1
WaterResearchCommission
Submitted to:
Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture
Water Research Commission
Pretoria
Project team:
Mahlathini Development Foundaction(MDF)
Erna Kruger
Temakholo Mathebula
Betty Maimela
Ayanda Madlala
Nqe Dlamini
Institute of Natural Resources (INR)
Brigid Letty
Environmental and Rural Solutions (ERS)
Nickie McCleod, Sissie Mathela
Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD)
Derick du Toit
Project Number: C2022/2023-00746
Project Title: Dissemination and scaling of a decision support framework for CCA for smallholder
farmers in South Africa
Deliverable No.2:Monitoring framework: Exploration of appropriate monitoring tools to suite the
contextual needs for evidence-based planning and implementation.
Date: 2 December2022
Deliverable
2
2
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................3
1.Introduction............................................................................................................................5
2.Climate resilience monitoring tools and indicators................................................................. 8
1.1Global Commission on Adaptation..................................................................................9
a.Principles for climate resilience metrics..........................................................................9
2.1The National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for South Africa.............................10
b.SANBI: Adaptation Fund................................................................................................13
c.Committee on Sustainable Assessment (COSA) resilience indicators...........................15
d.Locally Led Adaptation (LLA).........................................................................................18
3.Multi stakeholder engagement: Towards a coherent methodology.....................................20
a.SANBI Living catchments Project...................................................................................20
b.The uThukela Water Source Forum...............................................................................21
c.The uMzimvubu Catchment Partnership evaluation.....................................................24
3.1Monitoring and evaluation in multi stakeholder engagements....................................29
d.MEL and PMERL.............................................................................................................30
a.Examples.......................................................................................................................31
4.Process planning and progress to date.................................................................................32
Smallholder farmers in climate resilient agriculture learning groups...................................33
Communication and innovation............................................................................................34
Multistakeholder platforms..................................................................................................34
4.1Work plan: December 2022 – February 2023...............................................................38
5.Reference s............................................................................................................................40
Appendix 1: Ukulinga Howard Davis Memorial Symposium presentation 2022/10/11................46
Appendix 2: CA learning group reviews nad planning: Bergville, August 2022.............................57
Collaboratively managed trials (CMTs) planning...................................................................59
Appendix 3: Adaptation Newsletter October 2022. Article..........................................................60
3
Figure 1: Frames to understand adaptation effectiveness range across a continuum of being
process- or outcome-based. Source: (Singh, et al., 2021).................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2: Critical processes to foster co-productive agility ineach of the four pathways to
sustainability transformations..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3: The component of climate vulnerability and climate risk, adapted from IPCC AR5 ( (GIZ,
with EURAC and Adelphi, 2017)........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4: Conceptualization of stakeholder platforms at multiple levels to support CbCCA........33
ACRONYMS
AFAdaptation Fund
APPAdaptive planning process
CCAClimate change adaptation
COSACommittee on sustainable assessment
COP/CoPCommunity of Practice
CRAClimate resilient agriculture
CSOCivil society organisation
CbCCACommunity based climate change adaptation
DAOdesired adaptation outcome
DFFEDepartment of forestry, fisheries, and the environment
DMDistrict municipality
GCAGlobal commission on adaptation
IPInnovation platform
LGLearning group
LMLocal municipality
M&EMonitoring and evaluation
4
MDBMultilateral development bank
MELMonitoring, evaluation and learning
PMERLParticipatory monitoring, evaluation, reflection and learning
MSPMultistakeholder platform
NCCISNational climate change information system
NCCASNational climate change adaptation strategy
NDCNational determined contribution
NGONon-governmentorganisation
OECDOrganisation for economic cooperation and development
SANBISouth African National Botanical Institute
SDGSustainable development goal
SWSAStrategic water source area
UNFCCUnited Nations framework convention on climate change
5
1.INTRODUCTION
This section provides a brief summaryof the project vision, outcomes and operational details.
OUTCOME
Vertical and horizontal integration of this community- based climate change adaptation (CbCCA)
model and process lead to improved water and environmental resources management,
improved rural livelihoods and improved climate resilience for smallholder farmers in communal
tenure areas of South Africa.
EXPECTED IMPACTS
1.Scaling out and scaling up of the CRA frameworks and implementation strategies lead to
greater resilience and food security for smallholder farmers in their locality.
2.Incorporation of the smallholder decision support framework and CRA implementation into
a range of programmatic and institutional processes
3.Improved awareness and implementation of appropriate agricultural and water
management practices and CbCCA in a range of bioclimatic and institutional settings
4.Contribution of a robust CC resilience impact measurement tool for local, regional and
national monitoring processes.
5.Concrete examples and models for ownership and management of local group-based water
access and infrastructure.
AIMS
No
Aim
1.
Create and strengthen integrated institutional frameworks and mechanisms for
scaling up proven multi-benefit approaches that promote collective action and
coherent policies.
2.
Scaling up integrated approaches and practices in CbCCA.
3.
Monitoring and assessment of environmental benefits and agro-ecosystem
resilience.
4.
Improvement of water resource management and governance, including
community ownership and bottom-up approaches.
5.Chronology of activities
1.Desktop review of CbCCA policy and implementation presently undertaken in South
Africa
2.Set up CoPs:
a.Village based learning groups: A minimum of 1-3 LGs per province will be
brought on board.
6
b.Innovation platforms: 3 LG clusters, one for each province consisting of a
minimum of 9- 36 LGs will be identified to engage coherently in this research
and dissemination process.
c.Multistakeholder platforms: Engage existing multistakeholder platforms such as
the uMzimvubu catchment partnership, SANBI- Living Catchments Programme,
the Adaptation Network, etc.
3.Develop roles and implementation parameters for each CoP
a.Village based learning groups: CCA learning and review cycles, farmer level
experimentation, CRA practices refinement, local food systems development,
water and resource conservation access and management and participation and
sharing in and across villages.
b.Innovation Platforms (IP): Clusters of LGs learn and share together with local
and regional stakeholders for knowledge mediation and co-creation and
engagement of Government Departments and officials (1-2 sessions annually
for each IP)
c.Multistakeholder platforms: Development of CbCCA frameworks,
implementation processes (including for example linkages to IDPS and disaster
risk reduction planning and implementation at DM and LM level), reporting
frameworks for the NDC to the CCA strategy, consideration ofmodels for
measurement of resilience and impact (1- 2 sessions annually for each multi
stakeholder platform)
4.Cyclical implementation for all three CoP levels (information provision and sharing,
analysis, action, and review) within the following thematic focus areas: Climate resilient
agriculture practices, smallholder microfinance options, local food systems and
marketing and community owned water and resources access and conservation
management plans and processes. Each of these thematic areas is to be led by one of
the senior researchers and a small sub-team.
5.Monitoring and evaluation: Consisting of the following broad actions:
a.Focus on 3-4 main quantitative indicators e.g. water productivity, production
yields, soil organic carbon and soil health
b.Indicator development for resilience and impact and
c.Exploration of further useful models to develop an overarching framework.
6.Production of synthesis reports, handbooks and process manuals emanating from steps
1-4 withthe primary aim of dissemination of information.
7.And refinement of the CbCCA decision support platform, incorporating updated data
sets and further information form this research and dissemination process.
7
DELIVERABLES
N
o.
Deliverable Title
Description
Target Date
Amount
1
Desk top review for CbCCA
in South Africa
Desk top review of South African policy,
implementation frameworks and
stakeholder platforms for CCA.
01/Aug/2022
R100 000,00
2
Report: Monitoring
framework, ratified by
multiple stakeholders
Exploration of appropriate monitoring
tools to suite the contextual needs for
evidence-based planning and
implementation.
02/Dec/2022
R100 000,00
3
Handbook on scenarios and
options for successful
smallholder financial
services within the South
Africa
Summarize VSLA interventions in SA,
Govt and Non-Govt and design best bet
implementation process for smallholder
microfinance options.
28/Feb/2022
R100000,00
4
Development of CoPs and
multi stakeholder platforms
Design development parameters, roles
and implementation frameworks for CoPs
at all levels, CRA learning groups,
Innovation and multi stakeholder
platforms; within the CbCCA framework.
04/Aug/2023
R133000,00
5
Report: Local food systems
and marketing strategies
contextualized - Guidelines
for implementation
Guidelines and case studies for building
resilience in local food systems and local
marketing strategies towards sustainable
local food systems (local value chain)
08/Dec/2023
R133000,00
6
Case studies: encouraging
community ownership of
water and natural resources
access and management
Case studies (x3) towardsproviding an
evidence base for encouraging community
ownership of natural resource
management through bottom-up
approaches and institutional recognition
of these processes.
28/Feb/2024
R134000,00
7
Case studies: CbCCA
implementation case studies
in 3 different agroecological
zones in SA
CbCCA implementation case studies in 3
different agroecological zones within
South Africa
12/Aug/2024
R133000,00
8
Refined CbCCA decision
support framework with
updated databases and CRA
practices
Refined CbCCA DSS database and
methodology with inclusion of further
viable and appropriate CRA practices
13/Dec/2024
R133000,00
9
Manual for implementation
of successful
multistakeholder platforms
in CbCCA
Methodology and process manual for
successful multi stakeholder platform
development in CbCCA
28/Feb/2025
R134000,00
1
0
Final Report
Final report: Summary of all findings,
guidelines and case studies, learning and
recommendations
18/Aug/2025
(Feb 2026)
R400000,00
8
Deliverable 2, follows on from Deliverable 1 focusing on:
ØDevelopment ofa coherent methodology for multistakeholder engagement, based on
theoretical underpinnings and recent evaluative case studies of successful
multistakeholder processes and platforms
ØExploration of appropriate monitoring tools to suite the contextual needs for evidence-
based planning and implementationincluding:
oModels for measurement of resilience and impact (within multi-stakeholder
platforms)
oIndicator development for resilience and impact
ØExploration of further useful models to develop an overarching framework.
2.CLIMATE RESILIENCE MONITORING TOOLS AND INDICATORS
A resounding call for evidence-basedmeasurements(both qualitative and quantitative)of the
impact of interventionsandprocesses in climatechange adaptation to climate resiliencecan be
heard across sectors. While the primary emphasis globally is on the governmental contributions,
commitments and flows of finances a broad range of other institutional role players have been
grappling with the need for and possibility of a synergised framework for monitoring and
evaluation. Given the wide range of methodological approaches from top-down to locally led
adaptation and the different contexts for implementation this has been a complicated and
confusing task.
For the purposes of this research brief a framework needs to be outlined, which is both globally
and nationally aligned to ensure the widest applicability for the climate resilience metrics
chosen. The work undertaken by the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA) is used as a global
reference point. For the South African comparison, the National Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy(NCCAS)forms the main reference point. In addition,a few specific examples of
indicator /metric frameworks are provided from different sources:
ØA brief analysis of the Adaptation Fund metrics is to be provided, given that SANBI is the
main implementing agent of this fund for South Africa and has developed protocols for
monitoring and evaluation for the fund itself and also for projects that have been
supported.
ØThe committee on sustainable assessment (COSA), which is a non-profitindependent
global consortium have developed indicator libraries, including one for resilience
indicators. COSA indicators are always aligned with global norms such as the SDGs,
multilateral guidelines, international agreements, and normative references. The
indicators ensure comparability and benchmarking across regions or countries, making
it easier for managers and policymakers. All COSA indicators feature SMART principles:
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound and Trackable.
9
2.1GLOBAL COMMISSION ON ADAPTATION
The Global Commission on Adaptation was launched in The Haguein 2018 by the United Nations
and the leaders of 22 other convening countries,including South Africa,with the mandate to
accelerate adaptation by elevating the political visibility of adaptation and focusing on concrete
solutionsand finalised its recommendations in 2020. The work is being taken forward by the
Global Centre on Adaptation, with the primary aim to monitor cooperative adaptation action of
non-state actorsand foster community collaboration and knowledge exchange(Global
Commission on Adaptation, 2019) .
While climate mitigation is the ultimate imperative, carefully selected adaptation options
specific to national contexts are equally important and will yield strong co-benefits to sustain
development and reduce poverty. According to the Global Commission on Adaptation, investing
US$1.8 trillion globally between 2020 and 2030 in early warning systems, climate-resilient
infrastructure, improved dryland agriculture crop production, global mangrove protection, and
investments to make water resources more resilient could generate US$7.1 trillion in total net
benefits. The commission also argues that adaptation actions have a triple dividend:
1. Avoided losses
2. Positive economic benefits: reduced risks, increased productivity, and innovation and
3. Social and environmental benefit.
Climate resilience metrics(measures/indicators)will be key to assessing the extent to which
adaptation financing activities and flows contribute to climate resilience and align with the goals
of the Paris Agreement.
Multilateral Development Banks(MDBs) and the international finance community have
developed a process for aligning adaptation indicators with the COP 24 Paris agreement of 2018.
The MDBs’ approach is based on six building blocks that have been identified as the core areas
for alignment with the objectives of theParis Agreement. A joint MDB working group is
developing methods and tools to operationalize this effort under each of the building blocks,
which includes the mitigation and adaptation goals, accelerated contributions to the transition
through climate finance of the different countries’ NDCs, policy development support, reporting
and internal alignment.
a.Principles for climate resilience metrics
Climate resilience metrics complement adaptation finance tracking through a broad and flexible
approach that reflects the great heterogeneity and diversity of climate vulnerability contexts
and of potentially appropriate financing responses. The climate resilience metrics framework is
a flexible structure based on a logical model and results chain. It guides the development of
climate resilience metrics for individual assets and systems, and for financing portfolios, on two
levels:
ØQuality of project design (diagnostics, inputs, activities)
10
ØProject results (outputs, outcomes, impacts)
The framework is underpinned by four core concepts to develop climate resilience metrics and
functional characteristics of those metricswhich reflect the need for:
1. A context-specific approachto climate resilience metrics
2. Compatibility with the variable and often long timescalesassociated with climate
change impacts and building climate resilience
3. An explicit understanding of the inherent uncertaintiesassociated with future climate
conditions, and
4. The ability to cope with the challengesassociated with determining the boundaries
of climate resilience project.
These metrics can serve as a way of documenting more systematically climate resilience efforts
and identify successful examples. In doing so, they can help also identify opportunities for
further climate resilience support(Inter-American Development Bank, 2019)
To start to define the boundaries, context, timescales and uncertainties in adaptation three key
imperatives; human, environmental and economichave been defined and within these broad
systems namely food, natural environment, water, cities, infrastructure, disaster risk
managementand finance(Global Commission on Adaptation, 2019).
Adapting to climate change while also achieving healthy food for all, mitigating climate change,
protecting ecosystems, and achieving the SDGs will require systemic changes to theglobal food
system and global land use.
2.2THE NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGY FOR SOUTH AFRICA
In South Africa, The National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was finalised in August 2020
(DFFE, 2020). It outlines the goals, strategic outcomes, activities and timelines and expected
impacts nationally, as well as theresponsibilities and actions of all relevant government
structures, nationally, provincially, and at municipal level. Despite the various efforts on
vulnerability and response plan development, there is no agreed vulnerability and resilience
methodology framework to provide guidance to this process.
Nevertheless, amonitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is in development by DFFE. The M&E
system will focus on tracking the outcomes and impact of each strategic outcome together with
the associated actions and indicators under each strategic outcome. The information/data
collected through M&E will be analysed and profiled on the Climate Change Information System.
The National Climate Change Information System (NCCIS) was recently launched and is part of
the national effort to track South Africa’s overall transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient
economy as required by the National Development Plan (Vision 2030) and the National Climate
Change Response Policy (2011) as well as South Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions
(2015) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NCCIS
offers a series of methodologies and decision-support tools that can be used to enhance
11
tracking, assessment,and communication of the effects of climate action response policies and
actions in an accurate, consistent and transparent manner at all scales of implementation to
inform policy and decision making.
The Climate Change Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation approach for South Africa has been
organised into nine Desired Adaptation Outcomes (DAOs). Each is of cross-cutting, cross-sectoral
relevance and describes, in a general sense, a desired state that will enhance South Africa’s
transition towards climate resilience. These DAOs fall into two distinct groupsand areshown in
the table below.
Inputs to enable effective adaptation
G1
Robust/integrated policies, programmes and plans for effective delivery of climate change adaptation,
together with monitoring, evaluation and review over the short, medium and longer term
G2
Appropriate resources (including current and past financial investments), capacity and processes (human,
legal and regulatory) and support mechanisms (institutional and governance structures) to facilitate climate
change adaptation
G3
Accurate climate information (e.g.,historical trend data, seasonal predictions, future projections, and early
warning of extreme weather and other climate-related events) provided by existing and new monitoring and
forecasting facilities/networks (including their maintenance and enhancement) to inform adaptation
planning and disaster risk reduction
G4
Capacity development, education,and awareness programmes (formal and informal) for climate change
adaptation (for example informed by adaptation research and with tools to utilise data/outputs).
G5
New and adapted technologies, knowledge, research and other cost-effective measures (for example
nature-based solutions) used in climate change adaptation
G6
Climate change risks, impacts and vulnerabilities identified and addressed.
Impacts of adaptation interventions and associated measures
G7
Systems, infrastructure, communities and sectors less vulnerable to climate change impacts (for example,
through effectiveness of adaptation interventions/response measures)
G8
Non-climate pressures and threats to human and natural systems reduced (particularly where these
compound climate change impacts)
G9
Secure food, water and energy supplies for all citizens (within the context of climate change and sustainable
development).
(FromNCCAS, 2020)
Comparing the global imperatives in climate change adaptation with the South African
adaptation strategy reveals good overall synergies. Weak points are seen in the top-down
nature of the South African planning process, where participatory planning and development
processes are not even mentioned. In addition, the lack of coordination between the strategic
sectors – notably environmental, water and agriculture in this context are evident in the
framework. A brief comparison is made of the two strategies by the author, in the table below.
Human, environmental and economic imperatives
Global CCA framework
NCCAS - South Africa
Food
systems
Food
security
and
livelihoods
of small-
scale
producers
Improve
small
holder
productivit
y
Increase research and development
spending
Continue to invest in climate change
prediction and modelling data.Develop
and continuously update a national
climate information and early warning
system. No mention of food systems
12
Improved extension: weather services,
digital technology, farmer to farmer,
Framed as knowledge and capacity
building.No focus on participatory or
farmer level process, but enhancement of
the role of agricultural extension officers
in supporting the mostvulnerable farmers
is included
Seed systems: protect genetic diversity,
develop new varieties, distribution
systems
Not included present
Help farmers manage increased
climate variability and shocks
Income diversification including farm
diversification, increased market access,
and increased off-farm diversification
Investigate the potential for expanding
sectors and kick-starting new industries
that are likely to thrive as a direct or
indirect result of climate change effects
Stronger social security systems
Identify individuals and communities at
most risk from climate change within
municipalities and deliver targeted climate
change vulnerability reduction
programmes for these individuals and
communities Inclusion of effectivesaving
methodologies and financial education in
training curricula
Bundled livestock/crop insurance
Address the
challenges of
most affected
and
vulnerable
farmers
Improve the rights and resource access of
women farmers
Help pastoralists adapt via flexible
combinations of policies and practices
Implement transition funds
Achieve policy coherence
among food system goals
Redirect public support to promote &
facilitate climate smart agriculture
Framed as implementation of climate
smart and conservation agriculture
practices, expansion of food garden
programmes outside of land classified as
agricultural land
Support synergies and minimize trade-offs
between adaptation & mitigation
Conserve land & water resources at the
landscape scale via improved agronomic
practices and eco-agricultural approaches
Natural
Environment
Harness the power of nature
Accelerate existing actions
Identify, assess, and value natural assets
for their potential to support adaptation
and resilience.
Conduct research into the value of
ecosystem services and the economic
benefits of restoring these services in
comparison to the development of hard
infrastructure
Develop high-level spatial plans to identify
strategic opportunities at larger scales
and to create shared visions for climate-
resilient landscapes
Not in the NAS, but being implemented
through DFFE,SANBI,DWS and NGOs.
Participatory planning processes
Only mentioned as intergovernmental and
departmental collaboration
Increase investment in
nature-
based solutions
National and local governments to
reorient policies, subsidies,and
investments, including developing
programs to better mobilize private
sector support
Framed as awareness raising and re-
orientation rather than subsidies and
investments
Increase resources and technical
assistance for developing countries to
support nature-based adaptation
measures at scale.
Adopt climate resilient approaches to
natural resource management to restore
and maintain ecosystem goods and
services
13
Water
Manage water better
Harness the power of
nature and expand water
infrastructure
Invest in healthy watersheds; forests,
wetlands, cities
Protect and conserve South Africa’s most
vulnerable ecosystems, landscapes and
wildlife and monitor and control the
spread of alien invasives. Monitor and
control the spread of invasive alien species
that benefit from climate change.
Promote the expansionof tree cover,
forests and plantations
Enhance and expand water infrastructure
Cope with water
scarcity by using
water more
productively
Reallocate water to societies' highest
priorities
Ensure that water management
institutions incorporate adaptive
management responses
Water smart cities
Adopt water-wise water management
practices in urban areas
Agricultural water use efficiency
Support farmers to use and manage water
more sustainably
Plan for
floods and
droughts
Improve planning at all government levels
including better water monitoring
systems
Capacitate and operationalise South
Africa’s National Disaster Management
Framework to strengthen proactive
climate change adaptive capacity,
preparedness, response and recovery
Improve
water
governance
Improved collaboration among
government agencies
Capacity to develop and implement good
planning and regulatory regimes
Support transboundary water security
Finance
Scale up
financing
systems
Governments should arrange for major
increases in financing. Investments in
stormwater management, infrastructure
to reduce flood and drought risk, and
ecosystem protection
(From GCA 2019, NCCAS, 2020)
Development of a framework for resilience indicatorsdepends on the basic point or departure,
assumptions and theory of change that is in place, as well as the definition of resilience that is
being used.
b.SANBI: Adaptation Fund
The Adaptation Fund(AF)was established through decisions by the Parties to the United
Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol to finance concrete
adaptation projects and programs in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the
adverse effects of climate change. The South African National Botanical Institute (SANBI) is the
national implementing entity (NEI) for South Africa. SANBI implements the evaluation policy of
the adaptation fund. The purpose of this Evaluation Policy (EP) is to identify the fundamental
expectations, processes, andprotocol to support a reliable, useful, and ethical evaluation
function thatcontributes to learning, decision-making, and accountability for the Adaptation
Fund to pursue its mission, goal, and vision effectively (AF-TERG, 2022).The Fund’s instruments
that are dedicated to monitoring include the results-based management (RBM) system and
Strategic Results Framework (SRF). The Fund prioritizesmonitoring, evaluation and learning
(MEL) because “learning for effective adaptation” is a central tenet of the Fund’s mission, which
14
is reinforced by its strategic focus of learning and sharing to ensure the Fund remains effective,
efficient, and fit for purpose.
The AF focuses on efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, impact and sustainability within social,
environmental and economic dimensions and does not deal directly with resilience as a concept.
The AF has adopted a results-based management framework for evaluation, in line with the
Globalcommission on Adaptation, farming all MEL activities within a logical framework looking
at goals, expected impact, outcomes, and outputs, as well as indicators and targets.The process
involves ongoing monitoring and midterm and final evaluations, includes aspects of both
process and impact assessment and is project focused. Evaluations are framed within the
context of reducing vulnerability, increasing resilience and improving adaptive capacity,
effectively, efficiently and sustainably.
The three main outputs for the AF are defined as:
Output 1: Risk and vulnerability assessments conducted and updated at national level.(Core
indicator: umber of beneficiaries)
Output 2: Strengthened capacity of national and regional centres and networks to rapidly
respond to extreme weather events.(Core indicator: early warning systems)
Output 3: Targeted population groups participating in adaptation and risk-reduction awareness
activities.(Core indicators: Assets produced, developed, improved or strengthened, natural
assets protected and rehabilitated, increased income or avoided decrease in income) (The
Adaptation Fund, 2014).
Comparing the outputs and core impact indicators of the AF with the Global CCA framework,
showsa much narrower programmatic focus in South Africa, for use of adaptation funding, than
has been globally defined, with an emphasis on the natural environment and food systems, but
not water and financing.
With respect to indicator development, these have been left open, given the contextual
complexity of adaptation implementation a few interesting provisos have been outlined:
ØConsideration of measurement of success when no impacts happen: this relates to
situations where the extreme events prepared for do not happen in the project cycle or
adaptation activities have enabled a lack of impact of such events on the system
ØEvaluations happen before longer-term impact is discernible; this is a common issue as
project cycles are quite short. Measurementof process and adaptive capacity may be
more relevant in such cases than measurement of impact
ØUncertainty in climate scenarios producing uncertainty of risk levels
ØShort-term climate variability may affect the outcomes of the projects.
ØAssessing the appropriateness of the activity: Look at the adaptation activity within the
broader environment over and above itsmeasured effectivenessat project leveland
ØContribution of funding towards adaptation rather than evaluating attribution. (The
Adpatation Fund, 2011)
15
c.Committee on Sustainable Assessment (COSA) resilience indicators
The idea of resilience, particularly as a programming tool in response to disaster and climate-
change phenomena, has become increasingly prevalent in international development. Given the
widespread use of the terminology in various fields and by various technical and non-technical
actors, it is important to present a synthesized view of resilience and create a common language
to advance core terms. It is particularly important to translate high-level concepts of resilience
into actionable measurement metrics in order to implement, monitor, and evaluate resilience
programs
The COSA resilience measurement approach builds on the best current work to distil the optimal
practices into a pragmatic and relatively low-cost process that permits a solid basic
understanding while increasing broad access to these simpler tools (COSA, 2017)
The approach used to classify the indicators balances a multi-dimensional view based on
dynamic resilience capacities (adaptive, absorptive, and transformative) with static social,
environmental, and economic (SEE) dimensions (shown in text box: Indicators classification)in
Indicators Classification
Capacity approach:The capacity approach was developed by Béné et al.(Bene, Wood, Newsham, & Davies, 2012)and is
founded on a belief that resilience is a dynamic construct described by three main strategies used to cope with stressors
and shocks: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative.
•Absorptive capacity:This is the ability to reduce both risk of exposure to shocks and stressors and to absorb the
impacts of shocks in the short term. We classify into absorptive capacity all the indicators necessary for risk
prevention and risk mitigation.
•Adaptive capacity: Adaptive capacity is the ability to respond to longer-term social, economic, and
environmental change. We classify all of the proactive choices about alternative livelihood strategies in light of
changing conditions into adaptive capacity.
•Transformative capacity: Transformative capacity represents the ability to enhance governance and enable
conditions that make households and communities more resilient. In other words, transformative capacity
refers to system-level changes that enable a more lasting resilience.
Capital approach:The capital approachis founded on a belief that people require a range of assets to achieve positive
livelihood outcomes. The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (DFID, 2000) inspired this vision.
•Human capitalincludes indicators referring to skills, knowledge, ability to work, and good health that are
important to the pursuit of livelihood strategies.
•Socio-political capitalincludes the quantity and quality of social resources (e.g., networks, membership in
groups, social relations, and access to wider institutions in society) from which people draw in pursuit of their
livelihoods. It encapsulates good governance indicators.
•Natural capitalincludes all indicators that represent factors affecting households’ livelihoods through climate
changevariables (e.g., adaptation, mitigation, and sequestration practices) and through the humanactivity
•Physical capital includes infrastructure, services, and productive assets that enable people to maintain safety
and enhance their relative level of well-being.
•Financial capitalincludes all indicators referring to the financial resourcesthathouseholds use to achieve their
economic and social objectives. It includes cash. and other liquid resources, (e.g., savings, credit, remittances,
pensions).
16
order tocapture the complexity of factors relevant to measuring agricultural resilience. SEE
elements are in turn disaggregated into commonly accepted capitals (human, physical, socio-
political, financial, natural) of a resilience measurement system in line with the Sustainable
Livelihood Framework devised by the Department for International Development (DIFD, 2000).
The lessons learned from the field allowed COSA to define a set of Resilience Key Performance
Indicators (R-KPIs) to create pragmatic knowledge on critical aspects of resilience and to address
two main issues of the current resilience approaches: complexity and high implementation
costs.
The table below outlines the full set of resilience indicators as outlined by COSA andprovides a
comparison with the indictors used in the AF process.
COSA Resilience indicator library
Adaptation
Fund: Core
indicators
Global theme
Indicator
Description
Shock and risk
Risk context
information
The type of risks at which households are exposed to.
Occurrence and
severity of shocks
Occurrence of three major shocks (social, economic, or
environmental) that led to a serious reduction in
household’s income, assets, or consumption in the last
production year. Shocks ranked in order of severity.
Type of coping
strategies and severity
Type of coping strategies that household applied to face
the main shock experienced in the last production year
(migration, aid, new sources of income, reducing
expenses, using savings).Coping strategies ranked in
order of importance.
Individual
preparedness
strategies
Strategies implemented by the household to face shocks
(stock of feed/seeds, storage of water, measures taken
to overcome leaf rust, new seeds varieties/animal
breeds, irrigation systems).
Recovery ability
Perceived speediness and ability to recover from the
main shock experienced in the last production year
Early warning
systems
Access, source (extension agents, government officials,
ICT), and frequency of critical information about adverse
events. Perceptions about quality of information
Community
and
institutional
environment
Perceptions around
political environment
Perceptions about accountability and transparency of
political process, feeling of safety in community life, and
trust in institutions.
Participation in
decision making
structures
Involvement and participation of household and
minority groups (women, youth) in decision-making
structures (village councils, tribal council, producer
organizations).
Participation in
community activities
Involvement and participation of household members in
community activities (improvements in agricultural
facilities, access to water or sewage, medical care, road,
or school construction).
Perceptions about
political environment
Perceptions about accountability and transparency of
political process, feeling of safety in community life, and
trust in institutions.
17
Access to safety nets
Availability of safety nets, both formal and informal,
providing reasonable or ready support (food, work,
cash) in case of necessity
Living
conditions
Poverty status*
Progress out of Poverty Index score (PPI) and evaluation
of poverty propensity; this compares household’s
revenue to national (or regional, if available) poverty
line.
Basic human
rights and
equity
Households’ adults’
level of education
(primary, secondary,
etc.)
Number of household members aged 15 years and older
who have primary school or higher level of education
Days without
sufficient food*
Number of days in past year that any member of
household cut food consumption due to lack of food and
months/times of year of comparatively less household
food security.
Nutritional diversity
Number of different food types (from list) that a family
has eaten in the past seven days.
Innovation
Access to information
Access to information aboutcropping and livestock
practices through training programs (hours and type of
trainings); access to market information (prices buyer
receives, other local prices, global prices); access to
weather information; access to health/nutrition
information.
Adoption of new
technologies
Adoption of new cropping/livestock practices and new
agricultural equipment in the last five years.
Information
Source of information
Source of information: extension agents, government
officials, ICT, elders, peers
Basic services
and
infrastructures
Access to school
Availability (presence and affordability) of school within
reasonable travel distance
Access to medical care
Availability (presence and affordability) of medical care
(nurse, doctor, or clinic) within reasonable travel
distance.
Access to electricity
Availability (presence) of electricity at home (private
generator or public electricity supply).
Access to water
Household access to water they consider safe to drink
Producers’
livelihood
Diversification of
income
Portion of total production net income from focus crop,
other crops, livestock activities, business activities
Nett household
income
Total household revenue lesstotal costs for focus crop
production, other crop and livestock production costs,
and costs for businesses run by household members
Financial
resources
Access to credit
Access to medium-sized production loan within a
reasonable time (if needed); potential source of the
loan.
Productive assets
Number of agricultural productive assets (medium scale
equipment and large vehicles), livestock, and hectares of
land owned/rented.
Access to savings
Type of savings tools implemented by the household
and the corresponding amount saved (when applicable):
investment in livestock/crops/material assets;
participation in local savings group; money lending to
others; money savings at home; savings at banks and
formal institutions.
18
Diversification
Number of income
sources
Number of other crops (including those intercropped
with focus crop) cultivated by the household. Number of
self-employed (e.g., taxi driver, plumber, technician,
etc.), or business activities (e.g., convenience store,
handcrafting, etc.) in which household is involved.
Number of animal products (meat, dairy, wool, honey,
etc.) produced on farm for sale or for consumption.
Number of other sources of income for the household
(gifts, remittances, land rental, etc.).
Climate
change
Soil and Water
conservation
Measures taken to conserve soil and improve water use
by plants (contour planting, soil cover, live fences,
hedgerows, buffer zones, soil berms, etc.), erosion
control, inter cropping
Practices used to conserve water, such as drip irrigation,
catchments, water-efficient processing, etc.
Local nutrient cycle
Soil fertility management practices (composting,
mulching, etc.) and recycling of organic matter and crop
wastes
Land use change
Conversion of natural land (e.g., prairie, forest, etc.) to
land used for cultivation or pasture and forest, or
conversion from cultivated or pasturelandto natural
land
Fertilizer use
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium amounts in
synthetic fertilizers used and compared to focus crop
yields. This indicates both efficiency and potential
pollution.
Pesticides use
Amount of natural or synthetic insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, etc. that are used on focus crop.
Integrated pest
management
practices
Integrated pest management practices employed on
farm
(from COSA, 2018)
d.Locally Led Adaptation (LLA)
These approaches have primarily been promoted through civil society organizations and large
international development organizations. In this regard,eight LLA Principles were developed by
the Global Commission on Adaptation and launched at the 2021 Climate Adaptation Summit, to
guide efforts to promote LLA.(Sharma, 2021). These principles are meant to guide the
development of projects, outputs and monitoring and evaluation frameworks, with indicators,
as a process towards outlining coherent sets of indictors, applicable globally.
The principles are the following:
ØDevolving decision making to the lowest appropriate level:Giving local institutions and
communities more direct access to finance and decision-making power over how
adaptation actions are defined, prioritized, designed, implemented; how progress is
monitored;and how success is evaluated.
ØAddressing structural inequalities faced by women, youth, children, disabled,
displaced, Indigenous Peoples and marginalised ethnic groups:Integrating gender-
based, economic, and political inequalities that are root causes of vulnerability into the
19
core of adaptation action and encouraging vulnerable and marginalized individuals to
meaningfully participate in and lead adaptation decisions.
ØProviding patient and predictable funding that can be accessed more easily:
Supporting long-term development of local governance processes, capacity, and
institutions through simpler access modalities and longer term and more predictable
funding horizons, to ensure that communities can effectively implement adaptation
actions.
ØInvesting in local capabilities to leave an institutional legacy:Improving the capabilities
of local institutions to ensure they can understand climate risks and uncertainties,
generate solutions, and facilitate and manage adaptation initiatives over the long term
without being dependent on project-baseddonor funding.
ØBuilding a robust understanding of climate risk and uncertainty:Informing adaptation
decisions through a combination of local, traditional, Indigenous, generational and
scientific knowledge that can enable resilience under a range of future climate
scenarios.
ØFlexible programming and learning:Enabling adaptive management to address the
inherent uncertainty in adaptation, especially through robust monitoring and learning
systems, flexible finance, and flexible programming.
ØEnsuring transparency and accountability:Making processes of financing,designing,
and delivering programs more transparent and accountable downward to local
stakeholders.
ØCollaborative action and investment:Collaboration across sectors, initiatives,and levels
to ensure that different initiatives and different sources of funding (humanitarian
assistance, development, disaster risk reduction, green recovery funds, etc.) support
each other, and their activities avoid duplication, to enhance efficiencies and good
practice.
These principles in essence reflect the frameworks described above, but include specific ideas
around devolving decision making, addressing structural inequalities and building local capacity
for action and governance. These are aspects not presently well-defined or incorporated into
the South African CCA thinking and programming. The concepts of adaptive management and
multi stakeholder engagement are important and these are being considered.
This is for example reflected in a recent evaluation of the Small Grants facility of the AF (CA-SGF,
2018). Their learnings, which should now be incorporated into the next round of
implementation emphasize a holistic approach, partnerships at multiple levels, locally driven
processes, adaptive management and capacity enhancement.
20
3.MULTI STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT:TOWARDS A COHERENT METHODOLOGY
There are varies ways in which people or groups come up with solutions for complex situations or
to explore new and promising opportunities that requireworking in partnership. These
partnerships and interactions are expressed in different ways ranging from coalition, alliances,
networks and platforms to participatory governance, stakeholder engagements and interactive
policymaking. The term multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) is an overarching concept for
partnerships highlighting a vision that different groups sharing a common goal can work together
(Surminski & and Leck, 2016). These different groups include government, bothlocal and national,
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), private sector and
academia(Forino, 2015). They also include local people and communities.
Important considerations for an MSP is inclusion of multiple stakeholders at different levelswith
a shared vision or aim to resolve a complex issue coming together, learning and sharing
knowledge amongst each other in order to reach a collective resolution.
Successful MSPs are observed through the following principles:
-They are able to achieve lasting outcomes
-They involve wide variety of actors
-They have the ability to create sustainableworking groups and
-They work towards finding common solutions. (Thorpe, Guijt, Sprenger, & Darian, 2021)
If these principles are in place, then MSPs have the ability to facilitate and promote policy and
legal reforms, create neutral spacesfor climate and other related issues and promote buy-in for
responsible governance. The manner in which the partnerships are setup, the processes used, the
capacity for leadershipand the skill of facilitationare important underlying considerations for
success.
There are a broad range of multi stakeholder engagement platforms in South Africa and also a
broad range of approaches to such platforms. In this review, the focus will be on the more
recently developed forums in the fields of integrated catchment and water resources
management and on the Adaptation Networkas the one formal and representative national
network/ multistakeholder engagement platform in CCA in South Africa.
a.SANBI Living catchments Project
The Living Catchments Project, a partnership between SANBI, the Water Research Commission
and the Department of Science and Innovation, actively addresses the water related issues in
South Africa, with a focus on ecological infrastructure and water security.
The primary aim of the Living Catchments Project is to create more resilient, better resourced,
and more relational communities at both catchment and national scales, that are able to draw
from the best that the research has to offer in the process of governing the equitable,
21
productive and sustainable use of water resources and ecosystem goods and services, through
strengthening of an enabling environment for catchment governance and the integration of
built and ecological infrastructure in support of water security, economic development and
livelihood improvement (Living Catchments Project, 2022).
Four catchment platforms have been convened, namely the uMzimvubu, Berg-Breede, Olifants
and uThukela catchments. Communities of practise Comprising of traditional leaders, civil
society, rural communities, policy makers, researchers, and practitioners have been set up, each
consisting of a defend membership, vision,and action plan for the respective catchments. The
emphasis is on collaboration, co-learning and co-creation.
The outputs and core indicators for this process are as follows:
Output 1:The CoP builds and nurtures a co-learning and co-creation space to develop a
research and innovation linked agenda for their catchment (Core indicator: Increase diversity of
actors, articulation of research priorities and evidence of sharing)
Output 2: Capacity and tools for work in Strategic Water Source Area catchments is increased
and embedded (Core indicator: Evidence of use of tools in implementation)
Output 3: Learning, circulating of ideas and experience, and expansion of networks is facilitated
through designed encounters (Core indicator: Articulation of learning and evidence of using
approaches and methods from one catchment in another)
Output 4: Social spaces fostering collaboration & co-learning are sustainable and locally
institutionalised (Core indicator: Sustainability of hosting and chairing the CoP) (Letty B. , 2022)
The LCP has pioneered the inclusion of multistakeholder involvement in management and
governance issues related to water and have also developed the first broad based monitoring
process for impact of multistakeholder engagement, related to environmental and water issues
and thus provides a good grounding for further exploration of indicators in this field. This
process is however as yet not touching directly on issues of resilience and adaptation, although
these could be considered to be embedded in the catchment processes to some extent.
b.The uThukela Water Source Forum
Building on the SANBI-LCP and towards establishing a strategic water source area partnership
for the Northern Drakensberg SWA, WWF’s Freshwater programme is supporting the initiation
of a multistakeholder partnership. The convenors for this partnership are The Institute of
Natural Resources, the Centre for Water Resources Research (UZKN) and MDF.
The process is still in the initial stages of participatory development of a vision towards action
and uses the adaptive planning processalong with OECD’s process on multi stakeholder
engagement for water governance(OECD, 2015)as its strategic approach.
The process for development of an MSP is outlined in the diagram below.
22
Figure 1: Progression for multi stakeholder platforms development (OECD, 2015)
The principles for engagement in development of an MSP and the steps towards achieving
these principles are summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Table outlining principles for multi stakeholder engagement and steps in achieving these (OECD, 2015)
Principle
What needs to be done
1.Inclusiveness and equity
Map all SH with a stake or an interest: their responsibilities, interests and
interactions with other SH
2.Clarity of goals, transparency
and accountability
Define decision-making, the objectives of SH engagement and expected use of
input
3.Capacity and information
Allocate proper financial and human resources and information sharing
4.Efficiency and effectiveness
Assess and re-assess the process: Learn, adjust and improve the SH
engagement
5.Institution and structure
Embed engagement processess in legal and policy frameworks, organizational
structures/principles and responsible authorites
6.Adaptivness
Customize the type and level of engagement to the needs and be flexible to
changing circumstances
Between June and November 2022, three multi stakeholder events have been held, in addition
to smaller and face to face interactions with specific organizations towards including as many of
the role players as possible, mapping the stakeholders, outlining their roles and responsibilities
as well as mandates and interests and in starting to define a vision for the partnership.In
addition,collaboration in activities and engagements inthe catchment have been initiated,
primarily around local water access options through spring protection and reticulation (which
has included theWWF,INR, CWRR, MDF, and the Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Park (MTDP)
as well as alien clearing and restoration activities (WWF,INR, MDF, Wildlands and MTDP, KZN
Comm
unicati
on
Consultat
ion
Participa
tion
Represe
ntation
Partners
hip
Co-decision
and co-
production
Create and
share
information
Create
awareness
Encourage
action
Gather
perceptions,
information
and
experience
from
stakeholders
(no
commitment
to consider
them)
Provide
opportunities
to take part in
policy/project
processes
(stakeholder
may still not
influence
decision-
making)
Includes
engagement
with
stakeholders
to develop
collective
choices
Agreed upon
collaboration
between
stakeholders
Characterized
by joint
agreement
(may be
formal or
informal)
Balanced share
of power among
stakeholders
involved
Joint decision-
making
23
Wildlife and Conservation South Africa (CSA). The importance of implementation alongside
discussions has been emphasized from the outset.
Nearly 100 stakeholders have been involved to date, with around60 organizations/groups/
communities representedrepresentingpolicy and government, operators, financial actors,
interest and influential groups and users.
Figure 2: A diagram representing the types of organisations represented in the uThukela water source partnership.
The adaptive planning process has thus considered present issues and concerns, values and a
vision for the partnership. A vision has been developed: Integration of different entities to
conserve and utilize the landscape and its water, other natural and cultural resources fairly as
well as empower its people, to build resilience and achieve sustainable socio-economic
growth.
Activitiesthat have been proposed, which will now be further explored and developed into an
action plan can be summarized as:
ØNetworking coordination and communication
ØEnabling collaborative and aligned action between stakeholders for securing the SWSA
ØFocus on water access, infrastructure and management in the catchment focusing on
the rural poor
ØCoordinate relevant research and monitoring, including data exchange
ØFoster co-learning and co-creation
ØHelp coordinate investment and priority management interventions
ØCreate job opportunities and add more projects and
USERS
!"#$%&'
#()*+,-.
/0(1,23#4)2,52
/6*-)2+57
/655$8%+(52
9*("#$%&'
)*#()*+,-.
/:);2$2+,*#,4<%51,52
/=)5%&4#(11)*$3,2
/>?,4,*@$5(*1,*+
POLICY AND
GOVERNMENT
A%3(*%&
B(@,5*1,*+
C5(@$#$%&
B(@,5*1,*+
0$2+5$#+
D)*$#$E%&$+7
F(#%&
D)*$#$E%&$+7
G%+#?1,*+
D%*%8,1,*+
H8,*#$,2
'I(5%
J%+,542,5 @$ #,2
$*23+)3(*2
OPERATORS
INTEREST AND
INFLUENTIAL
GROUPS
G$@$&42(#$,+7
>5%-,4 9* $ (*2
AB!2'AC!2
D,-$%
:#$,*#,4%*-
H#%-,1$%
FINANCIAL
ACTORS
0(*(52'
I)*-,52
I$*%*#$%&
$*23+)3(*2
G(11)*$+7
85()E2
K)2$*,22,2
'4C5$@%+,
2,#+(5
>()5 $2 1 '
L(2E$+%&$+7
2,#+(5
=,2()5#,
)2,52
%22(#$%3(*2
F(#%&
G(*2,5@%3(*
'45,2+(5%3(*
85()E2
-water resources:governance and management
-land, landscapes, the environment
-people: society and communiJes
WATER, LAND AND PEOPLE
>5%-$3(*%&
H)+?(5$3,2
=,&$8$()2
':E$5$+)%&
85()E2
C(M,542,5@$#,2
$*23+)3(*2
6*<5%2+5)#+)5,
$*23+)3(*2
A%+)5,
G(*2,5@%3(*
$*23+)3(*2
J%5-
#(11$N,,2
%*-
#()*#$&&(52
J%+,5
G(11$N,,2
INTHE UPPERuTHUKELA CATCHMENT
24
ØContinue the gains from related projects linking with the various programmes of work in
the catchment for added effort.
The vision and high-level activities for this MSP align well with the sister platforms for the
Mpumalanga and Eastern Cape Drakensberg SWSAs.A recent evaluation of the uMzimvubu
Catchment Partnership programme provides further insight into best practice in
implementation.
c.The uMzimvubu CatchmentPartnershipevaluation
Written by Sissie Matela and Nickly Mc Cleod – Environmental and Rural Solutions
In the Eastern Cape Drakensberg, through the uMzimvubu Catchment Partnership(UCP) which
is an informal, voluntary partnership guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the
network of partners formed in 2012 mainly to address the widespread land degradation,
starting with rangeland restoration and stewardship. ERS and Conservation South Africa (CSA)
were founding members,but the task required establishing a network of partners with expertise
and resources.
A recent evaluation of the WWF investments in the Umzimvubu catchment, particularly through
ERS as a key convenor with the Nedbank WSP support mentioned earlier, was undertaken by
The Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD), a respected NGO andresearch
organisation. The AWARD evaluation provided valuable insights into what has been successful,
or not, and why. The findings summarised below are extracted from this report, the full version
of which can be provide an as annexure if required. Thesefindings may be useful for the
thinking around how to convene effective partnerships towards specific goals such as climate
smart food security networks.
Where the partnership/collaborative is at present:
1.In terms of partnership-building, the UCP was strengthened in several ways during the
project period. The WWF funding supported a UCP Coordinator position within ERS and
covered the costs of hosting the quarterly meetings and field-based learningevents;
WWF supported ERS with organisational development;Teaming and Convening
workshops arranged by WWF helped to strengthen relational and inter-personal skills
and promote organisational development for 20 participants from six partner
organisations. Several new governance and coordination structures emergedas sub-
groups within the UCP. There was a strong growth of partnerships for governance and
implementation (including funding partnerships), and also partnerships for research.
Building of regional and national partnerships did take place butdistilling lessons to
inform policy through these partnerships was less well achieved.
2.UCP-level strategic planning and MEL are inadequate.While there is a lot of
collaborative work and planning between partners on projects, UCP-level strategic
25
planning is a rather adhocprocess. The UCP’s theory of change is not well developed; it
is not detailed enough to be useful and doesn’t identify assumptions or link to research
questions. While the UCP strategy document is useful, the practiceof strategizing needs
to be strengthened. There is a need for more reflective practice, both within each
organisation and collectively in the UCP. Although attempts have been made to improve
M&E processes and tools, these efforts have had a rather stop-start character. The M&E
function has been very under-resourced over the years.
3.Landscape and livelihoods-related outcomes were well achieved. Landscape outcomes
included improved rangeland condition and ground cover to prevent erosion and
provide good grazing for cattle, removal of alien invasive tree species and improved
water quality through protection of springs from surface contamination. In terms of
livelihoods, outcomes included skills development and employment opportunities for
youth (a particular focus of the First Rand project), employment through clearing of
wattle, and support for entrepreneurship linked to the development of green business
value chains for livestock and charcoal production. However, wattle regrowth is a major
threat to the investments already made and a solution is needed to deal with this.
4.Teaming and Convening workshopsarranged by WWF helped to strengthen relational
and inter-personal skills and promote organisational development for 20 participants
from six partner organisations (ERS, CSA, MLM, EWT, Lima and WWF). This included
helping administrative and financial staff to understand the needs and priorities of
‘implementation’ staff and vice versa.
5.Several new governance and coordination structuresemerged as sub-groups within the
UCP. These mostly developed organically to meet the needs of collaborative projects
(some being funded through WWF), but also partly in response to a push by SANBI to
establish “communities of practice” or working groups focused on particular topics.
They are important because they show that partners recognise the need to work
together, and they help to guide and document these collaborations, for example
through promoting regular meetings and the keeping of minutes or meeting notes.
oThe Water and Alien Vegetation Task Force or WATF(involving ERS, local
implementers, DFFE, SANBI and research organisations).
oThe Matatiele Resource Management Unit(ERS, Avocado Vision and
Inhlabathi).
oThe Water Security Project Steering Committee(all six Traditional Authorities,
ERS, Lima, CSA, Department of Water & Sanitation, CONTRALESA, Matatiele LM
and the Alfred Nzo District Municipality as the Water Services Authority).
oA Waste Managementgroup led by Matatiele LM and supported by ERS, CSA
and Lima.
26
oA Carbon Possibilities and Ecosystem-Based Adaptationgroup led by CSA.
oA Researchtask team is being discussed to guide the growing body of research
work in the catchment.
oThe local Grazing Associationsformed through the work with livestock farmers
are extremely important local governance institutions that have cemented
partnerships between farmers, the Traditional Authorities, and the NGOs
involved (CSA, ERS, Lima, Meat Naturally).
•The UCP shifted overthe time period of the evaluation from a somewhat “competitive”
space between the various partners – especially the NGOs - to a more collaborative
spacewhere joint implementation of projects has become more frequent
1
. Reasons
suggested for this shift include an increasingly deliberate focus on social learning,
through the influence of SANBI and the Living Catchments Project, as well as
strengthening of interpersonal relationships through formal and informal interactions
over time.
2
•The fact that local government partners as well as Traditional Authorities have been
drawn in and become key playersin the partnership is unusual compared to most other
places around the country
3
. This is beneficial because the traditional leaders are
important role playersin natural resource governance and land allocation in communal
areas, and they are in a good position to identify ecological and social priorities in their
communities. The establishment of the Maloti Thaba Tsa Metsi Protected Area (see
Section 3.1.2) would never have been possible without the strong support and
involvement of the six Traditional Authorities, for example. The local and district
municipalities, on the other hand, are important for embedding the work within formal
planning processes (e.g.,Integrated Development Plans, Spatial Development
Frameworks and Local Economic Development Plans). Although this does not
necessarily guarantee funding support, it does help to promote a unified vision of what
is needed in the area.
The following mechanismswere identified as enabling progresstowards outcomes:
•The characteristics of the core UCP partners (ERS, Lima, CSA) make the UCP effective in
achieving outcomes in the catchment. These are the key organisations that do the work
on the ground. Characteristics included relational warmth, shared values and a shared
way of working described as respectful, participatory, transparent and culturally
appropriate. The “peripheral partners” are important in supporting the core, providing
1
Snorek et al., in press; Interview17-govt
2
Interview12-NGO
3
Interview17-govt, Interview26-NGO, Interview7-TA
27
resources, expanding the scope, transferring ideas and lessons to other areas, sharing
different ways of addressing problems, conducting research, and linking to policy.
•The co-implementation of projects (enabled by the shared values and long-standing
relationships within the UCP) produced a lot of learning for the implementing
organisations and led to both innovation and collaborative refining of models that work.
•Learning and sharing of successes within the UCP community led to members applying
models elsewhere (outside the uMzimvubu catchment).
•Creativity and flexibility among the core NGO partners wereinstrumental in building a
group of young people who could effectively support projects and act as ambassadors at
community level. This reaped huge benefits and produced a multiplier effect for most
aspects of work.
•The diversity of organisations in the UCP (NGO, different levels of government,
parastatals, social enterprises, Traditional Authorities,and research organisations)
enables meaningful division of labour between partners.
The following mechanisms acted as constraints to progress:
•ERS’ capacity and functioning. Given its key role in the UCP, the functioning of ERS
affects the functioning of the UCP. The main issues identified were busyness and “taking
on too much”; persistent underfunding of operational overheads; the absence of any
M&E personnel to assist with reporting, reflection and learning, and knowledge
management; and difficulty attracting qualified and experienced staff in a remote
geographical location. A red flag is the fact that both of ERS’ directors are looking to
retire in the next few years, and no succession plan is yet in place.
•Budget and staffing constraints within municipalities, as well as a lack of political will in
some cases, mean that local government does not play as much of a role in the UCP’s
strategic planning and M&E as it should.
•The COVID-19 pandemic affected the extent to which some of the outcomes could be
achieved (e.g.,hectares cleared, youth entrepreneurs supported).
The evaluation recommends that the UCP should continue to be nurtured as a community of
practice and innovation system, and that the group of youth “Eco-champs” should be
expanded,and the role made less precarious.
Below, a summary of stakeholder engagement and participatory tools developed and used
within both the UCP and its ‘anchor project’ extension - the Maloti Thaba Tsa Metsi (MTTM), a
proposed protected area along the upper Umzimvubu watershed.
Some of the important components identified, which became an integral part of the values
pack, include:
28
•Deepening the relationship with local leadership and communitiesby establishing and
growing an interactive, relational, trustworthy local presence of NGOs throughoutthe
upper Umzimvubu Catchment. This required co-creation of implementation projects
together with all stakeholders, and timesous cost-effective delivery of outcomes,
including spring protection, youth employment job creation, beef value chains, alien
plant clearing etc
•Improving coordination between research institutionsand local role players through
sharing of results to ensure benefits accrue for growth and development. This required
crafting a research priorities ‘wishlist’ and ensuring that academic institutions align with
catchment needs andshare findings back with participants. A knowledge hub and
monitoring and learning framework are beginning to emerge and need much more
attention to become effective.
•Sharing lessonsbetween catchments by documenting projects, lessons learned,
reflections and sharing these between catchments
•Deepen and expand the active community of practice around EI nationally, through
catchment-basedindabas and interactive field-based learning exchanges to foster
effective transformative social learning
•Fostering participatory Citizen science practises as a basis for monitoring, evaluation
and learning:action-orientedawareness building where community members confront
the consequences of specific actions and are an integral part of designing solutions. The
approach is easily adapted based on observations and encourages deeper interest in
real research for better practise and outcomes. The pictures below show field-based
citizen science activities where village residents, youth and ERS field co-ordinators link
with research institutions to apply rigorous science in a well-designedand easily applied
citizen science format.
•Participation in IDP Forumsto gather information on what the priority developmental
issues are that come directly from communities: the process follows along provisions of
Section 25 of the Municipal Systems Act (MSA) no.32 of 2000. ERS shares information on
specific projects and associated budgets, specifically under public education and
awareness, spatial planning issues, agriculture and SMME support, water supply and
sanitation and environmental management
•Community meetings/sharing forumswhich focus around implementation projects,
impacts, recruitment, challenges and benefits e.g. rangeland associations. These mostly
have an open agenda to allow for optimal participation and use sensitive facilitation
techniques
•Focus group discussions, combined with survey of people’s perceptions
29
•Quarterly Umzimvubu Catchment Partnership meetingswhich provide a platform for
sharig, networking and planning
•PSC establishmentfor stakeholder engagement during active specific project
implementation. These are often contract-based,and more success has been achieved
by having foundational groups which live between and beyond funded projects and
which can guide the latter within a longer and broader context
•Deployment of youth Ecochampsin villages to gather data, gauge community
responsiveness and advise on recommended modification to approaches to remain
relevant and aligned with good governance practice, to build consensus and increase
benefits on landscapesfor people and the environment
Many of the above tools and methodologies are modified from, or combinations of, time-
honoured and tested participatory approaches,as well as reflective and responsive ‘learning
from doing’ and are founded on working together from a common baseline towards a common
vision: together they form a flexible suite of responsive resource management strategies.
3.1MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN MULTI STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTS
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a process of checking how programs, projects,
organizations,institutions and etc. are doing (i.e. performance) or whether they are achieving
the desired outcomes looking at their objectives, visions and targets.Traditionally M&E
methods and process do not support learning or reflection as they are concerned with reports
focusing heavily on donor accountability (Rhodes University, 2019)). This kind of M&E is
generally done by external experts, and with predetermined indicators.
There have been calls for more flexible and context sensitive systems which can rely on
continuous analysis and adaptation to allow a project to respond to local context, changing
needs and evolving knowledge as the project unfolds. This has led to development of M&E
systems that include learning, reflection and participationin complex socio-ecological systems
(SES).Monitoringin these contexts involves the recording of activities and results, that will then
be collated to account for how resources have been used, and to what end. Monitoring provides
the information needed for accountability purposes, but also data that can be used for
evaluation purposes.
Monitoring can also be done by programme participants (or citizen scientists and community
activists) to monitor what is happening to Commons resources like rivers, air quality and forests,
to pick up the impacts of pollution for example, and track improvements brought about by
sustainability actions. Citizen monitoring is a powerful approach to stakeholder engagement and
30
social learning, an example of the evaluative nature of stakeholder engagement and social
learning.
d.MEL and PMERL
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL), includes analysis of ongoing monitoring data to
inform project implementation, which assumes an option to change implementation if required.
In terms of the evaluative component, assessments look for patterns and trends, again to be
able to make informed decision about potential changes required to improve the project’s
ability to achieve the desired outcomes.
The Participatory monitoring, evaluation, reflection and learning (PMERL) approach expands on
this by opening up the design of the process to include those most directly affected and
agreeing to contribute to data gathering and do the analyse together, thus opening the process
to data gathering and analysis by project/process beneficiaries as well. In general, a diverse
range ofdata sources and reflection opportunitiesare sought – including opportunities that
encourage and enable managers at various levels in the programme and its governance system,
to consider the feedback loops from the field. Feedback loops provide information to the
organization about the successes or failures of the organization's system. A positive feedback
loop assumes that the positive outcomes or outputs are fed back into the system
In complex SES, the pathways to success need to be worked out during and through action-
taking and reflection. learning must be informed by real-time data and observations, and shared
reflection on what this information means (Kotschy, Cockburn, Conde-Aller, & Rosenberg, 2021).
PMERL can be a powerful tool for building collaboration, a common vision and a strong basis for
ongoing strategic adaptive management. This process also allows for participatory or co-
development of indicators.
These processes fit into evaluative approaches, such as empiricist approaches, constructivist
approaches, process-based evaluations, theory driven approaches and participatory approaches.
(Rhodes University, 2019). These will not be discussed in detail here.There are many kinds of
evaluations, that serve different purposes in the life of aprogramme: from diagnostic
evaluations and feasibility assessmentsto; design evaluation, implementation evaluation,
economic evaluation (like cost-benefit analyses), outcomes evaluation and impact evaluation, as
well as synthesis or meta-evaluations thatcollate and analyse the findings of other evaluations.
Below are a few examples of evaluation of multistakeholder platforms, providing some
indication of the evaluative approach and the M&E system.
31
a.Examples
The UCP evaluation outcomes were described insection 3c above. Here a brief description of
implementation and evaluative methodology is provided.
The emphasis is on social learning, which is defined as a change in understanding that goes
beyond the individual and spreads within communities or groups through social interactions
between people (Reed et al.2010). Ison et al.(2007) describe social learning as a process of
socially constructing an issue, a type of collective “meaning-making” leading to a change in
understanding and practice which may produce collective action to transform a situation. Most
complex problem-solving around natural resources management requires action beyond the
individual, making this type of learning and collective action centrally important.
A developmental evaluation approachlargely replaces the idea of an “objective, external”
evaluator. Developmental evaluation is useful in innovative settings where goals are emergent
and changingrather than predetermined and fixed, time frames are fluid (e.g.,in longer term
programmes)and the purposes are innovation, change, and learning rather than (or in addition
to) externalaccountability. Accountability is first and foremost to the implementersthemselves,
as opposed to external parties like funders, as it is assumed that the implementersdriving the
programme, as social innovators and change agents, have very high stakes in theirprogramme
achieving what they broadly set out to do.Developmental evaluation is suitable for complex
contexts because it is sensitive to the context,and it helps to track contextual changes and
reflect on their implicationsfor the programme’stheory of change and implementation plans.
Responsiveness and adaptation, both to the contextand to the life cycle of the programme, are
key features of developmental evaluation. Programmes using adaptive cycles or strategic
adaptive management, find developmentalevaluation most aligned to their way of work. The
evaluators need to be comfortable with“uncertain beginnings, muddled middles and
unpredictable endings that ripple on and on withoutend” and to understand these as
unavoidable features of innovative change-orientedprojects in complex social systems(Patton,
2011).
For the Tsitsa Projectthe catchment process is based on social-ecological systems, thinking,
adaptive planning and PMERL. The emphasis is on participation in all aspects, including the
communities beneficiating form the process centrally into planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation.
The methodology takes a broad range of concerned stakeholders through a participatory
process to define their values and concerns and outline the specific context of their catchment
towards developing a joint vision for the future of the catchment. This is followed by identifying
the key strengths of the catchment towards defining objectives; it identifies the fundamental
purpose of managing a specific resource. Once the special features of these resources are
defined, then an exploration of threats and constraints can lead to prioritizing certain sets of
activities and processes and lead to an action plan, which can be implemented and reviewed.
This is an ongoing, cyclical, and adaptive process. Overall, the project has found that taking
32
account of social-ecological connections increases adaptive possibilities (Palmer, Rogers,
Holleman, & Wolff, 2018).
When looking at Adaptive management as applied in multi stakeholder engagement and also in
CCA, we have now explored a range of principles, outputs and frameworks for development of
indicators, as well as evaluation ad monitoring frameworks.Learnings from these summaries and
case studies a preparatory for the development of a manual for implementation of successful
multistakeholder platforms in CbCCA(Deliverable 9 of this brief).
In addition, some more exploration of the concept of co-productive agility will be undertaken, The
concept is defined by Chambers, et al., 2022 as “the willingness and ability of diverse actors to
iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have
been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of
change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities”(Chambers,
et al., 2022).
Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating
marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity andbroaden struggles for justice; (2)
questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3)
navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and
structuresand(4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality
of perspectives.”
4.PROCESS PLANNING AND PROGRESS TO DATE
The intention is threefold, as describe below and shown in the diagram:
•Expand introduction and implementation of the CbCCA DSS framework within the areas
of operation of MDFwith a number of different communities. Work with existing
communities as the basis of the case studies in specific thematic areas.
•Introduce and implement the CbCCA DSS framework with a range of other role-players
expanding into new areas, including different agroecological zones and
•Work at multistakeholder level to introduce the methodology as an option for adaptation
planning and action, both within civil society and also including Government stakeholders.
This is the first step towards institutionalization ofthe processand will involve mainly
working within existing multistakeholder platforms and networks as the starting point.
•Further exploration ofthe categories of stakeholders and the roles and relationships
between stakeholders is important for the present research brief.
33
Figure 3: Conceptualization of stakeholder platforms at multiple levels to support CbCCA
Smallholder farmers in climate resilient agriculturelearning groups
This process has been initiatedby continuing and strengthening specificCRA learning groups,
which have been supported by MDF in the past and whohave done well in implementation and
building of social agency. These groups will provide the focus for further exploration of food
systems, water stewardship and governance and engagement with local and district
municipalities.
Table 2: Micro-level CoP engagement: September -December 2022
Note: Collaborative strategies in bold undertaken during this reporting period
Province
Site/Area;
villages
CoPs
Collaborative strategies
KZN
Bergville:
Ezibomvini,
Stulwane,
Vimbukahlo,
Eqeleni,
Vumbukhalo
-Village level Climate Resilient
Agriculture (CRA) learning
groups: (~130 participants)
- Tunnels and drip kits
-Individual experimentation with basket of options
(CA, agroecology, fodder supplementation)
-VSLAs (village savings and loan associations)
-Marketing committee – local markets stalls,
uThukela Development Agencyand Dept of Basic
Education
-Water committees; Local schemes in 3 villages
Innovation and multistakeholder platforms-
MESO AND MACRO
Communication and innovation
-MESO
Smallholder farmers in CRA learning groups
(LGs)
-MICRO
•National Networks e.g. Adaptation
network, Agroecology Network
•National organistions e.g., PGS-SA and
SAOSO
•Regional forums e.g., Water Source
Areas forums (WWF) Living
catchments Forums (SANBI)
•Cluster of LGs within and between
areas learn and implement CRA
together
•These clusters ineteract with external
stakeholders e.g., NGOs, Government
Deparments, Local and District
Municipalities, traditional authorities
and Water Service authorities
•Individual farmers in LGs learn and
implement CRA together
•LG's set up other interest groups and
committees e.g., water committees,
viallge savings and loan assocations,
marketing groups, livestock associations
and resource conservaiotn agreements
34
-CA review and planning sessions – Adaptive
research design for volumetric water benefit pilot
project, with WWF
Midlands:
Ozwathini,
Gobizembe,
Mayizekanye
- Village level Climate
Resilient Agriculture (CRA)
learning groups: (~90
participants)
-Livestock associations and
cooperatives (SARDLR)
- Tunnels and drip kits
- Individual experimentation with basketof options
(CA, agroecology, fodder supplementation)
-VSLAs (village savings and loan associations)
-Marketing committee – local markets stalls
-Livestock committees – withDARDLR for calf
rearing, potato and maize production
-CA adaptive research project planning with Asset
Research
Limpopo
Sekororo:
Sedawa,
Turkey,
Mulati
- Village level Climate
Resilient Agriculture (CRA)
learning groups: (~75
participants)
- Tunnels and drip kits
- Individual experimentation with basketof options
(CA, agroecology, fodder supplementation)
-VSLAs (village savings and loan associations)
-Regrouping for Mametja-Sekororo PGS and
exploration of local marketing options
EC
Matatiele
Ned,
Nchodu,
Nkau,
Rashule
-Village level Climate Resilient
Agriculture (CRA) learning
groups: (~90 participants)
- Individual experimentation with basket of options
(CA, agroecology, fodder supplementation)
-VSLAs (village savings and loan associations) in
association with SaveAct)
- Tunnels and drip kits
-Planning for local water access
A small case study onthe Conservation Agriculture (CA) review and planning sessions as well as
CA adaptive research design and implementation for Bergville is provided in Appendix 2.
Communication and innovation
No activities have been undertaken under Innovation Platforms during this period.
Multistakeholder platforms
To date the research team has participated in a range multistakeholder platforms, networks and
communities of practices (CoPs) towards developing a framework for awareness raising,
dissemination and incorporation of the CbCCA-DSS methodology into local andregional planning
processesand developing methodological coherence for a number of the themes to be explored
in this brief.
In this present period between July and December 2022 the following stakeholder engagement
activities have been undertaken:
ØPresentations: WWF (World-Wide Fund for Nature) Agroecologywebinar,Ukulinga
Howard Davis Symposium, WWF board - Northern Drakensberg Field Trip,
ØPlanning meetings:Nqe Dlamini, Nicky McCleod, Derick du Toit and Brigid Letty
35
ØCivil Society engagement: Eduventures- Namibia, CCAMP policy engagement
ØMulti stakeholder engagement: Olifants water Indaba, Adaptation Network, uThukela
water source partnership, UCP – Review of CRA implementation and spring protection
activities in the catchment, planning for future engagement
ØArticles: in Adaptation Newsletter October 2022 _See Appendix 3 for the article
Conceptual discussion on a range of topics including vulnerability assessments, the role of
agroecology in CCA, methods for monitoring and evaluation of multistakeholder processes,
development of stakeholder platforms and inclusion of volumetric water benefit accounting as a
tool forimplementationof integrated water resources management have been undertaken in the
last 3 months and will be continued into the next deliverable.
The table below outlines actions and meetings to date.
Table 3: Planning and multi stakeholder interactions for the CCA-DSSII research process:
Date
Organizationand
individuals
Activity
Notes
2022/07/08
Tsitsa Project-
Laura Bannatyne
Informal conversationaround
implementing the DMF developed
adaptation platform to help in a short-
term implementation and review process
of the project
Further discussions with the
team around how to
incorporate different aspects
as well as the resilience
snapshots into their process
2022/07/04
MDF –
implementation
team
Presentation of TOC for desktop review for
inputs by writing team
Interns and field team
members to assist with specific
sections of the desktop study
2022/04/12,
08/16-17,
11/02
AWARD – Derick du
Toit
Meeting in Hoedspruit to discuss AWARD’s
contribution
Youth induction programme– Tala Table
network
Planning for CRA learning group expansion,
Mametja-Sekororo PGS continuation
Focus to be on local food
systems case study, youth
engagement
2022/05/09,
09/19,
10/24,
11/17
StratAct– Nqe
Dlamini
Introduction of topic and discussion of
Deliverable 3 (Handbook onscenarios and
options for successful smallholder financial
services within the South Africa)
Development of research brief. Finalization
of survey and focus group discussion
outlines, planning for field work
Nqe Dlamini isregistered for a
PhD in Adult education at UKZN
under the theme of micro
finance for smallholders and is
to lead this aspect of work.
2022/06/01
2022/07/29
Sociotech
Interfacing- Marna
de Lange
Discussion with STI re the CbCCA model
specifically incorporation of climate
change action in food security
implementation –sharing of resources
Meeting with STI team in Polokwane to
present model and discuss potential
implementationcollaboration
The intention is to run
workshops with STI staff and
communities to incorporate
climate action into their
implementation
2022/02/12
Ttshinthsa
Amakhaya– Winile
Makhabo
Discussions for presentation of the CbCCA
model to 9 partner organizations, with the
intention of implementation in WC, EC,
Limpopo and KZN
Still to be followed up – change
in national coordinator
36
2022/02/20,
10/03-05,
11/15
Wildlands
Discussions and subsequent joint proposal
for inclusion of CbCCA into resource
conservation programming. Initial field
visit to place CRS within EbA activities and
Social Impact Assessment.
Proposal developmentfor
Isimangaliso Wetland
Programmefor Blue Action
Fund
2022/03/15-
16
SAMC conference
Presentation of a paper: CbCCA improves
Climate change resilience for smallholder
farmers in central Drakensberg
Submission of full academic
paper by 2022/09/30
2022/02/21,
03/16,
04/14,…
WWF-Water
Source Areas
Negotiation for MDF CRA implementation
to be part of the water stewardship
programme in theupperuThukela
Inclusion in a pilot for
volumetric water benefits for
smallholders; CA and water
access (2022-2024)
2022/02/22,
04/19,
11/08
Umzimvubu
Catchment
Partnership– Nicky
McCleod, Sissie
Mathela
Presentation of CbCCA DSS at 34th
quarterly meeting of the UCP (~120
participants). Development of MoU and
work programme with ERS
Webinar to review CRA and spring
protection implementation and plan for
future projects
Ongoing involvement in UCP.
Collaboration on issues of
governance and multi
stakeholder platforms
2022/05/23,
09/13
Karen Kotshky
Learning in M&E interest group meeting
Discussions re methodology for UCP and
Tsitsa project multi stakehodler
engagement evaluation
Continued involvement for
academic framing of new
modalities for M&E
2022/04/06
-08
LCP – Convenors’
workshop – Erna
Kruger (MDF),
Brigid Letty (INR)
Learning and sharing workshop for Living
Catchments Multistakeholder platform
convenors
Part of SANBI-WRC partnership
and programme.
2022/06/14
LCP- Upper
Uthukela
VSTEEP stakeholder analysis exercise for
role players in upper uThukelaas part of
and Adaptive PlanningProcess
Visioning for multi stakeholder
platforms
2022/05/19
Adaptation
Network-
Vulnerability
assessments
Presentation of MDF vulnerability and
resilience assessment tool to CoP for
vulnerability assessments convened by
Indigo Development and Bread for the
World
Ongoing interaction in sharing
and learning. Next CoP meeting
in August 2022
2022/06/29,
07/13,
07/29,
08/17
Adaptation
Network(AN)–
Capacity building
CoP
Meetingsof newly set up CoP for design of
capacity building process within multi
stakeholder network– implementation of
a capacity development process funded by
the Govt of Flanders
Inception workshop of SEED project under
AN
Ongoing involvement
2022/05/30,
06/26,
07/27
Agroecology
networking–
(AESA)
-Farming for Climate Justice-part research
in solidarity networks with Coventry
University (UK).
-Joined webinar by CGIAR on measuring
impact of CSA across their CCAFS
programme
-Focus group discussion on agroecology in
CCA – SIDA research process.
- NGOfocus group and farmer focus group
discussions for agroecology caststudy for
‘Fastenaktion’ research process managed
by Stephen Greenberg
Role of agroecology in CbCCA –
conceptual and development
of case studies
37
2022/11/17
2022/11/18
-Presentation to the Agroecology research
working group on Agroecology transitions
towards exploring transition pathways
- CCAMP (Agriculture Master Plan) – policy
engagement multistakeholder workshop –
Cape Town
Provision of policy input for
updating the agriculture
masterplan for climate change
– 1stmeeting for an ongoing
process
2022/07/06,
07/29,
11/17
SAOSO/PGS SA
Group certification and coordination of
organic/agroecological farming inputs
working group meetings
Development of smallholder farm
assessment form, logs, labelling and rules
for engagement
Ongoing involvement in CoP
2022/08/11
WWF
Webinar onAgroecology implementation
in WWF programmes: Presentation
“Agroecology Transitions” E Kruger and M
Malinga
Deepen understanding of
Agroecologywithin WWF
programme implementation
2022/09/01
Eduventures
(Namibia)
Environmental and sustainability
education in the context of climate change
and Transnational project initiation, with
signing of MoU. M Malinga and E Kruger
Sharing of CCA-DSS framework
in a transnational
environmental education
partnership - ongoing
2022/09/20
KZN Conservation
Agriculture Forum
Convened by KZNDARD, at Cedara, with
report backs on all CA implementation and
research in the province. M Malinga
Continue MDF engagementin
CA in KZN, through LandCare
and research
2022/09/29
11/10
uThukela water
Source Partnership
WWF, INR, CWRR and MDF Convene and
develop a water source partnership.
Web based introductory meeting fornew
stakeholders to engage in APP and
visioning
Workshop at Okahlamba Local
Municipalityto finalize vision for the
partnership and startto develop a broad
action plan
Ongoing developmentof the
partnership with associated
activities, including
Development of an M&E
process
2022/10/12
Ukulinga Howard
Davis Memorial
symposium
Presentation of a paper “CbCCA improves
resilience in central Drakensberg” by E
Kruger, M Touchers (SAEON) and R
Henriksson (UKZN)
A copy of the presenstation is provided in
Appendix 1.
Activity linked also to another
WRC project on Mapping of
ecosystem services in the
upper uThukela
2022/10/14
WWF- board
Presentation of climate resilient
agriculture in upper uThukela and
conceptualization of water benefits. . E
Kruger M Malinga
Towards a greater
understanding of water
benefits and restoration
potential of climate resilient
agriculture practices and
inclusion in catchment-based
resource conservation.
2022/10/31-
11/02
Olifants’ Catchment
Indaba
SANBI Living Catchments multi stakeholder
event in Olifants’ catchment
Sharing and learning in multi
stakeholder partnerships
38
4.1WORK PLAN:DECEMBER2022–FEBRUARY 2023
The following broad activities are to be undertaken during this period:
ØContinuation of implementation for the CRA learning groups across three provinces
ØOngoing involvement in CoPs: AN-capacity building and learning, PGS-SA,
ØUndertake individual interviews towards the microfinance research brief (50 participants
across KZN)
ØUndertake focus group discussions towards microfinance research brief
ØDevelop and populate outline for Microfinance handbook, to complete a draft by 28th
February 2023
ØMoU for the Institute of Natural resources work package
ØFinalization of master’s student concept note and registration at UKZN
Table 4: Work plan November2022-March 2023
Work plan November2022-March 2023
Deliverable no
Activities
Team members
Dates
Submission
2. Desktop
review of
Multistakeholder
engagements
Exploration of appropriate
monitoring tools for evidence-
based planning and
implementation. Analysis of
multistakeholder forums
MDF: Erna Kruger ERS:
Nicky McCleod
AWARD: Derick du Toit
INR: Brigid Letty
2022/11/18
2022/12/02
Capacity building: Concept
proposals for 2 MSc theses and
engagement of potential
supervisors
MDF: Erna Kruger,
Temakholo Mathebula
and Ayanda Madlala
Concepts:
2022/12/02
Registration:
2023/02/28
2022/12/02
3. Handbook on
microfinance
services for
smallholder
farmers
MoU with StratAct for
implementation of research
package. Summary for
development into a handbook.
MDF: Erna Kruger,
Ayanda Madlala,
Hlengiwe Hlongwane,
Thabani Madondo
StratAct: Nqe Dlamini
MoU:
2022/09/01,
Workplan:
2022/10/10,
Draft report:
2023/01/13
Handbook:
2023/02/18
2023/02/28
4. Development
of CoPs and
multi
stakeholder
platforms
COPs: 9 Village level CRA
learning groups in KZN, EC and
Limpopo engaged - assessments
done, annual implementation
plans outlined, CRA
experimentation outlined and
set up (incl. new practices: e.g.,
multipurpose poultry, linking
sanitation and agriculture,
water access explorations, veld
MDF: Erna Kruger,
Temakholo Mathebula,
Ayanda Madlala, Betty
Maimela, Michael
Malinga
2023/02/28
2023/08/04
39
restoration, youth engagement
in resources restoration, Tala
Table network, development of
local marketing strategies and
VLSAs)
COPs: Multistakeholder forums:
uThukela water source
partnership
MDF: Erna Kruger INR:
Brigid Letty
Stakeholder
mappingand
visioning:
2022/11/05
Ongoing
Networks working groups:
Adaptation Network - capacity
development and learning,
PGSSA- Certification and farmer
inputs, CA forum.
MDF: Erna Kruger,
Michael Malinga
Ongoing
Tala Table Network: Youth
involvement programme,
Mametja-Sekororo PGS
MDF; Erna Kruger, Betty
Maimela AWARD:
Derick du Toit
Ongoing
40
5.REFERENCE S
Adekunle, A., & Fatumbi, A. (2012). Approaches for setting up multi-stakeholder platforms for
agricultural research and development. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(7), 981-988.
AF-TERG. (2022). Evaluation policy of the Adaptation Fund. Document no. AFB/EFC.29/6/Rev.1.
Washington, DC.: AF-TERG.
Bene, C., Wood, R., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny?
Reflection About the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to
Vulnerability Reduction Programs. IDS Working Paper, Volume 2012, Number 405, CSP
Working Paper, Number 006. Institute of development sutdies (IDS) and Centre of Social
Protection(CSP). Retrieved from https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/design-monitoring-
and-evaluation-of-resilience-interventions-conceptual-and-empirical-considerations/
BfdW. (2020). Participatroy assessment of climate and disaster risks (PACDR): A tool for
integrating climate and disaster risks into community planning and development.
Version 9. Brot für die Welt, HEKS/EPER, Bread for All. Retrieved from
https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/climate-adaptation-learning-
resources/pacdr-tool
CA-SGF. (2018). Community-Based Climate change Adapatation: Waht does success look like?
Case Study 8.Cpte Town, Soutth Africa: SANBI.
Chademana, S. (2019). Mainstreaming climate change adapatation practice into integrated
development plans in South Africa: A case of City of Cape Town, Westcoast District and
Swartland municipalities.UKZN, Public Administration.UKZN, KwaZulu Natal, SA.
Retrieved from https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10413/18404
Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., . . . Reid. (2022).
Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways tosustainability transformations. .
Global Environmental Change, 72, 102422-102439.
doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422
COSA. (2017). Simpler Resilience Measurement: Tools to Diagnose and Improve How Households
Fare in Difficult Circumstances from Conflict to Climate Change.Philadelphia, PA: The
Committee on Sustainability Assessment, COSA.
CSIR. (2019). Green Book: Adapting South African settlements to climate change.Retrieved from
Available at: www.greenbook.co.za.
DAFF. (2015). draft climate change adaptation and mitigation plan for the South African
agricultural and forestry sectors.Retrieved from
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201506/38851gen500.pdf
41
DALRRD. (2013). The strategic plan for South African Agriculture.Retrieved from
https://www.nda.agric.za/docs/sectorplan/sectorplanE.htm
DEA. (2013). Long term Adaptation Scenarios: Together developing adaptaiton repsonse for
future climates. Summary for policymakers.Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from
https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/summary_policymakers_bookV3.pdf
DEA. (2017). Lets Repsond Toolkit. Local Government Climate Change Support Prorgramme.
Retrieved from environmental-impact.org.za: http://environmental-
impact.org.za/site/tools/useful-links/lets-respond-toolkit/
DEA. (2017). National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Republic of South Africa.Pretoria,SA.
DEA. (2019). Climate change and the agricultural sector. Climate and Impacts Factsheet 4 of 7.
Pretoria: DEA. Retrieved from
https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/factsheet_climatechange_agriculture.
pdf
DEA. (November 2021). South Africa's 1st Annual Climate Change Report. Theme B. South
Africa's Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation System.Pretoria.
DEFF. (2020). National ClimateRisk and Vulnerability (CRV) Assessment Framework summary
document.Pretoria, South Africa.
Dept of Env Sci Rhodes uNiversity. (2017). Integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) for greater local level resilience: lessons from a multi
stakeholder think tank.Grahamstown, South Africa: Policy Brief No 16. Rhodes
University.
DFFE. (2020). National Cliamte Change Adapation Strategy. Republic of South Africa.Pretoria:
DFFE.
Dias, L., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., Clegg, G., & Malalgoda, C. (2021). Critical factors that hinder
integration of CCA and DRR:Global perspecitve. In F. W. Leal, & D. (. Ayal, In: Handbook
of Climate Change Management.Springer, Cham. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57281-5_124
DIFD. (2000). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets.Retrieved from
http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html
FAO. (2020). Multi-stakeholder Platforms: Building on FAO’s experience for improved governance
of tenure. .Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ca9800en/ca9800en.pdf.
FAO, European Union, CIRAD and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security (CoE-FS). (2022).
Food System Profile – South Africa. Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive
transformation of food systems.Rome, Brussels, Montpellier, France. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0071en
42
Forino, G. e. (2015). A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction integration . International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 6.,
372-384. Retrieved from www.springer.com/13753
GIZ, with EURAC and Adelphi. (2017). The Vulnerability Sourcebook. Concepts and guidelines for
standardised vulnerability assessments.Bonn: GIZ. Retrieved from
https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/?wpfb_dl=203
Global Commission on Adaptation. (2019). Adapt now: A global call for leadership on climate
resilience.GCA and WRI. Flagship report.
Greenberg, S. (2022). Fastenaktion agroecology survey results.Guateng, South Africa:
Fastenaktion International Programme on Food Justice.
Greenberg, S., & Drimie, S. (2021). The state of the debate on agroecology in South Africa. A
scan of actors, discourses and policies. Final Report.Transitions to Agroecological Food
Systems Project. SAFL, CIRAD, DSI-NRF.
Herman Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2015). The MSP
Guide: How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships.Wageningen: Centre
for Development Innovation.
IFRC. (2007). Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Guide.Retrieved 06 24, 2022, from
https://www.climatecentre.org/ downloads/files/RCRC_climateguide.pd
Inter-American Development Bank. (2019). A framework and principles for climate resilience
metrics in financing operations.http://www.iadb.org. Retrieved from
https://www.isdb.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-
01/Climate%20Resilience%20Metrics%20in%20Financing%20Operations%20-
%20English%20Version.pdf
Kruger, E. (2021). Climate Change Adaptaiton for smallholder farmers in South Africa. Volume 2
part 1: Community climate change adaptation facilitation: A manual for facilitation of
climate resilient agriculture for smallholder farmers.Pretoria, South Africa: Water
Research Commision Report no. TT841/2/20.
Land Trust Alliance. (2021). Adaptive management.Retrieved from Ccnservation in changing
climate: https://climatechange.lta.org/get-started/adapt/adaptive-management/
Letty, B. (2022, July). collaboration, co-learning and co-creation at the nexus of built and
ecological infrastructure for water security in the uthukela river catchment: supporting
the living catchments project. Feedback from the Upper uThukela Quarterly Planning
Meeting. SANBI.
43
Letty, B. (2022). Project Status Report: Living Catchments Project. December 2021-June 2022.
Pietermarizstburg, South Africa: Internal report. PROJECT NO. K5:2984: Institute of
Natural Resources.
Living Catchments Project. (2022). Retrieved November 19, 2022, from www.sanbi.org:
https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/science-into-policy-action/mainstreaming-
biodiversity/living-catchments-
project/#:~:text=The%20primary%20aim%20of%20the%20Living%20Catchments%20Pro
ject,of%20water%20resources%20and%20ecosystem%20goods%20and%20services.
Mankolo, L. (2016). Inclusion of climate change strategies in municipal integrated devleopment
plans: A case from seven municipalities in LImpopo province, South Africa. Jàmbá -
Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, ISSN: (Online) 2072-845X, (Print) 1996-1421.
Mutenje, M., & al., e. (2022). Multi-stakeholder Dialogue Space: Together Scaling Climate Smart
Agriculture and Climate Information Services in Zambia - Concept Note.Retrieved from
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/119303?show=full
Owili, J. e. (2021). Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) and food systems policies in Bangladesh,
Ethiopia, Nigeria and Vietnam; Mapping of MSPs and policies to promote a shift towards
a food system framing for healthier diets.Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for
Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Report WCDI-21-156. .
Palmer, C., Rogers, K., Holleman, H., & Wolff, M. (2018). How to use Strategic Adaptive
Management (SAM) andthe Adaptive Planning Process (APP) to build a shared
catchment future.Pretoria: The publication of this report emanates from a project titled
Water Resources Management in South Africa: Towards a New Paradigm (WRC Project
No K5/2248).
PCC. (2022). Multistakeholder Conference on South Africa’s Just Transition: Chair's Summary.
Retrieved from www.climatecommission.org.za/just-transition-framework
Pereira, L. M. (2014). The Future of South Africa’s Food System: What is research telling us?SA
Food Lab.
Pieterse, A., du Toit, J., & van Niekerk, W. (2021). Climate change adaptation mainstreaming in
the planning instruments of two South African local municipalities. Development
Southern Africa, 38(4).
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., K, H., Joe Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009).
Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. Journal of Environmental Management 90, pp. 1933-1949.
Richardson, M., Coeb, R., Descheemaekerc, K., Haussmannd, B., Wellarde, K., Mooref, M., . . .
Nelson, R. (2021). Farmer research networks in principle and practice.International
44
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1930954
Rogers, P., & Macfarlan, A.(2020, September). Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive
management. Working paper series. Number 2.Retrieved from BetterEvalutation:
https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/MandE_for_Adaptive_Manageme
nt_WP2_What_Is_AM_%26_how_does_it_work_202009.pdf
Rosenstock, T., Nowak, A., & Girvetz, E. (2019). The Climate Smart Agriculture Papers:
Investigating the business a productive, resilient and low emission future.Cham,
Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92798-5
Santhia, D., Shackleton, S., & Pereira, T. (2018). Mainstreaming sustainble adaptation to climate
change into municipal planning: An analysis from the Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Development Southern Africa, Volume 35, Issue 4.
Sharma, A. (2021). Locally Led Adaptation.Dhaka: GCA global hud on LLA.
Singh, C., Iyer, S., New, M., Few, R., Kuchimanchi, B., Segnon, A., & Morchaing, D. (2021).
Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for
adaptation research and practise. Climate and Development, Reivew Article. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937
Street, R., & Palutikof, J. (2020). Adaptation decision support tools and adaptation platforms.
Science for Adaptation. Policy brief no1.Nairobi: The World Adaptation Science
Programme (WASP) Secretariat, UNEP.
Street, R., Pringle, P., Lourenço, T., & Mariana, N. (2019). Transferability of decision-support
tools. Climate Change 153, 523-538. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
018-2263-6.
Surminski, S., & and Leck, H. (2016). You never adapt alone – therole of Multi-Sectoral
Partnerships in addressing urban climate risks. Available at:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Working-
Paper-232-Surminski-and-Leck.Retrieved from
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Working-
Paper-232-Surminski-and-Leck.pdf
Sustainable Energy Africa and Palmer Devlopment Group. (April 2012). Let's Respond: Guide to
integrating climate change risks and opportunities into municipal planning.South Africa:
Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Cooperative Governance,the
South African Local Government Association in partnership with Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammernarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
45
The Adaptation Fund. (2014). Methodologies for reporting Adaptation Fund core impact
indicators.Retrieved from https://www.adaptation-fund.org/document/methodologies-
for-reporting-adaptation-fund-core-impact-indicators-march-2014/
The Adpatation Fund. (2011). Adatpation Fund: Evaluation Framework.Retrieved from
https://www.adaptation-fund.org/generic/evaluation-framework/
Thorpe, J., & al., e. (2021). Multi Stakeholder Platforms as System Change Agents: A guide for
assessing effectiveness.Wageningen: IDS Institute of Development Studies and
Wageningen University &Research.
Thorpe, J., Guijt, J., Sprenger, T., & Darian, S. (2021). Multistakeholder platforms as system
change agents: A guide for assessing effectiveness.Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for
Development Innovation. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18174/548294
Wezel, A., Herren, B., Bezner Kerr, R., Barrios, E., Goncalves, A., & Sinclair, F. (2020).
Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to
sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40:40.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z
Ziervogel, G., New, M., Archer van Garderen, E., Midgley, G., Taylor, A., Hamann, R., . . .
Warburton, M. (2014).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263670072_Climate_change_impacts_and_
adaptation_in_South_Africa.doi: 10.1002/wcc.295
46
APPENDIX 1:UKULINGA HOWARD DAVIS MEMORIAL SYMPOSIUM PRESENTATION
2022/10/11
1
2
Activitiesand
processes
Localgoodpractice
ClimateChangedialogues
Farmerlevelexperimentationto
testpractices
CoPsandinnovation
platforms
Bestpractiseoptions
ImpactsofCC
Introductionofnewpractices
andideastotry
Benchmarkingforvisual
indicators
Stakeholderengagements
Adaptivestrategies
Learningandmentoring
CRAlearninggroups
Materialsandinformation
Prioritizedpractices
Assessmentofoutcomesand
impacts
Internetbasedplatform
CRAbestpractice
Cyclical,iterativelearningand
implementation
Facilitator-FarmerDecisionSupportSystem
SmallholderCCAdecisionsupportsystem:individualandfacilitated
October2022
CbCCAincentralDrakensbergimprovesresilience
ofsmallholder farmers
E Kruger,M Toucher,RHenriksson(MDF,SAEON,UKZN-CWRR)
47
ClimateChangeImpactsinBergvillearea
ClimateResilientAgriculturelearninggroups
Research areas and process
•
Bergville: 5 villages.120farmers
•
Midlands:7 villages.76farmers
•
SKZN:3 villages.94farmers
PROCESS:
ØVillage level CRA learning groups
ØImplement a range of prioritized CRA
activities/practices
ØAndundertake farmer led experimentation for
measurement of results and impact
Øgroups do cyclical planning and reviews and
engage infurther actions and multistakeholder
processes
3
Climatechangeimpactsonlivelihoodsandfarming(KZN)
Water
Less water in the landscape; streams and springsdryingup,boreholes
runningdry,soilsdryoutquickly after rain
Dams dryup
Municipal water supplybecomingmoreunreliable
Soil
More erosion
Soilsbecomingmorecompacted and infertile
Cropping
Timingforplanting has changed- later
Heat damage to crops
Reduced germination and growth
Seedingoflegumesbecomingunreliable
Loweryields (~40% yieldreduction for2018-2019cropping season )
More pests and diseases
Lossof indigenousseedstocks
Livestock
Less grazing; notenough to seecattle through winter
More disease in cattle and heat stress symptoms
Fewercalves
More deaths
Natural
resources
Fewertrees; too muchcutting forfirewood
Decrease inwild animals and indigenousplants
Increased cropdamage from wild animals such as birds and monkeys
Availability ofindigenousvegetables has decreased
Social
More diseases
Increased poverty and hunger
Increased crimeand reducedjobopportunities
4
48
5
CRAACTIVITIES
• Conservation Agriculture: Quantitative research support to the Smallholder
FarmerInnovationProgramme:Intercropping,croprotation,covercrops,fodder
production
• Livestockintegration:Winterfoddersupplementation,haybaling,conservation
agreements, local livestock auctions
• Intensivehomesteadfoodproduction:Agroecology:Micro-tunnels,trenchbeds,
mixed cropping, mulching, greywater management, fruit production, crop
diversification
• Communityownedlocalwateraccess:Watercommittees:Springprotection,
boreholes, water reticulation, pipes and tanks at homestead level
• Villagesavingsandloanassociations:Villagebasedsavingsgroupsforsavings
and small loans for productive activities
• Localmarketingandfoodsystems:Monthlyproducemarketstalls,organised
per village, exploration of further marketing options, small mills for maize
• Soilandwaterconservation:village-basedlearninggroupsinClimatechange
adaptation undertake resource conservation activities
Assess impact with
measurement of
quantitative and
qualitativeindicators
6
350participants
Littletono
Manure
mulch
Extensive
grazingof
livestockon
stoverandveld
Smallholder
farming
system
Intensive
homesteadfood
production;
vegetables,fruit,
smalllivestock
Feed
biomassFodder
mulchmanure
Cover
crops,
non
Drylandcroppingof
staples on small
patchesofavailable
land(0,1-1ha)
OMand
soil
across18villages
49
Measurements
Monthly rainfallaverages2019-2022
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Overallrainfallfor2020/21almostdoublethatof2019/20
Rainfallthisseason(1497,4mm)wasevenhigherthanin2020/21(1271mm)
Periodicityisdifferent:For2020/21and2021/22muchmorerainfalllaterintheseason
For2021/22rainfallearlyintheseasonevenlowerthantheprevious2 years.
Lateseasonrainfall(March-April)affectedbeanyieldsandcausedincreasedfungalloadinmaizegrain
Rainfall - SAEON
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Total
Rainfall2019/20(mm)
131
172,6
143,5
99,1
86,1
49,2
17,7
699,2
Rainfall2020/21(mm)
103,4
207
204,7
409,2
197,1
101,6
48
1271
Rainfall2021/22(mm)
88,1
96,2
229,4
349,9
211,3
256,4
266,1
1497,4
7
8
mm
rainfall
Measurements
•Rainfall inthe last 8 to 9
years has been lower
than the long- term
averagemoreoftenthan
higher.
(The greylineisthesumof
deviations over time)
•
The trend in the line is
mostlydownwards
indicating drier than
averageconditions for a
sustainedperiodoftime.
•
There are two relatively
stableperiodsfortheline
whereconditionsindicate
Rainfall – Long termaverages
50
Measurements
Temperature – Longterm averages
• Averageannual
temperatureinthelast
10 years has been
consistently higher
than the long-term
average
• Andfor6ofthoseyears
the average is higher
than any temperatures
comingbefore.
• Anaverage
temperaturechangeof
>1,5ᵒC hasbeen
measured
9
Measurements
Runoff – Pans inCA experimental and control plots incroppingfields
% Rainfallconversionto
runoff (6 participants across 4
villages)
RunoffCA
trial plot
(L)
RunoffCA
control
plot(L)
Rightandfar
right:
Installationof
run-offpans
incontroland
CA trial plots,
respectively.
2019/2020
4%
7%
2020/2021
6%
11%
2021/2022
5%
7%
Average
5%
8%
-
Run-offaverages across all CA trial plots almostRight: Signs of
30-50% lower than runoff in the control plotsrun-off in a CA
(CA control maize- mono cropped)controlM plotin
Bergville
-
Between2%-5%oftotalrainfallissaved
throughreducedrunoffintheCAtrialplots
69Liter/m2nowinthesoil.Thatis
694000L/haper year,morewater
in the soil and available to crops
10
51
CAcontrol
CAtrial
INR,WildlandsTrust,WWFvisit
Volumetricwaterbenefitfieldcropping
Volumetric water benefit for
intercroppedandrotatedCAplotsis
~6 million litres/ha more than
conventionaltillageandformono-
cropped CA plots is ~1million
litres/ha more.
Measurementsandresults
Water productivity fieldcropping
•
Water productivity for CA maize
grownasanintercropwithbeansor
cowpeas is higher than single
cropped CA maize and
•
WaterproductivityforCAplotsis
significantlyhigher than
conventionally tilled plots.
•
Despite annual differences in water
productivity, these trends remained
thesameacrossthreeseasonsforall
three areas within KZN.
•
TheclosespacingusedintheCAtrial
plots provides extra WP benefits
whencompared tothe‘normal’
spacingusedinthesevillages
WPformaizegrownin a multi-
cropping rotation CA system is
muchhigher(x2)thanCAmono-
croppedmaizeorconventionally
tilled maize (x3)
11
CAtrial(inter
cropping and
croprotation)
CAcontrol
(mono
croppedM)
Conv
control
(mono
croppedM)
kg/m3(WP)
2,3
1,1
0,6
Difference(CAtrial- CA
control- Convcontrol)
1,2
0,5
Volumetric waterdifference
(l/kg)
1 200
500
Yield(t/ha)
5,11
2,87
VWB (l/ha)
6 132000
1 435000
12
Croppingoptions
WP(kg/
m3)
WP(kg/
m3)
WP
(kg/m3)
AveWP(3
yrs)
2021/22
(n=7)
2020/21
(n=11)
2019/20
(n=9)
CA – Maize(M)
2,64
2,28
1,11
2,0
CA- Maize,beanintercrop(M+B)
3,07
2,50
1,21
2,3
CA- Maizecowpeaintercrop(M+CP)
2,84
1,43
2,1
CA- Maizecontrol(M-CAcontrol)
1,42
1,1
0,8
1 ,1
Conventionallytilledmaize(M-Conv
Control)
0,75
0,36
0,6
52
t/ha
Measurementsandresults
Yieldsofmaize inCA trials - Bergville
Weighingofmaizeyields perplotinCA• AverageyieldsformaizeYieldsofmaizeinCMTs(18)Bergville2021/22
trialsplanted inintercropped8,00
plots(M+B, M+Pumpkin)7,00
aremuchhigherthanthe6,00
yields inmaizeonly plots
5,00
• AverageyieldsfortheCA4,00
trialplots(intercropped
andmaizeonlyaveraged)3,00
aremuchhigherthan2,00
maizeyieldsinthe CA1,00
controlplots(plantedto
maizeonlyinconsecutive0,00MM+BM+P
years)CA4,604,813,58
CA-Strip3,747,155,60
• For2021/22yieldswereControl2,87
onaverage 1-2 t/halower
than the previous season.Maximumyieldshaveincreased
from 6,7 t/ha to 13,6 t/ha
Yield advantages forAve yield M- intercrop:between 2014and2021,forhigh
maizethrough5,22t/ha,performing smallholder farmers.
intercroppingandcropAveyield M- monocrop:A yieldgainof~1t/haperannum
rotationareevidentafter4,18t/haispossibleunderCAcropping
a continuousCAAveyield M- control:systemsdespitedifficultclimatic
implementationcycleof2,87t/haconditions
4 ormoreyears
13
Measurements
Waterproductivityvegetableproduction
• Waterproductivityforvegetablesgrowninsidethetunnels
isbetween140%-250%morethanoutsidethetunnels
Waterproductivitycalculatedfora rangeofvegetablecropsfor
Phumelele Hlongwane (Ezibomvini), Feb 2019-March 2020
Thismeansthaton
Plot
Crop
Simplescientificmethod(ETc)
Yieldper plot
(5x1m)(kg)
Wateruse
(m3)
WP
(kg/m3)
Trenchbedinsidetunnel
Chinese
cabbage
60,5
0,5
122
Trenchbedoutsidetunnel
Chinese
cabbage
34,7
0,5
72,1
Trenchbedinsidetunnel
Greenpepper
30,1
0,7
46,5
Trenchbedoutsidetunnel
Greenpepper
24,6
0,7
34,5
Trenchbedinsidetunnel
Spinach
49
0,7
73,7
Trenchbedoutsidetunnel
Spinach
19,6
0,7
29,1
averageyouwillsave500-
1 250 liters of water forThisequates36000-92000l
every kg of vegetables/tunnel/ annum of water
produced.saved
14
53
Measurements
Collapseofmarket
stalls after social
unrest.Seasonality
ofvegetable
production
~R382/
farmer/
market
Bergvillemarketstall
Bamshelamarketstall
Marketing–summaryofsalesonmarketdays
Monitoringtools
~Averageincreased
valueoflivelihood
is~R3000/month
perparticipant
Calvesfedoncovercrops,orstallfedincutandcarrysystem
Micropoultryunits oflayersandbroilers
Incomeandlivelihoods
Summaryofmarket incomesforMarket stalls:April 2021-
August 2022
Date
No
farmers
Village
s
Amount
Market
Produce
2021/04/10
11
2
R2419,00
Emmaus
VEGETABLES:Broccoli,cauliflower,cabbage,
kale, chinesecabbage, mustard spinach,
leeks, onions, lettuce, carrots, beetroot,
greenpeppers,chilies,brinjals,greenmaize,
greenbeans,tomatoes,
HERBS:coriander,parsley,fennel,
FIELDCROPS:Maize,drybeans,sweet
potatoes,amadumbe, pumpkins, butternut
FRUIT:Bananas,avocadoes,naartjies,
lemons
MEAT:Pork,broilers,chickenpieces,eggs
PROCESSED FOOD: Bottled chilies, mealie
breadvetkooek
OTHER: incema, seed potatoes, pinafores,
grass brooms , mats, beads, art work
Combo packs - via social media in
Pietermaritbrug: Potatoes, carrots,eggs,
chillies,onions,cabbage(halfandchopped),
green beans, beetroot, avocado, brinjals,
green peppers, choppedmixed veg.
Ave income per participant: R382 per
marketday(R100-R1,600)
2021/05/09
16
3
R1580,00
Emmaus
2021/06/09
18
4
R5072,00
Emmaus,Stulwane
2021/07/10
16
4
R3415,00
Emmaus,Stulwane
2021/08/07
9
3
R2379,00
Emmaus
2021/09/09
18
4
R3745,00
Emmaus
2021/10/08
8
4
R845,00
Bergville
market
2021/06/04
16
4
R11527,50
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2021/08/04
8
4
R3866,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2021/09/03,06,07
12
5
R5448,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2021/10/05,06
12
5
R3354,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2021/11/03,04
9
4
R2964,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
SaletoshopsinBergville:Boxer
2021/10/11
3
2
R19800,00
andSaverite
2022/03/02
19
4
R1310,00
UEDA – EmmausHall
2021/12/02,03
10
4
R2964,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2021/12/03
10
4
R1400,00
Ozwathini- socialmedia
2022/01/05,06
6
3
R2610,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2022/02/05,12,19
8
4
R3010,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2022/03/11
6
4
R1216,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2022/05/03,04
7
3
R2565,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2022/06/02,03,04
7
4
R4782,00
Bamshela - Ozwathini
2022/07/05
11
3
R2500,00
Bergvilletownmarketstall
Bergvilletownmarketstallwith
2022/08/03
17
6
R4823,00
FSGfarmers
2022/08/04,05,06
7
3
R4248,00
Bamshela-
Ozwathini
INCOME:~ R6901
11
4
R96626,50
800/month
15
Commodity(n=100)
Averagemonthlyincome
perparticipant
Annual
potential
income
Broilers
R1024,50
R12294,00
Layers(eggs)
R641,00
R7692,00
Fieldcrops:
Maize
Beans
R209,41
R237,50
R3713,00
R2850,00
Vegetables
R247,00
R2964,00
Averagemonthlyvalueof
foodperparticipant
All commodities: This is
an estimate only (further
corroboratedinresilience
snapshots)*
R700,00
R8400,00
Commodityfora
selectionofparticipants
only
Averagemonthlyincome
perparticipant
Annual
potential
income
GreenMaize
R1300,00
R15600,00
R24000)
(upto
Stallfedcalves
R750,00
R9000,00
R50000)
(upto
Totalvalueofproduction
(inclallcommoditiesbut
excl the selection)
R3059,41
R36712,92
16
54
Monitoringtools
CAInnovationsystemmonitoringdashboard2013-2020
Monitoringtools
Resiliencesnapshots:Individualinterviews
Socialagency
2013
2020
Valuechain
2013
2020
Productivity
2013
2020
Nooffemalefarmers
89%
75%
Savingforinputs
0%
28%
Intercropping – maizeand
beans
0%
92%
Noofparticipantsinvolved
41
487
ReducedlabourinCAplots
0%
78%
Intercropping maizeand
otherlegumes
0%
17%
Learninggroups(No)
4
31
Reducedweeding inCAplots
0%
39%
Croprotation
0%
20%
Monthsoffoodprovisioning:
10-12
7-
9
4-
6
1-
3
-
-
-
100%
15%
38%
39%
8%
Useofplanters:
Handhoes
Handplanters
Animaldrawnplanters
Tractordrawnplanters
97%
3%
26%
69%
5%
5%
Covercrops;summermix–
sunflower,millet,Sunhemp,
sorghum
0%
26%
VSLAs (Village Saving and Loan
Associations)- % ofparticipants
involved
0%
79%
Localfinancingof
infrastructure
Threshers
Mills
Springprotection
0
Cover crops; winter mix
relaycropping – Saiaoats,
fodder rye, fodder radish
0%
31%
1
1
2
Saleofcropslocally(maize,beans,
cowpeas,sunflowers)
0%
15%
Farmercentres
0
2
Fodder: provisioning of
livestockthroughcutand
carry
0%
10%
Innovation platforms; including
external stakeholders
0
3
Avemaizeyield(t/ha)
3,7
6,4
Seedsaving
0%
11%
17
Resilienceindicators
Increasefor
Drakensberg
Comment
Increaseinsizeoffarmingactivities
Gardening > 18%
Fieldcropping > 63%
Livestock > 31%
Croppingareasmeasured,nooflivestockassessed
Drylandcroppinghasreducedsignificantlyduetodroughtconditionsandinfertile
soil
Increasednooffarmingactivities
No
Allinvolvedingardening,fieldcroppingandlivestockmanagement
Increasedseason
Yes
Forfieldcroppingandgardening- autumnandwinteroptions
Increasedcropdiversity
Crops:12newcrops
Practices:8 newpractices
Managementoptionsinclude;dripirrigation,tunnels,no-tillplanters,JoJotanks,
RWHdrums,
Increasedproductivity
Gardening > 72%
Fieldcropping>79%
Livestock > 25%
Basedonincreaseinyields(mainlyfromtunnels andtrenchbedsforgardening
CAforfieldcropping
Increasedwateruseefficiency
25%
Access,RWH,waterholdingcapacityandirrigationefficiencyrated
Increasedincome
23%
Basedonaveragemonthlyincomes,mostlythoughmarketingofproducelocally
andthroughtheorganicmarketingsystem
Increasedhouseholdfoodprovisioning
Maize- 20kg/week
Vegetables– 7kg/week
Foodproducedandconsumedinthehousehold
Increasedsavings
R267/month
Averageofsavingsnowundertaken
Increasedsocialagency(collaborative
actions)
>3
Learninggroups,farmercentres,localwatercommittees,marketinggroups,
livestockassociations
Increasedinformeddecisionmaking
> 5
Ownexperience,localfacilitators,otherfarmers,facilitators,extensionofficers
Positivemindsets
2 to 3
Moretomuchmorepositiveaboutthefuture:Muchimprovedhouseholdfood
securityandfoodavailability
18
55
MonitoringtoolsParticipatory Impact assessments
Soil;
health
and
fertility
Money;
income
and
savings
Productivit
y;
acceptance
ofpractice,
savingin
farming–
equipment
, labour
Knowledge;
increased
knowledge
andabilityto
use
Food;
how
much
produced
andhow
healthy
Water;
useand
access
Social
agency;
Support,
empowe
rment
Total
Conservation
Agriculture
22
21
26
28
18
23
18
156
Savings
6
15
14
15
12
11
15
88
Livestock
19
11
18
7
5
12
11
83
Gardening
14
15
12
13
15
17
21
107
Croprotation
16
12
13
12
12
15
10
90
Intercropping
12
13
15
12
11
11
9
83
Small
businesses
11
17
15
10
20
11
9
93
In KZN positive impact of CRA and associated
practicesinorderofimportance:CA,gardening
(tunnels, agroecology) , small businesses
(farmer centres, poultry), savings, livestock
(integration – fodder, health)
19
20
Learninggroups
Withpartners:UKZN-
CWRR,DUCT-AEN,
SANBI-LCP,WWF-WSA
Localgovernance
structuresabsentorweak
Financial support required
•Learninggroupsprovide
institutionalfocus
•Explorationofmanyassociated
issues
•
Linktostakeholdersboth
internal and external
•
Platformforchangeand
innovation
•Blended finance options: E.g.
jobcreation,springprotection
Developmentofsocialagency
56
21
POLICYIMPLICATIONS
• Localwatercommitteeswhoundertakecommunallymanagedand
owned water access infrastructure management need a legal
framework of support and legal recognition through the Water
Service Authorities and need to be able to make agreements of
mutual support
• The CbCCA framework and linked climate resilient agriculture
practices and implementation options can provide a good entrypoint
for both LMs and DM’s to engage in a considered, longer term
support process for adaptation that is both participatory and
sustainable– tomovetheimplementationawayfromthevoteforcing
superficial placebo actions presently in place and provide for an
integrated development option.
• Enablingprocessesformarketentryanddevelopmentoflocalvalue
chains are very long overdue
Appropriatefor
partneringin
differentcontexts
Effectivemodelfor
CbCCA;locally
contextualisedand
owned
CRAimplementationwithina
CbCCAapproachisproviding:
•
Water,soilhealthandfertility
and productivity
improvements
•
Livelihoods andsocialsecurity
improvements
•
Socialagencyimprovements
and
•Evidence based increased
resiliencetoclimatechange
Conclusion
57
APPENDIX 2:CALEARNING GROUP REVIEWS NAD PLANNING:BERGVILLE,AUGUST 2022
Focus group sessions for review and planning were held with 5 CRA learning groups (75 participants):
•Stulwane (2022/08/19)
•Ezibomvini (2022/08/17)
•Eqeleni (2022/08/18)
•Vimbukhalo (2022/08/16) and
•Emadakaneni/ Emahlathini (2022/08/30)
The guide for running the focus group sessions is presented in below. This provides guiding questions for
discussions within the groups. The sections include: General CA implementation, experimentation, marketing
options and farmer centres and planning for the coming season. Below summaries are provided for all five
groups combined under these headings.
CA- General implementation
Most of the farmersare still very pleasedwith the CA practise. They testified that this kind of farming has
increased their yields and the quality of the produce. They have recognized that CA reduces soil erosion and
improves the quality of their soilas they are protected from the sun and other elements. The farmers find CA
less tiring and easier than the normal cropping practices.
For the 2021/22 planting season smallholders involved in CA experimentation and implementation did not
receive any inputs support, for their planting season. In past years, input for the CA trials have been provided
initially at not cost and later at subsidised rates. This lack of support came at a time when inputs costs
suddenly almost doubled and certain inputs became very difficult to access, after the KZN social unrest.
Farmers all managed to plant their CA plots, although most “skimped” on herbicides and pesticides
CRA learning groups were very appreciative of assistance arranged through MDF for use of the Okahlamba LM
tractors to pull the two-row no till planters and assist farmers in planting both the CA trials and their control
plots. The drivers however have little experience in managing no till planters and caused a lot of damage to
the planters by driving across the fields too fast. In Stulwane the farmers have come together to pay a annual
fee of R100 each for use of the planters as a maintenance fund. This has worked very well, despite a few of
the farmers reneging on the contributions.
The heavy rainfall towards the ned of the season – between January and April 2022 had devastating
consequences in the communities, through washing away of roads, and homes. Some participants’ fields also
had a lot of run off damage – although the CA fields performed well in comparison to their normal fields and
those that were ploughed washed away almost completely.
Most of the farmers practicing CA for more than 4 years managed to realize good yields for maize from their
CA plots despite the heavy rainfall. Bean harvests were almost completely decimated.
Livestock invasions in the unfenced fields was a bigproblem in almost all the villages as the agreements to
send cattle to the mountains in summer to allow for cropping have not been adhered to by livestock owners-
given the fast deterioration of veld condition. The latter is due to overgrazing and four years of heat and
below average rainfall, then followed by exceptionally high rainfall.
58
Participants felt that the one maize variety PAN53, an old generic hybrid coped the best with these new wet
challenging conditions, as the maize cobs mature closed and as a result suffered a lot less form water damage
and rotting. Pan53 however takes a long time to mature and is thus more susceptible to diseases, of which
there was a high incidence in this season. Participants felt that the short season maize has a numberof
distinct benefits, in that it can be planted alter and matures fast, despite the cobs being smaller than for the
generic hybrids. They like the idea of planting differenttypes of maize that can accommodate a range of
different conditions, as it is impossible to know exactly what will happen in a season.
There was also the recognition that soils are slowly acidifying again after lime application 3-4 years ago and
participants asked for assistance in procurement of lime – mostly transport as they offered to pay for the lime
itself.
Farmers also undertook to discuss their issues with the livestock committees in their villages and to impress
upon the livestock farmers that cropping is also an important activity in the area and needs to be respected.
They further suggested that those who are not yet members of village savings and loan associations should
join, as these groups assist a lot in having finances available for planting.
Some farmers stressed that the two row planters that are shared n the groups need to be looked after
properly. If a farmer doesn’t clean out the fertilizer after use, corrosion occurs and then the planter doesn’t
work properly when the next participant wants to use it. They then need to spend time on cleaning and
maintaining the planter before using it. Mr O Kubone, the KZNDARD extension officer joined in four of these
planning sessions (Stulwane, Vimbukhalo, Eqeleni and Ezibomvini as these groups are also setting up
cooperatives under the auspices of the Department to be able to benefit from support being offered.
Experimentation
Close spacing;This practice is promoted n the CA trials to reduce the weeding load. It is however not well
liked by farmers despite reducing the need for weeding substantially, as it does cause heavy shading of the
intercropped beans in high rainfall seasons and reduces the yield of the beans. Some farmers still believe it
also reduces the yields in maize, despite having been shown the results of the yields for a number of
consecutive years- which shows the exact opposite.
Herbicide application:The heavy and continuous rainfall made the effective use of herbicides almost
impossible. Roundup for example needs around 10 days to create good dieback of the weeds and if it rains in
between or 1-2 days after spraying it is largely ineffective. It was also not possible to spray again as the rain
thwarted these attempts as well. As a result, weeds were a major challenge this season. There is a growing
recognition among the farmers that herbicides can damage their crops and specifically seeds for cover crops
and legumes and reduce subsequent growth. They are more appreciative now of the burn down herbicide
options as compared to the systemic ones such as Roundup, as these do not have long lasting effects on their
crops and soil, despite being less effective.
Strip cropping vs the 10x10m blocks:Farmers prefers strip over plots,as the spacing there can more easily be
‘relaxed’ and they believe it increases the yield of their maize. There is also less pace taken up by paths
between the plots. IN the areas where both 10cx10’s and strips have been used for a number of years,
farmers have recognised that they are very similar, just a different way of laying out the plots
59
Cover crops: Most farmers did not harvest any seed from their cover cropsas it was eaten by birds before it
even matured, especially sunflowers. Sorghum matured later and thus farmers could harvest some here. They
did feed the biomass to their goatsand cattle
Maize only, vs maize and bean intercrops: Farmers say that the maize only plots have big cobs, and M+B
maize is smaller in size. Generally, there is not much agreement on the benefit of intercropping, as some
farmers “swear’ by it as a useful practice that improves yield of both maize and legumes and other believe the
exact opposite.
Croprotation: The plots that were previously planted cover crops give great yields when plantedto maize.
Farmers say the cover crops makes the soil fertile., helps to shade the soil and keep it health, improved the
yield and health of the follow on crop and provides some feed for their livestock. The difficulty comes in
harvesting seed to be able to re plant the cover crops.
Markets and farmer centres
The farmer centre in Ezibomvini is still very popular and well used but has not been tried out effectively in the
other villages. The local marketing stalls set up first at the pension pay out points and later in Bergville town
itself has worked very well. Farmers make a little income every time they join these markets and can sell their
field crops there as well. Mostly they are planting for food security, and only selling of surplus if they have.
They also sell informally to neighbours.
Planning for coming season
In all the villages farmers undertook to pay towards their inputs and pay a subsidised price for the CA trial
inputs. They requested access to the short season maize and also suggested that PAN53 may be a better
option in really wet seasons, when compared to the other varieties they have planted. Plans we put in place
for payments and also for access tothe Okahlamba tractors, as these have been made available again for a
two- week period in mid-November. Farmers undertook to work closely with the tractor drivers to ensure
they do it properly this season.
Collaboratively managed trials (CMTs) planning
The farmer level collaboratively managed CA trials have been set up for 25 participants across 6 villages. Each
trial is 1000m2in extent with 10 plots of 100m2each. The layout is the same for all 25 farmers and is shown
below
The layout for these trials is shown below:
-M-Maize (PAN53 or PAN6479)
-SSM- Short season maize (PAN5A190 or PAN5A172)
-B-Beans (PAN9292 or Gadra)
-SCC- Summer cover crops (Sun hemp and fodder sorghum and sunflower)
-CP- Cowpea ( Betshuana white)
-Pk- Pumpkin (Queensland blue or Flat white boer)
-WCC (Fodder rye and fodder radish and Saia oats)
BLOCKS (10x10m)x 10 plots
1 M
2 M+B
3 SCC
4 M
5 M+B
10 M+CP/Pk
SCC
8 M+B
7 M
6 SCC
Strips(2mx50m) x10 strips
1 M
2 M+B
60
3 SCC
4 M
5 M+B
6 SCC
7 M
8 M+B
9 SCC
10 M+CP/Pk
Fodder Strips(2mx50m) x 8
strips
Short season maize
PAN5A190=yellow
PAN5A172=white
SSM
B/WCC relay
SSM
Lespedeza
SSM
Tall Fescue
SSM
B/WCC relay
NOTES: Fodder strips are to be planted in late January 2023.
For the CMT’s the following inputs are provided: 12kg of MAP and LAN respectively, seed for maize beans and
cover crops, herbicide for pre-plant spraying and Kemprin for control of cutworm and stalk borer. Lime is
supplied to a selection of participants who still have acidity issues in their fields. All CMT’s and control plots are
planted by the farmers themselves using planting equipment shared by the learning group. Tractors for planting
of strips as well as ploughing in of lime for remedial plots have been arrangedthrough the Okahlamba Local
Municipality and the KZNDARD.
Each participant also undertakes to plant a 1000m2CA control plot – which is planted to a monocrop of maize,
using their own seed and fertilizer.
APPENDIX 3:ADAPTATION NEWSLETTER OCTOBER 2022.ARTICLE
MDF WRC-00746. Deliverable 2. December2022
ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE
RESILIENTAGRICULTURE
PRACTICES BY SMALLHOLDER
FARMERS
Article by Erna Kruger,Mahlathini Development Foundation
For more information, contact: info@mahlathini.org
A shadecloth tunnelinNchodu(EasternCape),wheremixedvegetableshavebeenplantedintrenchbeds,andareirrigatedusingdripirrigationwith
bucketfilters.
A range of climate-resilient agriculture practices are in
existence – and selection needs to be tailored to the
particular environment in which they are to be used,
taking into account the physical environment (including
the climate andstateofsoils) and the preferred
farming system (e.g. what crops are grown).
As part of a Water Research Commission project,
Mahlathini Development Foundation worked with
farmers indifferent communities inthreeprovinces.
The aim was to take a participatory action research
approach toimprove homestead food production in
the context of a changing climate.
The project involved farmer-level experimentation and
demonstration of practices for three consecutive
seasons insiteschosentoberepresentative of
different agroecological conditions within South Africa.
Table 1 (seebelow) summarises the sites, number of
participants and farmer-level experimentation
undertaken with each village learning group, over a
period of three years.
The climate resilient agriculture (CRA)practices
promoted through this study encompass vegetable and
fruit production as well as small livestock integration;
practices that are undertaken within the boundaries of
the homestead. Practices also include soil and water
conservation, as well as microclimate management.
Given that learning is also important, as part of the
project farmers created learning groups. Within each
group, some farmers would volunteer to undertake on-
farm experimentation, so that the group could learn
through observation andreflection and comparison
with existing practices (which essentially acts as a
control).
Participants developed and applied criteria that assess
the potential of each practice for productivity which
they then used. The most common criteria can be
summarised as;productivity, water use, labour, cost, ease
of implementation and income potential (table 2).
The table shows that some climate-resilient agricultural
practices are deemed more effective than others.
Participants clearly rated the use of trench beds, and
shade cloth tunnels as the most effective practices that
provided a positive impact on food provision, soil
conditions and water management.
These were also the practices that were taken up by the
largest number of participants and sustained after the
research process.
Further practices such as liquid manure, mulching,
composting, mixed cropping and seed saving were also
considered important, and their impact was linked to the
need for improved organic bed design strategies and
water management.
This work has shown the commitment of smallholder
farmers to adapt to climate change and the positive
impacts possible when participants choose, experiment
with and adopt effective CRA practices.
Moreover, the results of this study provide nuances to the
existing knowledge of climate-resilient agricultural
practices, by highlighting the benefits of different
practices across different domains. This knowledge can
help other farmers to prioritise the practices that they
might like to adopt, depending on their needs.
A tower garden in
Mayizekanye (KZN), for safe
useofgreywater
Table 1:Summary offarmer experimentation sitesforthisstudy.
Photo
Source:
Mahlathini
Development
Foundation
02
2
Table 1:Summary offarmer experimentation sitesforthisstudy.
Table 2: Summary of CRA practices tried throughout this farmer-level experimentation andlearningprocess.