrows

Infiltration pits

CA, incl cover

crops, legumes

Growing fodder

Saving for buying

Jojo tanks

Done- April

2018

Conservation

of wetlands

and streams

swales / cut off drains

Mulching

Liquid manure

Fencing

Greywater man: tower

gardens, keyhole beds

Tunnels

Reducing of burning

of veld

RWH storage - Jo-jos

and underground

Intercropping

Burying disposable

nappies

Dripkits

Seed saving

trench beds

Natural P&D control

Crop rotation

Compost

New varieties

KZN

Estcourt

Tabamhlophe

Windbreaks

diverstion ditches/

furrows

Mulching

CA, incl cover

crops, legumes

Growing fodder

Saving for buying Jo-

Jo tanks

Done- April

2018

swales / cut off drains

Liquid manure

Fencing

Pactices prioritized by the

group

Greywater man: tower

gardens, keyhole beds

Tunnels

Nutrition

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

RWH storage - Jo-jos

and underground

Intercropping

Bulk buying

Dripkits

Seed saving

River clean -ups

trench beds;

shallow

trenches

Discourage growth

and sale of

marijuana

Crop rotation

Natural P&D control

Mobile clinic

Compost

New varieties

Alice

IBLN/Mavuso

Drip irrigation

Erosion control

Organic farming

Chameleons, run-off

plots

RWH

Planting herbs

Suggested practices for

learning and

experimentation support

Furrow irrigation

Tunnels

CA; with cover

crops

LIMPOPO

Tzaneen

Sekororo

Drip kits

Furrows and

ridges

Tunnels

Fodder

production for

livestock

Savings groups

Suggested practices for

learning and

experimentation support

Underground tanks

CA; with cover

crops

Biogas digesters

Other RWH structures

Planting herbs

Planting

calendars

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Shallow

trenches

Natural P&D

control

Seed saving

LIMPOPO

Mametje

Turkey

Drip kits

Furrows and

ridges

Tunnels

Fodder

production for

livestock

Suggested practices for

learning and

experimentation support

Infiltration pits

CA; with cover

crops

contours, wales,

diversion ditches

trench beds,

eco-circles,

shallow

trenched

Done- April

2018

Natural P&S

control

Liquid manure

Tower gardens

Soil fertility

management

Seed saving and

seedling

production

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Collaborative activities in learning groups

The intention is for participants to implement new CSA ideas in their farming practices and to jointly

assess the efficacy and impact of these ideas. Monitoring, both using visual and qualitative criteria as

well as some quantitative measurements to provide for benchmarks to be used insome of the

qualitative assessments are thus called for.

As these new ideas would invariably be ideas that farmers have not tried before, these techniques

would need to be introduced through learning sessions and demonstrations. Many of the easier ideas

such as mulching, mixed cropping and the like can be introduced in training and demonstration

sessions for individuals to experiment with at their homesteads. There are however some

practices/techniques that require both higher levels of skill and inputs to implement. Some examples

here would be conservation agriculture, shade cloth tunnels for vegetable production and furrow

irrigation. In addition introduction of practices are season specific in a number of instances.

A process has thus been put in place to setup demonstrations for the learning groups to pilotsome

of these ideas. These community level demonstration sites also provide a good opportunity for

implementation of the quantitative measurements.

Below is an updated table indicating the demonstrations as they have been implemented during the

reporting period.

Table 16: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo

Province

Category

Name of participants

Name of village

Date of planting

Limpopo

Field cropping

(CA)

Koko Maphori

Sedawa

05/12/2017

Lerato Lewele

Mametja

06/12/2017

Seemole Malepe

Botshabelo

07/12/2017

Gardening

(Tunnels, drip kits

– trench

beds, mixed

cropping,

mulching)

Christina Tobejane

Sedawa

11 – 15 Dec 2017

Norah Malepe

Mametja

11 – 15 Dec 2017

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

11 – 15 Dec 2017

Matshego Shai

Mabiletse Mogofe

Sarah Mohlala

Turkey

9-12 April 2018

Cheune Mailula

Josias Shai

Lydia Sechube

Rosina Mahlungu

Lourene

(Sekororo –

LimaRDF)

9-12 April

KwaZulu-

Natal

Field cropping

(CA)

Ntombake Zikode

Eqeleni

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumelele Hlongwane

Ezimbomzini

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumzile Zimba

Mhlwazini

20-24 Nov 2017

Gardening

(Tunnels, drip kits

– trench

Ntombakhe Zikode

Eqeleni

29-31 Jan 2018

Phumelele Hlongwane,

Zodwa Zikode, Nombono

Dladla

Ezibomvini

29-31 Jan 2018

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

beds, mixed

cropping,

mulching)

Thembi Xaba, Zanele

Ngobese/Winnie

Dlamini, Gugu

Majola/Nokuthula Sibisi

Mdwebu –

Tabamhlophe

_LimaRDF

29-31 Jan 2018

To Ntuli (Uthando

LukaGogo Group)

Good Homes-

Tabamhlophe-

LimaRDF

29-31 Jan 2018

Field cropping

(CA, furrow

irrigation

Ms Mandisa Mama and

Mr Mncedi Madleni

Xolisa Dwane

Siyabulela Gcungqami

Mavuso

Mxumbu

Aug-Sept 2018

Gardening

Tunnels, drip kits

– trench

beds, mixed

cropping,

mulching)

Infiltration pits

Swales

Contours

Lingiswa Mangaliso

Xoliswa Mangcola

Xolisa Dwane

Siyabulela Gcungqami

Busisiwe Mgangxela

Bulelani Jantjie

Sibusiso Globinampku

Aviwe Biko

Abongile Mfecane

Nomasoma Njacu

Phindiwe Msesiwe

Alice

Healdtown

Mxumbu

Mqayise

Mayipase

Ilizwi lamafama

End April 2018, Aug-

Sept 2018

Experimentation with vegetable production and tunnels

Criteria for selection of the participants who would implement these demonstrations, at their

homesteads, but with and for the groups were discussed with the learning group participants and the

following criteria were used:

•Should be likeable

•Should be a volunteer

•Should be home most of the time

•Must be an active gardener

•Must reside in the close proximity of a source of water

•The source of water should somewhat be reliable

•Must be good with people

•Must have a vision for the benefit of the group

•Willingness to make tunnels

Training sessions in building of the shade cloth tunnels were held in KZN (end Jan 2018) and Limpopo

(mid April 2018). The organisationSocio Technical Interfacing assisted with supply of the kits for the

tunnels and drip irrigation as well as providing the three- day training in construction. A total of 8

demonstration tunnels, with 3 sets of drip kits each have been built in each province.

A fewpictures are shown below indicative of the three- day process for each group. The report for the

Bergville tunnel construction process in included in Appendix 7.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Above Left: On of the 4-6m tunnels completed by community members. Black plastic has been used to

temporarily cover the three long trench beds constructed inside the tunnel. Above right: One of the

drip kits set up outside the tunnel (another is inside for comparative purposes.

A further session was held with each of the learning groups to provide learning and mentoring in the

experimentationprocess related to each tunnel –including constructionof trench beds, mulching,

mixed cropping and liquid manure. The experiment consists of setting up this process inside and

outside the tunnel for comparative purposes. Chameleon water sensors have been installed for three

participants in KZN and Limpopo respectively and a qualitative monitoringprocess has been put in

place for the smallholder participants.

Individual experimentation

Conservation Agriculture experimentation- Limpopo

The first round of planting farmer level CA trials/experiments, was organized as a training workshop

where participants worked together to plant a trial after theoretical and technical details for this

process were introduced and discussed. Attending participants were given seed at the end of each

session to go and plant their own individual field trials (maize, beans, cowpeas, sunflower, millet and

winter cover crops (black oats, fodder rye and fodder radish).

The experimental sites were established in Sedawa, Mametja and Botshabelo. Below is a list

participants who have planted CA trails in the 2017/2018 growing season.

Table 17: Participants in the individual CA farmer experimentation in Limpopo

Name of participants

Village name

Date

Replanted (Yes or No)

Khomotso Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Maakopila Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Makgale Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Alex Mogopa

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Nthara Seotlo

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Nkone Maphori

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Mpelesi Sekgobela

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Refilwe Mogale

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Mmago Mimi

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Victoria Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Tash Masete

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Joyce Masete

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Josphina Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Joyce Mongadi

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Meisy Mokwena

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Norah Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Thamara Malepe

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Christina Thobejane

Sedawa

14/12/2017

Yes

Lethabo Sekgonbela

Mametja

17/12/2017

Selina Sekgonbela

Mametja

17/12/2017

Melta Sekgonbela

Mametja

17/12/2017

Nancy malepe

Mametja

17/12/2017

Lerato Lewele

Mametja

17/12/2017

Manteng Mametsa

Mametja

17/12/2017

Yes

Francinah Shai

Mametja

17/12/2017

Yes

Rebecca Mmola

Mametja

17/12/2017

Yes

Jenny Mmola

Mametja

17/12/2017

Andronica Morema

Mametja

17/12/2017

Monica Malepe

Botshabelo

Yes

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

Yes

Alex Mogopa

Botshabelo

Yes

Seliki

Botshabelo

Yes

Koko Mokgotho

Botshabelo

Yes

Toakele

Botshabelo

Yes

Nthara Nthlamo

Botshabelo

Yes

The rainfall records from the experimental sites have shown that the total precipitation from early

December to mid-January was 20 mm. This has resulted in poor or zero germination in most of the

CA plots. In early January, we replanted the CA experimental trials in Sedawa and Botshabelo and

discontinued the experimental trial in Mametja and moved it to the other side of Sedawa. At each of

the meetings seed was distributed to attending participants to go and replant their CA trails.

Some of the participants planted, while others kept the seed for the next season. Those who

replanted experienced the same problem, seed did not germinate, and where it germinated the

germination was patchy. There were no rains in January and February in the area, again this has

resulted in crop failure in both experimental plots and baby sites in homesteads

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Above left and right:Seomole Malepe’s field in Botshabeloshowing patchy germination and very little

growth at the end o Jan 2018

However, the situation was different for those who have access to irrigation, their crops have

germinated and grown very well. There was no replanting done at Turkey village.

Above left to right MpelesiSekgobela’s homestead in Sedawa village–Her intercrop trial early

in the season -showing maize-bean and maize-cowpea intercrops, her maize singe crop block

later in the season and Mrs Sekgobela standingin an intercrop plot of maize and summer

cover crops (millet and sunflower)

In addition 3 researcher managed trial plots were also established to take samples and set up

instrumentation for more quantitative measurement. The trials were established in 3 fields, situated

in Sedawa (Koko Maphori), Mametja (at Lerato Lewele) and Botshabelo (Seemole Malepe).

The trials were planted by members of the learning group, and this was organized in the form of a

workshop of CA as the trial sites are to be used as demonstration sites. Soil fertility samples were

taken at these plots, as well as gravimetric water soil samples. Run-off plots and rain gauges were

also installed.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

The trial sizes were kept at the same size for all three participants and the layouts are as shown in

the diagrams below. The size of individual plots is 10 m2 and the total trial size is 1000 m2.

Figure 4: CA trial layout for Koko Maphori’s field (Plots highlighted in brown is where runoff plots have been installed)

There was good germination of cowpeas, maize and beans, respectively. However, due to high

temperatures and low rainfall during December, the maize wilted in some of the plots and only

cowpeas were visible. Winter cover crops did not germinate at all. These plots were replanted in

January – to no avail, as even less rain fell during January-February.

Tunnel and gardening experimentation _KZN- Ezibomvini

During the second CC workshop at community level the learning groups further prioritized, as a group

and as individuals some of the e[practises they would experiment with.

As an example the Ezibomvini learning group worked with gardening experimentation linked to their

tunnels and doing farmer level trials both inside and outside the tunnels and including, trench beds,

mixed cropping (including herbs) and mulching. These practices were introduced and demonstrated.

Out of 29 farmers who were presentfor the Ezibomvini learning group (23 March 2018), 20 farmers

considered trench beds astheir priority.Farmers who chose trench bed will therefore also try out

mixed cropping and mulching. Most of the farmers from the nine left already has trench beds in their

homesteads. The following is the list of participants who considered a trench bed as their firstpriority.

Table 18: Individual experimentation with trench beds, mixed cropping and mulching for the Ezibomvini Learning Group

Name

Village Name

21.Jabulile Nkabinde

Ezibomvini

22.Fikile Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

23.Nonhlahla Zikode

Ezibomvini

Winter cover

crops

Sunflower

Maize + Cowpea

Maize +Beans

Maize

Maize + Beans

Sunflower

Sunflower + millet

Gate

Rain gauge

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

24.Landiwe Gamede

Ezibomvini

25.Gcinekile Zikode

Ezibomvini

26.Hlengiwe Ndaba

Ezibomvini

27.Busisiwe Zikode

Ezibomvini

28.Alfred Gumede

Ezibomvin

29. Velephi Zimba

Ezibomvini

30.Sizeni Dlamini

Eqeleni

31.Lndokuhle Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

32.Conastance Hlongwane

Thamela

33.Thulile Zikode

Eqeleni

34.Sibongile Zikode

Eqeleni

35.Dambi Ntuli

Thamela

36.Zanele Hlongwane

Thamela

37.Thokozile Mpambo

Eqeleni

38.Nomalanga Khumalo

Eqeleni

39.Mvelo Zikode

Ezibomvini

40.Sdudla Sibiya

Ezibomvini

Farmers were provided with sample quantities (small packets_5ml) of a variety of seeds

including new winter vegetable varieties and herbs for their experimentation. The seed and

seedlings provided were lavender, Aloe Vera, moss curl parsley, flat leaf parsley, coriander,

garlic chives, leeks, Chinese cabbage, Kale, and spring onions.

These experiments are to be monitored by both the farmers and the facilitation team and a

review of this process held by the end of the growing season. The process will also be

implemented in the other villages where CoPs’ have been set up.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

9CAPACITY BUILDING AND PUBLICATIONS

Capacity building has been undertaken on three levels:

•Community level learning

•Organisational capacity building

•Post graduate students

Community level learning

This has been discussed at lengthin previous sections. In summary learning workshop have been

conducted in 7 villages across three provinces (EC, KZN and Limpopo) with a total of 208 participants

including a number of topics including; scientific and community level understanding of climate

change and weather variability, impact of climate changeon production, adaptive measures,

introduction to a range of CSA practices, farmer level experimentation and practical learning for a

range of CSA practices

Organisational capacity building

Within 3 NGOs (MDF, Lima RDf and AWARD) capacity of field staff to facilitate and work with climate

change concepts and facilitation of CSA at community level has been enhanced through:

•Collaborative design of workshop outlines and facilitation processes

•Training sessions in CC and CSA facilitation, including appropriate CSA practices

•Mentored facilitation of CC and CSA workshops

•Field staff managed facilitation of learning events

•Setting up of CoPs and

•Attendance at stakeholder CoP processes related to this work (Agroecology network in

Limpopo, Rangeland management cross visit with UCPP in Eastern Cape and regenerative

agriculture symposium in the Free State.

•In addition inputs have been provided for the Conservation Agriculture policy document for

DAFF

Post graduate students

Below is a summary of the postgraduate studies and progress made for 2017-2018

•Finalisation of theses:

oSanelise Tafa: Agric Economic Masters- University of Fort Hare; July 2017. Farm level

cost-benefit analysis of conservation agriculture for maize smallholder farmers in

Okhahlamba Municipality in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province, South Africa.

▪Paper: Farm Level Cost-Benefit Analysis: The evaluation of economics of

conservation agriculture in Bergville Town in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province of

South Africa ( Invitation to present: Center for Integrated Agricultural

Systems (CIAS) at the University of Wisconsin- “The Agroecology of

Development: Community Solutions in Post-Apartheid South Africa” event

on November 9th, 2017)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

oKhethiwe Mthethwa: B Agric Honours – Univeristy of KwaZulu Natal. November

2017. Investigating the sustainability of adoption of conservation agriculture by

small-scale farmers in Bergville

•Progress: Final proposals and research methodology

oPalesa Motaung: M Agric -University of Pretoria. Evaluating the restorative effect of

conservation agriculture on the degraded soils of the upper Drakensburg area of

Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal using qualitative versus quantitative soil health indicators

oMazwi Dlamini: MPhil - UWC_PLAAS. 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

•Progress: Initial proposals and research methodology

oKhethiwe Mthethwa: M Agric – University of KwaZulu Natal; January 2018. The

contribution of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices in adapting to climate

change: The case of smallholder farmers in KwaZulu Natal.

Sanelise Tafa:

Summary of Paper

On-farm economic benefits between conservation and conventional agriculture are not

thought to be very 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 Present Value,

Benefit Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Returns, the study revealed that there are more

incentives for adoption of conservation agriculture 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

He used the following conceptual framework for his economic analysis

Discounted cost

Inputs costs

Labour

Fertilise

Pesticid

Seed

Conservation

agriculture

adoption&

Outcome

Productivit

y change

Reverse to

soil

degradatio

Discounted benefits

Comparison (NPV, BCR, IRR)

Figure 1: conceptual framework on cost benefit of conservation agriculture

Source: Adapted from Pannell et al. (2014)

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Using interviews with 6 smallholder farmers in the Bergville area as well as quantitative and

qualitative data from Mahlathini’s GrainSA conservation Agriculture, smallholder innovation

programme he achieved the following results – as indicated in the three tables below

Table 1: The average yield from the sampled respondents of 2013-2015

Year

Conservation agriculture (t/ha)

Conventional agriculture

(t/ha)

2013

3.26

3.39

2014

4.12

5.4

2015

4.45

3.05

Source: Kruger (2016)

Table 2: Comparison of Cost and Benefits of trial plot and control plot

Variable

cost

Trial Plots (Rands/0.14ha)

Control plots (R/0.8ha)

P/Unit

Total Cost

% of

cost

P/Unit

Total Cost

% of cost

Maize seed

3.5

104

364

16%

4.8

104

499,2

11%

Fertiliser

9.2

322

14%

465

10%

Herbicide

0.42

109

45,78

Pesticide

0.014

875

12,25

Ploughing

0.8

645

516

11%

Labour

250

1250

56%

250

2500

53%

Discing

0.8

537.5

430

Sowing

250

11%

0.8

376.25

301

Sub-total

2244,03

100%

Sub-total

4711,2

100%

Contingency at

89,7612

Contingency at

188,448

Total Cost

2154,2688

Total Cost

4522,752

Gross

Revenue

3,94

2500

9850

3,35

2500

8375

Gross Margin

7695,7312

3852,248

Source: Author’s own computation

Table 3: The results of CBA

Tillage system

Parameter

10-year period

Discounted at 8%

10-year period Discounted

at 10.5%

Conservation

agriculture

NPV

52694

46550

IRR

25%

BCR

3,85

3,78

Conventional

agriculture

NPV

20446

18177

IRR

35%

BCR

1,56

1,55

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Source: Author’s owncomputation (NPV=Net Present Value, IRR=Internal rate of return and

BCR=benefit cost ratio)

From these results Mr Tafa concluded that “Conservation agriculture is an amalgamation of a

number of sustainable practices developed over the last century, packaged under the three guiding

principles; viz., no-tillage, mulching, and crop rotation. Conservation farming is an arrangement that

incorporates the three guiding principles to run concurrently and generate both physical-biological

and socioeconomic benefits to the farm system. Yet, these benefits of CA are not without

challenges. For instance, yield benefits take long time to materialize of which smallholder farmers

cannot afford income sacrifices in the short term, even if there is a promise of greater benefits in the

long run.

Although in the smallholder setting, CA has high initial investment costs compared to conventional

agriculture, CA holds a high gross margin (GM) compared to conventional agriculture. There are

many factors that contributed to the level of GM in all the tillage systems practiced, one being the

lowest operating cost in CA compared to conventional agriculture.

When using appraisal indicators (NPV, BCR, and IRR) the study projected a 10-year period at 8% and

10.5% discount rates. All the appraisal indicators confirmed the viability of CA over the conventional

agriculture”.

Khethiwe Mthethwa:

Summary of paper

Khethiwe’s abstract for her Honours paper is presented below:

“Conservation Agriculture is one of the concepts that have been introduced as a way of promoting a

sustainable agricultural system. Whilst Conservation Agriculture (CA) is being promoted but its

adoption rate among smallholder farmers has been very slow. Even after adoption, there are

concerns that farmers may not be able to sustain its adoption. This study set out to investigate the

sustainability of adoption of CA by small-scale farmers in Bergville community - Ezibomvini. This

study adopted both qualitative and quantitative approach. Additional data for this study was

collected through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The quantitative data was analysed through the

use of SPSS, while qualitative data was analysed through emerging themes from the data. The study

found that farmers have gained necessary skills and knowledge to be able to sustain the adoption of

the CA, suggesting that farmers can stand on their own and continue to practice the CA even in the

absence of the CA promoters. 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 innovation, which is technology and knowledge-intensive like

CA to small-scale farmers who are not educated. It is recommended that more research be

undertaken to find out the accurate result if farmers are willing to extend mixed cropping in their

plots. Further research also needs to be conducted to find out more about factors which were

influencing small-scale farmers to abandon CA practices”.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Her problem statement and objectives for her study were defined as the following:

“The role of Non-Government Organization (NGO) inputs support is assumed to be a catalyst in the

initial CA uptake, especially by poor and vulnerable households. A number of farmers who had

adopted CA during the active promotion of CA eventually abandon the innovation in the absence of

support from NGOs. Though, there is substantial evidence that CA results in improved soil health,

fertility and yields over time. The response of smallholder farmers to CA is still not clearly defined.

Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a study that looks into the adoption of CA to better inform

policymakers regarding challenges faced by adopters of CA but more important about the factors

that increase CA adoption.

Research Objectives:

•Farmer’s knowledge and skills based on CA practice

•Farmer’s perspectives towards the benefits to adoption of CA

Sub-problem:

Four research sub-problems were developed to address the research questions.

•What are the characteristics of sample farmers?

•Are selected farmers skilled and knowledgeable about CA?

•Do selected farmers follow the CA principles?

•What are the experienced advantages of practicing CA?

Some of the results she obtained from her study are presented below as examples

Regarding knowledge and skills to continue CA implementation, most farmers strongly agreed that

CA training improved their knowledge in CA, a few number of farmers agreed that CA improved their

knowledge and a few were neutral (Refer to figure 1.1). This shows that CA training played a huge

role in improving farmers' knowledge in CA. Most farmers are confident that their knowledge has

improved through CA training and this means they have gained required knowledge to sustain CA

practice.

Figure 1: The Graph showing ranking of effectiveness of CA training in improving farmer’s

knowledge on CA (Survey output, 2017)

Regarding the benefits of CA, most farmers reported that CA increases yields (Figure 1.2). A few

farmers are able to tell if the soil is fertile or not. Soil colour is one of the characteristics which farmers

Strongly AgreeAgreenuetraldisagreestrongly

disagree

Number of farmers

Ranking

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

use to determine soil health in the soil. In terms of fertilizer and herbicides application, all the farmers

observed that CA improved their soil fertility due to the fact that their yields have increased.

Figure 2: Figure 5.2: The graphshowing CA knowledge gained by farmers (Survey output,

2017)

Further advantages mentioned is better weed control. The small pie chart below indicates the farmers’

responses.

Figure 3: A pie chart showing the contributionof mixed cropping to weed control (Survey

output, 2017)

But even given this response, not all farmers were prepared to continue and expand their mixed

cropping practices (inter cropping of maize with legumes and cover crop planting) as shown in the

small table below. Only around 535 of participants would continue with mixed cropping although 73%

have noted positive changes in both yield and weed control

Table 1: Showing the willingness of farmers to extend mixed cropping in their fields (Survey output, 2017)

Frequency

Percent

Valid

yes

53.3

46.7

Total

100.0

minimise

fertiliser use

Minimise tillageincrease yieldsimprove soil

fertility

number of farmers

Advantages of CA

14%

13%

73%

Increase

Remain the same

Decrease

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

She concludes that the selected farmers have a capability to maintain the practice of CA now and in

the future. Generally, the selected farmers have a better knowledge and skills of CA, indicating

likelihood that farmers can sustain the CA practice. Considering the principles of CA: minimum soil

disturbance, leaving soil residues and crop diversification, farmers indicated that they are

comfortable with these principles as they minimize the use of inputs, save time and reduce soil

erosion.

She recommended that further research needs to be conducted to find out communication

strategies that can be used to communicate new innovations, which are technology and knowledge-

intensive such as CA, to small-scale farmers who are not educated. More research needs to

conducted with farmers who have abandon CA, to find out more about factors which influenced this

decision.

Khethiwe’s Masters proposal outline

Research Topic

The contribution of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices in adapting to climate change: The

case of smallholder farmers in KwaZulu Natal.

The specific objectives are:

•To understand the historical experience regarding production calendar compared to current

situation.

•To assess the CSA practices that are currently can be employed by small-scale farmers in

response to the changes.

• To assess the factors influencing the selection of these practices

•To determine the benefits of employing CSA practices regarding climate change adaptation.

Research Methodology

The literature review will be conducted to guide the study through drawing researchable

relationships. Both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and analyzed. Seasonal Map,

Timeline, Individual field visits, questionnaires and focus group discussions will be used to collect

data. The study will be conducted in Bergville and Ntabamhlophe of KwaZulu Natal. There are three

communities from Bergville which is Ezibomvini, Eqeleni and Thamela. There are two communities in

Ntabamhlophe, which is Good homes and Mdwebu community. A total number of 50 respondents

will be selected, 30 respondents from Bergville and 20 respondents from Ntabamhlophe. The study

will investigate small-scale farmers who are practicing a wide range of practices in their homestead

garden as a result of improving food security for households.

Mazwi Dlamini

Masters proposal outline and methodology.

Mazwi’s abstract for his proposal reads asfollows: “Subsistence agriculture continues to play a

pivotal role in rural areas across developing countries in the world as means to food production and

income generation. South Africa is no exception with white maize a staple food for more than 70%

of the population in the country and yellow maize mostly used for livestock feed, livestock is a big

part of smallholder agriculture (DoA, 2004). Maize plays a big role in South African diets contributing

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

35% of carbohydrates, 15% fat and 31% of proteins (Mqadi, 2005). Maizenis mostly produced at the

expense of natural resources; soil erosion, poor soil health; coupled with high costs and poor yields

threatening food security. Conservation Agriculture has been introduced as an alternative through

resource saving, efficiency of inputs, improved use of natural resources, livestock integration and

increased yields (Silici, 2010). Despite efforts in spreading CA there has been issues with adoption,

this study attempts to identify factors influencing farmers’ decisions the adoption and non-adoption

of CA and impacts those decisions have on livelihood activities for food security. This research is

informed by the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework where questionnaires and focus group

interviews will be administered on 30 participants”

A summary of Mazwi’s data collection tools and research questions is provided in the table below.

Table 1: Summary of data collection tools and analysis

Research question

Sources of data to answer the

question

Research methods for collection and analysis of

data

1. Which CA practices

are mostly adopted by

smallholders in the

Bergville area?

Quantitative data on adoption

and non-adoption of the CA

package promoted by MDF

Questionnaire survey of 30 farmers, 20 adopters and

10 non-adopters; analysis using SPSS

2. What factors

influence the

adoption and/or non-

adoption of CA in

smallholder farming

systems?

Qualitative data on views of

farmers

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 farmers

(6 adopters, 6 non-adopters); thematic analysis

Two focus groupdiscussions,one with adopters (6

participants) and one with non-adopters (6

participants); thematic analysis

3. What adaptations

do smallholders make

to CA, if any, and what

are the reasons for

these?

Quantitative data on adoption

and non-adoption of the CA

package promoted by MDF

Qualitative data on views of

farmers

Questionnaire survey of 30 farmers, 20 adopters and

10 non-adopters; analysis using SPSS

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 farmers

(6 adopters, 6 non-adopters); thematic analysis

Two focus groupdiscussions,one with adopters (6

participants) and one with non-adopters (6

participants); thematic analysis

4. What are the

measurable impacts

of CA on productivity

in smallholder

farming systems?

Data from MDF or Grain SA or

other source?

Summary of existing data from MDF or Grain SA or

other source?

5. What are the

potential impacts of

CA on the livelihoods

and food security of

rural households in

the Bergville area?

Quantitative data on existing

sources of livelihood and food

security status

Qualitative data on views of

farmers

Questionnaire survey of 30 farmers, 20 adopters and

10 non-adopters; analysis using SPSS

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 12 farmers

(6 adopters, 6 non-adopters); thematic analysis

Two focus groupdiscussions,one with adopters (6

participants) and one with non-adopters (6

participants); thematic analysis

He has finalised his literature review on his methodology and will spend the upcoming year in

gathering and analysing data.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

Palesa Motaung

Masters proposal outline and methodology

Palesa’s hypothesis aims and objectives for her study are outlined below:

Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis:

CA is seen as a method that can build up or restore degraded soil. This process is known to

take 7 years. However, a mixed type of cover cropping system rotated with a cash crop may

shorten the entire process of rehabilitation and restoration to a period of 3 to four years

Alternative Hypothesis:

A leguminous inter-croppingsystem under yearly rotation may be as effective at increasing

the pace at which a multi-specie cover cropping system restores degraded soil.

Aims of the study

1.The aims of study are to determine the impact of inter-cropping sugar beans-maize

and cowpeas-maize on selected soil physical, chemical and biological properties as a

minimum data set

2.Assess the sensitivity of qualitative and quantitative soil quality indices to determine

overall soil health

Specific Objectives Include:

•To select the best combination of crops and management systems that can improve

soil physical properties

•To select the best combination of crops and management systems that can improve

soil chemical properties

•To select the best combination of crops and management systems that can improve

soil biological properties

The study spans across 8 villages all within the Bergville area. These villages were chosen because

they;

•Are all under the CA-Farmer Innovation Programme tointroduce CA to smallholder

farmers

•Are host to farmers who adopted CA either in 2014, 2015 or 2016.

•Are hosts to farmers who are practicingconservation alongside conventional tillage

on maize plots

•Are hosts to farmers who are inter-cropping maize with a legume (soybeans or

cowpeas) and rotating their plots yearly.

Within each village, farmers were selected who planted at least one plot of maize + beans, maize +

cowpeas and maize only plots in the 2016/17 year.

Treatments were chosen for the following reasons:

a)These were the treatments most widely practiced and available amongst the chosen

farmers; i.e. a high proportion of the chosen farmers planted 2/3 or 3/3 of the chosen

treatments in the previous planting season.

b)The chosen treatment allows us to investigate the CA practice of intercropping maize

and a legume versus the conventional practice of mono-cropping

c)An “uncultivated” soil sample will be taken adjacent to the cultivated plots which will

serve as a benchmark for the areas natural soil status.

WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 4: Report CoPs and Demonstration Sites established-May 2018

d)Information on whether the farmers have planted cover crops has also been collected

and it may be used to add insight into the possible findings on the soil status

The table below indicates her participant selection.

Table 1: participant selection and criteria

Conservation

Tillage

Convent

ional

Tillage

(control

)

Yield (t/ha)

Other

Treat

ments

Yea

Village

Farmer

maize

undistur

bed

adjacen

t plot

maiz

(CA)

maize

(CT)

beans

cover

crops

201

Ezibomv

eni

Phumelele

Hlongwane

900m2

Yes

8.27

9.69

1.818

201

Ezibomv

eni

Nthumeni

Nkabinde

560m2

Yes

2.77

2.05

0.62

201

Mhlwazi

Zimba

Mantombi

350m2

Yes

5.58

4.089

0.34

201

Vimbuk

halo

Sbongile

Mpulo

Yes

*515

1.76

201

Ndunwa

Zondo

Matozo

600m2

Yes

3.79

1.9375

1.02

201

Stulwan

Getty Miya

Yes

1.39

*129.9

9 kg

0.48

201

Ngoba

Sebenzile

Hlongwane

810m2

Yes

2.95

0.34

0.22

201

Ndunwa

Shiwiye

Mazibuko

Yes

2.26

*109.2

0.49

201

Ezibomv

eni

Ntombenhl

Hlongwane

Yes

5.82

167.2

2.34

201

Ezibomv

eni

Mantombi

Mabizela

Yes

2.61

143.39

5.64

201

Cornfiel

Miya

Mdumeni

2236m2

Yes

0.27

1.34

201

Nsuka-

Zwelish

Busi

Hlatshwayo

Yes

4.76

109.83

2.44

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201777

She is to work with a number of quantitative and qualitative soil health indicatorswithin the following

experimental design.

This study will be a field experiment with 5 treatments:

•2 management systems: conventional and conservation tillage,

•2 inter-cropping systems; bean-maize and cowpea-maize,

•Mono-cropping versus inter-cropping,

•Uncultivated plot serving as a benchmark for degradation

Arranged in a factorial arrangement of a split-plot design. Each treatment is replicated 12 times on 5m

× 5m blocks

Quantitative soil quality indicators to be used are summarised in the table below

Table 2: Soil quality indicators

Soil

Function

Relative

Weight

Quantitative

Soil Quality

Indicators

Type of

Indicator

Relative

Weights

Test

Link between Indicator

and Soil Process/Function

Nutrient

Cycling

0.2

Available P

Biological

0.5

Olsen-P

Extractable Phosphorus is

a measure of phosphorus

(P) availability to a crop. P

is an essential plant

macronutrient, as it plays a

role in photosynthesis,

respiration, energy storage

and transfer, cell division,

cell enlargement, and

several other process in

plants (Moebius-Clune,

2016).

Chemical

0.5

pH-KCl

method

using a pH

meter

Soil pH isameasure of how

acidic the soil is, which

controls how available

nutrients areto crops. If

pH is too high, nutrients

such as phosphorus, iron,

manganese, copper and

boron become unavailable

to the crop. If pH is too low,

calcium, magnesium,

phosphorus, potassium

and molybdenum become

unavailable (Moebius-

Clune, 2016).

Filtering

and

Buffering

0.2

Soil Organic

Matter

Transcends

all 3

indicators

0.7

Percent

organic

matter is

determined

by loss on

ignition,

based on the

Soil organic matter (OM) is

where soil carbon is

stored. OM acts as a long-

term carbonsink, and as a

slow-release pool for

nutrients. It contributes to

ion exchange capacity

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201778

change in

mass after a

soil is

exposed to

high

temperature

(500°C or

932°F) ina

furnace

(Moebius-

Clune, 2016)

(nutrient storage), nutrient

cycling, soil aggregation,

and water holding

capacity, and it provides

nutrients and energy to

the plant and soil microbial

communities (Moebius-

Clune, 2016). SOC is one of

the most important

constituents of the soil due

to its capacity to affect

plant growthas botha

source of energy and a

trigger for nutrient

availability through

mineralization (USDA-

NRCS, 2009).

Electrical

Conductivity

Chemical

0.3

Electrical

conductivity

meter

EC does not directly affect

plant growth but has been

used as anindirect

indicator of the amount of

nutrients available for

plant uptake and salinity

levels (USDA-NRCS, 2011).

Physical

Stability

and

Support

0.2

Bulk Density

Physical

1.0

The

Cylindrical

Core

Method

(NCRS Soil

quality test

kit guide)

Bulk density is an indicator

of soil compaction. Bulk

density typically increases

with soil depth since

subsurface layers have

reduced organic matter,

aggregation, and root

penetration compared to

surface layers and

therefore, contain less

pore space (USDA-NRCS,

2011).

Biodiversity

and Habitat

0.2

Soil

Respiration

Biological

1.0

[Solvita -

CO2 Burst

Method]

A measure of the

metabolic activity of the

soil microbial community.

It is measured byre-

wetting air dried soil, and

capturing and quantifying

carbon dioxide (CO2)

produced (Moebius-Clune,

2016).

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201779

Water

Relations

0.2

Available

Water

Capacity

(AWC)

Physical

0.5

Soil porosity and

particularly macro-

porosity (the number of

large pores) influences the

movement of air and water

in the soil. Soils with good

structure havea high

porosity within and

between (USDA-NRCS,

2011).

Water stable

aggregates

Physical

0.5

Measurement of soil

aggregate stability gives a

useful index of the

susceptibility of the soil to

structural degradation and

visual assessment of the

soil profile isavaluable

method of assessing the

need for physical

remediation (Cameron et

al, 1998).

Qualitative soil quality indicators:

The farmers in Bergville who have adopted CA into their farming practices use a Visual Soil

Assessment Manual for Conservation Agriculture developed by Grain SA with Mahlathini

Development Foundation. The manual looks at properties such as soil type; soil crusting; soil

structure; porosity; depth; presence of mottles; presence of tillage pans and earthworm count. The

manual uses a score between 0 and 2. 0 indicates poor conditions while 2 indicates good conditions.

Table 3 below is a typical checklist found on the Mahlathini Visual Indicator manual.

Table 3: Mahlathini Visual Indicator checklist. Mahlathini Development Foundation

Visual indicator of Soil Quality

Visual Score (VS)

0 = Poor conditions

1 = Moderate conditions

2 = Good conditions

Weighing

VS Ranking

Soil Structure

Soil porosity

 2

Soil colour

 2

Number and colour of soil mottles

 1

Earthworm counts

 2

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201780

Soil cover

 3

Soil depth

 2

Run-off

X 2

Ranking Score (sum of VS rankings)

Table 4 allows the farmer to rate the condition of their soil by assigning each indicator a score out of

2. Each indicator is then multiplied by a weight which indicates importance or influence of the

indicator to overall soil quality. The scores are summed to give a soil quality assessment. Table 6

below is an example of such a checklist. For instance, a soil sample that received scores of 2/2 (Good

Condition) for all 8 categories above would receive a score of 34 (>25), meaning that the soil quality

is “good”.

Table 4: Soil Quality Assessment Table. Mahlathini Development Foundation

Soil Quality Assessment

Ranking score

Poor

< 10

Moderate

10 - 25

Good

> 25

The full manual can be found in the appendix section. (Appendix 1).

The Mahlathini Visual Soil Assessment Manual will be used in this study as a qualitative assessment

tool. This tool will be used to evaluate soil quality in-field and assign soil quality scores to each

sample. Samples will then be ranked for comparison with the results form Objective 1: Quantitative

soil Quality Assessments.

The relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods of assessing soil quality will be

established using the Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient.

Palesa has finalised her literature review and methodology and is to commence with field work in

May-June 2018.

Publications and networking

•Publications:

oAdaptation network newsletter; 2 articles – CA SFIP and CSA impact

oSA Grain Newsletter; CA SFIP, 2 smallholder case studies (Ixopo, Bergville)

oAfricanfarming.com; Feature - CA in smallholder farming systems

•Cross visits:

oDARD and MDF: Lesotho – cross visit _CA

oGrainSA FDP and ARC- SGI_CA and implementation methodology

oUSAID, Ukuvuna, SANBI _Community based CCA in Mametje

•Attendance:

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201781

oRangeland Management learning exchange_UCPP_Matatiele

oRegenerative Agriculture_ GrainSA_Reitz

•Presentations:

oCA learning groups and farmer centres presentation –Ubuhlebezwe LM Agricultural

Forum, DRDLR (KZN), Umgungundlovu DM, GrainSA farmers days (x5)

oMadzikane stakeholder forum, Agroecology network, Unmovtho Buboni Learning

Network,

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

Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201782